Press Briefing by Department Spokesperson Sean McCormack on a new UNSC Sanctions Resolution

March 21, 2007

. . .

QUESTION: Do you have any update at all on the visa process for President Ahmadi-Nejad and the traveling road show?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. No real update since we last spoke about this. Now you understand that the original tranche of visa applications have been approved. Those are ready for issue. The second tranche of visa applications are still being processed at this point and -- you know, we expect that that process won't take too much longer. All of that said, we are going to make sure that this process, the issuance of the visas for the traveling party, is -- in no way hinders the ability of President Ahmadi-Nejad to appear before the Security Council should he choose to do so, given Iran's right of rebuttal, in that they will be subject to a UN resolution. So we're not going to be a roadblock to that.

QUESTION: All right. And as far as you know, there's no problem with the 33, somewhat large number of aircrew visas for that?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's -- they are now -- they -- our folks are now in the process of looking at those applications and processing them. And we'll let you know at the end of --

QUESTION: Tomorrow -- perspective or something --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, at the end of all this, we will try to fill you in on more of the details of it as we have them.

QUESTION: And reduce more substantially how? How are things looking on the resolution? Do you have anything more to say than what Nick Burns said this morning?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't see exactly what Nick said, but what I understand is the case, the Security Council is going to start discussions in the Council this afternoon, I think about 3 o'clock, on the draft resolution. And those discussions will continue for some time. I don't think there's been a date set yet for a vote, but I would expect that to be in a matter of days.

QUESTION: He -- I think that he went into some -- a little bit more specifics than people have, at least so far on the record going into -- talking about naming --

MR. MCCORMACK: Naming?

QUESTION: A bank, the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Bank Sepah?

QUESTION: Yeah, and --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's in the draft that's been circulated.

QUESTION: Right. But you have nothing to add to --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, there's -- this is soon to be a formal public debate in the Security Council and the draft resolution and its annexes will be out in the public. I think that they have been reported on pretty extensively before now, but it does include designations, for example of Bank Sepah and entities directly related to Bank Sepah. It also has designations of certain individuals in the IRGC who may have some connection to missile-related activities. It also talks about a ban on export of -- transfer -- a ban on transfer of arms from Iran to other countries. And then it also has some cautionary language urging countries to take a look at what sort of arms sales they might conduct with Iran, but that's not a binding statement.

QUESTION: And what about export credits?

MR. MCCORMACK: Export credits -- it is -- I don't have the language immediately in front of me, but it -- what it does essentially is urge states to take a look at export credits and whether or not in light of Iran's behavior and defiance of the international system that there should be a business as usual attitude toward export credits. I would note that some states already have taken a look at this issue and by themselves taken steps to reduce the levels of export credits; for example, Germany has reduced, I think by about 40 percent, the level of export credits for Iran. And other states I know are taking a look at that issue as well.

Nina.

QUESTION: Can you just tell me how important it is to the U.S. for the resolution to be adopted unanimously and how -- you know, to what extent are you paying attention to South Africa and how important is it to you that everyone is exactly on the same page and is this -- could this compromise the end result?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are working towards three goals here: getting a good, strong resolution that is appropriate for the moment; we are looking to do this on a timely basis; and we are looking to get as many countries voting for this resolution as we possibly can. We'd like to hit our marks on all three -- in all three of those areas and we are going to work with every single country on the Council to try to talk them through the resolution as it stands, why we think all the elements are important. We're going to talk through them any concerns they may have. We're going to talk through with them any potential amendments they might have to the resolution. And of course we are open to changes in the resolution language. What we want to do is preserve the core elements of that resolution which get at Iranian behavior and attempt to change that cost-benefit analysis that the Iranian regime is currently making about defying the international community. We want to raise the costs to the Iranian regime for continued defiance of the international system.

So we are going to make every effort to bring onboard every single member of the Council. I can't tell you at the end of the day who's going to raise their hands yes or no or abstain on the resolution. I feel pretty safe in predicting that we are going to get a good, strong resolution with a significant number, if not all members, of the Security Council voting for it. But at the end of the day, I can't tell you.

It is important to note, too, in this discussion about imposing other sanctions imposed on Iran because of their behavior, there still is open to the Iranian regime the pathway of negotiations. So don't let anybody try to obscure the issue and say that the international system is trying to impose such and such on Iran and the Iranian people. There is another pathway that's open and the Iranian regime knows it. They know what the terms of those negotiations might be. It is a forum in which they can raise any issue that they want to, which is something that they've been asking for for quite some time. And we've come quite a long way, just the United States, in turning around 27 years of policy to try to go the extra mile and reach out the -- extend the hand of negotiation to the Iranian regime. They have to take a -- they have to take certain steps. It's pretty easy. They know what they have to do. Thus far, they haven't done it.

QUESTION: What's -- at the end of the day, what's most important to you? Getting the thing passed as soon as possible or getting everyone -- getting consensus?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, the -- as I said, you want to try to achieve your goals on all -- in all three aspects. The actual content and substance of the resolution, very, very important. Getting it done in a timely manner, we think that is important as well. And bringing along as many countries as we possibly can. In the past, we've had 15-0 vote counts on this. We have a different Council now. The membership has turned over and so you have different countries coming on to the Council now with different points of view and they don't have the experience of having been through those previous debates and those previous discussions.

So we'll see. We're sparing no effort in trying to consult and reach out diplomatically to these countries and to try to take into account their concerns. But there also comes a point where you're not going to -- you're not going to sacrifice what are core elements agreed upon by the P-5 for other considerations.

QUESTION: Sean, Russia in particular -- Lavrov's been talking about, you know, the South African amendments need attentive consideration. Do you think this is going to be a real stumbling block of the Russians again of paying far too much attention to what the South Africans want?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the Russians have already agreed to the resolution that's on the table right now, so you know, I think what he is saying is essentially the same thing that I am. Of course we're going to be attentive to their concerns and we are going to talk to them about it. We are going to listen to them. We hope that they listen to us. But at the end of the day, it would be a real mistake to compromise on the core of this resolution.

. . .