Secretary Clinton After P-5+1 Meeting

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
September 24, 2009
Secretary Clinton After P-5+1 Meeting

Yesterday, Secretary Clinton spoke about Burma and the P-5+1 meeting at the UN.

Secretary Clinton gave remarks on two meetings she attended yesterday afternoon at the United Nations in New York. The first was called by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about policies and approaches toward Burma. Secretary Clinton said:

"A number of countries were represented, and I reported that our policy process, which has been underway for some time now, is almost complete, and I gave a preview. I had announced this review back in February, and the major messages are as follows. First, the basic objectives are not changed. We want credible, democratic reform; a government that respond to the needs of the Burmese people; immediate, unconditional release of political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi; serious dialogue with the opposition and minority ethnic groups. We believe that sanctions remain important as part of our policy, but by themselves, they have not produced the results that had been hoped for on behalf of the people of Burma.

Engagement versus sanctions is a false choice, in our opinion. So going forward, we will be employing both of those tools, pursuing our same goals. And to help achieve democratic reform, we will be engaging directly with Burmese authorities. This is a policy that has broad consensus across our government, and there will be more to report as we go forward."

The second meeting included the P-5+1 members. Secretary Clinton said:

"Secondly, most of you were here when Foreign Minister Miliband read out the statement that has been negotiated among the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia, and of course, the European Union as represented by the High Representative Javier Solana. Let me just make four points about this statement, which I hope you will get a copy of and peruse, because I think it’s a very powerful statement that expresses these specific agreements.

First, the group remains united in pressing Iran to comply with its international obligations on its nuclear program, and it has serious concerns about Iran’s lack of compliance to date, particularly on the unanswered questions about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

Secondly, the countries remain united in support of a dual track of engagement and pressure as a means of persuading Iran to comply with its obligations.

Thirdly, the ministers expressed a clear expectation that Iran should come to the talks on October 1st, ready to engage in serious and substantive discussions with a sense of urgency and a review of the practical steps that need to be taken on the nuclear issue, and that we will decide next steps on the basis of the meeting’s outcome.

And finally, we are committed to this dual-track policy. No one should underestimate our intention to follow through on either or both of these tracks. It depends on Iran’s response. And some of you have heard me say this numerous times – this process is now firmly up to Iran. It is Iran’s choice as to how they choose to proceed. And we are looking to the meeting on October 1st to get a clear indication of their intentions."



United States
September 24, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Iran's reluctance to allow intense and prolonged investigation of its nuclear facilities is almost understandable if one considers what happened after Saddam Hussein agreed to a similar inspection regime for Iraq.

So what guarantees would we offer that the U.N. inspection program would not degenerate into a shouting match over which buildings can be inspected, and result in an invasion if we decide we want to see more and Iran rejects that idea?

Viewing the subject from the other side, it appears that Western nations insist on maintaining a monopoly on nuclear energy.

How can other nations agree to nuclear inspections yet protect their own trade secrets and national security?

How could Iran develop new methods and processes of Uranium enrichment for reactor fuel that it might want to sell to other fuel-producing nations, including ours?

Did IAEA inspectors sign a non-disclosure agreement, and if so, how did their inspection results for Saddam Hussein's Iraq get leaked to the news media, without recourse?

Is the U.N. willing to put up a money bond into escrow with a neutral third party to compensate a nation for damages resulting from IAEA disclosure of trade secrets and new technology?

If not, why should any nation volunteer for inspection of its nuclear facilities just because we say so?

Texas, USA
September 24, 2009

David in Texas writes:

Secretary Clinton continues to respresent the U.S. at important and productive sessions. We very much appreciate her hard work, dedication and clear leadership on issues crital to international peace and prosperity.

Jenny M.
Washington, USA
September 24, 2009

Jenny M. in Washington writes:

I don't see what we can truly do to help Burma. It's just a nightmare there. They should be prospering and yet their people are starving.

Tennessee, USA
September 24, 2009

Joe in Tennessee writes:

What does Iran have to do with Burma?

THIS: Wall Street Journal - -3 hours ago -- Burma's ruling junta is killing ethnic minorities, preparing a sham election and possibly cooperating with North Korea on a nuclear program. ...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejads position is simply "If the US has them, Pakistan has them and Russia has them, etc, why not us." I understand; but, you have professionals that deal with profiling personas as his and any 101 psychology student can tell you: When you say the Iran is not mature enough or stable enough for the responsibility load in any manner it will be personalized. You need to find a better dialogue to deal with him so it may well be to the worlds benefit to personalize in a more terminal manner. There seems no grey area with this persona and the people and businessmen of Iran want to open their markets.

Everyone seems to be doing a lot of talking thus far on all issues from hunger to democracy to economics to climate change; but, the only action in both dollars and deeds seems to stemming from the U.S. as Obama stated: We need everyone to be involved.

Where is the collective from the European Union at now? It was not simply about an alternate currency to shore up all the failing countries at the time to counter lever the U.S.

South Korea
September 26, 2009

Palgye in South Korea writes:


i think,

The problem which is political knows thinks as ever problem of the Islam inside where the religion and the race and the petroleum occur problems.

Iran is confluence quickly to the international community effort but, actuality thinks that actuality and still the location where is political is weak.

Is a conceited thought, but now thinks that will be able to cause the problem where the small real income is big.

"And, who and is the anyone not to make know protects the duty which holds and does thinks Iran and the thing where a better result will come out. Like mind of warm mother.(Indicates a mistake but when breaking down, with courage infuses a hope)"

just, my stupid think.


Latest Stories