SECRETARY CLINTON:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, it is a great delight to be back
here at Brookings through that revolving door, which really does go both
directions. I spoke with Strobe shortly after I was asked to take this
job as Secretary of State and began thinking about who needed to be in
this new Administration. And he ruefully said, “I know you’re going to
decimate the place.” (Laughter.) I said, well, yes, we are, but that’s
all part of the revolving door – people who go in and out of
administrations, who do the work that is done here every day at
Brookings, such high-quality work in many respects, visionary, as well
as analytical. And I’m very grateful for this farm team that you have
led so well for so many years and the opportunity to work with them now
in this new capacity.
I also want to just say a word of
personal appreciation to Strobe. As most of you know, he’s been a friend
of my husband’s and mine, starting, of course, with my husband at
Oxford and then shortly afterwards. And he and the wonderful Brooke were
dear, dear friends over all of these years. And I’m pleased to look out
and see Adrian and Devin, the next generation.
I also want
to thank Martin Indyk and John Thornton for their leadership as well.
And to all of the Diplomatic Corps, the ambassadors who are here with us
today, I thank each and every one of you. I’ve had the opportunity to
do bilateral meetings with most of you, with your foreign minister, or
in some instance, the head of state. And I appreciate your being with us
today. I also see some of the wonderful people who have joined the team
at State and USAID who are here as well, and I express my appreciation
to all of them.
I thank Brookings for this opportunity to
join you on the eve of UNGA. It is a strange acronym. And it causes a
lot of moaning and groaning in some circles. Henry Kissinger was
famously critical of UNGA, and others have been expressing over the
years their concern and disappointment with the United Nations. But I
believe that at its best, the United Nations is not only a critical,
central institution, but one in which the United States has a lot of
equities. So I’m actually looking forward – now, it has nothing to do
with the fact that it’s in New York, and I get to go home – but it is a
personal as well as an official obligation that I am looking forward to.
Let me begin, though, by echoing the President’s statement
yesterday concerning his approval of the recommendations not only of the
Pentagon, but of his entire national security team to deploy a stronger
and more comprehensive missile defense system in Europe. This decision
came after a lengthy and in-depth review of our assessment of the
threats posed, particularly the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile
program, and the technology that we have today, and what might be
available in the future to confront it. We believe this is a decision
that will leave America stronger, and more capable of defending our
troops, our interests, and our allies.
Let me be clear about
what this new system will do relative to the previous program, which was
many years from being deployed. With the President’s decision, we will
deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able
to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran’s short and medium-range
ballistic missiles. We will deploy missile defense that is more
comprehensive than the previous program with more interceptors in more
places and with a better capacity to protect all of our friends and
allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven
so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money. And we will preserve the
flexibility to adjust our approach to the threat as the threat evolves.
So make no mistake – if you support missile defense, which I
did as a senator for eight years, then this is a stronger and smarter
approach than the previous program. It does what missile defense is
actually supposed to do. It defends America and our allies. Now I know
we’ve heard criticism of this plan from some quarters. But much of that
criticism is not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote,
“shelving” missile defense. We are deploying missile defense sooner than
the Bush Administration planned to do so. And we are deploying a more
comprehensive system.
We are not reducing our capacity to
protect our interests and our allies from Iran. By contrast, we are
increasing that capacity and focusing it on our best understanding of
Iran’s current capabilities. And most of all, we would never, never walk
away from our allies. We have recommitted ourselves to our Article 5
obligations under NATO. We have sent that message in bilateral and
multilateral settings from the President’s and my trips to every other
encounter and venue that we have been in over the last many months. We
are deploying a system that enhances the security of our NATO allies. It
actually advances our cooperation with NATO. And it actually places
more resources in more countries.
Two of our allies, Poland
and the Czech Republic, were very willing to host parts of the previous
planned system, and we deeply appreciate that. We will continue to
cooperate closely with both nations, for instance, through rotation of a
Patriot battery in Poland and close missile defense research and
development with Czech companies. As we explore land-based interceptors
going forward, we have made it clear that those two countries will be at
the top of the list. And let me underscore that we are bound together
by our common commitment as NATO allies and also by deep historical,
economic and cultural ties that will never be broken.
Finally,
let me reiterate what the President said yesterday. This decision was
not about Russia. It was about Iran and the threat that its ballistic
missile program poses. And because of this position, we believe we will
be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat, and to do so
with technology that works and a higher degree of confidence that what
we pledge to do, we can actually deliver.
Now my main reason
for being here today is to give you a brief review of our agenda next
week in New York. But before I get into specifics, I saw a cartoon from
The New Yorker.
It showed a delegate in his seat at the United Nations passing a note
to the delegate next to him. And the caption read, “Shh, it’s a birthday
card for Liechtenstein. Sign it and pass it on.” (Laughter.) Well,
comic relief is necessary in our work, especially now.
But as
with most humor, this cartoon is also commentary. It represents one
view of the United Nations, a caricature of what multinational,
multilateral organizations spend their time doing. As President Obama
leads our U.S. delegation at this year’s General Assembly, I hope we can
demonstrate that the United Nations does not have to be just a
diplomatic talk shop on First Avenue. At its best, it can be an
institution that brings the world’s nations together to solve global
problems through adherence to rules and principles set forth in the UN
charter. And it is the responsibility of the 192 member nations during
the General Assembly and beyond to capitalize on the opportunity for
global cooperation and progress that the United Nations affords to each
of us.
I outlined earlier this summer at the Council on
Foreign Relations the Obama Administration’s efforts to advance our
interests and solve today’s problems through a global architecture of
cooperation and partnership. And we must begin by taking responsibility
ourselves, something that, under President Obama, we have already begun
to do on issues from climate change to nonproliferation. And we have
called on others to do the same. By building and strengthening
partnerships, institutions, and international regimes, we can forge a
global consensus and use that leverage to offer clear incentives to all
nations to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities. And we can
also devise strong disincentives for those who would act in isolation or
provoke conflict.
The United Nations and this month’s General
Assembly offer us a venue and a forum for nations to work together to
live up to that founding charter and abide by and enforce international
rules in service of global peace and security.
I have in my
office in the State Department a picture of Eleanor Roosevelt, one of my
particular heroines, and she is sitting at a desk working on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I’ve said this before, but I
think that channeling Eleanor Roosevelt is not a bad idea. (Laughter.)
It reminds us of what is at stake as we move forward with our
responsibilities, as does Strobe Talbott’s recent book,
The Great Experiment.
We have to have effective global institutions. That is not a choice.
That is an imperative. It is up to us to determine how to make them
effective. The United Nations is a building. It is not able to act in
the absence of the decisions made by those member-nations. We, in my
view, ignore it and walk away from it at our peril, especially in the 21
st
century, where interconnectiveness gives voice and prominence to views
that could have easily been either ignored or marginalized in the past.
Few
issues reflect the need for a global architecture of cooperation more
than nuclear nonproliferation. No issue poses a more serious threat to
our security or the world’s, and it will be a main topic of discussion
next week and beyond.
Now, the President outlined a robust and
ambitious arms control and nonproliferation agenda in Prague earlier
this year, and we believe that it sets the template for what we should
aspire to – moving toward a world of zero nuclear weapons.
We
understand that that won’t be easy. We understand that it is a
generational commitment. It might not happen in our lifetimes. But as
long as nuclear weapons exist in the world, the United States will
maintain a safe, secure, and effective deterrent capability. But we want
to both be on record and to use our best efforts to move toward more
effective nonproliferation and more effective cooperation toward,
hopefully, arriving someday at that future goal.
Next week,
the President will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council on
nonproliferation and disarmament. He will emphasize the importance of
strengthening the international nuclear nonproliferation regime – and
the critical role that the Security Council must play in enforcing
compliance with nonproliferation obligations.
The President
has asked me to lead the U.S. delegation to a conference on the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This will be the first time a Secretary
of State has attended. It will give me the opportunity to underscore the
importance of the CTBT to the global nonproliferation effort and to
broaden U.S. security interests.
Strengthening the
nonproliferation regime means working to bring other nations into
compliance. And this, of course, includes North Korea and Iran. And let
me take a moment to say a few words about Iran, which will be another
key topic on the President’s and my agenda next week.
To begin, it is important to recall what’s really at issue, and what’s really at stake.
Iran
has refused for years to address the international community’s deep
concerns about its nuclear program. Those concerns have been underscored
repeatedly by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN
Security Council.
Iran’s continued failure to live up to its
obligations carries profound consequences – for the security of the
United States and our allies; for progress on global nonproliferation
and progress toward disarmament; for the credibility of the IAEA and the
Security Council and the Nonproliferation Treaty; and of course, for
stability in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, and beyond.
Our
concern is not Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but its
responsibility to demonstrate that its program is intended exclusively
for peaceful purposes. This is not hard to do. Iran’s continued refusal
to cooperate has damaged the credibility of its claim that it does not
seek a nuclear weapon.
So Iran faces a choice. The
international community has made abundantly clear what is possible for
all Iranians if Iran lives up to its responsibilities on the nuclear
issue – the benefits of economic connections to the rest of the world,
cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy, and partnership in education and
science.
But there will be accompanying costs for Iran’s
continued defiance – more isolation and economic pressure, less
possibility of progress for the people of Iran.
The Obama
Administration has clearly conveyed our readiness to engage directly
with Iran. We know that dialogue alone doesn’t guarantee any outcome,
let alone success. But we also know that our past refusal to engage
yielded no progress on the nuclear issue, nor did it stem Iran’s support
for terrorist groups.
Over the past eight months, the
President has reached out both to the Iranian Government and people. We
have made clear our desire to resolve issues with Iran diplomatically.
Iran must now decide whether to join us in this effort.
Yet,
since June, we have seen the Iranian Government engaged in a campaign of
politically motivated arrests, show trials, and suppression of free
speech. The Iranian Government seeks a sense of justice in the world,
but stands in the way of the justice it seeks.
Nonetheless, we
remain ready to engage with Iran – not as an end in itself, but as a
means of addressing the growing concerns that we and our international
partners have about Iran’s actions, especially on the nuclear issue. In
New York next week, I will be meeting with my counterparts from the
United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany in the P-5+1 context
to discuss the way forward and prepare for talks that Javier Solana is
arranging at the beginning of October.
Our message will be
clear: We are serious. And we will soon see if the Iranians are serious.
This is not about process for the sake of process. In New York, we will
work with our partners to put Iran’s choice into focus and to stress
that engagement must produce real results and that we have no appetite
for talks without action.
Let me highlight a few other issues
that the President and I will be addressing at the General Assembly and
in the months ahead: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; development; and
women.
Iraq has made important strides with the support of the
United States and the international community to build a more secure
and hopeful future for its people. We look forward to the parliamentary
election next January as an important milestone in this journey, and we
pledge to work with Iraqis and the international community, including
the invaluable UN Mission to Iraq, to make these elections a success.
As
a result of our common efforts, our relationship with Iraq can now
enter into a period of transition as our military draws down and the
role of civilian agencies increases to better meet the needs of the
future and ensure a stable, sovereign, and independent Iraq that
contributes to peace and security in the Middle East. This reflects no
lessening of our commitment – on the contrary, it demonstrates that we
have entered a new, sustained, and more mature partnership that will
serve both of our countries far into the future. I am pleased that Vice
President Biden, accompanied by Deputy Jim Steinberg, recently returned
to Iraq to continue our robust engagement with Iraq’s leaders.
That
partnership between our countries will, of course, continue to build
security cooperation while strengthening diplomatic relations, but also
it will help to build stronger ties in commerce, the rule of law, good
governance, education, science, culture, and healthcare, through our
Strategic Framework Agreement. I chair a coordinating committee along
with Prime Minister Maliki. We had our first full meeting in July, and
we will continue to be engaged in working on this broader agenda.
Also
on the docket for the General Assembly will be meetings related to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama has stated our core goal: to
disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist
allies, and to prevent their return to either country. This is a goal we
share with Afghanistan, with Pakistan, and with the international
community. In fact, pursuing al-Qaida and the Taliban was the basis of
the original UN resolutions that authorized U.S. military action after
the September 11
th attacks and created ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force of 42 nations helping Afghans secure their own country.
Our
long-term security, and that of our friends around the world, is
connected to the security and well-being of the people of these two
countries. To effectively squeeze the extremists fighting to destabilize
both countries, the Afghan and Pakistani governments must be better
able to secure their territory from these extremists and meet the basic
needs of their populations.
The recent Afghan elections at
once illustrate the promise and the challenges of Afghanistan. Alongside
our partners and the United Nations, we will continue to encourage all
parties to respect the international and Afghan electoral institutions
charged with determining the final outcome of the election process. When
the next president is inaugurated, we will work to step up the level of
international engagement and expectation with that new government in a
strong partnership to strengthen governance at all levels.
As
we address these urgent challenges, we will also work on other issues
that have implications for American security and interests. Following up
on my trip to Africa last month, and the President’s visit to Ghana
earlier in the year, he will host a lunch for leaders of Sub-Saharan
Africa during the General Assembly. I will meet with Costa Rican
President Oscar Arias to continue our joint efforts to resolve the
crisis in Honduras and help that country restore democratic
constitutional order. I will also be meeting with donors and other
stakeholders committed to helping Haiti respond to the economic
dislocation caused by the global economic crisis, four hurricanes, and a
history of challenges. And I will continue discussions with our allies
and other partners in Asia about the situation in Burma.
Now,
if the global architecture of cooperation demands responsibility of us
and our partners, it also offers opportunities. Just as we are focusing
intensively on urgent challenges like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan, so too are we pursuing a positive agenda devoted to expanding
opportunity so more people in more places can fulfill their dreams and
live up to their God-given potential. And I will focus considerable
attention on two areas of opportunity – development and women. They go
hand-in-hand, but we are talking about each of them, because each, in
and of itself, is critically important to the point that Strobe made –
that human security, national security, international security
ultimately rests on development and the role and rights of women.
Now,
many of you have heard me describe our plans to integrate diplomacy and
development as two of the three pillars in our foreign policy, along
with defense. I’ve talked in different venues about the Obama
Administration’s commitment to leading with diplomacy and engaging other
nations. Next week, I will outline how we will approach development in
tandem with our diplomacy – to be effective and efficient and enable the
State Department, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation to
pursue and execute 21
st century foreign policy goals.
The
foundation for our approach will be principles that will move us away
from top-down assistance that too often fails to meet the needs of those
we are attempting to help, or has only short-term effects. To solve the
complex problems of poverty, hunger, health, climate change, where they
intersect, we want to focus on those root causes, and look for
approaches that really change, transform the environment in which people
are making these decisions and in which governments are held
accountable to a higher degree of performance and transparency. We will
be looking for ways to not only explain our approach, but to highlight
issues. I will be, for example, participating in an event with Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon, hosted by the UN and the United States Government,
on food security.
We have launched a Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review – and unfortunately, that adds another acronym to
the State lexicon, the QDDR – led by Deputy Secretary of State Jack
Lew, and co-chaired by Ann-Marie Slaughter, and the Deputy – the Acting
Administrator at USAID, Alonzo Fulgham. This is a broad examination of
our structure, policies, and budget, and it’ll lead to better
accountability and measurable results.
Finally, our
delegation, and I personally, will work to advance international efforts
to recognize women as key drivers of economic progress and social
stability, as well, to address impediments to women’s empowerment and
advancement, particularly sexual and gender-based violence. I will chair
a session of the Security Council and will speak on behalf of the
adoption of a resolution on “women, peace and security” which will
endorse concrete measures to implement Security Council Resolution 1820
and address sexual and gender-based violence as a tactic of war.
I
saw the scale of misery caused by this violence on my recent trip to
the Democratic Republic of Congo, having met, in many different settings
around the world over many years, with women who are the victims of the
worst that humanity offers, but also with women who are the strongest
exemplars of the best of what humanity offers. I saw that very vividly
on this most recent trip.
Next week, I will be speaking with
other foreign ministers and heads of state about strategies to end this
violence and to ensure that those who commit atrocities are prosecuted
and not treated with impunity. I will work with women leaders, heads of
state, foreign ministers at the General Assembly to highlight the
importance of raising the status of girls and women and investing in
their potential through education, economic development, and healthcare.
If women are free from violence and accorded their rights, they can
contribute to local economies and become change agents for greater
prosperity and stability.
Our agenda is ambitious. It is full,
from Northeast Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe and the Americas,
and we will remain vigilant and proactive about all of them. At this
time of year as we contemplate UNGA next week, it seems only fitting
that it occurs at the time that we are celebrating the end of Ramadan
and the beginning of the Jewish high holy days. We will also, obviously,
be focusing on the dream of a comprehensive peace between Israel and
the Palestinians, resulting in assurance of the security of Israel and a
state for the Palestinian people.
This is a time of
reflection and renewal for hundreds of millions of our fellow citizens
around the globe. It’s a time when we can take stock and reassess and
hopefully recommit ourselves to the values and ideals that move us
forward. And it is in that spirit that I am approaching not only next
week’s General Assembly, but the weeks, months, and years ahead. And I
very much appreciate the excellent work and contributions of many of you
in this audience in the capacities in which you too serve and wrestle
with these difficult problems that confront us.
And I hope
that we will not only continue to have a partnership that enables us to
speak of our hopes and aspirations, but together, produce solutions to
the problems that we confront. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
MR. TALBOTT: You should take care of the Secretary’s.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I can do it.
MR. TALBOTT:
She can handle that herself, but I’m not allowed to. (Laughter.) Thank
you so much, Madame Secretary. We’ve got a little over 15 minutes or so,
and why don’t we go immediately to Martin Indyk, who will ask the first
question.
SECRETARY CLINTON: There he is.
QUESTION:
Thank you very much, Strobe. Madame Secretary, welcome to Brookings and
thank you for your strong and wise leadership as Secretary of State.
You seemed in your speech to make clear to the Iranians that they have a
choice to make.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION:
But I wonder – you know, today, President Ahmadinejad said that the
Holocaust was a lie; as you pointed out, he essentially stole the
elections in suppressing his opposition. And he’s also made clear – very
clear – that the nuclear – their nuclear program is not something for
discussion. Instead, he wants to kind of talk to the P-5+1 about
dividing up the world and recognition for his superpower status.
So
how do you affect his calculus? What is the strategy for actually
getting him to understand that he has to address the nuclear program and
has to reassure the international community of Iran’s peaceful
intentions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Martin, as I said,
there are no guarantees of results, let alone success, in many of these
difficult engagements that we are undertaking. But we do believe that
the opportunity presents itself for the kind of face-to-face discussions
that the P-5+1, with our full participation, with Under Secretary Bill
Burns leading our efforts there, to explore a range of issues. Now, as
you, I’m sure, noticed, the Iranians said they had a lot of issues they
wanted to discuss that did not include their nuclear program. We
obviously said that is the issue we want to discuss.
I’m not
going to prejudge this. I mean, we have made it very clear we’re on a
dual track. That dual track is the process of engagement that we have
said we would pursue. We are about to commence that. But the other are
the consequences. So I’m not going to speculate on what comes of this
effort. We have underscored, as I did again today, that we are not in
this just for the sake of talking. We don’t check a box by saying we’re
engaged in some process and now we’re going to keep talking forever;
that is not our intention.
The President said that we would
take stock of where we are with respect to Iran and the international
community response around the time of the G-20, which is the end of next
week, that we would want to see some movement by the end of this year.
I’m well aware of all the problems that you have just briefly alluded
to. But we’re going to move forward, see what, if any, changes in
approach, attitude, actions the Iranians are willing to entertain, and
continue to work with our allies, many of whom are represented in this
room through their ambassadors on the consequence side of the ledger.
MR. TALBOTT: Andrea, I’m calling on you in your capacity as a virtual member of the Brookings family. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: She looks pretty real, not just virtual. (Laughter.)
QUESTION:
If I may follow up on Ambassador Indyk, what are the consequences? Are
there deadlines? Because we’ve seen this kind of diplomacy before; with
all due respect, previous administrations, Secretary Rice, tried to
negotiate with Iran and there were objections by Russia and others at
the Security Council that meant that the threat of sanctions really
never could be carried out as aggressively as the United States wanted.
So
I know you’ve said that the missile defense decision was not about
Russia, but is there any indication that Russia might take another view
toward Iran, that there is a time limit? And are there other threats out
there? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it
is fair to say that there has been a much more concerted outreach to
both the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people under President Obama
than we have seen in 30 years. It’s not that other presidents did not
look for ways to engage Iran, but for a variety of reasons it was never
carried through in a long-term, consistent manner. We, as you know, did
not participate fully as a member of the P-5+1 until very recently. For
many years, we outsourced our policy and concerns about the nuclear
program to others to try to intervene with and persuade Iran to change
course.
So we were on the sidelines. I mean, we were pacing up
and down the sidelines extremely agitated, and we were just trying to
figure out how to get other people to go on the field and deal with this
problem. And look where we are today. We are really nowhere. The
potential of the Iranian nuclear program being for something other than
peaceful uses is obviously of great concern to us and increasingly to
the international community.
So, again, I don’t want to
prejudge this. I think we have been very clear about what we are looking
for. The two tracks that we are proceeding on simultaneously – we have
certainly begun conversations with a number of international partners
and with all of the P-5+1 members. I think if you had asked us six
months ago could we get the strongest possible sanctions against North
Korea that have ever been implemented against a member-state of the
United Nations with full cooperation, not just on paper, of China and
Russia, but active enforcement of those sanctions, I think many of you
in this room would not have thought that possible.
Why did it
happen? Because we have spent an enormous time listening and really
working with our partners, who are partners on some issues and maybe not
on all issues, but looking for ways to broaden that sense of
cooperation and looking to understand how our views can be more
effectively communicated instead of just walking up and down the
sideline being agitated, but looking to find common ground in our
assessment of the threats that we all face.
So I think that we
have proceeded in a very thoughtful way – no guarantee of any
particular outcome, but we’re determined to persevere.
MR. TALBOTT: Ken. Ken Lieberthal.
QUESTION:
Madame Secretary, you have always, to my mind, very admirably focused
on issues of domestic governing capacity. There has been a lot of
attention in recent weeks to the issue of corruption in Afghanistan, and
the political and social consequences of that. What do you think we can
do concretely to make a difference on that issue?
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Ken, this is something that I want advice from those of you here at
Brookings. Corruption is as big a national security threat as I can
imagine. We’ve never posed it in quite that way before, but this is how I
am seeing it. It’s not only corruption in Afghanistan, which I will
come back to; it is corruption almost as an epidemic – undermining
governance, undermining the capacity of countries to make progress in
ways that would grow a middle class that would create stability and
prosperity, corruption that siphons off natural resources that should be
extracted for the benefit of all of the people instead of a very small
elite, corruption that has just eaten away at the fabric of so many
countries.
I saw it throughout Africa, where it’s tragic. As
Wangari Maathai said at my town hall in Nairobi at the University of
Nairobi, “God must have loved Africa because Africa was blessed with so
many riches, but then one has to ask, ‘Why are we so poor?’” And you go
to countries which are immensely rich in natural resources, from oil and
gas to diamonds and gold and so much else, and the corruption is
endemic, but it is now a security problem. And my view on this is that
the international community has to be much more focused. And it is no
longer, well, we pass a law in the United States saying our companies
can’t go bribe people, but other countries and companies say, look,
that’s the way you do business, how are you going to deal with these
people otherwise? Because we are looking at a tipping point when it
comes to the impact of corruption in so many of these countries and so
many of these places.
Now specifically about Afghanistan,
look, we have to take some of the responsibility – not for the fact that
corruption was there, predating us, but that we aided and abetted it in
implicit ways by not demanding more and not demanding more earlier. So I
am very conscious of the difficulties that corruption poses. But it is
one of my highest priorities because I no longer see it as a good
government concern. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could stop people from
stealing from their own people and extorting from international
companies? Yes, it would be very nice. But isn’t it absolutely essential
that we figure out more effective ways to do that?
You can
look at energy and just know what the possible repercussions of the
rampant corruption in the Niger Delta is causing both in terms of human
misery and in terms of lower production and disruption of supplies.
That’s an issue that comes really close to home. And there are so many
examples of that. So I’m looking for ways that we can take the very good
initiatives that have been already undertaken and bring them to scale
and expect more.
Now, in order to do this, we’ve got to get a
critical mass of major economies to be willing to work with us and to
see this as a – if not an immediate threat to their interests, as at
least a medium- and long-term threat to their interests. So that’s what
we’re going to try to do.
MR. TALBOTT: Yes.
QUESTION:
Madame Secretary, thank you for the opportunity that you give us with
the Brookings Institute. I was looking forward to hearing from you more
about the Middle East peace efforts. Your husband, President Clinton,
has created lots of hopes in the past of bringing peace to the area.
Now, President Obama has also brought that almost same kind of hope
after his speech in the Middle East in Cairo and Istanbul.
And
– but now, what we are seeing now is that the whole problem of peace
and war in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs is shrinking
down to the issue of settlements and freezing of settlements, where it
is actually a much bigger issue. And what we see now is no stop for the
activities of building these settlements. We see that Israel is digging
tunnels under the most second holy shrine of Islam. And the emotions in
the Arab and Islamic world are getting really very high and all, with
lots of anger. We don’t know – I don’t know what your talk is covering
with the Arab officials, but one of your allies, a king in the area, was
the warning yesterday that any failure for these peace efforts would
lead to a result that nobody would want to see.
Now, I would
like to hear from you that what seems to be Senator Mitchell efforts to
be not making any progress with Mr. Netanyahu, a most hardliner. So how
are you going to deal with this issue in order to keep the credibility,
the hopes that the United States has produced in the area after the
speeches of President Obama?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I
understand the emotion and I understand the great hope that is at the
heart of your question. And I want to just make several points to you.
First,
this President started on the very first day with a commitment to
pursue a comprehensive peace agreement premised on the two-state
solution. And I can guarantee you that President Obama and I are very
patient and very determined. And we know that this is not an easy road
for anyone to travel. I have personal experience about how difficult
this road is. I well remember that brilliant sunny afternoon on the
South Lawn of the White House when Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook
hands. And I well remember the disappointment at Camp David despite
enormous efforts to try to finally forge that peace agreement when it
was not successful.
However, I believe that the commitment
evidenced by my husband and the commitment evidenced by President Obama
to be in this from the very beginning, never to be deterred, never to
give up, and expecting both sides – not just one side, but both sides –
to be ready to pursue that comprehensive peace agreement, is the best
way for America to demonstrate our absolute belief that this issue is at
the core of so many other challenges we face. And therefore, we are
going to do all we can to persuade, cajole, encourage the parties
themselves to make that agreement. The United States cannot make it. The
Arab nations cannot make it. It is up to the Palestinians and the
Israelis. And to that end, we expect both sides – not just one side, but
both sides – to be actively engaged and willing to work toward that
resolution.
And I think that what George Mitchell has done
has been very valuable in sorting through a lot of the concerns, because
if you recall in the previous efforts of the Bush Administration
through the Roadmap, the parties were encouraged to work themselves
toward a resolution. The United States was not actively engaged in it,
as we were in the ‘90s. So do I think maybe we’ve lost some ground, or
maybe it’s a little more difficult because of that? I do. But that is
not going to discourage us. So let me just reassure you. We are going to
continue to do all that we can working with everyone involved, but most
particularly the Palestinians and the Israelis, to reach that
comprehensive peace agreement that we think is in the best interests of
both countries.
MR. TALBOTT: Madame Secretary, as a
last question, I’d like to ask you about another issue that you know
very well from your personal experience, and that is healthcare. And I
would only put that question to you as Secretary of State because many
are concerned that it actually has implications for the foreign policy
of the United States.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Nice try, Strobe. (Laughter.)
MR. TALBOTT: Well – a bit of a stretch?
SECRETARY CLINTON:
Yeah, that’s all right. That’s all right. (Laughter.) I’m sure you want
me to talk about our global health initiative. (Laughter.)
MR. TALBOTT: Actually, not. (Laughter.) Let’s talk about our national health initiative.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Indeed.
MR. TALBOTT:
In the following context. A lot of well-wishers of yours and of
President Obama’s, both in this country and around the world, are
concerned that if the healthcare debate goes badly and ends in a defeat
for the President, it will have serious implications for his ability to
get a cap-and-trade bill that he can take to Copenhagen in some sense,
or at least progress on global warming. You mentioned that you’re going
to be playing a role with regard to the future of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, that if healthcare goes down it’ll be bad for START
ratification, CTBT ratification next year.
So insofar as you
feel inclined to do so, we’d be very interested in your views on the
merits of the issue, but also on the connection between the President’s
domestic agenda and his foreign policy agenda, which it’s your charge to
carry out.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Strobe, based on
my own acquaintance with this issue – (laughter) – and my previous
experience in the White House, I don’t accept the premise of the
question. I mean, I think everyone here probably recalls that we were
not successful in ’93 and
‘94, but I don’t think that in any way
undercut President Clinton’s ability to deal with the rest of the world,
to make tough decisions in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, and lots of
other challenges, and even on the domestic front to do welfare reform,
to end up with a balanced budget with a surplus.
So I don’t
see that. I just don’t accept that. But I don’t think we’re going to
face that, because I think we’re going to be successful. And I think
that the work that is being done and the expectations that people now
have – 15 years from our unsuccessful effort back in ’94—means that more
people know what’s at stake, more people have seen us try other things.
I mean, I remember one of the arguments that was made 15 years ago is
let the HMOs handle it, we’ll do something called managed competition,
that’ll control costs, that’ll eventually cover everybody. And of
course, that was not to be.
So I think that there’s just much
more real world experience that people from all walks of life have that,
in the absence of what is being proposed, costs will continue to go up
for those of us who are insured, coverage will continue to shrink for
those of us who are insured, the numbers of people who have access to
any form of insurance will continue to diminish. And therefore, I think
we will be successful. Now, will it be everything any one person would
want? No, of course not. That’s not the nature of the compromise
required in a legislative setting. But I am quite optimistic. We really
have an opportunity now to produce an outcome that will significantly
improve the important aspects of healthcare reform – controlling costs,
increasing quality, expanding coverage. And it’s interesting that what
we are proposing is fundamentally so conservative compared with so many
of our friends and allies around the world who do a much better job than
we do in covering everybody and in keeping costs down, and yet some of
the political opposition is so overheated.
So we just have to
calm down here, take two aspirin, go to bed, think about it in the
morning. But I’m very optimistic. I think that it won’t be pretty. It’s
like sausage-making. But we will end up with a bill for the President to
sign that will be an advance. And that’s what I think is in the best
interest of the country. And of course, it will have political benefits
for the President, but I think that what’s most important is getting
this done for the future budgetary demands of our government, for the
future well-being and health of our people. And that’s what’s going to
happen.
MR. TALBOTT: Thank you for that. Let me ask
everybody, please, to remain seated. We’ll thank the Secretary in just a
second, but I want to explain the protocol for ending the meeting. I’m
going to ask everybody, please, to remain in this room seated while she
leaves. I’m going to escort her out. I want to particularly ask all the
Brookings scholars present to stay here, because if you follow her out,
I’m going to get nervous about whether you’re heading back to Foggy
Bottom yourselves. (Laughter.)
But please join me in thanking Secretary Clinton for a terrific hour. (Applause.)
MR. NIEDERAUER: