||[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 Aug 03, 2005 6:36 pm Post subject: The Wall Street - Europe's Iran Moment
|Europe's Iran Moment
August 03, 2005
The Wall Street Journal
Review & Outlook
The Bush administration has justified its softly-softly approach to the Iranian nuclear program on grounds it has firm commitments from the Europeans to get tough should diplomacy fail. Those promises are about to be put to the test now that Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intention to resume uranium enrichment.
The suspension agreement was inked last November after what turns out to have been nearly 20 years of Iranian deception vis-a-vis the IAEA. And it can be argued that diplomacy has at least bought time, assuming -- and it's a big assumption given how many times Iran has already been caught lying to inspectors -- that there has been no clandestine program going on in the interim. But the desire of the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) to find a negotiated solution seems only to have encouraged Iranian intransigence on the central issue, which is its repeatedly claimed "right" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for what it says is a civilian power program.
The existence of any such right is debatable, given that the NPT forbids using a civilian nuclear program as cover for a military one. But to the extent Iran is able to plausibly make this claim, it only highlights the problematic moral equivalence at the heart of the U.N. system, of which the IAEA and NPT are a part. Put simply, Iran is not a democratic country. And it is patently wrong to treat the ruling mullahs as if they were likely to observe international law.
This should be all the more clear after June's sham presidential elections, which were rigged to the extent that Hashemi Rafsanjani -- who has said that Iran should have the bomb so it can destroy Israel -- came off as the more moderate of the final two candidates. Most Iranians themselves (as suppressed poll results indicated) see the nuclear program for exactly what is -- a means of keeping their oppressors in power.
We were encouraged to see the Europeans talking tough yesterday, saying any Iranian move to restart enrichment would result in an emergency IAEA meeting and possible referral to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. But it's a fairly open secret that many European diplomats think that the best we can expect even after such action is further delay, and that the world will ultimately just have to "get used to" the idea of the mullahs having the bomb.
This would be a historic mistake, starting with the fact that it would mean the permanent discrediting of the multilateral arms control system these very same diplomats claim to hold dear. North Korea has already gone nuclear under the IAEA's watch. If Iran follows, the world can be assured the U.S. will never again look for answers to the IAEA's shiny new Vienna headquarters.
The strategic consequences are also hard to overstate. Iranian leaders such as Mr. Rafsanjani have spoken openly about wanting the bomb to thwart U.S. "colonialism" in the Middle East. At a minimum, a nuclear umbrella would remove any inhibition they might still have about using conventional terrorism in an all-out assault on U.S. democracy-promotion in the region. World oil supplies could be threatened. And it is not inconceivable they might hand such a weapon to terrorists, since the further proliferation that would undoubtedly follow might make such an act plausibly deniable.
We're hardly reassured by yesterday's Washington Post report that Iran might be 10 years from the bomb, or five years longer than previously thought. It was reportedly based on information from a still-classified U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. But as we've argued in the past, leaning too heavily on NIEs is dangerous because they tend to be lowest-common denominator assessments that create the illusion of actual knowledge where there is often much uncertainty. The government would be better off without them.
Exhibit A are the NIEs that said we'd find WMD in Iraq. But the intelligence consensus also missed by a long shot how close Saddam was to the A-bomb before the first Gulf War, and it missed again on North Korea. The best policy practice with countries obviously intent on acquiring a bomb, as Iran is, is to act as if the prospect is any day now, not to look for reassurance that the problem can be put off until later.
It's no exaggeration to say that everything we've been trying to achieve in the Middle East and beyond is at stake here. The mullahs know it, which is why they risked international censure through sham elections to consolidate their power and are now risking a confrontation with the Security Council. The potential consequences of an Iranian nuke for the Western democracies are an order of magnitude graver than backpack bombs on subways.
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject:
Logic would dictate that as long as the IRI continues to be the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, it has effectively nulified any and all right a nation may claim to the use of atomic energy.
It's not a softy-softy approach. The US by law cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists or their supporters, including state sponsors of terrorism.
While the US has for years tried to convince the EU and Russia of the regime's intent to produce nuclear weapons. It is the regime itself that has done the best job of that.
The US has sanctioned Iran to the hilt on it's own, frozen assets, passed legitlation. The Iran Freedom and Support Act in debate on the floor of the House had testimony entered into the record via a letter read by a Congessman, sent to him from the Iranian opposition community.
History was made, as it was the first time such opposition testimony had been entered into the congressional record.
Those voices in Congress calling for "engagement" have not been heard from uttering those sentiments in quite awhile now.
The regime's two-faced diplomacy has failed, as it's intent has become clear.
The House passed the bill, and it's passed through the Senate committe on foreign relations.
It stands good bi-partisan support in passage in the Senate as well.
EU is finally coming to grips with reality, and while the phrase "regime change" terrifies them as a political euphamism for war..., the Iranian people have spoken...they want "Regime change", Iranian style.
The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy
in Iran" (SMCCDI)
March 1, 2005
- President of the U.S. Senate:
Honorable Richard Cheney, the US Vice-President
- Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives:
Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
- Chairman of the U.S. Senate on Foreign Relations:
Honorable Richard G. Lugar
- Chairman of the House Committee on International
Relations: Honorable Henry J. Hyde
- Honorable Senators Rick Santorum, John Cornyn, Sam
Brownback & George Allen
Via Fedex and Fax
- Honorable members of the 109th U.S. Congress
Via Fax or E.Mail
Dear Vice President Cheney, Dear Speaker of the House
Hastert, Dear Chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committees,
Dear members of the 109th Congress,
In regards to the people of Iran's legitimate
aspirations for freedom, wishing the following be
considered by the members for sponsorship to be read aloud
for the record, and entered as Congressional testimony:
As prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, President George
W. Bush has, on several occasions definitively outlined
American policy toward the Islamic Republic regime. These
policies of freedom's promise outlined by your respected
President clearly clarify the outstanding issues of the
"Argument of the age" as defined. To the Iranian people he
said, "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands
On behalf of the "Student Movement Coordination
Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI), and the good
people of our nation who have striven so long for freedom,
we wish to extend our most sincere and humble thanks and
gratitude for these words and the support of U.S. Congress
in our long road to liberty.
Know this, that as America stands with the people of
Iran, we stand with America in your fight against terrorism
For in this struggle we are engaged in, the leaders of
the disreputable and wholly unpopular Islamic Republic
regime are the terrorists in our people's midst, sponsoring
it abroad, conducting it at home, and staining the honor of
our nation with the blood of our citizens, as well as, the
blood of the innocent throughout the entire world.
Indeed, this theocratic entity is engaged in terror,
torture and atrocity on a daily basis, and this
illegitimate regime dares to call itself Democratic, an
advocate of human rights, and protector of the oppressed
throughout the region. A cruel joke added onto the injury
to our nation's pride and heritage.
The horror of this evil regime's hypocrisy, and
methodical atrocities can only be likened to a daily
Auschwitz for the stain it brings on the honor of those who
appease and support and lengthen the life-span of this
barbarian and tyrannical regime through silence, economic
incentive, nuclear fuel negotiations, "engagement" and
illusion, blind or not as they may be of what is taking
place in our country. Nor can the international community,
or any member of any government that holds in their heart
the values of freedom continue to turn their back on the
Iranian people's legitimate aspirations to formulate a new
secular political structure, and call themselves human.
Iran is not Iraq, nor Afghanistan nor China. While the
overwhelming majority of Iranians, most of them young and
educated with thirst of modernity and progress, have passed
the stage of accepting any type of religion mixing with the
affairs of state. They have also become very lucid and are
open critics of any "Chinafication" of Iran where the
governmental ideology will rule unchanged while its foreign
policy and economy will be adapting to foreign governments
requests. The main difference between China and Iran is
that Marxism was an economical ideology and can be adapted
or end when the regime needs but the Islamist ideology by
its essence is supposedly emanating from God and is by
nature restrictive and against individuals rightful
aspirations to freedom by trying to anchor them in precepts
inherited from 14 centuries ago.
Respected Senators and Representatives of the great
The Islamic Republic regime cannot be reformed in whole
or in part by any referendum while the regime sits in power
able to manipulate the outcome, nor can the regime be
caused to abandon its blind nuclear ambition through the
"carrot" of WTO ascension and other European "economic
This honorable body of the elected is not blinded by
illusion of propaganda the Islamic Republic regime has
tried to create, and we wish to illustrate the alarming
results of eight years of demagogy and sham "reforms from
within", and to caution the U.S. Congress regarding any
proposed Congressional testimony from former regime
theoreticians or members of regime promoted religious
student bodies. Indeed these 'former' supporters, involved
in selling the sham reforms scenario and buying time for
the shaky theocracy, have only recently 'joined' the
opposition and they do not represent the majority of the
Iranian people who wish for a totally new form of
secular-democratic and progressist political structure
without the backwarded mullahs and their technocrats
involved in any way.
The only way our people can regain our honor and the
world its trust for a WMD-free Iran that seeks to provide a
safer future for the world is by providing us, the people
of Iran, the support for our legitimate aspirations of
liberty and the tools necessary to take back the land that
Cyrus the Great brought Democracy to over 2500 years ago.
Honor demands that we do this of our own accord, and with
the proper tools provided by this elected body of free men
and women which is the U.S. Congress, as well as the
President's noble foreign policy, and with the tools
provided by the international community through the
auspices of the UN, we will ultimately succeed.
Primary among those tools we seek is the rule of
international law, as provided by the resolutions on human
rights, state sponsors of terrorism and terrorist financing
already in place within the UN in various resolutions, and
mandated by the Security Council.
The prayers of suggestion included in SMCCDI's letter to
the honorable George W. Bush (Jan. 27, 2005:
contains the full list of international tools the Iranian
people need to solve the problem that plagues all of us.
None of which include military intervention, or arms sales
to any faction of the opposition movement within or outside
We are not blinded by the difficulties involved with
civil disobedience in stopping the functioning of the
Islamic Republic, but those here who would have doubt of
the current leadership's ability or the people's will must
remember your own history of civil disobedience that
changed the fabric of your nation, protecting the rights of
all it's citizens.
We remember Gandhi's march, the Gdansk shipyards, the
Velvet revolution, the Rose revolution, and all the
non-violent change that has been brought about through
these non-violent methods throughout history. These leaders
of civil disobedience were mostly unknown in their
beginnings, just as the publicly unknowns of many uprisings
led in anonymity the localized events in these national
revolutions that have changed the world for the better. So
it is among all grass roots movements.
We ask that this letter to U.S. Congress, as well as the
letter to President Bush be considered in equal measure to
provide proper perspective to you on the issues, for it is
our firm belief that only after the Islamic regime is
removed by the Iranian people can a genuine UN monitored
referendum, and new political structure be properly debated
and chosen by the people.
Honorable members of the 109th U.S. Congress,
Many resolutions have come before you on matters of
human rights, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and weapons
development over the years. In particular, the "Iran
Democracy Act", that the honorable Senator Sam Brownback
introduced On May 19, 2003., supporting the right of the
Iranian people to choose their own government. The
legislation to be considered,
contained within the "Iran Freedom and Support Act",
introduced by the honorable Senator Rick Santorum and
endorsed by Senator John Cornyn and some of your fellow
colleagues, follows on these measures.
The honorable George W. Bush, your president, has said
many times that "We owe it to our children and our
children's children to free the world from weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of those who hate freedom." No one
knows the truth of these words more than the people of our
nation who have the most to lose should this become
manifest in the hands of the mullahs, and their terrorist
On behalf of the "Student Movement Coordination
Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI), and the good
people of our nation who have striven so long for freedom,
we call upon all members of this great elected body of
Democracy, to approve the "Iran Freedom and Support Act" in
a vote of unanimous consent. We hope that this bill will be
endorsed and/or co-sponsored by a overwhelming majority,
with both Democrat and Republican adding their names in
bi-partisan support for our aspirations of liberty.
Such supportive action will provide the tools we need to
free not only our children and grandchildren, but the
world's as well, from the dangers posed to all by the
Islamic Republic regime.
Many among you view the word's "regime change" in
different ways, and in different manifestations. The
proposals outlined in SMCCDI's letter to president Bush may
not require this Congress to debate this phrase that causes
so much controversy, primarily as we have proposed "regime
change" the Iranian way, as they are essentially Iranian
solutions by, for and of, the Iranian people. But these
solutions may serve as well to create a better world for
the sake of all people in their success, and we believe
they merit America's strong and solid support.
We believe they will work to provide a better home for
all our children and grandchildren to live in, and for the
entire region. It has already begun in Iran, now the
solution needs the world's support and resolve as well. The
"Iran Freedom and Support Act" is part and parcel to this.
With this elected body's firm unanimous voice, and the
resolve of the U.S. President and his Secretary of State;
Supporting the measures proposed to be tabled and ratified
in the UN as outlined in SMCCDI's proposals, and the
formation of a roundtable of opposition groups and
international representatives; The coordination of economic
and military sanction, freezing of assets, closing of
embassies, banishment from the UN, and other non-violent
measures as may be found worthy under international law
will be overwhelming to the Islamic republic regime, and
it's demise will happen in a fairly short time.
The Mullahs are on life support, and the machine that
keeps them alive is their vast financial holdings, the
Revolutionary Guard and the absence of a unified
international stand against this evil regime, politically
Many rank and file military will join the people of
Iran, having no loyalty but their families and to a
paycheck which is never on time. As the infrastructure of
the economy sit idle, the regime will have to take from
what's left of the guard to run it, and thereby leaving the
streets to the people. We believe we can remove the regime
without undo bloodshed, for we wish not for the future to
be stained with the blood of civil war.
In the end, the only stain we wish to have upon us, is
a purple one on everyone's index finger held up in a "V".
On this path of liberty America has been given the task
to promote, may all the members of U.S. Congress, as well
as, all free nations support each other in common cause,
let not your doubts or differences blind you to the correct
path when the fork in the road is before you, seek not to
point fingers at one another in confusion and doubt as to
which road to take. Heed not the confusion sown by those
who would place that shadow of doubt at the feet of
In this great world endeavor of freedom the U.S.
President has put forth, let all people of the world
remember why our feet point forward (to walk upright) and
why our eyes are at the front of our heads (to not look
backwards while walking).
For even as the shadows of doubt follows in the bright
light of the truth, do not seek to look at the shadow that
is cast behind lest it cause a people to stumble and
When the shadow of doubt lies in the path ahead, let
sturdy feet trample it with reason. And when the shadow of
doubt is cast beside the path, do not turn aside to speak
to it, lest it deceive and delay the reaching of the
On behalf of the "Student Movement Coordination
Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI), and the good
people of our nation who have striven so long for freedom,
we ask simply that every one of you in the 109th U.S.
Congress stand united with us now, not as Democrat or
Republican, nor even as Americans per se, but simply as
Humans. For that, and the hope of liberty is what binds all
people together in unity.
Aryo B. Pirouznia (Movement's Coordinator)
5015 Addison Circle #244 Addison, TX 75001 (USA)
Tel: +1 (972) 504-6864; Fax: +1 (972) 491-9866;
www.daneshjoo.org ; www.iranstudents.org
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
|Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: BBC European press review
|European press review
Europe's response to testing times in its dealings with Iran comes under press scrutiny today.
Iran and the EU
There are mixed views at the way the European Union is handling the dangerous stand-off with Iran on its nuclear programme.
Germany's Berliner Zeitung publishes a cartoon captioned "The good cop's last attempt," which shows the European Union in the guise of a policeman, questioning Iran depicted as a bearded man with a turban.
"Do not force me to call in Officer Bush. He's in a really filthy mood," the EU policeman says, while a second, bad cop resembling the US president lurks outside the room.
Switzerland's Le Temps warns the EU against pursuing its current line of policy and having to take Iran to the UN Security Council.
"The latter will not apply any sanctions given that Russia and China will oppose this move. Tehran is therefore likely to slam the door shut on the IAEA and continue its activities without any international control."
"Let the Iranians save face by leaving them with their small number of centrifuges and by putting them under very strict international control, a solution which they would be ready to accept," it suggests.
Germany's Die Welt welcomes what it sees as an outbreak of "harmony and determination" within the EU towards Iran.
"Now at least the following is certain: the Europeans have not only reached a unanimous position amongst themselves, but also in conjunction with their US ally."
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:34 pm Post subject:
|ON US/China cooperation:
Remarks at U.S. Embassy Beijing
Robert Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State
August 2, 2005
DEPUTY SECRETARY ZOELLICK: Well, thank you all for joining us. As I think all
of you know by now the primary purpose of my visit was to initiate the dialogue
that President Hu suggested to President Bush last November at an APEC meeting.
And the purpose of the dialogue is to discuss the strategic and conceptual
framework for our relations. And in doing so, to move beyond the operational
day-to-day work that we both countries - are regularly engaged in and to try
to integrate across issues so that we can better understand one another's
respective interests, but also domestic considerations.
I also had a chance to meet with the National Development and Reform Commission
today, where we've had a dialogue in the past with some of my predecessors at
the State Department. But in a similar fashion to the dialogue that we had with
the Foreign Ministry, I wanted to try to approach the economic relationship in
a strategic context and consider the relationship across issues. And I also had
a chance just to meet -- Foreign Minister Li was kindly able to provide some
time to review a series of topics. So, I found the meetings to be very useful.
I thought discussions were very open. We talked for numbers of hours, had a
chance to ask one another questions. So this was not set-piece discussions, but
rather a more free flowing set of exchanges.
In the process, I was certainly able to listen and to learn, which is an
important part of working closely together. And we also had chance to identify
possible points of mutual interest. But, also, where we do not see eye to eye,
to better understand one another's position and to help manage those
differences. We talked about issues across the Asia- Pacific, but also other
regions as well. Had discussions about energy security, terrorism, economic
development and trade, issues of democracy and freedom and human rights. And a
general point that I made is that across some seven American administrations,
the goal of U.S. policy has been to integrate China into the world's security,
economic and political systems. And that has been accomplished, if you consider
China as a member of the UN Security Council, a member of the WTO, a member of
ozone depletion treaties, non-proliferation arrangements, and a host of others.
And so the focus now is to consider how the United States and China, as common
stakeholders in these systems, need to work together to try to pursue common
interests and maintain and strengthen these systems for cooperation of issues
of today and those in the years ahead.
I emphasized that the United States had a strong interest in building deeper
cooperation with China, and one way of asking that question is if you consider
the challenges that our countries and others face in the years ahead and ask
yourself how much easier it will be to face those challenges if the United
States and China are working together, as opposed to being in opposition with
We also had a chance to talk a little bit about President Hu's upcoming visit
to the United States, and Executive Vice-Minister Dai Bingguo and I found the
discussions so useful that we agreed we would have another round of them in
Washington later this year. And we have also tried to think about other ways
that we can expand the network of ties between our ministries.
I also want to say that one of the benefits of me having the chance to come to
Beijing again is to thank our mission here. We've got a tremendous workload of
topics, as evidenced by all of you being here. And we've got a great group of
people that are doing tremendous work, and I just wanted to thank them too.
So, happy to take a few questions
QUESTION: Two quick questions. One is hoe the Six Party Talks are going on and
I know you didn't come here for this, but we have to ask you how do you think
how is the progress going and where are the difficulties and what needs to be
done for the breakthrough? And, another second quick question is from in, in
for Bloomberg it's very important. The U.S congress is looking at imposing
tariffs on Chinese goods if China does not further revalue the RMB. Would you
give us your view on that? Thank you so much.
DEPUTY SECRETARY ZOELLICK: Well as for the first question, I've been in touch
with Ambassador Hill every day. And I know that he's provided press briefings
every day, which I think I've read the transcripts -- I think they've done a
good job of trying to give you a sense of the overall direction. So, I'm not
going to wade too much into that area because he's the one who's on point with
the subject. I will just say that he's come here to try to address a problem
that we think is very important, not only for the United States, but for the
region and the world. He's in regular contact with Secretary Rice and has the
flexibility to try to address the issues that we think North Korea has put on
the table that it wants addressed.
But, it's a difficult process, and we appreciate the role that China has played
as a chair. You've had reports about the focus on trying to draft some core
guiding principles. And fundamentally, the sense that I get is that there are
five parties that are in pretty close agreement on those principles and the key
question is whether North Korea is willing to make the strategic decision it
needs to make to go forward. So, I know that there are discussions going on
again this afternoon, and I'm sure that Ambassador Hill will keep you well
briefed and informed about those as he does so. I will say that in my sessions,
I had a chance to talk with the Foreign Minister as well as the Executive
Vice-Minister about the importance of these discussions to the United States
and how we appreciated the role that China was seeking to play.
As for your second question, which is about the tariffs I guess? Well, as
Secretary Snow has stated, we think that the action that China took on its
exchange is an important first step. Obviously, people will monitor closely the
process to follow. And, in general, while we will continue to, obviously,
present our view on why it's important to have currency adjustment to be able
to deal with international imbalances, that the idea of increasing tariffs to
block and in the process violate your WTO commitments would not be a
constructive way to address that.
QUESTION: You've been here several times before and I know that you have a
strong historical sense and I was wondering if you could tell us, what kind of
partnership the United States is trying to create with China. Does the United
States still see China in a period of tutelage in its return to greatness? And
can you describe some of the areas in the strategic dialogue that you've had
where it's not an equal partnership between China and the United States?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ZOELLICK: Well, I guess the way that I'd try to deal with the
combination of those issues is that a theme that has informed all of our
discussions over the past couple of days is that China has accomplished an
enormous amount over the past 25 years, in terms of its economic development.
As I've said to a number of my interlocutors, I first had a chance to visit
China when I lived in Hong Kong in 1980. So I have a very personal perspective
on the changes that have been achieved in this country. And. I have great
respect for the accomplishments of the Chinese people and I know that the
Chinese leaders have moved the country enormously in the direction of markets
and improving the livelihood for China's people.
At the same time, that makes China more influential in the world and you can
see the effects of this integration, whether you look at commodities prices,
whether you look at exchange rates, whether you look at issues of IPR and
counterfeiting, whether you look at manufacturing markets. China is a
significant influence on the world economy. And so, part of our challenge going
forward is to see how to try to cooperate in terms of strengthening those
systems, whether they be the international trade systems, whether they be sort
of capital and currency flows. And I also tried to explain in the process some
of the concerns that develop in the United States about whether China's role
will be one that tries to focus on overall market development or whether there
will be mercantilist aspects.
Now part of this is a process of transition in China. It's gone from a command
economy to a mixed economy with increasing use of the market. But the
government presence is still very ample in many different sectors. And so, part
of my purpose was to better understand the sense of direction, the planning,
but also to lay the groundwork for further discussions that I would have and my
colleagues will have so that we can try to get a better understanding of
China's sense of the mutual obligations in the international environment. Now,
you closed with a phrase about tutelage of others. In a sense, the United
States and China are both very influential players. The United States
represents 25 to 30 percent of the world's GDP, depending on exchange rates.
China's share is much smaller, but its growth is very rapid. So the United
States is a developed economy. China's is a developing economy, but they're
both large players in the international system.
I just recently came from Laos with a meeting of Southeast Asian countries. And
again it is clear, in the region, that countries recognize the common role of
the United States and China. And so we talked about multilateral cooperation,
for example in issues of Southeast Asia. And the common interests -- whether it
be dealing with avian influenza, whether it be dealing with issues of
terrorism, whether it be dealing with nuclear nonproliferation, whether it be
issues of responses to national disasters like the tsunami, whether it be
maritime security. And one that we talked about extensively in both days was
common interest in dealing with energy security questions by multiplying
sources of supply. We had an announcement when I was in Laos about an effort of
a number of countries to try to combine the issues of poverty alleviation,
development, but also questions of greenhouse gasses and the role of
technology. Well, clean coal is a very important aspect that sort of
So what I would say is that you have two very important countries in the global
system, and I think that the importance of trying to work together
cooperatively will become even greater in the time ahead. But, you can't take
these things for granted. And, one of the points that I mentioned is that as
China grows in influence, it raises questions with people about its future
course. This is not to be negative. It's just to say that it raises
uncertainty. And so, we talked about ways in which more transparent issues --
whether it be for military defense spending, whether it be for foreign policy
cooperation -- could help improve the ability of China and the United States to
deal with common challenges. But as a general sense, I felt that the overture
was a two-way overture. There was strong interest in being open and honest with
one another. It's not surprising that there are differences and disagreements,
as there are with a number of our partners. But the question is, how can we
find areas to work together more effectively? But also, where we have
differences, how to manage those differences.
QUESTION: China now is talking clearly and openly about asking for a timetable
for the American troops to withdraw from Central Asia, and you have been
requested officially by some of the countries to do so. Did you have the
opportunity to talk about this issue and what is your view on it? May I ask
another quick question? When Mr. Hill is showing a lot of patience here during
the six party talks on the North Korea nuclear issue. Yesterday the United
States threatened Iran to take the issue to the Security Council. How can we
understand these different standards for a similar issue?
DEPUTY SECRETARY ZOELLICK: Well, as for your second question, each circumstance
in the world has to be taken on its own terms. There is no one size that fits
all. But the issue with Iran was spoken by our spokesperson and by the British
representing the EU-3 about Iran needing to follow through on its commitments
in terms of keeping its nuclear program suspended. So there is a common
position by a number of countries where the EU-3 has offered a serious
negotiation which we have been supportive, of and we hope Iran will take it
seriously and not take preemptive action.
As for your first question, we deal with those issues, as we have stated,
separately with each of those individual countries. And Secretary Rumsfeld has
been visiting some of those countries. We have explained in the past why those
relationships have been important for us in dealing with the war on terrorism.
And one of the points that we did discuss was the importance of that war on
terrorism. How it has changed in form and how it remains very important to both
the United States and China and how I hope we can find closer means of
cooperation in the future.
ON US/ Russian Relations:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice With Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler of The
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
July 26, 2005
MS. WRIGHT: A variation on that question. What do you see as your greatest
success so far, and not necessarily the greatest failure but the place that you
have the most work to do? With a footnote: It's quite striking that you, as a
Russia specialist -- Russia seems to be one of the countries where we're less
engaged or have had less impact than in some of the other parts of the world.
SECRETARY RICE: First of all, it is way too early for me to start counting
successes or chalking up failures.
MS. WRIGHT: So far.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Robin, I don't think in those terms. I am a political
scientist who has spent most of my life trying to understand why big events
unfold as they do. And my scope of -- my time scale is just maybe different. I
MS. WRIGHT: But what's the --
SECRETARY RICE: You know, I understand that you have to write on a daily basis
so this is difficult. But --
MS. WRIGHT: We're giving you an opportunity to help craft our piece. Anyway, on
the issue of Russia, you're deeply engaged in many parts of the world and I
realize you're involved in Russia, too. It is just striking that at the moment
SECRETARY RICE: I think the good thing is actually we're engaging with the
Russians on a number of issues. You know, not every country has to just be seen
as a target of your policies. Sometimes you actually have partners in your
policies. And I speak a lot with the Russians. The Russians are part of the
Quartet. They've been a very active and constructive member of the Quartet in
dealing with the Middle East problem. We and the Russians have been very
engaged with the Europeans on Iran. We've been very engaged with the Russians
on nonproliferation policy, including the Russians' agreement to be part of the
Proliferation Security Initiative.
So I think that the interesting thing here is the degree to which we and the
Russians work together. Yes, there are disappointments about the current course
of some of the internal policies of Russia and I have had an opportunity to not
just raise this publicly, which I did when I was in Russia, but to have
extensive discussions with the entire range of people in the Russian
Government, including the President, about the future course of democratic
development in Russia. But do I expect in six months to have changed the course
of development in Russia? No. No, I don't. That is a -- it's a big and
complicated place and over time I think that Russia will find that democratic
development is the only way that Russia becomes what Russia wants to be.
So I know that it's hard for people to believe when I say I really am not
sitting and chalking up successes and failures, but it's just not how I see
this job. When I look at the -- have you ever looked at the Secretaries along
my wall? Jefferson. He was the first Secretary. Everybody has Jefferson on the
wall. But Marshall. I think if you looked at what Marshall faced in '46 and '47
and '48 or '49, or what -- how it looked -- I'm sorry -- how the outcomes
looked at that point in time of what Marshall put in place in '47, they might
not have looked so great; or Dean Acheson, who I think is an underrated
Secretary of State.
So what I'll try to do while I'm here is to make progress towards big strategic
goals, lay some foundation, hopefully resolve some problems and leave it to the
next Secretary of State to keep moving forward.
MS. WRIGHT: Can we switch to some of the hot spots?
SECRETARY RICE: Sure.
MS. WRIGHT: Specific hot spots. Syria is one that's --
SECRETARY RICE: But do I get to answer the other part of Glenn's question?
MS. WRIGHT: Sure.
SECRETARY RICE: You asked me about policy.
MR. KESSLER: Yeah, we -- yeah. Good.
SECRETARY RICE: I do think that what we -- that we have been able to unify our
policies with the Europeans on Iran. I think that's very important. I think
there is a new centering of the five parties around a common approach to North
Korea for the six-party talks to restart. I think we have with the appointment
of Jim Wolfensohn and General Ward engaged the Gaza withdrawal in a way that
gives international support to what is going to be obviously a very difficult
process. And probably, to my mind, the most important thing is that we had to
do this, and I think we have, on the transatlantic relationship side, moved
from analyzing how the transatlantic relationship is doing today to actually
putting the transatlantic relationship to work on behalf of some great goals.
It's pretty remarkable that you've got NATO airlifting into Darfur and you've
got the kind of support that we've been able to garner with the French, a very
strong relationship with the French on Lebanon, for instance. So I think, you
know, there's been some progress.
MR. KESSLER: Planting the seeds?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, let's see if Robin gets the reference: "Three yards and a
cloud of dust."
MS. WRIGHT: Oh.
MS. WRIGHT: Oh, that's not fair.
MR. MCCORMACK: It's all right. You're in good company.
SECRETARY RICE: It's all right. But Ohio State won a lot of championships.
MS. WRIGHT: No, I know.
"Three yards and a cloud of dust" is an American Football reference to a short gain running play, and the confusion in all the dust as to exactly where the ball get's spotted by the referee.
(or the press, in this case.)
The question of China and Russia veto in the UN is not as clear cut as some would like to make it out to be.
There are common strategic interests with the US at work in Iran's case, despite issues and problems that need resolution.
Nor has any statement come out by either country that they would in fact veto any resolution regarding the IRI, should the US and EU determine that the matter be brought to the UN security council.
It is important to have an overall perspective to properly gage the extent of various factors and interaction that will effect the outcome of any debate within the Security council framework.
Obviously the Swiss have their opinion, but I doubt if they've properly factored in all the quiet diplomacy that has been ongoing.
||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