continued--
Egypt
In February 2005, Rice abruptly postponed a visit to Egypt, reflecting displeasure at the jailing of a leading opposition figure, Ayman Nour. Nour, head of the liberal Tomorrow Party, was reported to have been brutally interrogated.[75] Nour was freed by Egyptian authorities in March 2005, and began a campaign for the Egyptian presidency.[76]
In June 2005, Rice addressed democracy in the Middle East at the American University in Cairo. She stated: ?There are those who say that democracy leads to chaos, or conflict, or terror. In fact, the opposite is true. ? Ladies and Gentlemen: Across the Middle East today, millions of citizens are voicing their aspirations for liberty and for democracy ?demanding freedom for themselves and democracy for their countries. To these courageous men and women, I say today: All free nations will stand with you as you secure the blessings of your own liberty?[77]
Nour finished second in Egypt's presidential race, held in 2005. In December 2005, Egypt imprisoned Nour on forgery charges that were disputed by human-rights groups. In February 2006, Rice visited Hosni Mubarak yet never spoke Nour's name publicly. When asked about him at a news conference, she referred to his situation as one of Egypt's setbacks. Days later, Mubarak told a government newspaper that Rice "didn't bring up difficult issues or ask to change anything."[78] Mohammed Habib, an Egyptian Brotherhood official, stated: ?Hamas's victory made the U.S. take a contrary position to promoting democracy in Egypt and favor a hereditary succession.?[79]
In 2005, Egypt acknowledged that the US had transferred 60 detainees to Egypt as part of the war on terror. In 2007, Amnesty International reported that Egypt had become an international center for interrogation and torture for other countries.[80]
The second largest recipient of U.S. Foreign Aid is Egypt, with $1.8 billion scheduled for fiscal 2006.[81] Edward Walker, former ambassador to Egypt noted "Aid offers an easy way out for Egypt to avoid reform. They use the money to support antiquated programs and to resist reforms."[82]
Rice shakes hands with former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in a July 2005 visit to Israel.Rice has worked in the Middle East, including Israel, the Palestinian territories, and its immediate neighbors, especially Lebanon. Rice has supported Israel, defended Israel's right to protect itself, and promoted the "roadmap for peace," which includes the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. On August 29, 2006, she stated that the Middle East "should be a Middle East in which there is a Palestinian state in which Palestinians can have their own aspirations met, one that is not corrupt, one that is democratic, [and] one in which there is only one authority."[83]
Saudi Arabia
In May 2005, Rice indicated that many Mid East states would ?have to answer their people's call for genuine reform. ? She said ?[a]nd even Saudi Arabia has held multiple elections.?[84] In April 2007, the New York Times reported that ?more than half the decisions made by the councils have not been carried out. Most of the others have been in support of the central government.?[85]
In November 2005, the State Department issued a report critical of restrictions on religion in Saudi Arabia, noting among other things that all citizens were required to be Muslims. Rice has not sanctioned Saudi Arabia, saying she wants ?additional time for a continuation of discussions leading to progress on important religious freedom issues.?[86] Criticisms in the report include a 2002 incident in which Saudi religious police stopped students from leaving a burning building because they were not wearing mandated Islamic dress; 15 schoolgirls perished.[87]
Iran
Though the U.S. does not hold formal diplomatic relations with Iran, Rice has been quite entrenched in issues pertaining to Iran, especially in regards to its democratic progress and humanitarian record, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threatening statements toward Israel, and its pursuit of nuclear technology.
Rice criticized Iran's human rights record and democratic principles. On February 3, 2005, Rice said the Iranian regime's treatment of its people is "something to be loathed." She also stated: "I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for either the Iranian people or for the region."[88]
In October 2005, Ahmadinejad stated that "Israel must be wiped off the map,"[89] to which Rice responded: "When the president of one country says that another country should be wiped off the face of the map, in violation of all of the norms of the United Nations, where they sit together as members, it has to be taken seriously." Rice then went on to name Iran as "probably the world's most important state sponsor of terrorism," whose people live "without freedom and without the prospect of freedom because an unelected few are denying them that."[90]
In February 2006, Rice addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and called for funding to aid democratic reform in Iran through television and radio broadcasting, through helping pay for Iranians to study in America, and through supporting pro-democracy groups within the country.[91] Senator Boxer expressed concern that the administration appeared surprised when radical Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president of Iran, when Iranian affiliated groups won a majority in Iraq, and when the militant Hamas won a majority. Rice said that the Bush administration should not be blamed for trouble areas and said that the burden was on Hamas to change.[92]
In recent years, Iran has also begun to pursue nuclear technology through uranium enrichment, which has been one of the most pertinent issues that Rice has dealt with during her tenure at the State Department. Iran maintains that its nuclear program only seeks to develop the capacity for peaceful civilian nuclear power generation.[93] Rice, along with other nations, has contended that Iran's record of sponsoring terrorism and threatening the safety of other nations, along with its defiance of its treaty obligations, of the United Nations Security Council, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency, have not proven Iran to be responsible enough to conduct uranium enrichment without outside supervision. Under Rice, the official State Department consensus on the matter is that "[t]he United States believes the Iranian people should enjoy the benefits of a truly peaceful program to use nuclear reactors to generate electric power ... [and] support the Iranian people?s rights to develop nuclear energy peacefully, with proper international safeguards."[94]
On September 9, 2005, Rice declared the refusal of Iran to halt its nuclear program unacceptable and called on Russia, China and India to join in threatening United Nations sanctions, and on June 2, 2006, a committee of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, announced their plan to convince Iran to cease its nuclear activities. Rice represented the United States in the negotiation of the diplomatic initiative.[95]
On February 14, 2006, Iran restarted its uranium enrichment program despite calls from the international community not to do so. Iran's traditional foe, Iraq, offered no resistance because Iraq's leadership had been transformed to Shiite control. Rice responded by asserting that "[t]here is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment." Speaking on behalf of the United States and the European Union, Rice said they were "gravely concerned by Iran's long history of hiding sensitive nuclear activities from the IAEA, in violation of its obligations, its refusal to cooperate with the IAEA's investigation, its rejection of diplomatic initiatives offered by the EU and Russia and now its dangerous defiance of the entire international community."[96] In May of 2006, Rice came up with a new approach for dealing with Iran: direct negotiation between Iran and the United States (alongside their European allies) and the possibility for "a package of economic incentives and some kind of longer-term relationship with the United States" in exchange for the suspension of uranium enrichment within Iran.[97] Iran responded by saying that it will "never give up its legitimate rights, so the American preconditions are just unacceptable."[97]
On July 12, 2006, Rice, along with the foreign ministers of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, announced that, as a result of Iran's refusal to suspend their uranium enrichment program, they had agreed to seek a UN Security Council Resolution against Iran under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.[98] Article 41 gives such a resolution the power to interrupt or sever Iran's economic, transportational, telecommunicative, and diplomatic relations.[99]
Though the United States and Iran disagree on key issues, the State Department has offered aid to Iran on many different occasions.[citation needed] After a deadly earthquake struck the Iranian province of Lorestan in March of 2005, Rice offered humanitarian aid to the country during a visit to England. Rice said her "thoughts and prayers" were with the victims.[100]
Rice said on April 30, 2007 that she does not rule out talks with her Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.[101] On May 3, 2007, Rice "exchanged pleasantries" with Mottaki.[102]
Most recently, a letter alluding to Iran which was addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from the Head of Government of Puerto Rico, An?bal Acevedo Vil?, accused the United States of having deceived the United Nations and the international community in 1953, when it succeeded in having the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico recognized as a provisional decolonized status subject to continued monitoring; Acevedo-Vila claimed that it was ironic that this is the position taken by the Government of Iran and that the Governor of Puerto Rico may soon feel forced to publicly accept Iran's claims regarding the U.S. government's alleged-hypocritical position with regards to Puerto Rico's "colonial status".[103][104]
Iraq
In January 2000, Rice addressed Iraq in an article for Foreign Affairs magazine. ?As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him."[105]
In August 2003, Rice encouraged rejection of "condescending voices", who say that Africans and Middle Easterners are not interested in freedom and are "culturally just not ready for freedom or they just aren't ready for freedom's responsibility." She continued: "We've heard that [blacks aren't ready] argument before, and we, more than any, as a people, should be ready to reject it. The view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham, and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad and in the rest of the Middle East."[106]
In October 2003, Rice was named to run the Iraq Stabilization Group, to ?quell violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and to speed the reconstruction of both countries.?[107]
In August 2003, Rice compared experiences in Iraq to post-War Germany stating that ?the road we traveled was very difficult. 1945 through 1947 was an especially challenging period. Germany was not immediately stable or prosperous. SS officers ? called 'werewolves' ? engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them ? much like today's Baathist and Fedayeen remnants." Daniel Benjamin responded, stating that in ?practice, Werwolf amounted to next to nothing.?[108]
Rice meets with former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Jaafari in June 2005.In June 2005, Rice stated: ?And at each phase, more Iraqis are involved in this process. Sunni and Shia and Kurds and other Iraqis are concentrating politically on building a united Iraq. That is why I think the insurgency must think that its last days are eventually going to come because the Iraqis are turning to their politics to serve their future.[109]
On September 30, 2005, Rice declared that the Iraq War was "set out to help the people of the Middle East transform their societies."[51]
In 2005, when asked how long U.S. troops will stay in Iraq, Rice said, "I don't want to speculate. I do know that we are making progress with what the Iraqis themselves are capable of doing. And as they are able to do certain tasks, as they are able to hold their own territory, they will not need us to do that." Rice further added, "I think that even to try and speculate on how many years from now there will be a certain number of American forces is not appropriate."[110] Rice stated: ?I have no doubt that as the Iraqi security forces get better ? and they are getting better and are holding territory, and they are doing the things with minimal help ? we are going to be able to bring down the level of our forces.? "I have no doubt that that's going to happen in a reasonable time frame."[111]
Rice lauded Iraq's voter turnout and peaceful transition into a sovereign government in 2005, and compared the reconstruction of Iraq to that of Europe after World War II. Rice wrote:
"Iraq ... in the face of a horrific insurgency has held historic elections, drafted and ratified a new national charter, and will go to the polls again in coming days to elect a new constitutional government. At this time last year, such unprecedented progress seemed impossible. One day it will all seem to have been inevitable. This is the nature of extraordinary times, which former Secretary of State Dean Acheson understood well and described perfectly in his memoirs. 'The significance of events,' he wrote, 'was shrouded in ambiguity. We groped after interpretations of them, sometimes reversed lines of action based on earlier views, and hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious.' When Acheson left office in 1953, he could not know the fate of the policies he helped to create. He certainly could never have predicted that nearly four decades later, war between Europe's major powers would be unthinkable, or that America and the world would be harvesting the fruits of his good decisions and managing the collapse of communism. But because leaders such as Acheson steered American statecraft with our principles when precedents for action were lacking, because they dealt with their world as it was but never believed they were powerless to change it for the better, the promise of democratic peace is now a reality in all of Europe and in much of Asia."[112]
In 2006, Rice compared U.S. commitment in Iraq to the Civil War, indicating ?I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold." BET.com commented ?If you?re against the war in Iraq, you might as well consider yourself pro-slavery, according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.?[113]
On January 11, 2007, Rice addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the President?s Iraq Strategy. Rice asserted that insurgents were mainly responsible for American casualties; Senator Chuck Hagel stated, Madame Secretary, your intelligence and mine is a lot different.[114] Senator Benjamin Cardin asked Rice troop increases were adequate given the state of the Iraqi conflict. Rice responded ?if you were trying to quell a civil war, you would need much larger forces? but that the augmentation was appropriate for the mission.[115]
In January 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate was issued; key judgements included: ?The Intelligence Community judges that the term civil war does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term civil war accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.?[116]
In February 2007, it was reported that Rice encouraged lawmakers to support President Bush's troop increase by saying it would be a mistake to micromanage the Iraq war.[117]
In December 2007, Rice made her eighth visit as Secretary of State to Iraq, making an unscheduled stop in Kirkuk before proceeding to Baghdad, where she called on Iraqi leaders to urgently implement a national reconciliation roadmap.[118]
On January 15, 2008, Rice took a detour to Baghdad from a Middle East trip with President Bush, where she congratulated Iraqi leaders. She said the process of reconciliation was coming along "quite remarkably." At a news conference, she welcomed a decision to let Saddam Hussein supporters return to government jobs, saying: "A democratic and unified Iraq is here to stay. And while it may have challenges, it has passed through some very difficult times and is now moving forward in a way that is promising, yet still fragile." Rice's visit came as Iraq's defense minister told the New York Times he envisioned U.S. security help until 2018 or later.[119]
North Korea
Rice, in a July, 2005 press conference, announces that North Korea has agreed to return to the Six Party Talks.Rice has focused international attention on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Beginning in 2003, a series of talks featuring China, North Korea, South Korea, the United States, Russia, and Japan, dubbed "The Six Party talks," have been aimed at denuclearization.
On February 10, 2005, North Korea withdrew from the talks after President Bush's 2005 State of the Union Address, in which he stated that North Korea's nuclear program must be dismantled and pledged to go on the offensive against tyranny in the world.[120] North Korea complained that the United States harbored a "hostile policy" toward their country and stated that they were permanently withdrawing from the Six-party talks.[121] In the following months, there was uncertainty over whether Rice could convince Kim Jong-Il to re-enter the negotiations, but in July 2005, North Korea announced that they had been convinced to return to the discussion.
After the first phase of the 5th round of talks, which took place November 9?11, 2005, North Korea suspended its participations in the negotiations because the United States would not unfreeze some of its financial assets in a Macau bank.[122] Rice has consistently called for the regime to return to the talks. On May 1, 2006, Rice stated that North Korea needs "to return expeditiously to the talks without preconditions, to dismantle its nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner, and to cease all illicit and proliferation activities."[123]
On June 19, 2006, matters with North Korea were further complicated when it finished fueling an intercontinental ballistic missile that the regime said it would test fire. North Korea had previously self-imposed a missile-firing moratorium, but threatened to launch the missile anyway. Rice stated that "it would be a very serious matter and indeed a provocative act" for the North to follow through on the act, and that if the North decided to do so, "it would be taken with utmost seriousness."[124]
On July 5, 2006, North Korea test-fired seven rockets, including the infamous Taepodong-2,[125] sparking international backlash. Rice, in a press conference held on the same day, stated that she couldn't even begin to try to judge what motivated the North Koreans to act in such a way. Rice felt that North Korea had "miscalculated that the international community would remain united [in their opposition to the missile test-firing]" and "whatever they thought they were doing, they've gotten a very strong reaction from the international community." Following the missile test, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting and strongly condemned the actions, though no official sanctions resulted at the time.[126]
Then, in early October 2006, North Korea claimed that it was preparing to test a nuclear explosive device.[127] While the rumors could not be substantiated by satellite surveillance beforehand, the test was actually carried out on October 9, 2006 with only twenty minutes warning.[128] The nuclear detonation test was, purportedly, in response to the United States' decision to not hold direct bilateral talks with the regime, as well as America's increasing pressure on the government, which North Korea claims is evidence that the United States wishes to attack or invade their country. Rice disputes North Korea's claim that the nuclear test was committed to deter America from invading, saying, "We shouldn't even allow them such an excuse. ... It's just not the case. ... [T]here is no intention to invade or attack them. [T]hey have that guarantee."[129]
Rice meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Busan, South Korea to discuss North Korea.Rice has also repeatedly offered direct negotiations with North Korea in the context of the Six Party Talks, but she has held her ground in her decision not to hold bilateral talks with the dictatorship, stating, "We've been through bilateral talks with the North Koreans in the 1994 agreed framework. It didn't hold. ... The North Koreans cheated [by] pursuing another path to a nuclear weapon, the so-called 'highly enriched uranium' path. ... f [Kim Jong-Il] wants a bilateral deal, it's because he doesn't want to face the pressure of other states [nearer to him] that have leverage. It's not because he wants a bilateral deal with the United States. He doesn't want to face the leverage of China or South Korea or others."[129]
Following the nuclear test, Rice made numerous calls to foreign leaders to consolidate support for taking punitive action against North Korea. Rice was able to draw condemnations from even some of North Korea's closest defenders, including China, who admitted the test was "flagrant" and "brazen."[130] On the same day as the nuclear detonation, the United Nations Security Council convened another emergency meeting, where a clear consensus was apparent in favor of sanctions against the regime, with even China saying that it supported punishing the regime,[131] changing its position from July, 2006, when it vetoed any sanctions on North Korea following its missile tests. On October 14, 2006, Rice worked with allies to pass a UN Security Council resolution against North Korea that demanded North Korea destroy all of its nuclear weapons, imposed a ban on tanks, warships, combat aircraft and missiles in the country, imposed an embargo on some luxury items that government officials enjoy while the general populace starves, froze some of the country's weapons-related financial assets, and allows for inspections of North Korean cargo.[132] Rice called the resolution "the toughest sanctions on North Korea that have ever been imposed" and hailed the unanimous passage of the sanctions, which even North Korean-friendly China supported.[133]
But Nobel Laureate and cold-war nuclear strategist Thomas Schelling criticized Rice for organizing a punitive response, when she should have encouraged Taiwan, South Korea and Japan to reaffirm the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.[134]
While Rice consistently affirms that the United States will not preemptively invade, attack, or topple the North Korean regime, she emphatically assured Japan during an October 18, 2006, visit that "the United States has the will and the capability to meet the full range ? and I underscore full range ? of its deterrent and security commitments to Japan," which many have interpreted to mean that America would not hesitate to use its military might should North Korea attack one of America's allies.[135]
Russia
Rice speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin during an April 2005 trip to Russia.In April 2005, Rice went to Russia to meet President Vladimir Putin. On the plane trip over, she related comments critical of Russia's democratic progress to reporters. "Trends have not been positive on the democratic side," said Rice. "There have been some setbacks, but I do still think there is a considerable amount of individual freedom in Russia, which is important."[136] In person Rice told Putin: "We see Russia as a partner in solving regional issues, like the Balkans or the Middle East."
In late 2005, there was a dispute between Russia and Ukraine after Russia decided to quadruple the price of energy being provided to the Ukrainian market[137] (making the price equal to that of the current market price). Rice subsequently criticised Russia's actions, accusing Russia of using its gas wealth as a political weapon. She called on Russia to behave as a responsible energy supplier and stated that the act did not show the international community "that it is now prepared to act ? as an energy supplier in a responsible way." Rice insisted, "When you say you want to be a part of the international economy and you want to be a responsible actor in the international economy, then you play by its rules ? I think that kind of behavior is going to continue to draw comment about the distance between Russian behavior and something like this and what would be expected of a responsible member of the G8."[138]
Though there was some question over whether or not Rice could convince Russia not to block the United States' move to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council in early 2006 (because of Russia's economic and diplomatic ties to Iran), Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov eventually called Rice to confirm that Russia had agreed to allow the move.[139]
In February 2006, Rice described the United States' relationship with Russia as "very good," saying, "In general, I think we have very good relations with Russia. Probably the best relations that have been there for quite some time. We cooperate in the war on terror. We cooperate in a number of areas. Obviously we have some differences, too. But on the Iranian situation, we've actually had very good cooperation with the Russians."
In February 2007, Putin criticized U.S. plans to expand European missile defenses. ?Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race?? Putin also characterized U.S. military action as illegitimate, indicating ?They bring us to the abyss of one conflict after another. 'Political solutions are becoming impossible.[140] Rice soon responded ?"Everybody understands that with a growing Iranian missile threat, which is quite pronounced, that there need to be ways to deal with that problem and that we are talking about long lead times to be able to have a defensive counter to offensive-missile threats?[141] In April 2007, Rice indicated that Russia?s concerns over the missile defense system were ?ludicrous;? Putin responded by suggesting an end to an arms control treaty.[142]
Africa
Rice has worked to support and expand relations with Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich African nation. In April 2006, Rice welcomed dictator-President Obiang to a press conference and stated, ?You are a good friend and we welcome you.? The welcome was extended 35 days after the State Department issued a report noting instances of ?torture, arbitrary arrest, judicial corruption, child labor, forced labor, and ?severe restrictions? on freedoms of speech and press.?[143]
Venezuela
Rice discusses American-Venezuelan relations at the CARICOM Ministerials in March 2006.The Bush administration has been particularly critical of the leadership of Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez, and brands the country an "outlaw country in the drug war."[144] During Rice's confirmation hearings, she commented on Ch?vez: "We are very concerned about a democratically elected leader who governs in an illiberal way, and some of the steps he's taken against the media, against the opposition, I think are really very deeply troubling."
Venezuela actively campaigned for a non-permanent seat in the 2006 United Nations Security Council election. Rice, however, directed a global lobbying campaign by U.S. envoys in foreign capitals, contending that Venezuela did not belong on the Security Council.[145] On 1 November, after 47 rounds of deadlocked voting, Panama was selected as a compromise.[146
