Well, not much.
The round of talks is between Iran and the so-called P5 or permanent five members of the UN Security Coucil -- Russia, China, France, the UK, and the US -- plus an aspiring member of the Security Council who has been an elected member in the past -- Germany. It's good they're having this in Almaty and not making these diplomats hoof it to the artificially-constructed capital of Astana, which is inconvenient, I'm told.
Why don't I expect much?
I just don't think there's much new here, from either the US or Iran, and that Kazakhstan's presence doesn't add much.
To be sure, the Central Asian countries deal more effectively with Iran than the US. That is, they have their quarrels and boycotts and temporary cessation of rail projects (like Turkmenistan) and make-ups and problems, too, but nothing like the US.
Whenever the I-ranter comes to one of these countries, you never hear him spouting about the Jews, the Great Satan, the need to wipe Israel off the map, the scourge of Western civilization, etc. but he just talks normally and boringly like a Soviet bureaucrat about potash or rail ties, and then sometimes they'll have a carefully-choreographed spring ritual for Novruz, and maybe he'll give presents to the other potentates. But the rhetoric is completely dialed down.
What is Kazakhstan's value-add? Well, in some ways, maybe it's the new hegemon on Central Asia, and not Uzbekistan anymore, simply because it gets along with Russia better (has a big Russian minority), its economy is doing better, and Western oil companies get along better with it than, say, Turkmenistan.
Oh, and remember WikiLeaks?
"Kazakhstan Open to Increase Pressure on Iran".
Kazakhstan is considered some sort of "no nukes" state that will spread the non-proliferation idea to others. But I think that's to miss the unique circumstances that got Astana to part with its nukes: the Russian deal made at the collapse of the Soviet Union, that essentially, in exchange for your sovereignty, you have to give us your nukes. That was an offer they couldn't refuse. Kazakhstan's deal seems to have worked out better than, say, Belarus', but then, Kazakhstan is in the Soviet Re-Union efforts Putin has re-constructed and others aren't.
Here they are at State, fumbling around...
QUESTION: The talks start tomorrow in Almaty --
MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- for the first time in a few months. And Catherine Ashton’s office today said that they’re a serious effort to try and break stalemate and get to – get things moving. Can you tell us what the United States or the what the P5+1 is bringing to the table that might make Iran rethink?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, without getting into the details, because we need to let the negotiators do their jobs, we do have a serious, updated proposal. And we hope that the Iranian regime will make the strategic decision to come to the talks that start tomorrow in Kazakhstan prepared to discuss substance so that there can be progress in addressing the international community’s concerns. You heard Secretary Kerry talk about this this morning, and we do have a serious updated proposal, and our proposal does include reciprocal measures that encourage Iran to make concrete steps to begin addressing the international community’s concerns.
But beyond that, I think we really need to let the negotiators – our team is out there. This will begin tomorrow morning their time, and we need to let them do their work.
QUESTION: There are reports out there that among the measures on the Western side, if you want to call it that, could be a lifting sanctions on the gold and metal trades. Would that be something that you could --
MR. VENTRELL: Beyond saying that we have reciprocal measures that encourage Iran to make concrete steps, I’m really not going to get into the details. We need to let our negotiators work.
QUESTION: You said, “serious, updated,” not seriously updated, right?
MR. VENTRELL: A serious, updated proposal.
QUESTION: Okay. So that doesn’t imply that it’s been dramatically altered from previous negotiations last year?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, it’s serious --
QUESTION: And updated.
MR. VENTRELL: -- and it’s also updated.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you --
QUESTION: You were saying that --
QUESTION: And all the other ones were serious too, right?
MR. VENTRELL: We’ve always come to the table ready to engage seriously.
QUESTION: All right. So if you were to judge the difference between this negotiation and the last one, the actual offer on the table isn’t dramatically different than previously?
MR. VENTRELL: There’s nothing more that I’m going to say about the offer on the table. Let’s let our negotiators work.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: You mentioned reciprocal measures to --
MR. VENTRELL: Reciprocal measures, yeah.
QUESTION: -- to help Iran take the decision?
MR. VENTRELL: Yeah.
QUESTION: So some things will happen before Iran takes a drastic measure on UN resolutions or on stopping its nuclear program or whatever?
MR. VENTRELL: I’m just not going to get into it beyond what I said before.
QUESTION: Well, generally, do you feel optimistic going into these talks? Is the United States hopeful that there might be a change in the Iranian position?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, we want them to make the strategic decision. We’re obviously – as the Secretary said, there is time and space for diplomacy, but it’s not infinite time, and we clearly want – we’ve come with a serious proposal, and we want to – we hope that the Iranians have come with the strategic decision that they’re going to change their behavior.
QUESTION: But the fact – excuse me – but the fact that they are using these new centrifuges, dramatically trying to increase their enrichment capability and purity, doesn’t necessarily signal that they’re ready to negotiate an end to their nuclear program.
MR. VENTRELL: Well, as Toria said last week, that’s a tactic they’ve used in the past coming into talks. And let’s see what happens.
QUESTION: You think it’s a tactic, or you think they’re trying to build a nuclear – I thought you thought that the reason they were using these centrifuges is to build a nuclear weapon?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, clearly we have concerns about the Iranian program. But beyond that, all I’ll say is that that’s something that they’ve done in the past in the lead up to talks. Not necessarily one specific action or another, but that seems to be part of their strategy.
Okay.
QUESTION: Procedurally, what will happen tomorrow? Is it just one day of talks, and then everyone goes away to consider their positions? Or is there a possibility it could go to two, or --
MR. VENTRELL: The talks in the past have sometimes gone into a second day. Let’s see what happens.
Samir.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout on why Under Secretary Sherman is going to Israel?
MR. VENTRELL: I don’t have any information on that. I’ll have to look into it.
QUESTION: You guys put out a statement.
MR. VENTRELL: Oh, we have already put it out?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. VENTRELL: I’m sorry. I --
QUESTION: She’s going to brief them on the topics. (Laughter.)
MR. VENTRELL: Anything else?
QUESTION: Wait. But you put out a statement that she will go Israel --
QUESTION: Oh. Is she going to brief them?
QUESTION: -- Saudi Arabia, and --
QUESTION: Is she going to Israel and these countries to brief them on the talks?
MR. VENTRELL: Okay. Guys, I didn’t realize in this thing we put out announcing her travel that it included that detail. Let me look into it. I’ll have some more information for you tomorrow.
QUESTION: Do you have the statement?
MR. VENTRELL: I don’t have it in my book right now.
QUESTION: I’ll forward it to you.
MR. VENTRELL: Okay? Thanks.
