Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Saturday
Jul252009

Transcripts: Money to Palestine, Economic Pressure on Israel?

usa_israel_flagOn Friday, the U.S. State Department stated that $200 million, as part of a $900 million pledge from March, was on the way to the Palestinian Authority. On the same day, Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood said, "It's premature to talk about imposing economic sanctions on Israel."

So could this really be a new American economic approach to carrots-and-sticks on Israel and Palestine? There is no problem with the $900 million pledge to Palestine but there may be a problem on the 2007 Memorandum on Understanding calling for $30 billion. over 10 years, to Israel?

The Statement on Direct Budget Assistance to the Palestinian Authority:
The United States is the leading provider of bilateral economic and development aid to the Palestinians, providing an estimated $2.5 billion through USAID since 1993. The $200 million in direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that the Secretary announced July 24 represents the single largest transfer of budget support to the PA from any country since its inception. It is a part of the $900 million pledge for 2009 that the Secretary announced at the March 2 donors’ conference in Sharm al-Sheikh to address the immediate needs of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and support our longer-term approach of fostering the conditions in which a Palestinian state can be realized.

The United States is committed to improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In 2009, the United States has provided more than $72 million to date in humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza through the United Nations Consolidated Appeal (CAP) and other partner organizations.

In 2008, the U.S. was the single largest national donor to the Palestinian Authority. The U.S. exceeded its Paris Donors’ Conference pledge of $555 million (December 2007), committing more than $600 million in assistance to the PA in calendar year 2008, including:

· $239 million for activities in economic growth, democracy and governance, food assistance, education, health, and water supply to the PA.

· An additional $300 million in direct budget support to the PA for debt owed to commercial vendors and financial institutions.

· $75 million for security sector reform.

In addition, in fiscal year 2008 the U.S. provided $184.7 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) funds to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for assistance to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

Robert Wood's statement:
QUESTION: Would U.S. be ready to exert some financial pressures on Israel to convince the government to stop settlements?

MR. WOOD: Well, Sylvie, it’s premature to talk about that. What we’re trying to do, as I said, right now is to create an environment which makes it conducive for talks to go forward. And as I said, Senator Mitchell is working very hard on this. And what we all need to do in the international community is support this effort, and that means Americans, that means Arabs and Israelis, to do what they can to kind of foster a climate in which the two sides can come together and negotiate their differences peacefully so that we can get to that two-state solution.

QUESTION: But Robert --

MR. WOOD: Yes.

QUESTION: Dan Meridor has said – that the agreement we had with the Americans is binding on us and them. And he added that they should keep to the agreement. He’s calling the U.S. to keep to the agreement.

MR. WOOD: I think we’ve been very clear with regard to settlements. They need to stop, and that includes natural growth. I don’t have anything more to add to that. The Israelis are well aware of our position. And we’ll obviously continue to have talks with the Israelis on this subject and other issues, but our policy remains the same.
Friday
Jul242009

The Latest from Iran (24 July): Waiting for the Next Move

NEW Iran: How the "New Media" Tore Down the Gates of the "Mainstream"
Iran: A Clerical Front Against the Supreme Leader?
The Latest from Iran (23 July): Preparing the Front

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

AHMADINEJAD KHAMENEI
2055 GMT: Associated Press now has the Rahim-Mashai story. It quotes Presidential assistant Hashemi via the Islamic Republic News Agency: ""After the announcement of the exalted supreme leader's order, Mashai doesn't consider himself first vice president."

2030 GMT: Coincidence of the Day. When the news arrived at Enduring America, via a reader, that Vice President Rahim-Mashai had resigned, I was working on another entry. The title? "Iran: How the 'New Media' Tore Down the Gates of the 'Mainstream'".

The story arrived at EA at 1931 GMT. We verified and posted at 2000 GMT. As of now, no mainstream media outside Iran have noticed the story.

2010 GMT: From the Fars story on Rahim-Mashai resignation: The senior assistant to President Ahmadinejad, Seyed Mojtaba Hashemi Tamreh, answering a question from a Fars reporter over the Supreme Leader's letter demanding the withdrawal of Rahim-Mashai's appointment, said that the First Vice President had resigned.

2000 GMT: URGENT NEWS FLASH --- Fars News Agency is reporting that First Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai has resigned.

1840 GMT: Now the "Conservative" Students Turn Against Ahmadinejad. The "Student Movement for Justice and Equality" has announced that, if First Vice President Rahim-Mashai is not removed by Sunday, they will have a protest sit-in in Pasteur Square. They will do so on behalf of the 24 million people who voted for the President and in defense of the rule of the Constitution and Velayet-e-Faqih (clerical authority).

1825 GMT: Another Air Tragedy. An Arbatour flight from Tehran crashed when trying to land at Mashaad in eastern Iran, apparently because of malfunctioning landing gear. The death toll is currently estimated at between 20 and 30 out of the 160 passengers and crew. The plane, like the one that crashed recently just outside Tehran killing 168 people, was Russian-made.

1800 GMT: Another "Conservative" Critic of the Government. The Mayor of Tehran, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, has joined the chorus calling on the President to get rid of his First Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai. The statement is blunt: Rahim-Mashai and his wife are both "hypocrites".

1700 GMT: Fars News has released the text of the Supreme Leader's demand that President Ahmadinejad revoke the appointment of his First Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai. The two-sentence letter says that Rahim-Mashai has spoken "against the interests of the Government" and caused frustration and differences.

There are reports that IRIB state television has broadcast the text.

1500 GMT: Update on Son Killed, Father Detained. Yesterday we wrote about the case of 27-year-old Masoud Hashemzadeh, killed on 20 June by a single gunshot. Iranian authorities refused the family's request for a mourning ceremony, and security forces subsequently raided the house.

Reports have now come in that Hashemzadeh's father, detained in the raid, has been released on bail.

1430 GMT: Fighting Back. Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami used his leadership of Friday prayers in Tehran to strike at former President Rafsanjani and, possibly, the clerics challenging the legitimacy of the Government and the Supreme Leader's position.

Khatami declared, "We know of some insulting private meetings. We know about the plots against the leader but you (who hold these meetings) should know that you will not be able to stand against the people. Our people will defend the leader until the last drop of their blood."

Khatami's address should be considered in conjunction with yesterday's letter, issued by "conservative" members of the Assembly of Experts, seeking to reinforce Ayatollah Khamenei and undermine Rafsanjani. Conversely, I am now watching for the response of senior clerics, whether individually or as a bloc, who are criticising Ahmadinejad.

1000 GMT: A quick note about a new video resource. An Iranian activist has uploaded hundreds of clips on post-election events to a YouTube channel.

0715 GMT: Mowj-e-Sabz is reporting that the son of Dr Abdolhossein Ruhol Amini, one of the top consultants to Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, has died in Evin Prison. The family were informed via phone on Tuesday of the death of Mohsen Ruhol Amini, who was arrested during the 18 Tir protests on 9 July.

0650 GMT: More on "Foreign Forces". Just after I posted the entry below on BBC Persian's footage of a Hezbollah member amongst plainsclothes Iranian security forces, a reader pointed me to the video testimony of Ali Zare, a photographer for the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri who was detained amidst protests in Enqelab Square: "Somebody came to me and said, 'Please come with us.' He was Iranian but the other two persons who arrested me, they are from Lebanon."

Zare also says that, during questioning, he was threatened with a knife and with electricity. Still, he laughs about the comment of one interrogator: "Don't move. I want to cut your finger artistically because you are an artist and you need to have a nice finger."

0640 GMT: The First Wave of the Political Front? Following Mir Hossein Mousavi's statement that he will not stop protesting until all detainees are released, his advisor has reportedly said that the committee on the situation of those arrested will start work on Saturday. It is a shrewd political as well as humanitarian move: the detention issue is one that can be used without pause against the Government, uniting the various factions in the Green Movement.

0615 GMT: One of the most provocative rumours, amidst the demonstrations after the elections, was that the Iranian Government was using "foreign fighters", especially from Lebanon's Hezbollah, against the protests.

BBC Persian follows up the story, claiming that footage of a raid of Mousavi headquarters by Government plainclothes officers includes a prominent member of Lebanese Hezbollah. The broadcaster adds, however, that this is the only known case of participation by a Hezbollah member, so it is not known whether this is an isolated incident or part of a wider pattern.

0530 GMT: Most of the news this morning is catching up with a flurry of events yesterday, including the spate of clerical fatwas challenging the Government and the divisions within the Ahmadinejad camp.

Mir Hossein Mousavi's Facebook page prints an English translation of the fatwa of Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjan (pictured), issued in response to a follower's question: "Does the Supreme Leader’s confirmation return the legitimacy to the tenth administration and the president?" The answer is even blunter than we reported on Thursday:
If someone finds confidence that the mentioned individual has come to power by illegitimate means and by forgery, his confirmation by the Supreme Leader as the president and the completion of the inauguration ceremony will not legitimize him.

Ansar News offers a new version of the heated argument in the Presidential Cabinet over Ahmadinejad's insistence on the First Vice President, Esfandiari Rahim-Mashai. According to the report, when ministers asked the President to explain his decision, he left the room and put Rahim-Mashai in charge of the meeting. This in turn angered three ministers, who walked out in protest.

Opposition leaders were fairly quiet on Thursday. The most prominent statement came from Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who confirmed the detention of her brother soon after the 12 June election: “The government can fabricate as many lies as it wants to, but the people of Iran will never believe any of the allegations against my detained brother. My brother is only one amongst many other Iranian brothers and sisters who have been imprisoned – this is why I have not given his name to the media.”
Friday
Jul242009

Iran: How the "New Media" Tore Down the Gates of the "Mainstream" 

The Latest from Iran (24 July): Waiting for the Next Move

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

ANONYMOUS IRANCNNThis afternoon, the headlines have blared out about a sudden crisis within the Iranian regime: CNN "Iran's supreme leader tells Ahmadinejad to dump deputy"; Reuters "Iran supreme leader wants vice president sacked"; BBC English "Iranian leader 'orders dismissal'". All the reports accurately summarise the story, in line with our updates today, that the Supreme Leader has sent a letter to President Ahmadinejad demanding the removal of the First Vice President Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

There's only one catch: all these news outlets are reporting about an event that took place on Tuesday. From our update at 1600 GMT that day:
According to Parleman News, the Supreme Leader ordered President Ahmadinejad to remove his choice as Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, who is also the father of Ahmadinejad’s daughter-in-law: “Without any delay, the dismissal order or Mashaei’s resignation must be announced by the President.”



OK, but what's the big deal? Better late than never to the story, right?

Well, from a political point of view, the problem with the sudden appearance of the stories is that they give a simple portrayal of a sudden dispute between Ayatollah Khamenei and the President. The true story is that the letter was sent to Ahmadinejad privately but that sources with an interest in the battle quickly leaked the news to Iranian newspapers. For the rest of Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, as we've been noting on EA, there has been manoeuvring and clashing between the Supreme Leader's camp, the President's supporters, and other "conservative" factions. The significance of today is that Khamenei has raised the stakes once more by allowing the letter to go public.

None of that context, and thus analysis, is possible with the "out of the blue" narrative of the mainstream media. For example, none of the stories note that Ahmadinejad threw Khamenei's letter back at the Supreme Leader later on Tuesday, with the President declaring that he was standing by Rahim-Mashai. Whereas CNN, BBC, etc. are at the starting gate on this story, the actual dispute is already halfway around the track.

From a media point of view, the lesson seems to go beyond the stories EA has been running about the place of "new media" in this crisis and those to come. This is no longer a question of who is more reliable because the mainstream media aren't necessarily even in the competition.

In this case, the mainstream media only "found" the story when one of the news services (I suspect, though am not sure, that it was Reuters) lifted the news from Iranian state television and news agencies. Of course, none of the mainstream outlets have correspondents in Iran, given the Government's restrictions, but --- more importantly in this case --- it appears that none of them have reporters reading the Iranian press, much of which is not run by State agencies but is linked to political factions. The story on Parleman News apparently never made it on the radar of CNN, BBC, etc. (What's more, it appears that the mainstream outlets are not even keeping an eye on English-language websites covering Iran. The Parleman News report showed up quickly on the site of the National Iranian American Council.)

In contrast, "new media" like Enduring America or the "Green Brief" of Anonymous Iran, as well as bloggers like Nico Pitney at The Huffington Post, rely upon a web of sources who have sent in or analysed material from across not only the Iranian press but regional media and websites. The point about Twitter and other devices such as Google Reader, from my perspective, is that has made this web possible. Whereas the hardest-working journalist might be able to monitor only a handful of sources even a few years ago, now dozens quickly come into play. Thus the disadvantage for most of the new media  --- namely that we don't have any money for full-time staff --- becomes a marked advantage: we don't have to rely on a Reuters to put out the story before we'll write and publish.

This is no longer a matter of "to Twitter or not to Twitter". The mainstream news services are no longer the gatekeepers of the stories because they are not at the gates. The sharpest, up-to-date coverage is coming from a new network of citizen journalists, activists, and even readers who are quick to pass on important breaking stories. It is that network that has presented the post-election Iran crisis as a continuing story, with ripples and fluctuations, rather than the mainstream media's sudden ups and downs of "the Green Movement is here"; "the Green Movement is dead"; "the Green Movement is back". And, now that the story is no longer of the Government v. the Movement but of tensions and shifts within the Government and regime, it is that network that will be the daily port of call to find out what is happening and what may happen.

Because when the gates are down, the view is less, not more, restricted.
Friday
Jul242009

Iran: A Clerical Front Against the Supreme Leader?

Iran: Your Easy-to-Use Ayatollah Scorecard
The Latest from Iran (24 July): Waiting for the Next Move

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

KHAMENEI3The Arabic-language newspaper Asharq al-Awsat is reporting today, based on statements from "a prominent member of the reformist party" that there is now a co-ordinated move amongst leading clerics against not only the Government but also the authority of the Supreme Leader.

The source claims, "The Grand Ayatollahs of Iran, such as Ayatollahs Sanei, Bayat-Zanjani, Montazeri and Javadi-Amoli, as well as other high-ranking clerics such as Ayatollah Rafsanjani, Seyed Mohammad Khatami, and Mehdi Karroubi and "businessmen, intellectuals, and eminent thinkers", have started a new movement. The goal of this movement is not limited to questioning the legality of this recent election and condemning the recent violence that the government has commited upon the protesters, but aims to question the legality of Khamenei's position as the supreme leader, thereby neutralizing him."

The confidential source also asserts that Mohammad Khatami's suggestion of a referendum on the post-election legitimacy of the Government must have the tacit support of these Grand Ayatollahs. The reformist activist adds, "In recent days the political activities of these individuals has undergone a major increase."

There are numerous reasons for caution with this story. It is based on a single confidential source, making verification almost impossible. Much of the Arabic-language media is hostile to the Iranian Government. (The English-language version of Asharq al-Awsat does not carry the story, although it has written about "a fight for power within the ruling religious establishment itself".) On the substance of the story, the protest of individual clerics over the Government's conduct is far different from the more substantial step of forging an activist front, and a challenge to Ayatollah Khameini is far beyond fatwas criticising the President. And, even if the story is true, the question remains whether the group of ayatollahs named can gather more support from bodies like the Assembly of Experts, given that pro-Government clerics such as Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi and Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi can still put out statements of support for Khamenei (and denunciation of Rafsanjani) in the Assembly's name.

Still, the Grand Ayatollahs listed have come out in support of the demonstrations (Javadi-Amoli has been listed by other reliable outlets as "relatively neutral", but our own information indicates he is critical of the Government --- see "Easy-to-Use Ayatollah Scorecard"). It is not only a case of the longer that this crisis goes on, the more scope there is for higher-profile protest; recent steps such as the argument over the appointment of the First Vice President, Rahim-Mashai, and the lack of flexibility in the Supreme Leader's statements offer a foundation for further challenges.

I wouldn't go as far as Asharq al-Awsat to frame this as a challenge to the "legality" of Ayatollah Khamenei, but he may soon be facing the choice of distancing himself from the President (and accepting at least limited "reform) or of preparing himself for the biggest fight of his 20 years as Supreme Leader.
Friday
Jul242009

Transcript: Hillary Clinton Remarks on North Korea (23 July)

H CLINTONSecretary of State Hillary Clinton, attending the summit of Southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, used her press conference to focus on relations with North Korea. In general, her tough talk was mainly to hold the line. There is no prospect of a resumption of talks on Pyongyang's nuclear programme --- North Korea representatives to the summit offered a colourful insulting of Clinton as "a funny woman" (funny peculiar, I think, not funny ha-ha). So the overriding message, beyond Clinton's display to a US audience of her assertive diplomacy, was the call to other countries to support sanctions against North Korea.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. Let me start by saying we’ve had a series of very productive sessions here in Phuket, and I’ve had the opportunity for the first time to engage with the nations of ASEAN and our regional partners on issues of common concern, to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, and to lay the groundwork for even stronger partnerships as we move forward.

I’ve also had the opportunity to meet one on one with a number of my counterparts. Earlier, I met with Foreign Minister Qureshi of Pakistan, and we talked about the encouraging signs in Pakistan’s fight against violent extremists, including the return of significant numbers of refugees to Buner and Swat. There are still great challenges ahead facing Pakistan, including the ongoing threat of violent extremism and continuing economic difficulty. But I assured the foreign minister that the United States stands ready to help the Pakistani Government and people. And I also advised him that I support the steps Pakistan and India have taken to find a more productive way forward.

I want to take this opportunity to discuss the situation in North Korea and our efforts here in the ASEAN Regional Forum to promote security in Northeast Asia. Yesterday, I held consultations with our allies and partners in the Six-Party process, and this morning, there was a very good discussion with the ASEAN nations and regional partners. I was gratified by how many countries from throughout the region spoke up and expressed directly to the North Korean delegation their concerns over the provocative behavior we have seen these past few months.

Unfortunately, the North Korean delegation offered only an insistent refusal to recognize that North Korea has been on the wrong course. In their presentation today, they evinced no willingness to pursue the path of denuclearization. And that was troubling not only to the United States, but to the region and the international community. So the question is, where do we go from here?

I think it’s important to stress that the international community’s response to North Korea’s actions has been unequivocal and nearly unanimous, leading to a new consensus around a common set of principles. The United States and its allies and partners cannot accept a North Korea that tries to maintain nuclear weapons to launch ballistic missiles or to proliferate nuclear materials. And we are committed to the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Now this convergence of views reflected, as you will see later today in statements by ASEAN, and as you saw just a few weeks ago with the G-8 statement and others, produced two important Security Council actions – a presidential statement and a unanimous binding resolution.

Now these are more than expressions of condemnation. Resolution 1874, combined with the designations authorized by the UN Sanctions Committee, provides a powerful tool to curb North Korea’s unacceptable activities, and to put pressure on individuals and entities connected to the regime’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and other WMD-related programs. We believe that this resolution can be effective because it is unprecedented in scope, substance, and approach.

First, it differs from past efforts in that it is based on a global consensus, bringing to bear the combined weight of the international community, not just one nation or a small handful of nations. Second, it targets a spectrum of individuals, organizations, and institutions, not just one or two. Third, it fits into the broader framework of our approach to North Korea. It is accompanied by a message, as I reiterated this morning, that we are prepared to work with the North Koreans if they are willing to act on their previous commitments.

In short, our approach isolates North Korea, imposes meaningful pressure to force changes in its behavior, and provides an alterative path that would serve everyone’s interests. Our joint efforts to take Resolution 1874 from paper to practice are now underway. I asked Ambassador Philip Goldberg to lead an interagency team charged with implementing the sanctions, and he’s already traveled to the region to consolidate and coordinate our efforts. Russian and Chinese representatives have visited Washington to work together on these issues.

And in addition to this week’s meetings, I’ve spoken repeatedly with my counterparts in China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea about our common way forward. I intend to send Ambassador Goldberg back to the region in the near future to continue our common efforts to enforce the sanctions. And next Monday and Tuesday, as part of our strategic and economic dialogue with China, I will be holding intensive discussions with State Councilor Dai Bingguo on North Korea and the broader questions of peace and security in Asia.

In implementing 1874, we are asking our partners to help dissuade all nations from facilitating, directly or indirectly, North Korea’s attempts to enhance and proliferate its nuclear and missile technologies. We were gratified by Burma’s statement and those of many other countries announcing an intention to implement the resolution. Burma’s statement is significant because in the past, North Korea has provided Burma with materials now barred by Resolution 1874.

The bottom line is this: If North Korea intends to engage in international commerce, its vessels must conform to the terms of 1874 or find no port. Our goal in enforcing these sanctions and others imposed earlier is not to create suffering or to destabilize North Korea. Our quarrel is not with the North Korean people. In fact, it was the North Korean leadership that rejected humanitarian aid from the United States and forced us to suspend our food aid program.

So let me be clear: As we work to end the regime’s nuclear program, we remain committed to the well-being, dignity, and human rights of the people of North Korea. We will continue to work closely with other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to address human rights violations and abuses perpetuated by the regime. We will maintain our support of NGOs working to improve human rights in North Korea. And we will keep funding Korean language radio broadcasting for the same purposes, and we will soon announce a special envoy for North Korean human rights.

As we enforce sanctions, we are open to talks with North Korea, but we are not interested in half measures. We do not intend to reward the North just for returning to the table. We will not give them anything new for actions they have already agreed to take. And we have no appetite for pursuing protracted negotiations that will only lead us right back to where we have already been.

We and our partners have a more ambitious agenda for any future talks. Such talks must lead to irreversible steps by North Korea to denuclearize. This, in turn, would lead us and our partners to reciprocate in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Full normalization of relationships, a permanent peace regime, and significant energy and economic assistance are all possible in the context of full and verifiable denuclearization.

In the meantime, we will undertake the necessary defensive measures to protect our interests and our allies. North Korea’s ongoing threatening behavior does not inspire trust, nor does it permit us to sit idly by. Our partners in the region understand that a nuclear North Korea has far-reaching consequences for the security future of Northeast Asia. North Korea’s continued pursuit of its nuclear ambitions is sure to elevate tensions on the Korean Peninsula and could provoke an arms race in the region. This would serve no nation’s interests – not ours, not Japan’s, South Korea’s, China, nor Russia’s and nor, might I add, North Korea’s.

Our success in putting this resolution into action will also have implications beyond North Korea. It will demonstrate to other countries with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran’s, that we can and will impose costly penalties for those who violate international agreements and undermine global security. And it will give us a blueprint for how to manage any similar challenges that might arise in the future.

So our policy is clear. North Korea knows what it has to do: return to denuclearization talks and fulfill its commitments under the 2005 joint statement to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and return at an early date to the nonproliferation treaty and to IAEA safeguards. The path is open, and it is up to North Korea to take it.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Thanks. Madame Secretary, the North Korean representatives today spoke just behind us over there and said that the Six-Party Talks were dead; there is no way they’re coming back, and that whatever we have to offer them in terms of incentives is nothing new to them, and they won’t accept it.

The foreign ministry at the same time issued a statement with actual attacks and insults personally aimed at you. I wonder whether you think that perhaps the time has come to replace the Six-Party framework with perhaps a broader framework. You just suggested that there’s a broad consensus today here about what to do with North Korea. And since China has been reluctant to put it – amend the resolution so far, what would you want them to do when you meet with them on Monday and Tuesday in Washington?

Oh, and one more: Aren’t you exhausted?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Aren’t you?

QUESTION: I am. That’s why I’m asking.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that China has been very vigorous in working with us in support of full implementation of 1874. Just as we have, they created an interagency task force which is working with our own people. There has already been a meeting in Beijing, and I said, there will be a follow-on meeting in Washington.

The Chinese have been very supportive in our efforts to deliver a strong message to North Korea and to other nations that they expect, as we do, that the international community will enforce 1874. They played a very helpful role in the matter of the North Korean ship that was on its way to Burma.

In addition, today, the Six-Party members who were present, with the exception of North Korea, reiterated their commitment to this process and made it very clear that there is no place to go for North Korea. They have no friends left that will protect them from the international community’s efforts to move toward denuclearization. So I think it’s fair to say that not only were Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea very strong in making the points which they did this morning, but those points were echoed by so many of the ASEAN members and other regional partners.

So the message is coming out loudly and clearly to North Korea. And I don’t think we’ve seen at all the way this will eventually develop. I think we’re just still at the beginning of determining how they’re going to respond.

QUESTION: What framework (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The framework is the Six-Party Talks.

MR. KELLY: Next question (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what evidence do you have of Burma’s cooperation in enforcing the UN Security Council resolution? How did your talks with Burmese officials go last night? And most importantly, how do you reconcile your appreciation and gratitude that they are promising to enforce that with your two days of public, strong comments about concerns of military and even nuclear cooperation between Burma and North Korea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve expressed that very clearly and forcefully, but I do think there is a positive direction that we’ve seen with Burma, both in the already existing cooperation they showed with respect to the North Korean ship, in their statements to us and others that they intend to do their part to enforce 1874. Now, obviously, we have to see that unfold, but that’s never happened before, and we’re very encouraged by that. At the same time, we know that there has been cooperation between North Korea and Burma in the past, and we are going to be vigilant to make sure that it doesn’t occur in the future.

I was not part of any talks. Others in our Administration were, and we made it very clear, both privately and publicly, that there are expectations on our part that Aung Sun Suu Kyi be released unconditionally, that there begin a process of release of political prisoners, that the election scheduled for next year be open and fair and transparent and credible. And that view was echoed by many people in the room. It was not just a U.S. view. It was very widely and, I must say, heart – it was really expressed from the heart by so many people.

So we hope that there is going to be recognition on the part of the Burmese leadership that they have more to gain by joining the international community and by effectively taking care of their people and putting Burma on the path to democracy. We don’t expect to see a change overnight, but we’re – it’s better to have those positive statements than the negative ones. So we think that gives us at least something to work with.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. And I spoke to foreign ministers in the area, asking their help in speaking to their Burmese counterpart. And they did so, and whether or not it was a proximate cause, shortly after, the ship turned around.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from (inaudible) in Asia. I just wanted to clarify, when you said U.S. will take any defensive measurements, what exactly that mean? Is it going to be like U.S. ready to start a war with North Korea at any time? And how ASEAN, especially in Myanmar, is going to pick on that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. But I wanted to make very clear that the United States does not seek any kind of offensive action against North Korea. We have said that over and over again. The North Koreans said in a meeting today that they’ve been subjected to nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula aimed at them. That hasn’t happened for decades. So I think they are living in a historical time period that doesn’t reflect today’s realities.

We are very open to a positive relation with North Korea on the condition that they denuclearize. But if they refuse to do so, as they have in the last months, and refuse to follow the obligations they themselves signed up to in 2005 and -06, then our allies in South Korea and Japan and other countries in the region begin to worry about what North Korea’s intentions are. And we want to make clear that the United States will continue to work for the defense of allies like Japan and South Korea. And that’s unfortunately our obligation, one that we will be serious in fulfilling. But it’s not directed in any offensive manner against North Korea.

We also wish to avoid an arms race in Northeast Asia. If the North Koreans are going to continue to test nuclear weapons and their missiles, then other countries are going to start saying, well, we don’t know what they’re going to do, we’d better start taking care of ourselves and doing that and to have that capacity.

We think that would be a terrible mistake. So we’re trying to make clear that we will protect and defend our allies, but we still hope that there is an opportunity to work with North Korea toward denuclearization.

MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
Page 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35 Next 5 Entries »