. . .
QUESTION: Any indication of how the meeting in London went with the P-5+1?
MR. CASEY: Funny you should ask that. And I apologize for being a little late getting down here with you, but I did actually get a chance right before I came down here to talk to Under Secretary Nick Burns, who has just concluded several hours of meetings in London with his P-5+1 counterparts.
And they did have a good discussion on the subject of a next resolution. There was a discussion of what elements should go in that, but there was no resolution to it. There was no resolution of the resolution question. There was no decision reached on text of a new resolution. They've agreed to meet again, probably in about two weeks, again, in Europe. We'll let you know the location and timing for that as soon as possible.
I think what Nick has told me, he stressed in the meeting as our main points, is that we want to see things move more quickly. We think that the diplomacy on this issue needs to be made stronger and more effective. And we frankly think that unless there is a very definitive and very positive result in the reports that we get from Mr. Solana and Mr. ElBaradei, then we really need to move forward expeditiously with a new resolution.
Nick did note to me that he told a couple of your colleagues in London that he was disappointed in China and in Russia as well and that we are looking for them in the coming weeks to make more effort to be able to allow us all to move forward with what we have agreed to. Now, that doesn't mean that there is a change in the basic consensus among the P-5+1. Everyone has agreed that we need to stay together and that we need to follow the terms that were agreed to by ministers some time ago and that have set us on the course for producing the several resolutions that have already occurred on this subject.
But again, we think that, at this point, we really need to be making more progress towards that resolution and that we need to make this diplomacy much more rigorous. And we're hoping to see a -- more effort taken on the part of particularly the Chinese and the Russians as well.
QUESTION: Does Nick's disappointment on Russia and China, did it stem from any initial objections they made at the meeting?
MR. CASEY: Well, I think, again, we've been in these discussions for some time. And while the Russians and Chinese remain firm in their agreement with the rest of the P-5+1 about the basic outlines of our policy and on the specifics of our policy, that we're following a two-track approach, that in the absence of Iranian cooperation we need to move forward with an additional sanctions resolution, they do not seem to have, as I understand it, quite the sense of urgency that we and the other members do about moving forward. And we believe it's appropriate at this point for us to really again strengthen the diplomatic efforts and to really begin to work in a little bit more earnestness on producing a resolution.
QUESTION: Tom, a last one?
MR. CASEY: Yeah.
QUESTION: When you say that they don't seem to have a -- quite a sense of urgency, it was agreed in New York that they wait for the November report and then come up with some kind of agreement.
MR. CASEY: Yeah, and certainly we understand that. I'm not trying to say that they are -- they have broken with the agreements; quite the contrary. But I do think that there's a lot of work that can be done, so that when you have those reports issued from Mr. ElBaradei, when we have a reaction as well from Mr. Solana as a result of his conversations, that you're in a position to move forward in an expeditious manner.
And we certainly want to make sure that all the preparations are made so that that can happen because I don't think anyone right now is out there anticipating that Iraq is -- Iraq, excuse me -- that Iran is going to become in compliance with all its international obligations, including, of course, the fundamental one that's included in the Security Council resolutions to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
QUESTION: Is there any date set for the next meeting between Mr. Solana and the new Iranian chief nuclear negotiator?
MR. CASEY: You know, I don't know if there's been a date set for that. Obviously, he had a meeting with him as well as with his predecessor, since that transition had just occurred. I know there were discussions about additional conversations, but I don't actually know, Arshad, whether they've agreed yet on a date for those conversations to take place.
QUESTION: I asked partly because I wondered if you have any concerns that that may slide. The Iranians sometimes agree to show up and then don't show up.
MR. CASEY: Well, you know, look, I think we'll have to see how that goes. I think we have confidence that Mr. Solana can determine for himself whether there are legitimate reasons why a meeting might not be able to move forward or whether it's simply some kind of delaying tactic.
Let me also just note, too, as long we are on that subject, people had asked me yesterday about Nick's meetings in Vienna with Director General ElBaradei as well as with the OSCE. And if you'll indulge me, let me just give you a quick readout on those so that my colleagues in the Press Office won't have to do it for you later.
QUESTION: Cordial and -- (laughter).
MR. CASEY: Well, anyway. Cordial, cordial. Hmm, I'll have to think about that one.
Anyway, Nick did meet yesterday with IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and they did have a good discussion of particularly the Iranian issue. One of the things that I think was clear coming out of that is that both the Director General and Nick agreed that it was important that Iran comply with all the requirements put in front of it. That certainly includes the agreements that it's made with the IAEA to answer some of those important questions about their past activities. But it also includes very clearly to him as well as to Nick the obligations that Iran has under the Security Council resolutions to comply fully with those requirements, including the requirement that it suspend uranium enrichment and join in with the P-5+1 in negotiations on this subject.
And before I move back to that one, let me also note that while he was there he did have meetings at the OSCE. He met with Christian Strohal, the Chairman of the OSCE's election monitoring body, ODIHR. And he got a good --
QUESTION: What's that?
MR. CASEY: O-D-I-H-R, ODIHR. And did get a full brief from them on their activities. And specifically, they talked a bit about the efforts that the OSCE is undertaking in terms of election monitoring in Russia. And we -- Nick again expressed his support and our support for the OSCE's efforts and the organization's efforts in election monitoring generally, and specifically in the case of Russia, and noted again what you heard the Secretary and others say, our disappointment that Russia has taken steps to limit the ability of election monitors to do their valuable work in that country. And we certainly hope that they'll reconsider that position.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Going back to the London meeting just for a second.
MR. CASEY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Did Under Secretary Burns get the sense from anyone, particularly the Russians or the Chinese, that the decision -- God, was it last week -- that the IRGC, the al-Qods Force designations by the United States had hurt the international effort?
MR. CASEY: No, not -- certainly not in anything that he conveyed to me. Again, the basic view, I think, that he came away with from this is that while everyone is still on the same page and very much intent on moving forward, the speed with which the Chinese and Russians wish to do so is not as fast as we'd like.
QUESTION: But as far as you know -- as far as you know, they didn't say, hey, what you guys did does not really --
MR. CASEY: No, and in terms of the readout I got, Matt, he didn't even tell me that the subject came up. I'm sure it probably did in the course of the three hours they met, but it certainly wasn't anything that, as I understand it, was objected to or represented any kind of obstacle to the conversation.
. . .