Video: Hillary Clinton to Senate Foreign Relations "Joining Law of the Sea Convention Urgent!"

 

The Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty Doc. 103-39): The U.S. National Security and Strategic Imperatives for Ratification

Testimony

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Washington, DC

May 23, 2012

---

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar. After both of your opening comments, I think you’ve made the case both eloquently and persuasively for anyone who is willing to look at the facts. I am well aware that this treaty does have determined opposition, limited but nevertheless quite vociferous. And it’s unfortunate because it’s opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty. So I think you’ll hear, from both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey as well as myself, further statements and information that really reinforces the very strong points that both of you have made. We believe that it is imperative to act now. No country is better served by this convention than the United States. As the world’s foremost maritime power, we benefit from the convention’s favorable freedom of navigation provisions. As the country with the world’s second longest coastline, we benefit from its provisions on offshore natural resources. As a country with an exceptionally large area of seafloor, we benefit from the ability to extend our continental shelf, and the oil and gas rights on that shelf. As a global trading power, we benefit from the mobility that the convention accords to all commercial ships. And as the only country under this treaty that was given a permanent seat on the group that will make decisions about deep seabed mining, we will be in a unique position to promote our interests.
Now, the many benefits of this convention have attracted a wide-ranging coalition of supporters. Obviously, as we heard from both Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, Republican and Democratic presidents have supported U.S. accession; military leaders who see the benefits for our national security; American businesses, including, strongly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, see the economic benefits. It has the support of every affected industry, including shipping, fisheries, telecommunications and energy, environmental groups as well. We have a coalition of environmental, conservation, business, industry, and security groups all in support of this convention.
And I would ask that my longer written statement along with the letters that I have received in support of the treaty be entered into the record.
CHAIRMAN KERRY: Without objection.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, one could argue, that 20 years ago, 10 years ago, maybe even five years ago, joining the convention was important but not urgent. That is no longer the case today. Four new developments make our participation a matter of utmost security and economic urgency.
First, for years, American oil and gas companies were not technologically ready to take advantage of the convention’s provisions regarding the extended U.S. continental shelf. Now they are. The convention allows countries to claim sovereignty over their continental shelf far out into the ocean, beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. The relevant area for the United States is probably more than 1.5 times the size of Texas. In fact, we believe it could be considerably larger.
U.S. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing, and able to explore this area. But they have made it clear to us that they need the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could make the substantial investments, and, we believe, create many jobs in doing so needed to extract these far-offshore resources. If we were a party to the convention, we would gain international recognition of our sovereign rights, including by using the convention’s procedures, and therefore be able to give our oil and gas companies this legal certainty. Staying outside the convention, we simply cannot.
The second development concerns deep seabed mining, which takes place in that part of the ocean floor that is beyond any country’s jurisdiction. Now for years, technological challenges meant that deep seabed mining was only theoretical; today’s advances make it very real. But it’s also very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine site, it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals that it will recover. The convention offers the only effective mechanism for gaining this title. But only a party to the convention can use this mechanism on behalf of its companies.
So as long as the United States is outside the convention, our companies are left with two bad choices – either take their deep sea mining business to another country or give up on the idea. Meanwhile, as you heard from Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, China, Russia, and many other countries are already securing their licenses under the convention to begin mining for valuable metals and rare earth elements. And as you know, rare earth elements are essential for manufacturing high-tech products like cell phones and flat screen televisions. They are currently in tight supply and produced almost exclusively by China. So while we are challenging China’s export restrictions on these critical materials, we also need American companies to develop other sources. But as it stands today, they will only do that if they have the secure rights that can only be provided under this convention. If we expect to be able to manage our own energy future and our need for rare earth minerals, we must be a party to the Law of the Sea Convention.
The third development that is now urgent is the emerging opportunities in the Arctic. As the area gets warmer, it is opening up to new activities such as fishing, oil and gas exploration, shipping, and tourism. This convention provides the international framework to deal with these new opportunities. We are the only Arctic nation outside the convention. Russia and the other Arctic states are advancing their continental shelf claims in the Arctic while we are on the outside looking in. As a party to the convention, we would have a much stronger basis to assert our interests throughout the entire Arctic region.
The fourth development is that the convention’s bodies are now up and running. The body that makes recommendations regarding countries’ continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles is actively considering submissions from over 40 countries without the participation of a U.S. commissioner. The body addressing deep seabed mining is now drawing up the rules to govern the extraction of minerals of great interest to the United States and American industry. It simply should not be acceptable to us that the United States will be absent from either of those discussions.

Our negotiators obtained a permanent U.S. seat on the key decision-making body for deep seabed mining. I know of no other international body that accords one country and one country alone – us – a permanent seat on its decision making body. But until we join, that reserved seat remains empty.

So those are the stakes for our economy. And you will hear from Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey that our security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. We have much more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world’s oceans than any other country. U.S. Armed Forces rely on the navigational rights and freedoms reflected in the convention for worldwide access to get to combat areas, sustain our forces during conflict, and return home safely all without permission from other countries.

Now as a non-party to the convention, we rely – we have to rely – on what is called customary international law as a legal basis for invoking and enforcing these norms. But in no other situation at which – in which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the operation of the United States military. So far we’ve been fortunate, but our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries’ behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the South China Sea.

I’m sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the South China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests, particularly freedom of navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention’s rules and a greater ability to enforce them.

Now, I know a number of you have heard arguments opposing the convention. And let me just address those head-on. Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But in fact, it’s exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources, including our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and vast continental shelf areas extending off our coasts and at least 600 miles off Alaska. I know that some are concerned that the treaty’s provisions for binding dispute settlement would impinge on our sovereignty. We are no stranger to similar provisions, including in the World Trade Organization which has allowed us to bring trade cases; many of them currently pending against abusers around the world. As with the WTO, the U.S. has much more to gain than lose from this proposition by being able to hold others accountable under clear and transparent rules.

Some critics invoke the concern we would be submitting to mandatory technology transfer and cite President Reagan’s other initial objections to the treaty. Those concerns might have been relevant decades ago, but today they are not. In 1994, negotiators made modifications specifically to address each of President Reagan’s objections, including mandatory technology transfer, which is why President Reagan’s own Secretary of State, George Shultz, has since written we should join the convention in light of those modifications having been made.

Now some continue to assert we do not need to join the convention for U.S. companies to drill beyond 200 miles or to engage in deep seabed mining. That’s not what the companies say. So I find it quite ironic, in fact somewhat bewildering that a group, an organization, an individual would make a claim that is refuted by every major company in every major sector of the economy who stands to benefit from this treaty. Under current circumstances, they are very clear. They will not take on the cost and risk these activities under uncertain legal frameworks. They need the indisputable, internationally recognized rights available under the treaty. So please, listen to these companies, not to those who have other reasons or claims that are not based on the facts. These companies are refuting the critics who say, “Go ahead, you’ll be fine.” But they’re not the ones – the critics – being asked to invest tens of millions of dollars without the legal certainty that comes with joining the convention.

Now some mischaracterize the payments for the benefit of resource rights beyond 200 miles as quote “a UN tax” – and this is my personal favorite of the arguments against the treaty – that will be used to support state sponsors of terrorism. Honestly, I don’t know where these people make these things up, but anyway the convention does not contain or authorize any such taxes. Any royalty fee does not go to the United Nations; it goes into a fund for distribution to parties of the convention. And we, were we actually in the convention, would have a permanent veto power over how the funds are distributed. And we could prevent them from going anywhere we did not want them to go. I just want to underscore – this is simple arithmetic. If we don’t join the convention, our companies will miss out on opportunities to explore vast areas of continental shelf and deep seabed. If we do join the convention, we unlock economic opportunities worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars, for a small percentage royalty a few years down the line.

I’ve also heard we should not join this convention because quote “it’s a UN treaty.” And of course that means the black helicopters are on their way. Well, the fact that a treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, which is after all a convenient gathering place for the countries of the world, has not stopped us from joining agreements that are in our interests. We are a party to dozens of agreements negotiated under the UN auspices on everything from counter-terrorism and law enforcement to health, commerce, and aviation. And we often pay fees under those treaties recognizing the benefits we get dwarf those minimal fees.

And on the national security front, some argue we would be handing power over the U.S. Navy to an international body. Patently untrue, obviously absolutely contrary to any history or law governing our navy. None of us would be sitting here if there were even a chance that you could make the most absurd argument that could possibly lead to that conclusion. Disputes concerning U.S. military activities are clearly excluded from dispute settlement under the convention.

And neither is it true that the convention would prohibit intelligence activities. The intelligence community has once again in 2012, as it did in 2007, as it did in 2003, confirmed that is absolutely not true.
So whatever arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no longer exist and truly cannot be even taken with a straight face. The benefits of joining have always been significant, but today the costs of not joining are increasing. So much is at stake, and I therefore urge the Committee to listen to the experts, listen to our businesses, listen to the Chamber of Commerce, listen to our military, and please give advice and consent to this treaty before the end of this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Video: Hillary Clinton at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing

National Security & Foreign Policy Priorities in the FY 2013 International Affairs Budget

Testimony

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Washington, DC

February 28, 2012

---

Thank you very much, and I greatly appreciate Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the committee to be here once again to have this opportunity. And I want thank you for the support that this committee has given to the State Department and USAID over the last three quite consequential and unpredictable years. And I especially am grateful for the very kind words about our diplomats and development experts who are serving around the world, some in very difficult circumstances. You have seen the world transforming right before your eyes, from Arab revolutions to the rise of new economic powers to a more dispersed but still dangerous al-Qaida and terrorist network. And in this time, only the United States of America has the reach, resources, and relationships to anchor a more peaceful and prosperous world. The State Department and USAID budget we discuss today is a proven investment in our national and economic security, but it is also something more. It is a down payment on America’s leadership.
When I took this job, I saw a world that needed America, but also one that questioned our focus and our staying power. So we have worked together to put American leadership on a firm foundation for the decades ahead. We have ended one war and are winding down another. We have cemented our place as a Pacific power. We have also maintained our alliance across the Atlantic. We have elevated the role of economics within our diplomacy, and we have reached beyond governments to engage directly with people with a special focus on women and girls.
We are updating diplomacy and development for the 21^st century and finding ways to work smarter and more efficiently. And after the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, we created two new bureaus, taking the work we were already doing on counterterrorism and combining it with other assets within the State Department to create a much more focused effort on counterterrorism and on energy. And I really commend Senator Lugar, because it was his idea. It was his talking with me when I was visiting with him prior to my confirmation that made me determined that we would actually accomplish this. And we have reorganized our assets into a bureau focused on fragile states.
Now, like many Americans in these tough economic times, we have certainly made difficult tradeoffs and painful cuts. We have requested 18 percent less for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia, preserving our most essential programs and using the savings for more urgent needs elsewhere. We are scaling back construction of our embassies and consulates, improving procurement to save money, and taking steps across the board to lower costs.
Our request of 51.6 billion represents an increase of less than the rate of inflation and just over 1 percent of the federal budget, and this is coming at the very same time that our responsibilities are multiplying around the world.
Today, I want briefly to highlight five priorities.
First, our request allows us to sustain our vital national security missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and reflects the temporary extraordinary costs of operating on the front lines. As President Obama has said, the tide of war is receding, but as troops come home, thankfully, civilians remain to carry out the critical missions of diplomacy and development.
In Iraq, civilians are now in the lead, helping that country emerge as a stable, sovereign, democratic power. This increases our civilian budget, but State and USAID are asking for only one-tenth of the $48 billion the U.S. Government spent on Iraq as recently as 2011. The 2013 U.S. Government-wide request for Iraq, including defense spending, is now $40 billion less than it was just two years ago. So we are doing what must be done to try to normalize our relationship at a far lower cost than what we have been expending.
Over time, despite the tragic violence of this past week, we expect to see similar government-wide savings in Afghanistan. This year’s request will support the ongoing transition, helping Afghans take responsibility for their own security and their own future, and ensuring that this country is never again a safe haven for terrorists.
We remain committed to working on issues of joint interest with Pakistan, including counterterrorism, economic stability, and regional cooperation.
Second, in the Asia Pacific, the Administration is making an unprecedented effort to build a strong network of relationships and institutions, because we believe, in the century ahead, no region will be more consequential to our economic and security future. As we tighten our belts around the world, we are investing the diplomatic attention necessary to do more with less. In Asia, we are pursuing what I call forward-deployed diplomacy – strengthening our alliances, launching new strategic dialogues and economic initiatives, creating and joining important multilateral institutions, even pursuing a possible opening with Burma – all of which underscores America will remain a Pacific power.
Third, we are focused on the wave of change sweeping the Arab world. As the nation transforms, so must our engagement. Alongside our bilateral and security support, we are proposing a $770 million Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund. This fund will support credible proposals validated by rigorous analysis and by Congress from countries that make a meaningful commitment to democratic change, effective institutions, and broad-based economic growth. In an unpredictable time, it lets us respond to unanticipated needs in a way that reflects both our agility and our leadership in the region.
This budget request would also allow us to help the Syrian people survive a brutal assault and plan for a future without Assad. It continues our assistance for civil society and Arab partners in Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and elsewhere. It provides a record level of support for our ally Israel and it makes possible our diplomacy at the UN and around the world, which has now put in place, with your help, the toughest sanctions that I think any country has ever faced against Iran.
The fourth priority is what I call economic statecraft; in particular, how we use diplomacy and development to create American jobs. We’ve more than 1,000 State Department economic officers working to help American businesses connect to new markets and consumers. We are pushing back every day against corruption, red tape, favoritism, distorted currencies, and intellectual property theft.
Our investment in development also helps us create the trading partners of the future. We have worked closely on three trade agreements that we believe will create tens of thousands of jobs in America, and we hope to work with Congress to ensure that as Russia enters the WTO, foreign competitors do not have an advantage over American businesses.
And finally, we are elevating development alongside diplomacy and defense. Poverty, disease, hunger, climate change can destabilize societies and sow the seeds for future conflicts. We think we need to make strategic investments today in order that we can meet our traditional foreign policy goals in the future. Through the Global Health Initiative, through our Feed the Future Initiative, we are consolidating programs, increasing our partners’ capacity, shifting responsibilities to host countries, and making an impact in areas of health and hunger that will be a real credit to our country going forward.
And as we transform development, we really have to deliver measurable results. Our long-term objective must be to empower people to create and seize their own futures.
These five priorities are each crucial to American leadership, and they rely on the work of some of the most capable, hardest working, and bravest people I’ve ever met: the men and women of State and USAID. Working with them is one of the greatest honors I’ve had in public life.
With so much on the line, from the Arab world to the Asia Pacific, we simply cannot pull back. Investments in American leadership did not cause our fiscal challenges, and retreating from the world will not solve them.
Let me end on a personal note. American leadership means a great deal to me personally. It is my job everywhere I go. And after three years, 95 countries, and over 700,000 miles, I know very well what it means to land in a plane that says the United States of America on the side. People look to us to protect our allies; stand by our principles; serve as an honest broker in making peace; to fight hunger, poverty, and disease; to stand up to bullies and tyrants everywhere. American leadership is not just respected. It is required. And it takes more than just resolve. It takes resources.
This country is an unparalleled force for good in the world, and we all want to make sure it stays that way. So I would urge you to work with us to make this investment in strong American leadership and the more peaceful and prosperous future that I believe will result. Thank you.

CSPAN Airings: Secretary Clinton's SFRC Testimony and Lawrence Eagleburger Memorial

In case you missed Secretary Clinton's testimony at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, CSPAN lists it as re-aring at 12:30 p.m. EDT today. The Lawrence Eagelburger Memorial, at which Secretary Clinton spoke on Tuesday will air at 10:30 p.m. EDT this evening.

Slideshow: Hillary Clinton Rocking the Ruffles Today

Lately, the lovely Secretary of State has been rocking some serious ruffles in chiffon. I love this light, spring-into-summer look on her. It is breezy, feminine, a little whimsical, and very flirty. It stands as a sweet alternative to the rather plain and uniform shells she has worn under her jackets as a rule. Very pretty look, Mme. Secretary! Keep the ruffles coming!

Video: Secretary Clinton's Opening Remarks Before The Senate Foreign Relations Committee

FY2012 State and USAID Budget Request

Testimony

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Opening Remarks Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Washington, DC

March 2, 2011

---

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you, and I want to begin by thanking you, Chairman Kerry and you, Ranking Member Lugar, for not just those two eloquent statements of our priorities and our needs as a nation, but for your service, your lifetime of leadership on issues that really do matter to America’s security, interest, and values. It’s an honor to appear before you.

I recently took part in emergency meetings in Geneva to discuss the events unfolding in Libya, and I’d like to begin by offering a brief update. As the Chairman said, we have joined the Libyan people in demanding that Colonel Qadhafi must go, now, without further violence and bloodshed. And we are working to translate the world’s outrage into action and results.

Marathon diplomacy at the United Nations and with our allies has yielded quick, aggressive steps to pressure and isolate Libya’s leaders. We welcome yesterday’s decision to suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council, as I had urged a day earlier. USAID is focused on Libya’s food and medical supplies, and is dispatching two expert humanitarian teams to help those fleeing the violence into Tunisia and Egypt. Our combatant commands are positioning assets to prepare to support these critical civilian missions. And we are taking no option off the table so long as the Libyan Government continues to turn its guns on its own people.

As both the Chairman and the Ranking Member have noted, the region is changing, and a strong, strategic American response will be essential. In the years ahead, for example, Libya could become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war or fall into chaos. The stakes are high. And this is an unfolding example of using the combined assets of smart power, diplomacy, development, and defense to protect our interests and advance our values.

This integrated approach is not just how we must respond to the crisis of the moment. It is the most effective and most cost-effective way to sustain and advance our security. And it is only possible with a budget that supports all the tools in our national security arsenal, which is what I am here today to discuss.

I understand and agree that the American people are rightly and justifiably concerned about our national debt, about our economy, and about unemployment. But I think also, Americans understand the need for responsible investments in our security for the future to make us safer, to keep markets open, to ensure that we remain the leader in the world.

Just two years after President Obama and I first asked you to renew our investment in development and diplomacy, we are already seeing tangible returns. In Iraq, almost 100,000 troops have come home, and civilians are poised to keep the peace. In Afghanistan, integrated military and civilian surges have helped set the stage for our diplomatic surge to support Afghan-led reconciliation that can end the conflict and put al-Qaida on the run. We have imposed the toughest sanctions yet to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

We have reengaged as a leader in the Asia Pacific region and in our own hemisphere. We have signed trade deals to promote American jobs and nuclear weapons treaties to protect our people. We worked with northern and southern Sudanese to achieve a peaceful referendum and prevent a return to civil war. And we are working to open up political systems, economies, and societies at this remarkable moment in history in the Middle East, and to support orderly, peaceful, irreversible democratic transitions.

Our progress is significant, but our work is ongoing. These missions are vital to our national security, and now would be absolutely the wrong time to pull back.

The FY 2012 budget we discuss today will allow us to keep pressing ahead. It is a lean budget for lean times. I launched the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the so-called QDDR, to help us maximize the impact of every dollar we spend. We scrubbed this budget. We made painful but responsible cuts. For example, we cut economic assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia by 15 percent. We cut development assistance to over 20 countries by more than half.

This year, for the first time, our request is divided into two parts. Our core budget request is $47 billion. That supports programs and partnerships in every country but North Korea. It is essentially flat from 2010 levels. The second part of our request funds the extraordinary, temporary portion of our war effort. This is the same way the Pentagon’s request is funded, in a separate overseas contingency operations account known as OCO. Instead of covering our war expenses through supplemental appropriations, we are now taking a more transparent approach that reflects our fully integrated civilian-military effort on the ground. Our share of the President’s $126 billion request for these exceptional wartime costs in frontline states is $8.7 billion.

Let me walk you through a few of the key investments. First, this budget funds vital civilian missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qaida is under pressure as never before. Alongside our military offensive, we are engaged in a major civilian effort to help build up the governments, economies, and civil societies of both countries, and therefore help undercut the insurgency. These two surges, the military and civilian, now set the stage for the third surge, a diplomatic push in support of an Afghan process to split the Taliban from al-Qaida, bring the conflict to an end, and help stabilize the entire region. Our military commanders are emphatic. They cannot succeed without a strong civilian partner. Retreating from our civilian surge in Afghanistan with our troops still in the field would be a grave mistake.

Equally important is our assistance to Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation with strong ties and interests in Afghanistan. This is a complicated and often frustrating relationship, as the Chairman knows very well. And we’re grateful to him for his constant attention and very helpful interventions. We are working to deepen that partnership, and keep it focused on addressing Pakistan’s political and economic challenges, as well as our shared threats.

After so much sacrifice in Iraq, we have a chance to help the Iraqi people build a stable democratic country in the heart of the Middle East. What we are hoping will happen in Egypt and in Libya and in Tunisia is happening in Iraq. And it is imperative that as our troops come home, our civilians take the lead, helping Iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully, training police, and inculcating the habits of the heart that are at the root of any kind of democratic society. Shifting responsibilities from soldiers to civilians actually saves taxpayers a great deal of money. The military’s total OCO request worldwide will drop by $45 billion from 2010, while our costs in State and USAID will increase by less than $4 billion for Iraq. Every business owner I know would gladly invest $4 to save $45.

Second, even as our civilians help bring today’s wars to a close, we are working to prevent tomorrow’s. This budget devotes over $4 billion in sustaining a strong U.S. presence in volatile places where our security and interests are at stake. In Yemen, it provides security, development, and humanitarian assistance in the midst of the headquarters for al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula. It focuses on those same goals in Somalia. It has helped the northern and southern Sudanese chart a peaceful future, and we need to stay on that path. It helps Haiti rebuild. And it proposes a new global security contingency fund that would pool resources and expertise with the Defense Department. We are trying to tear down the walls and the bureaucratic jurisdictional obstacles that too often prevent the United States Government from being as efficient as it can be by bringing all of our government assets together.

This budget also strengthens allies and partners. It trains Mexican police to take on violent cartels and secure our southern border. It provides nearly $3.1 billion for Israel, and supports Jordan and the Palestinians. It does help Egypt and Tunisia, and it supports security assistance to over 130 nations.

Now over the years, these security funds have created valuable ties with foreign militaries. We saw that in real time when it came to Egypt. Because the United States military has trained a generation of Egyptian officers, because that experience built relationships between American military leaders and Egyptian military leaders, we saw the Egyptian military refuse to fire on their own people. And there were many, many conversations going on between people who weren’t picking up the phone for the first time but who had trained together, lived together, worked together. Across the board, we are trying to ensure that all who share the benefits of our spending also share the burdens of addressing common challenges.

Third, we are making targeted investments in human security. We have focused on hunger. And thank you so much, Senator Lugar, for your constant, constant pointing out that this is in America’s interests as well as the world’s interests. We have invested in preventing and ameliorating the effects of disease, climate change, humanitarian emergencies. These challenges not only threaten the security of individuals, and increasingly in our world, individuals here at home, but they are the seeds of future conflict. If we want to lighten the burden on future generations, we have to make the investments that will make our world more secure.

Our largest investment is in global health programs, including those launched and led by President George W. Bush. These programs stabilize entire societies that have been devastated by HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases. They save the lives of mothers and children and they halt the spread of deadly diseases. Global food prices are approaching an all-time high. Three years ago, this led to protests and riots in dozens of countries. Food security is a cornerstone of global stability. We are helping farmers to grow more food, drive economic growth, and turn aid recipients into trading partners. And I look forward to working closely with the Congress as we try to really sharpen this program.

Now climate change, we know, threatens food security, human security, and national security. Our budget helps to build resilience against droughts, floods, and other weather disasters. It promotes clean energy and it preserves tropical forests. It gives leverage to us to persuade China, India, and other nations to do their part as well.

Fourth, we are committed to making our foreign policy a force for domestic economic renewal. We are working aggressively to promote sustained economic growth, level playing fields, open markets, and create jobs here at home. And we are fighting for companies large and small. For example, our economic officers in the Philippines helped Jarden Zinc win a $21 million raw materials contract that will create and preserve jobs throughout Senator Corker’s home state of Tennessee.

Fifth and finally, this budget funds the people and platforms that make possible everything I have described. It allows us to sustain diplomatic relations with 190 countries. It funds political officers who are working to diffuse crises and promote our values, development officers spreading opportunity and stability, economic officers who wake up every day thinking about how to put Americans back to work.

Several of you have asked the Department about the safety of your constituents in the Middle East. Well, this budget also helps fund the consular officers who evacuated over 2,600 Americans from Egypt and Libya, and nearly 17,000 from Haiti. They issued 14 million passports last year and served as our first line of defense against would-be terrorists seeking visas to enter our country.

I’d like to say just a few words about our funding for the rest of 2011. As I have told Speaker Boehner and Chairman Rogers and many others, the 16 percent cut for State and USAID that passed the House last month would be devastating to our national security. It would force us to scale back dramatically on critical missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, and General Petraeus have all emphasized to the Congress time and again, we need a fully engaged and fully funded national security team, including State and USAID.

Now there have always been moments of temptation in our country to resist obligations beyond our borders, but each time we have shrunk from global leadership, events have summoned us back to reality. We saved money in the short term when we walked away from Afghanistan after the Cold War, but those savings came at an unspeakable cost, one we are still paying 10 years later in money and lives.

Generations of Americans have grown up successful and safe because we chose to lead the world in tackling its greatest challenges. We’re the ones who invested the resources to build up democratic allies and vibrant trading partners in every region. We did not shy away from defending our values, promoting our interests, and seizing the opportunities of each new era.

I believe, as I have traveled around the world – and I am now the most traveled Secretary of State in history – the world has never been in greater need of the qualities that distinguish us as Americans – our openness and innovation, our determination, our devotion to universal values. Everywhere I travel, I see people looking to us for leadership. This is a source of strength, a point of pride, and a great opportunity for the American people. But it is an achievement, not a birthright. It requires resolve and it requires resources. So I look forward to working closely together with all of you to do what is necessary to keep our country safe and maintain American leadership in a very fast-changing world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretaries Clinton and Gates on Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approval of the New START Treaty

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approval of the New START Treaty

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Joint Statement With Secretary of Defense Gates

Washington, DC

September 16, 2010

---

Following is the text of a joint statement by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approval of the New START Treaty.

Begin text:

We applaud the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s strong bipartisan vote today to approve the New START Treaty.
If ratified, this agreement will advance some of our most critical national security objectives. It will provide stability and predictability between the world’s two leading nuclear powers, reducing the number of nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia to a level not seen since the 1950’s while retaining a safe and effective deterrent. It will restore crucial inspection and verification mechanisms that ceased when the original START agreement expired last year, allowing U.S. inspectors back inside Russian nuclear weapons silos. And it will help keep nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue regimes.

The Committee’s vote today continues a decades-long tradition of senators from both parties providing advice and consent on arms control accords. We especially appreciate the leadership of Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Lugar in undertaking a thorough review of the treaty and developing the resolution of ratification that led to today’s successful vote.

Like previous arms control treaties, the New START Treaty deserves broad bipartisan support and prompt ratification by the full Senate. We urge Senators to act quickly and approve this Treaty.

Slideshow: Hillary Clinton's Morning on Capitol Hill

As you know, today, accompanied by Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mullen, Secretary Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to testify about the New START Treaty crafted under her auspices with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Earlier, in fact while the hearings were still in session, I posted a few photos that came up fast from the hearing room. I am somewhat amazed at the alacrity with which the photos came up as well as with how quickly the State Department managed to get the video and her remarks posted. I am accustomed to waiting impatiently.

The video is in a prior post and well worth watching. I realize that this slideshow is half redundant since I did include the photos posted earlier, but I do not think visitors here are the kind of people who think there exists such a thing as "too many pictures of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

She looked like a Spring flower among the suits, and they all looked delighted to be with her, and most importantly, very appreciative of her hard work in getting this treaty written. Her defense, explanations, and presentation were clear as crystal, as usual. In short, she was awesome while looking absolutely beautiful, which is nothing new for Hillary Clinton. Enjoy the show!

Video & Text: Secretary Clinton Before Senate Foreign Relations

Opening Remarks Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 24, 2010

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee. It’s a real pleasure to be back here in the Senate to be with all of you and participate in this important hearing. When I was last here to discuss our budget, I emphasized my commitment to elevating diplomacy and development as core pillars of American power. And since then, I have been heartened by the bipartisan support of this committee and the rest of Congress. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member and all of the members for your bipartisan support in moving State Department nominees; 114 were confirmed in 2009. We are now looking to get up and get nominated for your consideration the leadership team at AID and we are very grateful for the expeditious support and we hope they can move quickly when they hit the floor. But I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me also take this opportunity to express appreciation on behalf of the men and women who work every day at the State Department, at USAID, here in our country and around the world, to put our foreign policy into action.

The budget we are presenting today is designed to protect America and Americans and to advance our interests and values. Our fiscal year 2011 request for the State Department and USAID totals $52.8 billion. That is a $4.9 billion increase over 2010. But as the Chairman has pointed out, of that increase, $3.6 billion will go to supporting efforts in “frontline states” – Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Other funding will grow by $1.3 billion, which is a 2.7 percent increase that will help address global challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State Department and USAID are equipped with the right people and resources.

Over the past six weeks in Haiti, we have been reminded yet again of the importance of American leadership. I’m very proud of what our country has done, and we will continue to work with our Haitian and international partners to address ongoing suffering and transition from relief to recovery.

But I am also acutely aware that this is a time of great economic strain for many of our fellow Americans. As a former senator, I know what this means for the people you represent every single day. So for every dollar we spend, as Senator Lugar said, we have to show results. That is why this budget must support programs vital to our national security, our national interests, and our leadership in the world, while guarding against waste, duplication, irrelevancy. And I believe that we have achieved those objectives in this budget.

Now, these figures are more than numbers on a page. They tell the story of challenges we face and the resources needed to overcome them.

We are fighting two wars that call on the skill and sacrifice of our civilians as well as our troops. We have pursued a dual-track approach to Iran that has exposed its refusal to live up to its responsibilities and helped us achieve a new unity with our international partners. Iran has left the international community with little choice but to impose greater costs for its provocative steps. And we are now working actively with our partners to prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to change its course.

We have also achieved unprecedented unity in our response to North Korea’s provocative actions, even as we leave the door open for a restart of the Six-Party Talks. And we are moving closer by the day to a fresh nuclear agreement with Russia – one that advances our security while furthering President Obama’s long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

With China, we seek areas of common purpose while standing firm where we differ. We are making concrete our new beginning with the Muslim world. We are strengthening partnerships with allies in Europe and Asia, with friends in our hemisphere, and with countries around the world, from India to Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and Turkey. And we are working under the leadership of former Senator George Mitchell to end the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians.

At the same time, we are developing a new architecture of cooperation to meet transnational global challenges like climate change and the use of our planet’s oceans. With regard to the latter, I want to reiterate my support for U.S. accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our country stands to gain immensely from this treaty. Everything we know from what we are picking up with respect to other countries’ use of the tools under the Law of the Sea demonstrates that we will lose out, in economic and resource rights, in terms of environmental interests, and national security.

In so many instances, our national interest and the common interest converge. We are promoting human rights, from Africa to Asia to the Middle East; the rule of law, democracy, internet freedom. We are fighting poverty, hunger, and disease; and we are working to ensure that economic growth is broadly shared, principally by addressing the role of girls and women. And I want to applaud the Chairman and the subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer for putting this issue on the map of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Now, our agenda is ambitious because our times demand it. America is called to lead – I think we all believe that – and therefore we need the tools and the resources in the 21st century to exercise that leadership wisely and effectively. We can bury our heads in the sand and pay the consequences later, or we can make hard-nosed, targeted investments now.

Let me just highlight three areas where we are making significant new investments.



First, the security of frontline states.

In Afghanistan, we have tripled the number of civilians on the ground. Civilians are embedded with our troops in Marjah in the combat operations going on. As soon as an area is cleared, they are part of the American team, along with our international allies, who go in to hold and build. Our diplomats and development experts are helping to build institutions, expand economic opportunities, and provide meaningful alternatives for insurgents ready to renounce violence and join their fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.

In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani people. That is the vision of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman initiative, and this includes funding for that. And I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Senator Lugar, for your leadership. Our request also includes a 59 percent increase in funding for Yemen, Senator Feingold, to help counter the extremist threat and build institutions and economic opportunity.

In Iraq, we are winding down our military presence and establishing a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian efforts will not and cannot mirror the scale of our military presence, but rather they must provide assistance consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi Government. So our request includes $2.6 billion for Iraq. These are resources that will allow us to support the democratic process and ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led security training and operational support. As these funds allow civilians to take full responsibility for programs, the Defense budget for Iraq will be decreasing by about $16 billion. That is a powerful illustration of the return on civilian investment and illustrates the point that the Chairman was making that this is really part of the security budget for the United States and should be seen as part of that whole.

We are blessed with the best troops in the world, as we have seen time and time again. But we also need to give our civilian experts the resources to do the civilian jobs. And this budget takes a step in that direction. It includes $100 million for a State Department complex crisis fund – replacing the 1207 fund through which the Defense Department directed money toward crisis response. And it includes support for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which previously fell under the Defense Department as well. Secretary Gates and I are working literally hand-in-hand and are committed to having a seamless relationship between the Defense Department and the State Department and USAID to further American security.



The second major area is investing in development. And this budget makes targeted investments in fragile societies – which, in our interconnected world, bear heavily on our own security and prosperity. These investments are a key part of our effort to get ahead of crisis rather than just responding to it, positioning us to deal effectively with threats and challenges that lie ahead.

The first of these is in health. Building on our success in treating HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, our Global Health Initiative will invest $63 billion over six years, starting with $8.5 billion in FY11, to help our partners address specific diseases and, equally importantly, build strong, sustainable health systems as they do.

The Administration has also pledged to invest at least $3.5 billion in food security over three years, and this year’s request includes $1.6 billion, of which $1.2 billion is funded through the State Department. And I greatly appreciate the work that Senator Lugar and Senator Casey have done to help target the United States effort when it comes to global hunger and food security. So this funding will focus on countries that have developed effective, comprehensive strategies, where agriculture is central to prosperity and hunger remains widespread.

On climate change, we could not agree with the Chairman more. Therefore, we have requested $646 million to promote the United States as a leader in green technology and to leverage other leaders’ cooperation – including through the Copenhagen Accord, which for the first time, to underscore the Chairman’s point, brings developing and developed countries together. This is such an important initiative. We need leadership from the rest of the world. This is an opportunity for us to push this initiative and to ensure that we have support to give to core climate change activities and to spread the burden among other countries so that they share part of the responsibility in meeting this global challenge.

The budget also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian assistance programs. Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that State and USAID must be able to respond quickly and effectively.

All of these initiatives are designed to enhance American security, help people in need, and give the American people a strong return on their investments. Our aim is not to create dependency. We don’t want to just pass out fish; we want to teach people to fish. And we want to help our partners devise solutions they can sustain over the long term. And essential to this is a focus on advancing equality and opportunity for women and girls. They are the key drivers for economic and social progress.

And that brings me to our third area that I want to highlight. None of this can happen if we do not recruit, train, and empower the right people for the job.

The State Department and USAID are full of talented, committed public servants, but unfortunately, we have too often failed to give them the tools they need to carry out their missions on the ground. Rather than building their expertise, we have too often relied on contractors, sometimes with little oversight and often with greater cost to the American taxpayer.

This budget will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by over 600 positions, including an additional 410 positions for the State Department and 200 for USAID. It will also allow us to staff the standby element of the Civilian Reserve Corps, a critical tool for responding to crises.

Now, while deploying these personnel generates new expenses in some accounts, it does reduce expenses in others by changing the way we do business. We are ending an over-reliance on contractors and finding opportunities to save money by bringing these functions into government and improving oversight.

So Mr. Chairman, one thing should be very clear from this budget: The State Department and USAID are taking a lead in carrying out the United States foreign policy and national security agenda. As we finish the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, and as the White House finishes the coordination of the Presidential Directive, we have a unique opportunity to define the capabilities we need and then to match resources with priorities.

The QDDR will help ensure that we are more effective and accountable. And I want to thank all of you for your individual contributions on so many of these issues that are important not only to your constituents but to our country and the world. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work closely with this committee and I would be pleased to take your questions.

The Hillary Show: The reviews are in

In the aftermath of The Hillary Show 01.13.09, I am confounded by the people who used words like "amazing," "astonishing," and "stunning" (well, OK, I used that last word here but I shouldn't have) about her marathon performance yesterday which was the rough equivalent of three doctoral dissertation defenses in one day. Actually, she would have been a spectacular president. What were these people reading, listening to, doing during the primary season? She surprised NONE of her 18,000,000 cracks in the glass ceiling. That was typical Hillary, y'all!!

"Botswana comes to mind...." - Well, only to HER mind! I never hear her or read what she has written without learning something new. She's dangerous that way. Look out! You might just learn something listening to her!

Here is her opening statement.

Nomination Hearing To Be Secretary of State

Testimony

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State, Secretary of State

Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Washington, DC

January 13, 2009

---

Thank you, Senator Schumer, for your generous introduction, and even more for your support and our partnership over so many years. You are a valued and trusted colleague, a friend, and a tribute to the people of New York whom you have served with such distinction throughout your career. Mr. Chairman, I offer my congratulations as you take on this new role. You certainly have traveled quite a distance from that day in 1971 when you testified here as a young Vietnam veteran. You have never faltered in your care and concern for our nation, its foreign policy or its future, and America is in good hands with you leading this committee.
Senator Lugar, I look forward to working with you on a wide range of issues, especially those of greatest concern to you, including the Nunn-Lugar initiative.
And Senator Voinovich, I want to commend you for your service to the people of Ohio and ask for your help in the next two years on the management issues you champion.
It is an honor and a privilege to be here this morning as President-elect Obama’s nominee for Secretary of State. I am deeply grateful for the trust – and keenly aware of the responsibility – that the President-elect has placed in me to serve our country and our people at a time of such grave dangers, and great possibilities. If confirmed, I will accept the duties of the office with gratitude, humility, and firm determination to represent the United States as energetically and faithfully as I can.
At the same time I must confess that sitting across the table from so many colleagues brings me sadness too. I love the Senate. And if you confirm me for this new role, it will be hard to say good-bye to so many members, Republicans and Democrats, whom I have come to know, admire, and respect deeply, and to the institution where I have been so proud to serve on behalf of the people of New York for the past eight years.
But I assure you that I will be in frequent consultation and conversation with the members of this committee, with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the appropriations committees, and with Congress as a whole. And I look forward to working with my good friend, Vice President-elect Biden, who has been a valued colleague in the Senate and valued chairman of this committee.
For me, consultation is not a catch-word. It is a commitment.
The President-elect and I believe that we must return to the time-honored principle of bipartisanship in our foreign policy – an approach that past Presidents of both parties, as well as members of this committee, have subscribed to and that has served our nation well. I look forward to working with all of you to renew America’s leadership through diplomacy that enhances our security, advances our interests, and reflects our values.
Today, nine years into a new century, Americans know that our nation and our world face great perils: from ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the continuing threat posed by terrorist extremists, to the spread of weapons of mass destruction; from the dangers of climate change to pandemic disease; from financial meltdown to worldwide poverty.
The seventy days since the presidential election offer fresh evidence of the urgency of these challenges. New conflict in Gaza; terrorist attacks in Mumbai; mass killings and rapes in the Congo; cholera in Zimbabwe; reports of record high greenhouse gasses and rapidly melting glaciers; and even an ancient form of terror – piracy – asserting itself in modern form off the Horn of Africa.
Always, and especially in the crucible of these global challenges, our overriding duty is to protect and advance America’s security, interests, and values: First, we must keep our people, our nation, and our allies secure. Second, we must promote economic growth and shared prosperity at home and abroad. Finally, we must strengthen America’s position of global leadership – ensuring that we remain a positive force in the world, whether in working to preserve the health of our planet or expanding dignity and opportunity for people on the margins whose progress and prosperity will add to our own.
Our world has undergone an extraordinary transformation in the last two decades. In 1989, a wall fell and old barriers began to crumble after 40 years of a Cold War that had influenced every aspect of our foreign policy.
By 1999, the rise of more democratic and open societies, the expanding reach of world markets, and the explosion of information technology had made “globalization” the word of the day. For most people, it had primarily an economic connotation, but in fact, we were already living in a profoundly interdependent world in which old rules and boundaries no longer held fast—one in which both the promise and the peril of the 21st century could not be contained by national borders or vast distances.
Economic growth has lifted more people out of poverty faster than at any time in history, but economic crises can sweep across the globe even more quickly. A coalition of nations stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, but the conflict in the Middle East continues to inflame tensions from Asia to Africa. Non-state actors fight poverty, improve health, and expand education in the poorest parts of the world, while other non-state actors traffic in drugs, children, and women and kill innocent civilians across the globe.
Now, in 2009, the clear lesson of the last twenty years is that we must both combat the threats and seize the opportunities of our interdependence. And to be effective in doing so we must build a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.
America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America. The best way to advance America’s interest in reducing global threats and seizing global opportunities is to design and implement global solutions. This isn’t a philosophical point. This is our reality.
The President-Elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today’s world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.
I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still wanted. We must use what has been called “smart power”: the full range of tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural -- picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation.
With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence, who was born a slave and rose to become one of the great voices of his time, declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.” The same truth binds wise women as well.
The President-Elect has made it clear that in the Obama Administration there will be no doubt about the leading role of diplomacy. One need only look to North Korea, Iran, the Middle East, and the Balkans to appreciate the absolute necessity of tough-minded, intelligent diplomacy – and the failures that result when that kind of diplomatic effort is absent. And one need only consider the assortment of problems we must tackle in 2009 – from fighting terrorism to climate change to global financial crises – to understand the importance of cooperative engagement.
I assure you that, if I am confirmed, the State Department will be firing on all cylinders to provide forward-thinking, sustained diplomacy in every part of the world; applying pressure and exerting leverage; cooperating with our military partners and other agencies of government; partnering effectively with NGOs, the private sector, and international organizations; using modern technologies for public outreach; empowering negotiators who can protect our interests while understanding those of our negotiating partners. There will be thousands of separate interactions, all strategically linked and coordinated to defend American security and prosperity. Diplomacy is hard work; but when we work hard, diplomacy can work, and not just to defuse tensions, but to achieve results that advance our security, interests and values.
Secretary Gates has been particularly eloquent in articulating the importance of diplomacy in pursuit of our national security and foreign policy objectives. As he notes, it’s not often that a Secretary of Defense makes the case for adding resources to the State Department and elevating the role of the diplomatic corps. Thankfully, Secretary Gates is more concerned about having a unified, agile, and effective U.S. strategy than in spending our precious time and energy on petty turf wars. As he has stated, “our civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too long,” both relative to military spending and to “the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.” And to that, I say, “Amen!”
President-elect Obama has emphasized that the State Department must be fully empowered and funded to confront multi-dimensional challenges – from working with allies to thwart terrorism, to spreading health and prosperity in places of human suffering. I will speak in greater detail about that in a moment.
We should also use the United Nations and other international institutions whenever appropriate and possible. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have understood for decades that these institutions, when they work well, enhance our influence. And when they don’t work well – as in the cases of Darfur and the farce of Sudan’s election to the former UN Commission on Human Rights, for example – we should work with likeminded friends to make sure that these institutions reflect the values that motivated their creation in the first place.
We will lead with diplomacy because it’s the smart approach. But we also know that military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where needed, as a last resort.
All the while, we must remember that to promote our interests around the world, America must be an exemplar of our values. Senator Isakson made the point to me the other day that our nation must lead by example rather than edict. Our history has shown that we are most effective when we see the harmony between our interests abroad and our values at home. And I take great comfort in knowing that our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, also subscribed to that view, reminding us across the centuries: “The interests of a nation, when well understood, will be found to coincide with their moral duties.”
So while our democracy continues to inspire people around the world, we know that its influence is greatest when we live up to its teachings ourselves.
Senator Lugar, I’m going to borrow your words here, because you have made this point so eloquently: You once said that “the United States cannot feed every person, lift every person out of poverty, cure every disease, or stop every conflict. But our power and status have conferred upon us a tremendous responsibility to humanity.”
Of course, we must be realistic about achieving our goals. Even under the best of circumstances, our nation cannot solve every problem or meet every global need. We don’t have unlimited time, treasure, or manpower. And we certainly don’t face the best of circumstances today, with our economy faltering and our budget deficits growing.
So to fulfill our responsibility to our children, to protect and defend our nation while honoring our values, we have to establish priorities.
Now, I’m not trying to mince words here. As my colleagues in the Senate know, “establishing priorities” means making tough choices. Because those choices are so important to the American people, we must be disciplined in evaluating them -- weighing the costs and consequences of our action or inaction; gauging the probability of success; and insisting on measurable results.
Right after I was nominated a friend told me: “The world has so many problems. You’ve got your work cut out for you.” Well, I agree that the problems are many and they are big. But I don’t get up every morning thinking only about the threats and dangers we face. With every challenge comes an opportunity to find promise and possibility in the face of adversity and complexity. Today’s world calls forth the optimism and can-do spirit that has marked our progress for more than two centuries.
Too often we see the ills that plague us more clearly than the possibilities in front of us. We see threats that must be thwarted; wrongs that must be righted; conflicts that must be calmed. But not the partnerships that can be promoted; the rights that can be reinforced; the innovations that can be fostered; the people who can be empowered.
After all, it is the real possibility of progress—of that better life, free from fear and want and discord—that offers our most compelling message to the rest of the world.
I’ve had the chance to lay out and submit my views on a broad array of issues in written responses to questions from the committee, so in this statement I will outline some of the major challenges we face and some of the major opportunities we see.
First, President-Elect Obama is committed to responsibly ending the war in Iraq and employing a broad strategy in Afghanistan that reduces threats to our safety and enhances the prospect of stability and peace.
Right now, our men and women in uniform, our diplomats, and our aid workers are risking their lives in those two countries. They have done everything we have asked of them and more. But, over time we have seen that our larger interests will be best served by safely and responsibly withdrawing our troops from Iraq, supporting a transition to full Iraqi responsibility for their sovereign nation, rebuilding our overtaxed military, and reaching out to other nations to help stabilize the region and to employ a broader arsenal of tools to fight terrorism.
Equally important will be a comprehensive plan using all elements of our power – diplomacy, development, and defense – to work with those in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other violent extremists who threaten them as well as us in what President- Elect Obama has called the central front in the fight against terrorism. We need to deepen our engagement with these and other countries in the region and pursue policies that improve the lives of the Afghan and Pakistani people.
As we focus on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, we must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East that addresses the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political and economic aspirations of the Palestinians; that effectively challenges Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of terror, and persuades both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior and become constructive regional actors; that strengthens our relationships with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other Arab states, with Turkey, and with our partners in the Gulf to involve them in securing a lasting peace in the region.
As intractable as the Middle East’s problems may seem – and many Presidents, including my husband, have spent years trying to help work out a resolution – we cannot give up on peace. The President-Elect and I understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel’s desire to defend itself under the current conditions, and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets.
However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians. This must only increase our determination to seek a just and lasting peace agreement that brings real security to Israel; normal and positive relations with its neighbors; and independence, economic progress, and security to the Palestinians in their own state.
We will exert every effort to support the work of Israelis and Palestinians who seek that result. It is critical not only to the parties involved but to our profound interests in undermining the forces of alienation and violent extremism across our world.
Terrorism remains a serious threat and we must have a comprehensive strategy, leveraging intelligence, diplomacy, and military assets to defeat al- Qaeda and like-minded terrorists by rooting out their networks and drying up support for their violent and nihilistic extremism. The gravest threat that America faces is the danger that weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of terrorists. To ensure our future security, we must curb the spread and use of these weapons – whether nuclear, biological, chemical, or cyber – while we take the lead in working with others to reduce current nuclear stockpiles and prevent the development and use of dangerous new weaponry.
Therefore, while defending against the threat of terrorism, we will also seize the parallel opportunity to get America back in the business of engaging other nations to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We will work with Russia to secure their agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START Treaty before it expires in December 2009, and we will work toward agreements for further reductions in nuclear weapons. We will also work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian missiles off hair-trigger alert, act with urgency to prevent proliferation in North Korea and Iran, secure loose nuclear weapons and materials, and shut down the market for selling them – as Senator Lugar has done for so many years.
The Non Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the leadership needed to shore up the regime. So, we will work with this committee and the Senate toward ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and reviving negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.
Today’s security threats cannot be addressed in isolation. Smart power requires reaching out to both friends and adversaries, to bolster old alliances and to forge new ones.
That means strengthening the alliances that have stood the test of time— especially with our NATO partners and our allies in Asia. Our alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of American policy in Asia, essential to maintaining peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region, and based on shared values and mutual interests. We also have crucial economic and security partnerships with South Korea, Australia, and other friends in ASEAN. We will build on our economic and political partnership with India, the world’s most populous democracy and a nation with growing influence in the world.
Our traditional relationships of confidence and trust with Europe will be deepened. Disagreements are inevitable, even among the closest friends, but on most global issues we have no more trusted allies. The new administration will have a chance to reach out across the Atlantic to leaders in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others across the continent, including the new democracies. When America and Europe work together, global objectives are well within our means.
President-Elect Obama and I seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government on matters of strategic importance, while standing up strongly for American values and international norms.
China is a critically important actor in a changing global landscape. We want a positive and cooperative relationship with China, one where we deepen and strengthen our ties on a number of issues, and candidly address differences where they persist.
But this not a one-way effort – much of what we will do depends on the choices China makes about its future at home and abroad.
With both Russia and China, we should work together on vital security and economic issues like terrorism, proliferation, climate change, and reforming financial markets.
The world is now in the cross currents of the most severe global economic contraction since the Great Depression. The history of that crisis teaches us the consequences of diplomatic failures and uncoordinated reactions. Yet history alone is an insufficient guide; the world has changed too much. We have already seen that this crisis extends beyond the housing and banking sectors, and our solutions will have to be as wide in scope as the causes themselves, taking into account the complexities of the global economy, the geopolitics involved, and the likelihood of continued political and economic repercussions from the damage already done.
But here again, as we work to repair the damage, we can find new ways of working together. For too long, we have merely talked about the need to engage emerging powers in global economic governance; the time to take action is upon us. The recent G-20 meeting was a first step, but developing patterns of sustained engagement will take hard work and careful negotiation. We know that emerging markets like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia are feeling the effects of the current crisis. We all stand to benefit in both the short and long term if they are part of the solution, and become partners in maintaining global economic stability.
In our efforts to return to economic growth here in the United States, we have an especially critical need to work more closely with Canada, our largest trading partner, and Mexico, our third largest. Canada and Mexico are also our biggest suppliers of imported energy. More broadly, we must build a deeper partnership with Mexico to address the shared danger arising from drug-trafficking and the challenges of our border, an effort begun this week with a meeting between President-elect Obama and President Calderon.
Throughout our hemisphere we have opportunities to enhance cooperation to meet common economic, security and environmental objectives that affect us all. We will return to a policy of vigorous engagement throughout Latin America, seeking deeper understanding and broader engagement with nations from the Caribbean to Central to South America. Not only do we share common political, economic and strategic interests with our friends to the south, our relationship is also enhanced by many shared ancestral and cultural legacies. We are looking forward to working on many issues during the Summit of the Americas in April and taking up the President-Elect’s call for a new energy partnership of the Americas built around shared technology and new investments in renewable energy.
In Africa, the foreign policy objectives of the Obama administration are rooted in security, political, economic, and humanitarian interests, including: combating al Qaeda's efforts to seek safe havens in failed states in the Horn of Africa; helping African nations to conserve their natural resources and reap fair benefits from them; stopping war in Congo; ending autocracy in Zimbabwe and human devastation in Darfur; supporting African democracies like South Africa and Ghana--which just had its second change of power in democratic elections; and working aggressively to reach the Millennium Development Goals in health, education, and economic opportunity.
Many significant problems we face challenge not just the United States, but all nations and peoples. You, Mr. Chairman, were among the first, in a growing chorus from both parties, to recognize that climate change is an unambiguous security threat. At the extreme it threatens our very existence, but well before that point, it could very well incite new wars of an old kind—over basic resources like food, water, and arable land. The world is in need of an urgent, coordinated response to climate change and, as President- Elect Obama has said, America must be a leader in developing and implementing it. We can lead abroad through participation in international efforts like the upcoming UN Copenhagen Climate Conference and a Global Energy Forum. We can lead at home by pursuing an energy policy that reduces our carbon emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas—which will benefit the fight against climate change and enhance our economy and security.
The great statesman and general George Marshall noted that our gravest enemies are often not nations or doctrines, but “hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” To create more friends and fewer enemies, we can’t just win wars. We must find common ground and common purpose with other peoples and nations so that together we can overcome hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair.
The Obama administration recognizes that, even when we cannot fully agree with some governments, we share a bond of humanity with their people. By investing in that common humanity we advance our common security because we pave the way for a more peaceful, prosperous world.
Mr. Chairman, you were one of the first to underscore the importance of our involvement in the global AIDS fight. And you have worked very hard on this issue for many years. Now, thanks to a variety of efforts—including President Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief as well as the work of NGOs and foundations—the United States enjoys widespread support in public opinion polls in many African countries. This is true even among Muslim populations in Tanzania and Kenya, where America is seen as a leader in the fight against AIDS, malaria, and TB.
We have an opportunity to build on this success by partnering with NGOs to help expand the infrastructure of health clinics in Africa so that more people can have access to life-saving drugs, fewer mothers transmit HIV to their children, and fewer lives are lost.
And we can generate even more goodwill through other kinds of social investment, by working effectively with international organizations and NGO partners to build schools and train teachers, and by ensuring that children are free from hunger and exploitation so that they can attend those schools and pursue their dreams for the future. This is why the President- Elect supports a Global Education Fund to bolster secular education around the world.
I want to take a moment to emphasize the importance of a “bottom-up” approach to ensuring that America remains a positive force in the world. The President-elect and I believe in this strongly. Investing in our common humanity through social development is not marginal to our foreign policy but integral to accomplishing our goals.
Today more than two billion people worldwide live on less than $2 a day. They are facing rising food prices and widespread hunger. Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass hunger and disease will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers material benefits that improve people’s lives while weeding out the corruption that too often stands in the way of progress.
Our foreign policy must reflect our deep commitment to the cause of making human rights a reality for millions of oppressed people around the world. Of particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls, who comprise the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid. If half of the world’s population remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal, and social marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity will remain in serious jeopardy. We still have a long way to go and the United States must remain an unambiguous and unequivocal voice in support of women’s rights in every country, every region, on every continent.
As a personal aside, I want to mention that President-elect Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia. In my own work on microfinance around the world – from Bangladesh to Chile to Vietnam to South Africa and many other countries -- I’ve seen firsthand how small loans given to poor women to start small businesses can raise standards of living and transform local economies. President-elect Obama’s mother had planned to attend a microfinance forum at the Beijing women’s conference in 1995 that I participated in. Unfortunately, she was very ill and couldn’t travel and sadly passed away a few months later. But I think it’s fair to say that her work in international development, the care and concern she showed for women and for poor people around the world, mattered greatly to her son, and certainly has informed his views and his vision. We will be honored to carry on Ann Dunham’s work in the months and years ahead.
I’ve discussed a few of our top priorities and I know we’ll address many more in the question-and-answer session. But I suspect that even this brief overview offers a glimpse of the daunting, and crucial, challenges we face, as well as the opportunities before us. President-elect Obama and I pledge to work closely with this Committee and the Congress to forge a bipartisan, integrated, results-oriented sustainable foreign policy that will restore American leadership to confront these challenges, serve our interests, and advance our values.
Ensuring that our State Department is functioning at its best will be absolutely essential to America’s success. This is a top priority of mine, of my colleagues’ on the national security team, and of the President-elect’s. He believes strongly that we need to invest in our civilian capacity to conduct vigorous American diplomacy, provide the kind of foreign assistance I’ve mentioned, reach out to the world, and operate effectively alongside our military.
I realize that the entire State Department bureaucracy in Thomas Jefferson’s day consisted of a chief clerk, three regular clerks, and a messenger – and his entire budget was $56,000 a year.
But over the past 219 years the world, and the times, have certainly changed. Now the department consists of foreign service officers, the civil service, and locally engaged staff working at Foggy Bottom, in offices across our country, and at some 260 posts around the world. And today, USAID carries out a critical development mission that is essential to representing our values across the globe.
These public servants are too often unsung heroes. They are in the trenches putting our policies and values to work in an increasingly complicated and dangerous world. Many risk their lives, and some lose their lives, in service to our nation. And they need and deserve the resources, training, and support to succeed.
I know this committee, and I hope the American public, understand that right now foreign service officers, civil service professionals, and development experts are doing work essential to our nation’s strength – whether helping American businesses make inroads in new markets; being on the other end of the phone at a United States embassy when an American citizen needs help beyond our shores; doing the delicate work of diplomacy and development with foreign governments that leads to arms control and trade agreements, peace treaties and post-conflict reconstruction, greater human rights and empowerment, broader cultural understanding and stronger alliances.
The State Department is a large, multi-dimensional organization. But it is not a placid or idle bureaucracy, as some would like to paint it. It is an outpost for American values that protects our citizens and safeguards our democratic institutions in times both turbulent and tame. State Department employees also offer a lifeline of hope and help – often the only lifeline - for people in foreign lands who are oppressed, silenced, and marginalized.
Whether they are an economic officer in a large embassy, or an aid worker in the field, or a clerk in a distant consulate or a country officer working late in Washington, they do their work so that we may all live in peace and security. We must not shortchange them, or ourselves, by denying them the resources they need.
One of my first priorities is to make sure that the State Department and USAID have the resources they need, and I will be back to make the case to Congress for full funding of the President’s budget request. At the same time, I will work just as hard to make sure that we manage those resources prudently so that we fulfill our mission efficiently and effectively.
In concluding, I hope you will indulge me one final observation. Like most Americans, I never had the chance to travel widely outside our country as a child or young adult. Most of my early professional career was as a lawyer and advocate for children and who found themselves on society’s margins here at home. But during the eight years of my husband’s presidency, and then in my eight years as a Senator, I have been privileged to travel on behalf of the United States to more than 80 countries.
I’ve had the opportunity to get to know many world leaders. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I’ve spent time with our military commanders, as well as our brave troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have immersed myself in an array of military issues. I’ve spent many hours with American and non-American aid workers, businessmen and women, religious leaders, teachers, doctors, nurses, students, volunteers and others who have made it their mission to help people across the world. I have also learned invaluable lessons from countless ordinary citizens in foreign capitals, small towns, and rural villages whose lives offered a glimpse into a world far removed from what many of us experience on a daily basis here in America.
In recent years, as other nations have risen to compete for military, economic, and political influence, some have argued that we have reached the end of the “American moment” in world history. I disagree. Yes, the conventional paradigms have shifted. But America’s success has never been solely a function of our power; it has always been inspired by our values.
With so many troubles here at home and across the world, millions of people are still trying to come to our country -- legally and illegally. Why? Because we are guided by unchanging truths: that all people are created equal; that each person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And in these truths we will find, as we have for more than two centuries, the courage, the discipline, and the creativity to meet the challenges of this everchanging world.
I am humbled to be a public servant, and honored by the responsibility placed on me by our President-Elect, who embodies the American Dream not only here at home but far beyond our shores.
No matter how daunting our challenges may be, I have a steadfast faith in our country and our people, and I am proud to be an American at the dawning of this new American moment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for granting me your time and attention today. I know there is a lot more territory to cover and I’d be delighted to answer your questions.