||[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: Dr. Rice Recent Key Statements Regarding Nuclear Iran
|World Opposed to Nuclear Iran, Rice Says
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday condemned Iran's decision to resume its nuclear program, saying the Islamic republic and its current leaders are not trusted with such technology.
"I think we have a good deal of coherence in the view of the major powers about the fact that Iran stepped over a line" when it resumed reprocessing nuclear fuel, she said at a foreign policy forum.
On Jan. 10, Iran removed some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in central Iran and resumed research on nuclear fuel — including small-scale enrichment — after a 2 1/2-year freeze.
"Nobody wants Iran to have that capability," Rice said at Georgetown University.
Iran claims its purpose in processing is peaceful. The process also could produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
Rice said Iran has a history of covering up its activities from oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will decide in early February whether to refer Tehran's activities to the U.N. Security Council.
Despite Iran's stated objectives of developing more civilian energy, Rice said, "no one does trust them with those technologies."
"The Iranians want to make this about their rights. It's not about their rights. It's about the ability of the international system to trust them with the capabilities and technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon," Rice said.
The United States, France, Britain and Germany want the Board of Governors of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency to convene an emergency meeting on Feb. 2 to refer Iran to the Security Council.
President Bush called German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday to discuss recent developments in Iran, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. He said the world's patience with Iran has worn thin.
"I think we're long passed the point of talk," McClellan said. "We expect action from the regime in Iran. And the only action they have shown has run contrary to the demands of the international community."
Earlier Wednesday, Rice brushed aside suggestions about a possible resumption of negotiations with Iran. France kept up the pressure, saying Iran must first suspend its nuclear activities.
"There's not much to talk about," Rice said during a photo session at the State Department with the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.
Solana agreed "there is not much point" in resuming talks if there is "nothing new on the table."
Later, after seeing Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Solana told reporters that Russia had proposed having the Security Council host a debate on Iran's nuclear activities.
Solana said Russia made the proposal at a meeting Monday in London with senior U.S., European, Russian and Chinese diplomats. Such a debate would postpone a possible IAEA referral at least until the agency's March meeting.
But Solana said "we have the votes" now to refer the dispute to the Security Council, and he did not support the notion of delay.
Rice said Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons capability or "to pursue activities that might to a nuclear weapons capability."
In response to a question at the university, Rice said Iran presented "a very difficult problem" — for its support of terrorism in addition to its nuclear program.
"Iran, unlike so many countries in the region, has been going backward in terms of development at home," she said.
She said that while much of Iran's population "wants democracy and reform ... the unelected mullahs have done nothing but take power away" from those seeking more democracy.
Last edited by cyrus on Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:06 pm Post subject: Rice Says Russia Fails G8 Test
|Thursday, January 19, 2006. Issue 3334. Page 3.
Rice Says Russia Fails G8 Test
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that Russia's drift away from democracy was inconsistent with its duties as president of the Group of Eight.
Rice offered the criticism during an appearance at Georgetown University as she attempts to enlist Russian support for strong action against Iran.
"I think it is very important that Russia understand that certain responsibilities and certain expectations and certain obligations come with being the chair of an organization that is avowedly of industrialized democracies," she said in response to a question.
Rice rejected suggestions that Russia is embracing a Soviet-style approach to governance.
Rice seemed to reject suggestions that Russia be excluded from the G8. She said Russia must maintain links with the democratic West.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: Rice demands UN action on Iran nuclear dispute
|Rice demands UN action on Iran nuclear dispute
By Alistair Lyon
LONDON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday demanded swift action to drag Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its atomic ambitions, while Russia and China urged caution.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began a visit to Syria in a signal to the world that the two regional allies, each facing threats of referral to the council, will not be cowed.
"On Iran, we have been very clear that the time has come for a referral to the Security Council," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington.
She did not mention Russia, but she was speaking a day after the European Union said it was mulling a Russian proposal that would stop short of formally referring Iran to the council.
A formal referral would mean Iran could face sanctions over the West's suspicions it is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Tehran says its only goal is to produce atomic energy for civilian use.
Moscow wants Iran to be simply "reported" to the council, which could then discuss its case but there would be a lack of legal weight and there would no potential for "consequences," EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana explained on Wednesday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's board is due to debate Iran at an emergency meeting on February 2, but no consensus has emerged on what the U.N. nuclear watchdog should do.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov took a cautious line, saying his country's position at the meeting would be guided by the IAEA's own assessment of Iran's behavior.
"The main principle is not to cause harm, not to cause harm to the international community, not cause harm to the system of non-proliferation," he said after talks on Iran with his French counterpart Philippe Douste-Blazy in Moscow.
Iran's Ahmadinejad has scorned a resolution drafted by EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany, asking the IAEA to send the Iranian nuclear dossier to the Security Council.
The Islamic republic is waging a high-stakes diplomatic battle with the West to head off any U.N. censure or sanctions.
China reiterated its preference for a diplomatic solution.
"We hope all parties will exercise restraint and patience and appropriately resolve the Iran nuclear issue through peaceful means," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said.
CHINESE, RUSSIAN MISGIVINGS
China and Russia, both permanent council members with veto powers like the United States, France and Britain, have big trade interests in Iran and are wary of any full-scale embargo.
"What Russia and China are concerned about is a shadow cast over Iran and their commercial stakes if this case goes to the council," a Vienna-based EU diplomat said.
"The Russians are very reluctant," he said. "For them, our draft leaves too much room for maneuver and interpretation to allow the Security Council to do much more than they want."
Iran, whose decision last week to remove U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment prompted the EU to break off two years of talks, has taken a defiant stance, aware of its muscle as the world's fourth biggest oil exporter in a volatile market.
Its top nuclear negotiator said his country was willing to discuss the West's concerns, but not to scrap nuclear fuel research, which could advance a quest for atomic power or bombs.
"They should not ask a brave nation with very good scientists to expect not to engage in nuclear research," Ali Larijani told the British Broadcasting Corporation. "If they want guarantees of no (military) diversion of nuclear fuel we can reach a formula acceptable to both sides in talks."
He was apparently referring to a Russian proposal to enrich uranium in a joint venture on Iran's behalf. Talks on this are due to resume in Moscow on February 16, although Western officials have expressed skepticism about Iran's intentions.
China favors reviving talks between Iran and the EU trio, but EU and U.S. officials say this is impossible unless Tehran returns to a moratorium on sensitive nuclear work.
In Damascus, Ahmadinejad won support from President Bashar al-Assad, a beleaguered ally who also risks confrontation with the Security Council over the killing of a Lebanese ex-premier.
"We support the right of Iran and any state in the world to acquire peaceful technology," Assad said after talks with his Iranian guest. "Countries which oppose this gave no convincing reason, regardless of whether it is legitimate or not."
Neither Iran nor Syria faces an imminent threat of military action or broad sanctions at the council, but will come under more diplomatic pressure on every front, analysts say.
Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped out have heightened Western alarm about Iran's nuclear intentions.
Germany's foreign intelligence agency believes Iran is at least three or four years away from getting an atom bomb if it wants one, a source familiar with the BND agency's view said.
(Reporting by Paul Eckert in Washington, Chris Buckley in Beijing, Louis Charbonneau in Berlin, Mark Heinrich in Vienna and Oliver Bullough in Moscow)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject: Democracy record can sour Russia G8 chair: Rice
|Democracy record can sour Russia G8 chair: Rice
Thu Jan 19, 4:21 AM ET
MOSCOW (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Russia's poor record in democracy could put it in awkward position when President Vladimir Putin hosts the summit of G8 group of industrial nations this year.
"I think it's extremely important that Russia understand that certain responsibilities come with ... being the chair of an organization that is avowedly of industrialized democracies," Rice said in Washington on Wednesday.
Critics in the West see Putin's course toward stronger Kremlin control over Russia, which includes subduing the political opposition, scrapping gubernatorial polls and clipping the wings of Western-funded non-governmental organizations, as a retreat from democracy.
However, U.S. President George Bush's administration has ignored calls by Putin's critics in Washington to challenge Russia's occupancy of the G8 rotating chair from the start of this year.
Rice said in a question and answer session after her speech, that Washington was opposed to penalizing Russia for its democracy record, but predicted problems for Putin during the G8 summit in July in St Petersburg unless the situation changes.
"If you're going to be a part of the G8, you'd better be an industrialized democracy or people are going to have a lot of questions when they show up for the G8 sessions," she said.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: Dr. RICE: Remarks at Georgetown School of Foreign Service QA
|CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Remarks at Georgetown School of Foreign Service Question and Answer Session
/noticias.info/ SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. I'd like to take a few questions now, if we can do that. Here, right here in front; this young man right there.
QUESTION: Thank you for coming, Madame Secretary. I just had a quick question for you. You stated, I believe a week ago, that you believe the African Union was dangerously under funded in their mission in Darfur. I was very encouraged and excited when you made some public comments asking for the money from Congress to support that African Union. I was then discouraged to find out that you never made a formal request to Congress. So I was wondering why you didn't make a formal request and if you can commit or will look into making a formal request to Congress for one of the early supplemental bills?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, in fact, I wrote letters to key members of Congress to try and to get the $50 million and made phone calls to the same. And it is very important that we get that $50 million and, yes, I think if there is a supplemental, which the Administration has not yet decided on, I'm quite certain that we will be asking for help for Sudan.
The United States has been very active on three fronts in Sudan. The first is that we have tried to deal with the humanitarian situation, to try and keep people from dying, to try to keep people from suffering. Andrew and his people at USAID have done a fine job in mobilizing nongovernmental organizations to do that. And so we've worked very hard on that front and we've had some success.
Secondly, we're working very hard on the diplomatic front because -- since we have, and it sometimes gets lost -- since we have the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the north and the south, ending a decades-old civil war in which millions of people died, we have potentially a model on which we can think about a resolution between the central government in Sudan and the Darfur region. And so we're working very hard on that in the Abuja talks.
Finally, as you mentioned, we've been very supportive of the African Union mission there. I personally went to NATO to suggest that NATO provide logistical and planning support. I think NATO will want to look at what more it might be able to do. The challenge now is that the African Union force, I think, has had great success in the places that it is able to deploy in diminishing the violence, but it faces two challenges. One is that it is a big territory. It's the size of Texas and so 7,000 forces can't cover the territory as a whole and we're going to have to find a way to enhance the capability, which is one reason that the United States is working with others for a UN peacekeeping mission to oversee or to help the African Union force.
The second problem is that west Darfur, western Darfur, has become more dangerous because of the situation in Chad and border crossings there. So we recognize the difficulties. We're trying very hard to accelerate our efforts on the security front, on the humanitarian front. Ultimately there has to be a political solution. But when I was out in Darfur several months ago, it's very clear that that political solution is really where we need to put more effort, because if these people are ever going to leave these camps they have to have a stable government to go home to.
QUESTION: I had the privilege of living in Russia for over eight years and I'm troubled at the prospects of Russia's democracy, for example, with President Putin's removal of Russians' right to elect their own governors. And as a Russian expert, I was wondering what do you think is the future of Russian democracy and what should the U.S. role be in fostering that democracy?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you for that very good question. Obviously, it is extremely important if we're going to have the kind of relationship that everybody had once envisioned with Russia; that is, one fully integrated into the international organizations, fully integrated into democratic institutions, that Russia return to a more democratic path than it is on now.
I want to be very clear. It isn't the Soviet Union. You know this place. This Russian Government is not the Soviet Government and sometimes people overstate this to say things have gone all the way back. They have not gone all the way back. And one of the issues is how to help ensure personal freedoms, how to help ensure that civil society can continue to operate, which was one reason that we were concerned about the NGO law that was just signed into law by President Putin.
I think our role is really twofold. First of all, to continue to try to work with those in Russia who from below are pressuring for a democratic path for Russia, and that means nongovernmental organizations, it means university people, it means all of the Russians who themselves want a more democratic future. The second part of this is to continue, though, to keep open for Russia a path toward a democratic West. I believe, for instance, that the work that we do in the Russia-NATO Council is very important, that it's a contact point. The work that we do in the OSCE is very important.
The G-8, where Russia holds the chair, I think it's extremely important that Russia understand that certain responsibilities come with -- and certain obligations and certain expectations -- with being the chair of an organization that is avowedly of industrialized democracies. And so if you're going to be a part of the G-8, you'd better be an industrialized democracy or people are going to have a lot of questions when they show up for the G-8 sessions.
So I think we can work on two courses. We can work to continue to stimulate change from within, working with Russian partners. It's for Russians to do. We can try and help. And secondly, I do think we have to keep open the links to a democratic West.
Let's see, right here.
QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Rice. Raymond Tanter, Political Science and --
SECRETARY RICE: How are you, Ray? Good to see you.
QUESTION: Good to see you. Thank you, Madame Secretary.
Madame Secretary, congratulations on holding the Permanent Five members of the Security Council together on Iran. That's the good news. The bad news is that it seems as if Tehran is using negotiations as a means of continuing with enrichment or breaking the seals at Natanz, breaking the seals at Isfahan and violating the terms of its agreement with the European-3 concerning reprocessing. There's wild speculation about military action as a result of the fact that the diplomacy seems to be stymied. Meanwhile, you have a situation where the Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq, is on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list of the Department, the Department of State, and I believe that these are the pro-democratic forces with which we should be working in the West.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. First of all, let me say I've known Professor Tanter for a long time. We go back to our early days as baby professors, which we won't say how long ago that was.
Iran is a very difficult problem. You're right, I think we have a good deal of coherence in the view of the major powers about the fact that Iran stepped over a line when it broke the seals and threatened to begin enrichment and reprocessing. Nobody wants Iran to have that capability.
The Iranians want to make this about their rights. This is not about their rights. It's about the ability of the international system to trust them with capabilities and technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon. And they have a history with the IAEA of not disclosing, of covering their activities, and so no one does trust them with those technologies.
Now, in terms of the internal situation in Iran, we've always said that this is not just an issue for us of the nuclear program, although that is its most dangerous manifestation, but this is also a state sponsor of terror, it's a state that is supportive of Hezbollah which causes difficulties in Lebanon, of Palestinian rejectionists which make it hard for Abu Mazen to seek the two state solution with Israel that he seeks. And of course Iran, unlike so many countries in the region, has been going backwards in terms of its development at home. This is a place that is -- where you have a population which is outward looking, which wants to be a part of the international system, which wants democracy and reform, and where the unelected mullahs have done nothing but take more and more power away from the marginally elected institutions that exist in Iran.
Now, I won't even speak to the language of the current Iranian President. I mean Ahmedi-Nejad has given us all a focal point to say if everyone thought that this -- if anyone ever thought that this was a state that was behaving in a normal fashion, his statements are so out of bounds I think that has taken that veneer away.
The question is then: How do you make it possible for there to be change in Iran? And we are trying to work with, through -- Congress has made available some funding that we are trying to work, to the degree we can, with nongovernmental organizations. We try to broadcast in Iran. Iranians go back and forth. This is not a population that is closed off to information.
But we do have a problem with MEK. It is a terrorist organization. It has -- was engaged in killings which actually ended up in the deaths even of Americans. That situation has not changed. But we do hope that by standing with the Iranian people, by making clear that the United States believes that the Iranian people deserve a better future and deserve an elected future, that the international community can begin to rally around that cause, because Iran is simply 180 degrees out of step with the rest of the trends in the Middle East.
Right here, in the green sweater. This young lady right here.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'm a senior in the School of Foreign Service and I really enjoyed your comments. In fact, I was thinking of going to the bookstore and getting the study guide for the Foreign Service Exam.
SECRETARY RICE: Good. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I was really happy hearing your speech. When you were talking about transformational diplomacy, that means that the United States has to work in partnership with countries, working with people, not for people. Then, toward the end of your speech, I noticed you were talking about right and wrong. And I was wondering, when we're engaging international actors, saying that they're wrong, how is that a true partnership?
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well, you do have to work with people and we particularly have good working relationships with people who share our values. We have a whole host of countries around the world who are committed to the democratic enterprise, who do believe that the governed ought to have to give their consent, that you don't just rule by decree, who do believe in women's rights -- all of the things that I think are core truths.
But you have to be willing to say that they're core truths. It is simply never right that women are subservient. It's simply never right that people have no say in who will govern them. It's simply never right that people have no freedom to worship as a matter of conscience, or not to worship at all. If you're relativist about right and wrong, then you can't lead.
Now, you can have policy differences about how best to extend women's rights in the Middle East. You can have policy differences about how best to support democracy in Russia. Those are policy differences. But if America, of all places, doesn't speak for those who are oppressed, if America doesn't speak for the basic human dignities that come with democracy, if America doesn't speak for what the President has called the non-negotiable demands of human dignity, no one will. Throughout the period of the Cold War, I remember how much people in Eastern Europe just wanted to get their hands on something American or somehow wanted to be able to hear Voice of America because Voice of America told the truth or Radio Free Europe or Radio Free Liberty because they told the truth. And after the Cold War, as the Cold War was winding down and you would talk to people, even people who had been a part of the power structure in the Soviet Union or in Eastern Europe, they would say to you, you know, we waited to make sure that somebody was listening. We wanted not to be abandoned to the dark corners where nobody cared. And so you have to speak with a clarity about what is right and what is wrong. And when you speak with that clarity, I think people do rally to that.
You know, I said to my European friends on many occasions and we've had a hard time in Iraq. It's hard. It's really difficult. It's difficult for people who solved their differences, their entire existence by fighting and by coercion and by repression and by violence. It's really hard for them to find a way to resolve their differences by politics instead and by compromise. It's really hard in Afghanistan where you still have terrorists who will blow up innocent children at a moment's notice. It's really hard to go to a place like Jordan -- I see the Ambassador here -- and see this hotel where this wedding party, of all things, was blown up by a suicide bomber. It's hard to see the difficulties that the Palestinian people live with every day. It's really hard. But it's been hard before for countries that made it.
And you know, if people had given up on Europe in 1942, we wouldn't be standing here today talking about a community of democratic states in Europe. If people had given up on Japan, we would not be standing here today talking about sharing democratic values with Japan. So we've done this before. And it's only when you lose will or you lose your sense of what is right, that you lose the capacity to have the kind of optimism in the face of the difficulties and the dangers that lead our forefathers to deliver Europe, Japan and places like that to a democratic future. And we now with them, with Europe, with Japan, with others, owe that same kind of commitment to people who are still struggling.
QUESTION: Thank you very much for coming in. Your program of transformational diplomacy sounds like it could be very fruitful. And I had an obstacle in mind that I thought maybe you could address. In the fall of 2002, the European Union brought a suit, a lawsuit that was very detailed to the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District in New York, where they accused the U.S. tobacco company of sanctions-busting in Iraq, which brought millions of dollars into the same family, and also of having money-laundering and so forth with various terrorist organizations and with organized crime in South America and in the Baltics.
And the judges decided, in the following spring, that this case could be prosecuted under U.S. legislation, including the Patriot Act. However, they will not do so because to do so would be to decide U.S. foreign policy and they had no indication from Congress or from the Administration that it was in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to do so.
And I was wondering if you thought that, perhaps now, it would be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to convict U.S. corporations that violate such legislation abroad? Thank you.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I can assure you that we don't stand in the way of federal prosecutions of American entities. We don't do that. It is our -- we have, as you know, a system of an independent judiciary and an independent executive branch. And in fact, I stay very far away from anything that the independent judiciary is doing.
I want to speak for a second on something that you mentioned, though, that takes it in a slightly different direction, which is the situation with Saddam Hussein and the sanctions-busting that took place in the oil-for-food and so forth. There, I do think that we learned a very important lesson, which is that if you're going to have a sanctions regime of that kind, that you really need not just controls on it, but oversight of it.
And one of the problems that happened with the oil-for-food program is that there was really insufficient authority, insufficient centering of responsibility for what was going on with that program. I think everybody would agree with that and that's how we had the situation that we did. It is one reason that we are so focused on the need for reform in the United Nations. You may have heard about the debate that is going on on reform in the United Nations and something like the oil-for-food shows that unless you have responsible authority -- and in defense of the Secretariat, it has not had the kind of authority that it needs to really manage the affairs of the United Nations.
This and budgetary responsibility and the capability to really use assets well is why we've had the kind of reform effort that we had there. And I think that the oil-for-food scandal showed how difficult it is to manage a regime of that kind, but it also said that if you're going to do something like that, you have to have really tough controls on it and somebody has to be in charge.
Others? Let's see, I'm looking for -- young lady right back there. Okay, I'm told you're going to get the last question. She's coming that way.
QUESTION: Ma'am, I'm an active duty military officer as well as being a graduate student here at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. And so, I've actually had the experience of working out in Afghanistan with the State Department and it obviously is very important, we've discovered, to have that link between the military and the State Department.
However, often, our soldiers and our diplomats are operating under different rule sets in different chains-of-command and I was wondering how that would be addressed and also, how you address the tour length so that -- you know, when a soldier or unit is coming through and they're working, will they have the same person to work through with the State Department?
SECRETARY RICE: Yes, thank you. First of all, thank you for your service to our country and yes, I think the way that we've addressed it -- and you're right; there are separate chains-of-command and there are going to continue to be separate chains-of-command, because the military reports up through the Secretary of Defense to the President in the national command authority and the diplomatic corps reports through me to the President on the other side.
But what we found is that we need absolute fusion of our processes in the field, I think both with General Eikenberry and Ambassador Neumann in Afghanistan and before them, General Barno and Zal Khalilzad and now, Zal Khalilzad and General Casey in Iraq. What we've done is to see a very great fusion at the center. Those -- the ambassador in Iraq or Afghanistan, the three-star in charge in Afghanistan or Iraq see each other all the time, meet all the time, their staffs are always together. I don't think there is much danger of any distance between them.
As you go down through the chain, however, I think that's where we need to start to achieve better integration and it's one reason that I noticed -- made the note about the POLADS, that it is -- it's been that those were essentially positions out of -- with a four-star someplace in the world, when really, you want to see political-military integration further and further down the chain. I think another thing that we could really do is, so to speak, more cross-training.
We were talking -- I was talking with some people yesterday about the Foreign Service Institute and more work with the National Defense University and with the war colleges, because the continuum between ending conflict, stabilizing a country, and then moving it on to independence is something that we have to be better at doing and it requires integration of all of our assets, but it also requires integration of our people with the host country, so it's a very complex effort. And I think we will see more of it.
You know, again, it's -- we've done this before. If you look back at World War II, you'll find that American military and American diplomats worked very, very closely together in the reconstruction of Germany and in getting Germany on its feet. You'll find that they worked very closely in Asia and Japan on the reconstruction. So, it is, again, work that we've done before.
We, in a sense, lost our muscle tone to do it during the long period of the Cold War, when the international system was "stable" in a way that I think required less of this kind of work. But that began to change with the Balkans in the 1990s. It certainly changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and then with the Balkans in the 1990s and then it began to change even more rapidly as change has been coming to the Middle East.
So I believe that this is something that we will do and we will do well and we have to do it well, because the fact of the matter is that when people say, "Oh, this is hard," and "Can you imagine a better world," or "Why do you think there might be a better world," or "Why do you put so much faith in democracy and so much hope in this particular outcome?" I really want to say to them, "Do you have a better idea? Do you have an alternative? Do you have an alternative to well-governed, democratic states that are responsible in the international system?"
We've seen the alternative; the alternative in Afghanistan that isn't governed at all and where al-Qaida runs wild. We've seen the alternative in Sudan where we see the butchering of people that takes place. We've seen the alternative and we don't like that. And so like our predecessors did in World War II, we have to focus all of our energies on making this happen. And I just want to close by saying in 1989 I was lucky enough to be here. As President DeGoia said, I was the Soviet specialist at the end of the Cold War in the White House. It really doesn't get much better than that.
And I got to participate in the liberation of Eastern Europe and the unification of Germany and eventually the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union itself. But in fact, people like me were just harvesting good decisions that had been taken in 1946 and 1947 and 1948 because if you look back in the postwar period, it didn't look very easy. In 1946 and 1947, Germans were still starving in Europe. In 1946 communists won big minorities in Italy and in France. And in 1947, there was civil war in Greece. There was civil conflict in Turkey. In 1948, Czechoslovakia fell to a communist coupe. Germany was permanently divided in Berlin and in 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule and the Chinese communists won.
This wasn't just a kind of minor setback for a democracy. These were huge strategic setbacks. And so when I walk into my office, the other portraits that I look at in addition to Jefferson, the portraits of George Marshall, but especially Dean Acheson because how out of all of that chaos at the end of World War II did they think to construct a collective security organization called NATO, did they think to press for democracy in Germany and Japan, did they stay so true to their values that they understood that Europe had always had temporary solutions to its problems. For more than 150 years, France and Germany, everybody wanted them to stop fighting, but they didn't do it.
And finally, with democratic values enshrined in Germany and a democratic institution like NATO organized in Europe, nobody can imagine Germany and France fighting again today. And so we've done it before. We can do it. And one day people are going to look back, somebody's going to be serving in the White House and they'll look back and they'll say, you know, I'm really glad that America stayed committed to those values. I'm really glad that America worked with its partners around the world to promote those values because there's a peaceful and prosperous and democratic Middle East and the world is forever changed.
Thank you. (Applause.)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: Rice says time for talking with Iran is over
|Rice says time for talking with Iran is over
By Sue Pleming
Mon Jan 23, 2:04 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday there was strong international consensus against Iran's nuclear plans and time had run out for talking to Tehran.
With Italy's foreign minister at her side, Rice said the next step must be to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. The United States believes Iran is building a nuclear bomb but Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful, energy purposes.
"The referral absolutely has to be made," Rice told reporters.
"Iran must know that there is a firm international consensus against the activities that Iran is currently engaged in. We would all like to solve this diplomatically and we are all committed to doing so but Iran must recognize the concerns of the international community and has not done so."
Iran on Sunday urged the European Union to return to negotiations with Tehran on its nuclear program, saying talks were the only way to defuse its nuclear standoff with the West.
Rice said the time for talking was over and European discussions had come to a "dead end" because of Iran's actions. "I don't see much room for further discussion in any format," said Rice.
Asked whether the United States, which has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, could afford to take military action against Iran, Rice said the focus was on diplomacy but reiterated that no options were off the table.
"We have committed to a diplomatic course," said Rice, adding: "The president takes no options off the table."
The United States and the European Union want the International Atomic Energy Agency, at an emergency board meeting on February 2, to refer Iran to the Security Council for pressure including possible sanctions.
Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said over the weekend that Israel was preparing to protect itself if international diplomatic efforts failed to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Italy's Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini urged Israel to focus on diplomatic and not military measures against Tehran.
"We want to stress to our Israeli friends that the only way to guarantee peace and security is the diplomatic route," he said.
Fini said Italy, one of Iran's biggest trading partners in Europe, made it very clear to Iran that it must cooperate.
"The international community must be united and very resolved. It is now absolutely necessary to refer the case to the Security Council," he said.
He said the Iranian president's "unacceptable tone" made action even more urgent but stressed military action was not an option.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: Rice arrives in London for meetings on Iran, Hamas, Afghanis
|Rice arrives in London for meetings on Iran, Hamas, Afghanistan
Sun Jan 29, 3:41 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in London for a 36-hour visit to attend a series of critical meetings on Afghanistan, Iran and the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections.
The top US diplomat, who arrived at London's Heathrow airport in the evening, has a meeting scheduled Monday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is in London for a conference of donors to Afghanistan.
Rice's meeting with Karzai compensates for her abbreviated participation in the conference, where she will appear early Tuesday before heading back to Washington for President George W. Bush's annual State of the Union speech.
At the talks, to be attended by 70 countries, Washington is expected to announce a major financial contribution for the next fiscal year.
Monday afternoon, Rice meets with other members of the so-called diplomatic quartet -- the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States -- which authored the "road map" peace plan for the Middle East.
The meeting, hastily called in response to the sweeping victory by radical group Hamas in Palestinian general elections last Wednesday, is to discuss the future of Palestinian aid programs.
The United States has refused to work with Hamas, which it considers a terrorist group, unless it renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist.
Rice has yet another key meeting Monday: a dinner with her counterparts from Russia, China, France and Britain, all permanent members of the UN Security Council, focusing on Iran's controversial nuclear program.
The United States and Europeans are expected to try to convince Russia and China to support sending Iran to the UN Security Council at a meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog on Thursday in Vienna.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: Rice confident of Iran referral to U.N. Council
|Rice confident of Iran referral to U.N. Council
By Sue Pleming
1 hour, 25 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday she was confident of Russia and China's support to send Iran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council but she expected differences over exactly what steps to take.
"There is a very strong consensus on what the problem is and that the problem has to be dealt with. I expect there will continue to be tactical differences about timing. There may even be tactical differences about precisely what is required but that's the hard work of the diplomacy," said Rice.
Ministers from the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany agreed in London that Thursday's emergency meeting of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency should report Iran's nuclear dossier to the Council.
"I want there to be no confusion here that a report is a formal step to the Security Council," Rice told reporters on the way home from London. "This is the referral we have been seeking."
Iran, which rejects charges it is trying to build a nuclear bomb, argued Tuesday that moves to send its case to the council were not legally justified and that it would not bow to demands it halt atomic research and development.
Russia and China, which have strong economic interests in Iran, have been reluctant for the International Atomic Energy Agency to immediately report Tehran to the Security Council and Monday's dinner in London went into overtime because of haggling over this issue.
Rice said a compromise was finally reached when it was agreed that while the IAEA should send Iran's case to the council this week, any action there should be delayed until after March 6, when the agency's chief is due to deliver a report on Tehran's nuclear activities.
"It really came down to the issue of whether or not to wait to report -- to put the dossier in the Security Council --- until March 6 or whether to do it now. Believe it or not, that took four hours," said Rice.
She said there was a lot of discussion over what might be done to get Iran to respond more favorably to international demands and she expected Russia and China would continue to put pressure on Tehran.
While they signed on to the statement, it was not clear whether Russia and China would vote with the United States at the IAEA or abstain. India, which had supported an IAEA warning against Iran in September, has indicated it will abstain.
International concern over Iran peaked this month when Iran removed U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment, key to making atomic bombs or fuel, and resumed nuclear fuel research.
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:30 am Post subject:
Nothing like going to the source for a little context and detail on the issues.....
Remarks en Route Washington, DC
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
January 31, 2006
SECRETARY RICE: So we've just completed our trip. I'm sorry I wasn't able to
stay for more of the Afghan conference because I think it was clear that the
international community is very proud of Afghanistan's progress thus far and
committed to trying to improve the situation for the Afghans. I thought that
President Karzai's speech was terrific. But we did have a chance yesterday in
an extended bilateral discussion to talk about how to move forward on a number
of the issues that face Afghanistan. Obviously, I have to go back because I'm
expected to be in my seat by 9 o'clock tonight for the State of the Union, but
I think the Afghan conference will be a great success.
I thought that the Quartet did a very fine job yesterday in making clear that
it supports the aspirations of the Palestinian people, that we want the
Palestinian people to have a better and peaceful life, and that the democratic
election that they've been through is an important step. And yet, as is often
the case, the elected government has some conditions that need to be met if it
is to receive the support of the international community. And so we look
forward to trying to work with Abu Mazen, particularly over the next period of
time while there's a caretaker government, to deal with several (inaudible)
financial issues that the Palestinian Authority faces on a very urgent basis.
We had a long discussion last night of Iran with the P-5 plus Germany. The
decision was taken by the ministers to support an extraordinary Board meeting
on Thursday that would report Iran's dossier -- that means all resolutions that
have been passed before, as appropriate, and I might note that one of those
resolutions, the September resolution, is a resolution of noncompliance for
Iran -- as well as report whatever takes place on the 2nd itself and to report
that to the Security Council.
Let me be very clear. The language "to report" is the formal language of
referral to the Security Council. If you look at the September resolution, it
talks about "report to" the Security Council. So I want there to be no
confusion here that a report is a formal step to the Security Council.
What we did agree is that once that report is made to the Security Council that
the Security Council should await the March 6th meeting of the Board of
Governors, at which ElBaradei is to report on Iranian progress on answering the
questions -- questions that are before it by the Board of Governors -- or by
the Director General; but equally importantly, that there will also be a report
on the implementation of what would be required of Iran in the February
resolution. And I think you'll see that that relates not to past Iranian
behavior but current Iranian behavior. So, after March 6th, the Security
Council is then free to consider what steps should be taken in support of the
One final thing. We all hope that the IAEA will be able to resolve this, and
obviously the IAEA is the principal mechanism for dealing with issues of
compliance. But this is now in the Security Council and we will see whether and
how Iran responds to that new fact.
QUESTION: So then we're to assume, from what you're saying, that this is
exactly the referral or report that you've been seeking all along and this
isn't some diluted one or one that would require some other decision before the
Security Council really took it up?
SECRETARY RICE: The only decision after this is in the Security Council itself
as to what to do. The report will go to the Security Council. It's then up to
the Security Council what it does with that report. So this is the report or
referral that we've been seeking.
The one compromise that we were prepared to make is that, as you know, the
Russians had argued very strongly and the Chinese had argued very strongly that
we should wait until there was a report from ElBaradei -- that comes on March
6th -- before we referred or reported to the Security Council. We said let's
report to the Security Council but we'll await action until after that report
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, just before we left London, there were reports out
of Tehran that Mr. Larijani had already rejected -- or had warned that any kind
of, whether it's a report or a referral, Iran will take steps. Are you
concerned? I know the people at the IAEA are concerned about Iranian threats to
basically stop cooperating and eject the inspectors. Are you concerned about
the fact that if that happens you basically lose the best eyes and ears that
the international community has in Iran right now on its nuclear program?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the situation that we currently have is that the eyes and
ears that are there are watching the Iranians progress along a path toward the
technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon. So you know, sitting and
having the IAEA watch the Iranians break seals, having the Iranians -- watching
the Iranians start reprocessing and enrichment, of -- I assume -- seeing the
Iranians start to introduce the gas, that's -- well, there's some value in
seeing that, but what you're seeing is what the IAEA is watching is the slow
erosion of the credibility of the international community as the Iranians take
step after step after step in defiance of an international community that tried
very hard to give them a chance.
One of the things that was very interesting last night about the dinner was
Jack Straw started by rehearsing how we got to where we are, and he started
with the fact that the entire process of the EU-3 negotiations began as a
substitute for referral of the Iranians to the Security Council because of
their past behavior, having for 18 years, for instance, hidden from the IAEA
activities, only to be found out because of dissident reporting. So we have to
remember that the EU-3 negotiations were to permit the Iranians a way out of
being reported to the Security Council.
Then, of course, in September a resolution of noncompliance was passed. And
again, those who voted for the resolution agreed not to formally report to give
the, at that time, new Iranian Government an opportunity to find its footings
and to give the Russian idea a chance. So when you go through that rehearsal,
you recognize that without some movement forward, I think the international
community would be rightly asked how long before there is going to be a
consequence for Iran continuing to ignore the demands of the international
I don't know what the Iranians will do. I would hope that they would take the
opportunity that's still before them to cooperate fully with the IAEA and
reverse the course that they've been on in terms of restarting reprocessing and
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you said after March 6th the Security Council is
free to consider what steps should be taken. Are they also free to do nothing?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, of course. A lot is going to depend on Iranian behavior.
And we'll see. Maybe this next step will convince the Iranians that it's time
to reverse course. I suppose it's possible that the Iranians could restore the
seals. I suppose it's possible that the Iranians could admit that they're not
going to be able to research and process -- or reprocess and enrich on their
territory. I suppose they could accept the Russian deal with no enrichment and
reprocessing on Iranian soil. I suppose they could answer all the questions
that the IAEA has had of them. And I suppose that they could return to, on that
basis, negotiations with the EU-3. That would be quite a good outcome for the
But I think that's what is before them, and I think when you see the list that
will come out of the February Board meeting on what is required of Iran, you
will see the kind of guideposts that the Security Council will be looking at
when it considers the question on March 6th.
QUESTION: Thank you. Is it your expectation that all of the signatories of the
statement last night, or this morning, will vote in the affirmative to report
Iran on Thursday or Friday at the IAEA Board? And do you have a sense of
whether the other members of the Board, including some of the nonaligned
movements, will go that way as well, including India?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't want to speak for other countries. I think
there's a certain logic in the statement that was made last night that the
extraordinary meeting should report. I think there's a certain logic in what
that means for the meeting on Thursday. But you know, obviously countries will
be free to make their choice.
But I think what's important here is that you have the P-5 plus Germany, the
other member of the EU troika, united in agreeing that this should now be
reported to the Security Council. Let me just be clear on what is being
reported. What is being reported is what the Board will require -- is requiring
Iran to do, but also the dossier on Iran, which is the resolutions and reports
of the past as they were adopted.
And so you know, we will see. I'm not going to try to guess what others will
do, but there's a certain logic to the statement.
QUESTION: Now that the case is basically before the Security Council, are you
prepared to say what the United States wants the Security Council to do with
SECRETARY RICE: I have said all along that we needed to get the weight of the
Security Council behind the IAEA activities. When this report is made, that
will, in fact, be the case because the Security Council will have the dossier.
I do think that -- and I'm sure there are those who are appealing to them -- I
think it's possible that you'll see some more diplomatic activity with the
Iranians by the Russians and the Chinese to perhaps try and get the Iranians
now to respond in a positive way to what is being asked of them.
And I think it's only fair to see what transpires over the next few weeks as
the new reality of this becomes observable to Iran. But Iran has a long way to
get back to even the place that it was when we backed the EU-3 negotiations
because they've broken seals, they've made clear that they intend to enrich and
reprocess, they've started unpacking and testing equipment. You know, there's a
fair way back and maybe they'll make it, and I'm prepared to see whether they
We will consider very carefully what steps are going to be effective in the
isolation of the Iranian regime. We want to be very careful, as I've said, to
try and avoid isolation of the Iranian population in anything that is
undertaken. And once you're in the Security Council and discussing this, I
think there are a number of possibilities, but I don't want to get ahead of the
QUESTION: Change of subject. Two questions. Can you give us a sense of what the
President might say tonight vis-à-vis foreign policy? Will he be just broadly
reiterating some of the things you've been touching on, or any new initiatives
we should look for?
And second, I know you've been, obviously, very busy, but have you gotten any
readout on Jill Carroll's situation and do you have any thoughts on what the
U.S. should be doing on that front?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, everything is being done to work with those who might
have influence, and there are an awful lot of people who are calling for her
release, and I mean people from the region, countries from the region, private
concerns, religious leaders. I think there is a great mobilization on behalf of
the fact that this is a tragedy and that it ought to be reversed. So the United
States is -- we are following the situation very closely, obviously doing
everything that we can to see if there is anything that can be done to get her
release. But I think the entire international community is really mobilized on
her behalf and, you know, it's everybody's hope and prayer that these people
who took her -- an innocent person who was just trying to report on these
historic events -- that they will release her.
As to the President's State of the Union, you know, I'll let it speak for
itself. He's obviously going to make a strong -- again -- defense of what we're
doing in the war on terror, about the progress that we're making, and obviously
the importance of the freedom agenda for our security, not just because it is
who we are. It is who we are, but also because it is the way that the United
States best secures itself in the long run.
I think you'll also see the President talk about the compassion of America in
some of the things that we've done.
QUESTION: How long did you spend talking about the Russian proposal last night,
and at what point did Russia really come on board with sending a report to --
reporting Iran or referring Iran, as you've said, to the Security Council?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we did talk some about the Russian proposal. It was
talked about in more detail. There was a ministers only session and then there
was a political directors session. They talked more about it. We really spent
the bulk of the time on this question of the report and it really came down to
the issue of whether or not to wait to report, and that is to put the dossier
in the Security Council -- until March 6th or whether to do it now. And believe
it or not, that took four hours. That's the way it is sometimes.
There was a lot of discussion of what might be done to get Iran to respond more
favorably to what is being asked of it. I think the Russians and the Chinese
will continue to make those efforts. But I want to be very clear. You know, at
the end, we went around and we said we understand that this is now in the
Security Council; everybody -- well, provided the vote is there on Thursday,
but that what we're saying is it should be in the Security Council.
I think that the Russians and the Chinese were prepared to try to maintain
consensus. They have said from the time we arrived that they wanted there to be
consensus, that they thought this was important. For our part, we were prepared
to be sensitive to their sense of timing of when this ought to be taken up in
the Security Council.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask more about the (inaudible). It took four hours
to get them to agree to report. Isn't there a danger that it gets to the
Security Council and nothing happens?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we had a lot of discussion of what had happened before,
how we'd gotten to where we are. I mean, sometimes you just have to talk
through things and talk through them. I don't underestimate the difficulty of
maintaining consensus as we move through this process. I want to be very clear.
What is very clear is that there is a strategic consensus about the Iran
problem, about the fact that Iran is engaged in activities that are
problematic, that Iranian behavior is unacceptable in continually rejecting the
options put before it for peaceful nuclear uses that do not involve the fuel
cycle. There is a consensus that they can't be allowed to get technologies
leading to a nuclear weapon and there is a strong consensus that diplomacy
should continue but that the Iranians are not being responsive to that
Nobody argued that, well, you know, the Iranians have shown evidence that
they're prepared to do this or that. That wasn't the nature of the
conversation. There's obviously concern about the point that was mentioned
about how you keep the IAEA engaged and how you strengthen the IAEA's hand. But
there's a very strong consensus on what the problem is and that the problem has
to be dealt with.
I expect that there will continue to be tactical differences about timing and
there may even be tactical differences about precisely what is required. But
that's the hard work of the diplomacy. Our goal last night, the goal of the
EU-3 and the United States last night, was to get consensus that this ought to
be now in the Security Council. If you remember, the question was: Should it
stay "in the competence of the IAEA"? Well, nobody wants it to be outside the
competence of the IAEA, that the IAEA should continue to work on it
(inaudible). But it's now also a matter for the Security Council and that was
the purpose of last night.
QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Secretary. I wanted to ask you about the Russian
proposal. In what format has the Russian proposal actually been considered? Has
it been reduced to paper? How long is it? Is it still in flux? You suggested in
the briefing on the way over here that elements of it might still be in flux,
by which I mean you suggested that UF6, there are still some issues about how
it might be converted and transferred out of the country and so forth. And last
night, we were told by the senior Administration official who briefed us that
even the Russians expressed their belief that the Iranians are not very serious
about the Russian proposal. So is it even still a viable plan?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think that everybody has doubts as to whether or not
the Iranians are serious because this has been around for a while and one
reason that there isn't more detail is that the Iranians haven't really been
prepared to talk seriously about it because every time the Russian proposal
comes up, they say it's inadequate. And what they mean by adequacy is it has to
involve enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil, and that actually is not
the Russian proposal. The Russian proposal is that this would be a joint
venture in which the Iranians might have a financial stake but not a
technological stake to learn the processing of enrichment -- the process of
enrichment and reprocessing.
So I think that if the Iranians were really prepared to seriously consider the
Russian proposal within the parameters that everybody is prepared to live with,
which is no reprocessing and enrichment on Iranian soil, then there would need
to be more extensive discussions. But (inaudible) the first principle is decide
that that's what the Russian proposal is, and so far the Iranians have not been
prepared to do that.
The other point that the Russians make is that this is still within the
context, from their point of view, of EU-3 negotiations so this is not a
standalone proposal because they would want the weight of what the EU-3 is
doing as well.
SECRETARY RICE: We have been discussing it orally with the Russians. We've had
readouts of their discussions. But again, since the Iranians have not yet shown
that they're all at interest -- let's even say in the concept that this would
be done all on Russian soil, it's somewhat retarded the development of the
QUESTION: Basically on Hamas, almost immediately (inaudible) before you know,
(inaudible) speaking yesterday Hamas rejected the premise of the statement. Do
you hold out any realistic hope that there will be a change of behavior, a
change of attitude there, or is it, in your view, a foregone conclusion that
both the United States and other Quartet members will be withholding
SECRETARY RICE: I think nothing is a foregone conclusion. I think it's a very
fluid situation. I think Hamas has some difficult choices to make. It's six
days after the election. I think that the choice is very clear and the purpose
of the Quartet statement was to make the choice very clear so that there was no
lack of understanding of what was needed in order to really engage the
You know, there were other important things in the statement, too. I think some
commitment to try and help the caretaker government in the interim so that
there is not a kind of collapse of authority in the territories was also an
important commitment that was undertaken. But I think we now have to give this
a little time, but what was very good about last night's statement is that it
left a very clear set of markers as to what is required by the international
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what is the compromise the Europeans will give for
more time? You used a stronger tone against Hamas?
SECRETARY RICE: No, and in fact, there was no -- that discussion never took
place. The European Union made its statement. The Quartet then made a
statement. They are consistent in what they demand. I know there's been a lot
of back and forth about -- I can't even remember the formula -- there's one
until and one unless or something along those lines. I think these are, you
know, semantical -- semantics because the issue is what has to be done by the
next Palestinian government in order to have the support of the international
community. That's the important issue and that issue was consistent.
QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Kevin Corke, NBC News. Real just basic
stuff in terms of the writing so I'm clear. Should I just avoid using
"referral" and just stick with "report"? That's part one.
And part two, really far off topic, if you all will indulge me, Super Bowl 40
coming up this weekend. Can I get a prediction and have you thought about where
you might watch the game? (Laughter.)
SECRETARY RICE: First of all, let's do the serious thing first. The formal
terminology in the UN is "report." If you look at the resolution of September,
it says "report to." We have all been using "referral." A referral, a report,
simply means that the dossier is now in the UN, in the Security Council. So I
think you're free to use either, but let me just make clear that this is the
referral that we were seeking. This is the referral. It was a formal step to
report a dossier -- resolutions and all of that -- to the United Nations.
I have picked -- I picked Pittsburgh to beat Cincinnati. I have picked against
them every game since. I'm not picking against them again. So I think I believe
the Steelers are going to win it. And I have been to only one Super Bowl in my
life and that was when it was in Palo Alto when the Dolphins played the 49ers,
and given (inaudible) pending events and if nothing transpires that keeps me
from going, I plan to try to go to the Super Bowl.
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: Iran Closer to Security Council Referral
|Iran Closer to Security Council Referral
For Complete Report Visit:
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
Diplomats familiar with the issue said France, Britain and Germany — the three European nations formally submitting the U.S.-backed draft resolution calling for referral — were trying to mediate between Cairo and Washington.
The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the negotiations, said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Egyptian counterpart Ahmed Aboul Gheit also were involved in trying to iron out language acceptable to both sides.
European diplomats expressed annoyance with both sides as negotiations dragged into the late evening and language on a nuclear-free Middle East was first inserted, then deleted and finally reinserted in compromise language.
A Western diplomat at the meeting said the United States felt strongly about not linking its ally Israel to nuclear concerns in the Middle East when it considers Iran the real threat in the region.
Egypt, whose support of the resolution is key to swaying other Arab board members to join in backing it, was looking to make the linkage to satisfy broad domestic concerns, a senior European diplomat said.
||All times are GMT - 4 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group