Oh
my goodness. Well, I am incredibly touched and grateful and a little
embarrassed by the extraordinary outpouring of very kind words this
evening, starting with Fred Malek, who I greatly appreciate for
reminding us that we’re all on the same team, namely the American team,
and my longtime friend Mack McLarty and his wonderful Donna. I am
grateful to all of you.
I want to thank Christine for that
introduction, but more than that for her leadership at the IMF, for her
extraordinary strength and vision in these uncertain economic times, and
for her very steady hand as she is trying to help lead us through them.
I
also want to thank all the member of Congress and the diplomatic corps
here tonight. It is very good seeing a lot of my former colleagues
getting, to sit with my friend, Susan Collins.
And of course, I
want to, along with all of you, salute our host, Jane Harman, one of our
nation’s most articulate, thoughtful leaders on foreign policy and
national security. And now as president of the Wilson Center, she is
still shaping public debate. (Applause.) And in addition to that, she is
advising a lot of us and helping to make sure that the scholarship we
need for better informed decisions is being done. She provides insights
and counsel on a great range of issues.
And I loved the fact that
Jane was just referencing that, under her leadership, the Wilson Center
has become the home of the Council of World Women Leaders, the only
organization of current and former women heads of state and ministers.
They are working together with the State Department and others to
organize a summit in the United Arab Emirates on women’s leadership in
the Arab world.
And Jane joined me last December at the State
Department to launch the Women in Public Service Project to identify,
train, and mentor emerging women leaders around the world, founded in
partnership with the Seven Sisters Colleges. Jane and I are both proud
graduates, she of Smith and I of Wellesley, and we are including many
international and domestic partners. And I think it’s exciting that we
are working on these kinds of things together in addition to all of the
raft of difficult problems, both those in the headlines and in the
trendlines that we confront every single day.
I have to say, that
film was hilarious. (Laughter.) And I have a feeling that Jane was stage
managing every bit of it, but I can’t wait to see all my predecessors
to thank them for participating. And George Shultz, with his Don’t
Worry, Be Happy song – he actually gave me a little bear that I keep in
my office that has one of these buttons. When you press it, it sings,
“Don’t worry, be happy.” (Laughter.) So I mean, I figured if it’s good
enough for George Shultz, it’s good enough for me. So I was thrilled to
see him sharing that with all of you tonight.
And the thing about
Henry Kissinger is, with that accent, he can anything and you’d think
it’s really smart and witty. (Laughter.) And so he and I have had some
of the most amazing conversations, but I’m never quite sure I’ve
understood everything that was said. (Laughter.)
But for me, the
men and women you saw on the screen have become great friends, whether I
knew them well, like I did, of course, with dear Madeleine Albright, or
knew them from afar or by reputation at events like this. All of them
have been extraordinarily helpful to me, and I’m very grateful they
would come together to be part of this evening.
Well, I know it’s
been, for me, a reunion. I’ve had a chance to see so many of-- a lot of
my friends and colleagues over the past evening. And I want to make just
a few serious points, because you’ve been very, very patient.
I
think as both Jane and Christine suggested in their remarks tonight, we
are very fortunate to be in the positions we’re in in today’s world, and
we’re very pleased that in our own ways we can be trying to help chart
our path through what is a very difficult, dangerous, tumultuous time,
as the film seemed to suggest. And we’re trying to look at economic
policy and foreign policy in new ways, because the problems really
demand that.
When you think about it, a flu in Canton can become
an epidemic in Chicago. Or a protest in Tunisia can reverberate through
Latin America to East Asia. Or when a housing bubble bursts in Las
Vegas, it can unsteady markets in London and Mumbai.
The world has
changed. The amount and velocity of change is breathtaking. Technology
and globalization have made our countries and our communities
interdependent and interconnected. And citizens and non-[state]actors
like NGOs, corporations, or criminal cartels and terrorist networks,
increasingly are influencing international affairs, for good and ill. So
we face these complex challenges that are cross-cutting, that no one
nation can hope or expect to solve alone. So how we operate in this
world must obviously change.
When I became Secretary of State,
people were questioning if America was still willing to shoulder
leadership. It’s not hard to remember why: two wars, an economy in
freefall, diplomacy deemphasized, traditional alliances fraying. The
international system that the United States had helped to build and
defend over many decades seemed to be buckling under the weight of new
threats.
And so what we’ve tried to do in the last three-plus
years is to make sure we shored up and secured America’s global
leadership, knowing full well that it was going to take more than
military
solutions. We needed to be sure we were using every possible approach:
breaking down a lot of the old bureaucratic silos; engaging not just
with governments but with citizens, this new citizen empowerment from
the bottom up; finding new partners in the private sector; harnessing
market forces to really be part of the solution to some of the strategic
problems we face, leading by example and bringing people together on
behalf of supporting universal rights and values.
We really were
having to rethink how we did business, business in government as well as
business in the private sector. Now, in the government, we’re calling
what we’re trying to do smart power. And it, at bottom, was an effort to
integrate diplomacy, development, and defense. And I was so privileged
to find allies not just among my colleagues who were former secretaries
of state, but in the Pentagon. Both Secretaries of Defense Bob Gates and
Leon Panetta and Chairs of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen and now Marty
Dempsey have really been advocates for the idea that diplomacy and
development could help prevent conflicts and rebuild shattered societies
that would, in turn, lighten the load on our military.
And so
together, we are making sure our soldiers, diplomats, and development
experts are working more closely together, are listening to each other,
are contributing to being part of an all-hands-on-deck,
whole-of-government approach. And we’re also trying to make sure we get
our bureaucracies in Washington trying to do the same.
By next
January, when I will have traveled, I guess, a million miles or more, I
will look back on this period as one that has been a great privilege and
honor to serve. But I will also know that we have a lot of work to do.
And when I came into this office, I knew that we were going to have to
confront a lot of difficult problems. I’ll just quickly mention a few.
One,
Iran’s nuclear activities. How were we going to confront what was a
clear threat? How could we unify the international community so they
were not either on the sidelines or actively trying to undermine our
diplomatic efforts?
So what we did was to first decide we had to
give diplomacy a real chance. And President Obama extended an open hand
to the Iranian people. In our public diplomacy, we used every channel,
from satellite TV and Twitter, to old-fashioned snail mail. We cemented
our partnership with European allies. We reengaged with institutions
like the International Atomic Energy Agency. We convinced the entire
Security Council, including Russia and China, to enact the most onerous
sanctions that ever had been and to keep up the pressure.
And then
we added to that through our unilateral sanctions and the EU sanctions.
We worked directly with banks and insurance companies to make sure
those sanctions were implemented. Iran’s tankers now sit idle; its oil
goes unsold; its currency has collapsed. The window for engagement is
still open, and we are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution. But we
know that we have to continue to demonstrate that we’re making progress
diplomatically. It’s too soon to know how this story will end, but the
fact that we’ve returned to the negotiating table makes clear the choice
for Iran’s leaders.
We’re also looking for how to operate
multidimensional diplomacy at all times. Building and holding a
coalition to pressure and isolate Iran is one example, but there are
others as well. Our willingness to engage showed good faith. Our
willingness to listen showed humility. Our willingness to hammer out the
kinds of solutions that would be acceptable beyond the usual suspects
who always are with us is paying off. It’s not just with China and
Russia, but other rising powers like India, Turkey, South Africa, South
Korea, Indonesia, and Brazil, where intensive diplomacy is absolutely
essential.
Aligning our interests with these rising influential
nations is not always easy. And in Syria we’re seeing firsthand how
difficult it can be. But it can and has been working. Iran is one
example. But we’re also trying to come together around other global
challenges, from working with the IMF and others to manage the
international economic crisis to securing loose nukes.
We’re also
putting a lot more attention into regional and global institutions that
mobilize common action and help to settle disputes peacefully, that
stand for upholding universal rights and standards; and supporting an
open, free, transparent, and fair economic system; and having security
arrangements that promote stability and trust.
Because I don’t
believe that the rise of new powers has to be a threat to American
leadership. In fact, the rise of these powers is, in part, the result of
American leadership – of the stability and prosperity we brought to and
fostered around the world since the end of World War II. This is not
1912, when friction between a declining Britain and a rising Germany set
the stage for global conflict. It’s 2012, and a strong America is
working with new powers in an international system designed to prevent
global conflict. But we have to update that system. We have to continue
to ask ourselves, “How can we make it work better?” And we cannot do it
alone.
Let me also turn to a second example. Early last year, when
citizens took to the streets across the Middle East and North Africa
demanding their dignity, their human rights, those protests caught fire
and caught most people by surprise. We saw the beginnings of
responsiveness and accountability in Egypt and even in Yemen. But in
Libya, Qadhafi responded with brutal violence, and the Libyan people and
the Arab League, for the first time together, asked for the
international community’s support. So we did put together a broad
coalition, led by NATO with a mandate from the UN Security Council.
Think about it: The Arab League not only called for action, but members
of the Arab League participated alongside NATO. Without America’s
high-level diplomacy, cajoling, hand-holding, and occasional
arm-twisting, that coalition would never have come together or stayed
together.
And now we’re working with new partners to support
emerging democracies and to help build credible institutions. I was just
in Brasilia with President Dilma Rousseff co-chairing the Open
Government Partnership, which is an effort by the United States to bring
countries into the fight against corruption, a push for openness. And I
was so proud that Libya was represented at that conference and made a
speech about the kind of future – democratic future – that they are
seeking.
Now, we all know that this is a difficult transformation.
And we see countries like Syria that are trying to hold back the tide
of history with brutal, horrible impact on innocent lives. But a
situation as complicated as the Arab Spring demands a multifaceted
response. And so we have to marry all of these tools together:
old-fashioned shoe-leather diplomacy and the use of social media, using
every partner that is willing to work with us, and bringing disparate
stakeholders together. Only the United States of America has the
resolve, the reach, and the resources to do this on a truly global
scale.
And that doesn’t mean we go it alone. Actually, it means
the opposite. America cannot and should not shoulder every burden
ourselves. As we saw in Libya, our European and NATO allies remain our
partners of first resort, but new partners like those Arab nations that
flew the air CAP and helped with the maritime interdiction really made a
difference.
So we have to work on how we keep building those
networks and how we give capability and credibility to these coalitions
that come up to promote regional stability and security in a lot of
hotspots. And we’ve paid particular attention to the Asia Pacific and
the multilateral organizations there to building new architecture of
institutions that will serve as a bulwark for continuing security and
prosperity, and to deal with disputes like the territorial disputes in
the South China Sea.
Because after all, the Asia Pacific region,
which stretches from the Indian Ocean all the way to shores of the
Americas, is a key driver of global politics and economics. So we are
engaging in a wholehearted way. We are working on new trade agreements,
educational exchanges, an updated military force posture. We’re looking
to bring leaders together from across the Asia Pacific.
And just
recently, last September in San Francisco, we had a gathering for part
of the preparation for the Asia Pacific Economic Community meeting in
Hawaii. And we talked about something which I have talked about for a
long time but which is really getting traction now. And that is
improving women’s access to capital and markets, building women’s
capacities and skills, supporting women leaders is important – not just
because Christine and Jane and I are women, but because we know that the
more women participate in economies, the more successful those
economies will be. (Applause.)
So we’re working all the time on
the full range of issues. And you’ve been very patient tonight and very,
very kind – my friends who have bought tables to support the Wilson
Center and to come and be here this evening. And I wanted to just give
you a short overview of why we believe that this kind of full engagement
on all levels in our diplomacy and development work is the only way for
us to move forward together.
So as I look now at the work that
the Wilson Center is doing and will be doing, I am encouraged and
grateful because there are no doubts in my mind that we need this
public/private/not-for-profit partnership. The government can’t do it
alone; business can’t do it alone; civil society can’t do it alone. We
need to be sure that we are all on the same side and, in my view, all on
the same team.
And I was thinking a lot about this because we’re
coming up on the anniversary of the raid that killed bin Ladin, and
there will be lots and lots of wall-to-wall coverage about it. And it
was an incredible moment for me because of the extraordinary personal
commitment that I felt. People have asked me all the time, “What was
going through your mind on that day?” And really, what was going through
my mind were all the people in New York that I served and represented
and what they had gone through, how much they and our country deserved
justice.
And I thought about how important it was to make sure we
did everything we could to protect ourselves from another attack. And I
certainly thought about those brave Navy SEALs who went out on that
moonless Pakistani night. But I also thought about how important it is
that we don’t just focus on the threats, we don’t just focus on the
dangers; we have to keep reminding ourselves of the opportunities and
the necessity for American leadership. It’s in our DNA. It’s who we are.
And everyone in this room already knows, so it is a little bit like
preaching to the choir.
But we have to keep telling that story.
And I want to end where Fred began the evening. I love politics because I
think it’s the way people resolve problems and issues between them. And
it’s not just electoral politics that counts. If you’ve ever been in a
church, you know about politics. If you’ve ever been on a faculty, you
know about politics. But electoral politics, which is the lifeblood of
our democracy, is something that our country has been doing for longer
now than anybody else in the history of the world. And we have to set an
example as to how it’s done.
That doesn’t mean we have to always
agree with each other, because we will not. But it means we have to show
what it means to work together, to compromise. When I go to Burma, as I
did at the end of last year, and I go to their new shiny parliament
building and I meet with these people who are trying to figure out do
they really want to try this thing called democracy, and they ask me,
“Can you come help us know how to have a democracy,” I realized that our
ultimate strength, as it always has been, rests in our values: who we
are, what we represent. We can’t ever lose that.
So we will need
the help and partnership of everyone here. We’re grateful for the Wilson
Center, which is a wonderful resource for a lot of the work that we do.
But mostly, we’ll need citizenship to push and hold accountable our
leadership, regardless of party, regardless of whether it’s in
government or business, to make sure that we never, ever lose what makes
our country so special.
When I get off that plane representing
the United States, I am so proud and so honored, and I want to be sure
that whoever is the secretary of state next and next and next for 20,
30, 50, 100 years into the future will always be viewed with the same
level of respect and appreciation for what this country stands for. And I
need to be sure that all of you share that mission as well. Thank you
very much. (Applause.)
# # #
