Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Entries in Hillary Clinton (11)

Tuesday
Jul282009

Video and Transcript: Obama's Engagement with China (27 July)

The headlines may be on the crises and difficulties of engagement from Iran to the Middle East to North Korea, but the Obama Administration is pressing ahead, as an equal or greater priority, with engagement with India and China. Hillary Clinton's visit to Delhi last week and her co-written editorial with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in The Wall Street Journal, "A New Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China", was followed by President Obama's address on Monday to the first US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue:

President Obama Attends the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue from White House on Vimeo.



President Obama's remarks at the U.S./China Strategice and Economic Dialogue, July 27, 2009

Monday
Jul272009

UPDATED Mitchell in Syria: Obama's Big Push in the Middle East? 

Non-Story of the Day: Israel, Iran, and “All Options on the Table”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

ASSAD MITCHELLUPDATE (28 July, 0800 GMT): Well, it looks like the Obama Administration is more than serious about getting Syria to the negotiating table. Hours after we posted Josh Landis' caution that Damascus resented continued US sanctions, a White House spokesman said, " "Mitchell explained to President Assad that the U.S. would process all eligible applications for export licenses to Syria as quickly as possible", especially "those requests to export products related to information technology and telecommunication equipment and parts and components related to the safety of civil aviation."

However, there still remains a very big obstacle to resolution of the economic issues. The spokesman added that "there has been no change" to the general sanctions legislation against Syria, imposed in 2003: "Changes to U.S. sanctions would require close coordination and consultation with Congress."
---
The BBC breathlessly proclaimed this morning that, with President Obama's envoy George Mitchell visiting Syria, Egypt, and Israel and with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Tel Aviv today, this was the Obama Administration's "big push" for a Middle Eastern settlement. A moment's reflection before such a dramatic statement might have been in order: Mitchell's two previous tours of the region have been "big pushes", there was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "big push" in the spring, and of course there was the high-profile Obama speech in Cairo. All those big pushes have brought little movement so far.


Josh Landis, evaluating the first leg of Mitchell's tour in Damascus yesterday, gives further food for thought:

First analysis of the Mitchell Meeting


George Mitchell did not say what the United States expected from Syria, especially on Hamas, as he left his meeting with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Mitchell said, after the meeting, that restarting talks between Syria and Israel was a “near-term goal” for Washington. “If we are to succeed, we will need Arabs and Israelis alike to work with us to bring about comprehensive peace. We will welcome the full cooperation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in this historic endeavor,” he said to reporters. “I told President Assad that President Obama is determined to facilitate a truly comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace."

Mitchell’s brief is Israeli-Arab peace. The main sticking point in US-Syrian relations at this time,however, is the Iraq intelligence-sharing deal, the details of which seem to be concluded, but which Syria is not implementing. Some analysts suggest that Damascus is dragging its feet out of fear of al-Qaida, which might launch a terror campaign against Syria. I find this argument dubious. Damascus insists on US compliance on concerns it has been raising with Washington for some time. I do not know exactly what these concerns are other than having an ambassador appointed, ending the era of public demonization of Syria, and normalizing relations.

Speaking of normalizing relations, the Airbus export license on which Syria had hung it hopes of reviving Syria Air and launching Pearl Airlines was rejected last month. Because the US refuses to sell new Boeing planes to Syria and has put every impediment in the way of Syria purchasing spare parts to repair its aging fleet, Syria Air is all but grounded. To remedy this embarrassing situation, President Assad has sought to buy European planes, but it turns out that over 10% of these planes are manufactured in the US, permitting the US Treasury Department to refuse permission to the Europeans to sell them to Syria. This means that Obama can effectively close down the Syrian air industry, which he is doing. The embargo on planes and aviation parts is just one aspect of the US-imposed economic sanctions Syria believes Obama should end.

The US clearly has a pack of economic, military, and political cards to play. If, for example, the US demands Syria satisfy US concerns on an entire portfolio, such as intelligence sharing and Iraq, in exchange for normalizing one element of economic relations, such as aviation, Syria will have to hand over much of its foreign policy bag of tricks simply to purchase normal relations with the West. This is undoubtedly not an exchange rate Damascus likes.

Western diplomats are not sympathetic to Syrian complaints that they are being treated unfairly. “Syrians think they are the center of the World,” one non-American Western diplomat complained to me in June. I replied that most Syrian officials I know become indignant when Westerners reminded them that they are bit players on the world stage. They insist that they have “nafis tawiil,” or long breath, meaning that they will refuse deals on terms they consider humiliating or bad even if refusal costs them a heavy price.

To predict how negotiations may turn out is pointless. It is too early to say. We don’t know what sort of deal is shaping up in Damascus or where the stickiest points are. Syrian officials explain that US-Syrian relations have been dormant for eight years and suggest that it is quite natural that only a few months of dialogue cannot break down the great distrust and misunderstanding built up by the Bush years.
Sunday
Jul262009

Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton on "Meet the Press" (26 July)



DAVID GREGORY: Here she is, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David. It's great to be here with you.

MR. GREGORY: Glad to have you. And you're here for the full hour, so we have a lot to get to.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, with your preview into it, there's a lot to talk about in the world today.

MR. GREGORY: Absolutely. So let's get right to it and talk about some of the hot spots around the globe that you're dealing with. First up is North Korea, and got tense this week. Here was the big headline: "Clinton and North Korea Engage in Tense Exchange." It actually began on Monday during an interview that you gave to ABC. Let's watch a portion of that.

(Videotape, Monday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, what we've seen in this constant demand for attention. And maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention, don't give it to them. They don't deserve it. They are acting out, in a way, to send a message that is not a message we're interested in receiving.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, the North Korean reaction was rather personal, and The Washington Post wrote about it on Friday. We'll put that up on the screen. "The war of words between North Korea and the United States escalated with North Korea's Foreign Ministry lashing out at Secretary of State Clinton in unusually personal terms for `vulgar remarks' that it said demonstrated `she is by no means intelligent...We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady...Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl.'" What were they thinking?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think what's important here is the clear message that we're sending to North Korea, and it's one that is now unanimous. The Security Council Resolution 1874 made official that North Korea must change their behavior and we have to get back to moving toward verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Now, as you know and as you've reported, they've engaged in a lot of provocative actions in the last months. But what we, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and literally the unanimous international community have said is it's not going to work this time. We're imposing the most stringent sanctions we ever have. We have great cooperation from the world community. China and we are working closely together to enforce these sanctions. We still want North Korea to come back to the negotiating table, to be part of an international effort that will lead to denuclearization. But we're not going to reward them for doing what they said they would do in 2005 and 6. We're not going to reward them for half measures. They now know what we in the world community expect.

MR. GREGORY: But it's interesting; if the posture of this administration was more engagement, even negotiations with our adversaries, it struck me this week that this was a ratcheting up of the rhetoric against North Korea.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, we want to make clear to North Korea that their behavior is not going to be rewarded. In the past they believe that they have acted out, done things which really went against the norms of the international community and somehow then were rewarded. Those days are over. We believe that the six-party talk framework which had everybody included is the appropriate way to engage with North Korea.

MR. GREGORY: But they say--if I can just stop you, they say we're not playing in that group anymore.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, that's what they say. And I think they are very isolated now. I saw that when I was at the ASEAN meeting, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. I was in the same room with a representative from North Korea who launched a broadside attack on the United States, blaming us for literally everything that has ever gone wrong in North Korea going back decades. I listened; everyone else just didn't even look at him. I was struck by the body language. They don't have any friends left. And what we've seen even Burma saying that they're going to enforce the resolution of sanctions. And when the North Korean representative finished, I just very calmly said North Korea knows what it must do and what we are expecting from it. I talked with my counterparts from Russia, China, Japan, South Korea at length during the time I was in Thailand. We are all on the same page and we are all committed to the same goal.

MR. GREGORY: Can we say at this point--since it's so difficult to deal with North Korea, going back to President Clinton, who said that he would stop them from getting a nuclear bomb--after these missile tests, after the belief that they have seven or eight nuclear bombs, that an effort to keep them from going nuclear has failed?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages, and there are several important factors here that has led to the unanimity of the international community. It's not only that North Korea has, against the international norms, IAEA and other requirements, proceeded with this effort, but they also are a proliferator. We know that for a fact. So it's not only the threat they pose to their neighbors and eventually beyond, but the fact that they're trying to arm others. And then there is the reaction in the region. I mean, if you're sitting in South Korea and Japan, who are two of our strongest allies with whom we have very clear defense responsibilities, and you see North Korea proceeding, then you're going to be thinking, "Well, what do I need to do to protect myself?" So it is destabilizing for Northeast Asia, which is why I think you'll see a continuing pressure which we think will eventually result in some changes in their behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Is North Korea a threat to the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, at this time, you know, our military experts and others say that in real terms, what they could do to us, that's unlikely. We have missile defenses that we can deploy. But they are a threat to our friends and allies, particularly Japan and South Korea. So therefore, they trigger a response from us to protect our allies and to make clear to the North Koreans that they cannot behave in this way. And I want to just underscore that China has been extremely positive and productive in respect to North Korea. The big issue in previous times was well, how do we get China to really be working to change North Korean behavior? I will be starting, along with Secretary Geithner, an intensive two days with Chinese high-level representatives tomorrow and Tuesday. But on North Korea, we have been extremely gratified by their forward-leaning commitment to sanctions and the private messages that they have conveyed to the North Koreans.

MR. GREGORY: Finally on this, two U.S. captives, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists in captivity now; is there a feeling that some of the tough talk that you had with the North Koreans this week, this sort of exchange of insults, does it make their situation more dangerous?

SEC'Y CLINTON: We believe that this is on a separate track. This is an issue that should be resolved by the North Koreans granting amnesty and allowing these two young women to come home as quickly as possible.

MR. GREGORY: Are you making progress?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, we have--are certainly pursuing every lead we have. The messages that we've received from the young women both through our protecting power, the Swedish ambassador, and through the messages and phone calls they've had with their families are that they're being treated well, that they have been given the supplies that they need. But obviously, they want to resolve this, as we do, and we work on it literally every day.

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to another hot spot, and that is Iran. A big headline this week, again, with your words: "Clinton's `Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions." The headlines goes on, "Suggests U.S. Will Have to Protect Allies From Nuclear-Armed Iran." You were in Bangkok on Wednesday, and this is what you said that got this started.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think it's clear that we're trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime. You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against. We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy. So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen. First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran--nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but let's be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

SEC'Y CLINTON: We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all. You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst. Our hope is--that's why we're engaged in the president's policy of engagement toward Iran--is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities. You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control. But there's a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.

MR. GREGORY: One of the big challenges here is preventing Israel from acting first; if they feel there's an existential threat, would they strike out at Iran to take out a nuclear program. And there's been various positions taken within the administration about that. Vice President Biden just a couple of weeks ago said this on ABC: "We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they are existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country." Meantime, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said, "Well, I have been for some time concerned about any strike on Iran [by Israel]. I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself, but the unintended consequences of a strike like that." Where do you fall on the spectrum of the administration views about the impact of a strike by Israel?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, let me say that I personally don't see the contradiction here. The vice president was stating a fact. Israel is a sovereign nation. Any sovereign nation facing what it considers to be an existential threat, as successive Israeli governments have characterized the possibility of Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean to them, is not going to listen to other nations, I mean, if they believe that they are acting in the furtherance of their survival. However, as Admiral Mullen said, you know, we continue to believe that very intensive diplomacy, bringing the international community together, making clear to the Iranians what the costs of their pursuit of nuclear weapons might be is the preferable route. So clearly, we have a, a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected. But we also believe that pursuing this path with Iran that we're on right now, that frankly we're bringing more and more people to see it our way--I thought the G-8 statement was quite remarkable in that sense--is the better approach for us to take. So we will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

MR. GREGORY: Defense Secretary Gates is on his way to Israel this week. Is the message to the Israelis, "You got to hang tight here"?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, also, General Jones will be there. We have a full panoply of a lot of our national security team that will be meeting with comparable Israeli officials. And our message is as it has been: The United States stand with you, the United States believes that Israel has a right to security. We believe, however, that this approach we're taking holds out the promise of realizing our common objective. And we want to brief the Israelis, we want to listen to the Israelis and we want to enlist the support of all of our allies and friends in moving forward on this policy.

MR. GREGORY: Is Iran an illegitimate regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, that's really for the people of Iran to decide. I have been moved by the, just the cries for freedom and, and the clear appeal to the Iranian government that this really significant country with a people that go back millennia that has such a great culture and history deserves better than what they're getting.

MR. GREGORY: But if the United States decides to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, as has been the stated policy of the willingness to engage, are you not betraying this democratic movement trying to overthrow that regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't think so, David, because you can go back in history--and not, you know, very long back--where we have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people. Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union. Look at the breakthrough and subsequent negotiations with communist China. That's what you do in diplomacy. You don't get to choose the people; that's up to the internal dynamics within a society. But clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people. We would hope that there is more openness, that peaceful demonstrations are respected, that press freedom is respected. Yet, we also know that whoever is in charge in Iran is going to be making decisions that will affect the security of the region and the world.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about another difficult area, and that's Russia, where there has been an attempt by the president to say, "We're going to reset this relationship." Vice President Biden, who was just traveling in the region, talked to the Wall Street Journal, and his comments raised some eyebrows. This is what he said: "The reality is the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable." Is he speaking for the president, and is the message essentiality that the U.S. now has the upper hand when it's dealing with Russia?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, and I don't think that's at all what the vice president meant. I mean, remember, the vice president was the first person in the administration, in an important speech which he gave in Munich, Germany, shortly after President Obama's inauguration, that we wanted to reset our relationship with Russia. And we know that that's not easily done. It takes time, it takes trust building. And we want what the president called for during his recent Moscow summit. We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.

Now, there is an enormous amount of work to be done between the United States and Russia. We're working on reducing our nuclear arsenal. We're going to work on reducing fissile material to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. We're working to combat the threat of violent extremism. Russia has been very helpful in our United Nations efforts vis-a-vis North Korea. The Russians joined the G-8 statement in Italy talking about the need for Iran to come to the table either in a multilateral forum like the P-5 Plus One that we're part of, or bilaterally with us. And so there is an enormous amount of hard work being done. And we view Russia as a great power. Now, every country faces challenges. You know, we have our challenges, Russia has their challenges. And there are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on its own. And we want to make clear that, as we reset our relationship, we are very clearly not saying that Russia can have a 21st century sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. That is, you know, an, an attitude and a policy we reject.

We also are making it very clear that any nation in Eastern Europe that used to be part of the Soviet Union has a right now, as a free, sovereign and independent nation, to choose whatever alliance they wish to join. So if Ukraine and Georgia someday are eligible for and desire to join NATO, that should be up to them.

So I, I think that, you know, what we're seeing here is the beginning of the resetting of that relationship, which I have been deeply involved in. I will be co-chairing a presidential commission along with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. We'll be following up on what our two presidents said in Moscow. And the Russians know that, you know, we have continuing questions about some of their policies, and they have continuing questions about some of ours.

MR. GREGORY: Before we get to a break I want to get to another hot spot, and that, of course, is Afghanistan. And the headline coming out this week: "U.S. Deaths Hit A Record High In Afghanistan: The Toll of 31 So Far in July Makes For the Deadliest Month of the War." Is--with--given that the president is surging up forces, 17,000 additional troops going to Afghanistan, is this a war of necessity for this president, or has it become his war of choice?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think the president has been very firm in stating that the policy that was followed in Afghanistan was not working. He said it throughout the campaign, he made that clear upon becoming president. And we know that the threat to the United States and, in fact, those who plotted and carried out the horrific attack on 9/11 against our country have not yet been brought to justice, killed or captured. So the president's goal is to dismantle and destroy and eventually defeat al-Qaeda.

MR. GREGORY: And yet, if I can just stop you, the real focus now is fighting the Taliban, which is an insurgent movement. And Thomas Friedman wrote this on Wednesday, I'd like you to respond to it: "American has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby. The troop surge that President Obama ordered [in Afghanistan] early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed--if ever. We came [to Afghanistan] to destroy al-Qaeda, now we're in a long war with the Taliban. Is that really a good use of American power?"

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, we had an intensive strategic review upon taking office. And we not only brought the entire United States government together, but we reached out to friends and allies, people with stakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And as you know, the result of that strategic review was to conclude that al-Qaeda is supported by and uses its extremist allies like elements within the Taliban and other violent extremist groups in the region as well as worldwide to extend its reach, to be proxies for a lot of its attacks on Jakarta, Indonesia, and elsewhere. So that in order to really go after al-Qaeda, to uproot it and destroy it, we had to take on those who were giving the al-Qaeda leadership safe haven.

Now, as you know, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is permeable. There are movements back and forth across it. I think our new strategy, which has been endorsed by a very large number of nations, some of whom don't agree with us on a lot of other things, is aimed at achieving our primary goal. And we also learned from Iraq, which were hard lessons, that in order to have our military intervention be effective, when they go in and try to clear areas of the extremists, we have to follow in to build up the capacity of the local community to defend itself and to be able to realize the benefits of those changes. This is a new strategy. It's just beginning. I think the president believed that it was not only the right strategy but, facing what he faced, to withdraw our presence or to keep it on the low level limited effectiveness that had been demonstrated, would have sent a message to al-Qaeda and their allies that the United States was willing to leave the field to them. And in addition, importantly, we've seen the Pakistani government and military really step up, which had not happened to the extent it has now. So the Taliban, which is as, I believe strongly, part of a kind of terrorist syndicate with al-Qaeda at the center...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...is now under tremendous pressure, and I think that's in America's national interest.

Now, I have to add, nobody is more saddened than the president and I by the loss of life of our young men and women, and no one is more impatient than we are to see the results of this sacrifice bear fruit. We have the most extraordinary military in the world. They have leadership now we think is totally on point in terms of what we are attempting to accomplish. And, and I think that we'll see benefits come from that.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it there for a moment. We're going to take a short break here and we'll have much more with Secretary of State Clinton, including a question that keeps popping up around the world.

(Videotape)

Unidentified Woman #1: Will we ever get to see you as president of the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Wow, that's not...

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: All coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: More of our conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after this brief commercial break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: And we're back with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

How is your elbow?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, it's getting better. It's about 80 percent of the way back. You know, there are certain moves that I can make, but there are others that are, are still kind of painful. But I'm doing my physical therapy. That's what everybody told me I had to do. And...

MR. GREGORY: Because hand shaking is a little hard.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yes. I try to...

MR. GREGORY: Which is hard for a diplomat.

SEC'Y CLINTON: It is. I tried to do the hand shaking when I was in India and Thailand, and my arm was really sore at the end. So I'm either putting out my left hand or--I love the Thais.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, I was going around like this to everybody. (Bows)

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: That, that helped me out a lot.

MR. GREGORY: It's doing that in Germany that's confusing. That's just a little hard.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yeah. Well, probably it has to be culturally appropriate.

MR. GREGORY: Let's take a step back and look at the larger vision for the president's foreign policy. This is what the president said during his inaugural address, which was something of a mission statement. Let's watch.

(Videotape, January 20, 2009)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And yet isn't the problem, six months in, that there may be a willingness to change the tone, there may be more engagement, but nobody's unclenching their fist yet?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, David, that's not the way I read it at all. I think six months in, look at what we've done. We have begun to fulfill our obligation to withdraw from Iraq, so that now when I meet with Prime Minister Maliki and 10 members of his government and about 12 of ours we're talking about educational exchanges, we're talking about agriculture. We have a very clear policy on nonproliferation, which the president has stated, and we're back in the business of trying to move the world in a, in a very careful but consistent way toward lowering the threat of nuclear weapons. We've already talked about bringing the world together, which we have, around a joint response to North Korea and increasingly to Iran. We are sending a message to governments and peoples alike, as the president did in his very important Cairo speech, as he just did in Ghana, that we want government and particularly democracies that deliver for people. I mean, I could go on and on.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: We are really back.

MR. GREGORY: But is...

SEC'Y CLINTON: And that was my message when I went to Asia: The United States is back and we're ready to lead.

MR. GREGORY: But what did you mean by that?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, what I meant was that in, in many parts of the world the priorities that were pursued the last eight years did not seem to include them. So just going, for example, to Asia--as I did on my first trip, as I just did--was viewed as a very positive statement of participation. We're building on some of the good work that's been done in a bipartisan way with India starting with my husband and, in fact, in this case continuing with President Bush with India. So we have now announced the most comprehensive engagement we've ever had with that country.

MR. GREGORY: But, but if, if you look at it, the Bush administration policy in Asia and now the Obama administration policy in Asia is not that different. You, you, too, are distracted by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I, I--no, I--see, I disagree...

MR. GREGORY: So, so I don't see what's really changed.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I disagree with that. I mean, part of what we have done is to organize ourselves so that we can concentrate on many important issues at the same time. I know that, for example, people have raised questions about why I pushed so hard to have special envoys appointed. It's because I think it would be diplomatic malpractice not to have people of stature and experience handling some of our most difficult problems on a day-to-day basis. I'm the chief diplomat; I'm responsible at the end for advising the president, for executing the policy that we agree upon. But it is to our advantage to have George Mitchell in the Middle East today, to have Richard Holbrook in Afghanistan.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: To have retired General Scott Gration coming back from probably his sixth or seventh trip to Sudan, having Todd Stern leading our efforts on climate change. I could not possibly have given the attention that we need, in the in-depth way that is required, to all of this. And I think the feeling on the part of much of the world was that the prior administration, for understandable reasons, focused so much on some of the specific issues like Iraq, etc., that really grabbed it and required a lot of attention, that much of the rest of the world felt, you know, that they were kind of second tier. When I went to the ASEAN meeting, it hadn't been for sometime that we'd had a secretary of state pay continuing attention. We announced a, an exciting new relationship with the lower Mekong countries--Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand. We are working everywhere we can to make clear that, you know, the United States cannot solve all the problems of the world alone, but the world cannot solve them without the United States.

MR. GREGORY: But you raised the--your role in the administration. Here was a recent headline that got a lot of attention, not surprisingly, in the Los Angeles Times: "Clinton Seems Overshadowed by Her Boss, Some Analysts Say." You responded with a pretty sharp retort, saying, "I broke my elbow, not my larynx."

SEC'Y CLINTON: That's right.

MR. GREGORY: But seriously, has, at times, this been a struggle?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Not at all; I mean, maybe because I understand the functioning of the United States government. The president is the president, and the president is responsible for setting policy. Now, we have a great relationship. I see him usually several times a week, at least once one-on-one, and I'm ready to offer my advice. We have an, an incredibly candid and open exchange. In fact, the whole team does. And I really welcome that.

MR. GREGORY: But this is kind of interesting, I mean, the whole team of rivals idea. Do you have a close working relationship? Are you the voice on foreign policy, the adviser in his ear on foreign policy?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I, I am the chief adviser on foreign policy, but the president makes the decisions. You know, I have a picture of former Secretary of State Seward in my office. He was a New York senator who went on to serve President Lincoln, which is part of what created this concept of team of rivals. He became one of Lincoln's closest and strongest advisers. Why? Because he understood, as I do, that the election is over. The president has to lead our country both internationally and domestically. I saw this when my husband was president. At the end of the day, it is the president who has to set and articulate policy. I'm privileged to be in a position where I am the chief adviser, I'm the chief diplomat, I'm the chief executor of the policy that the president pursues. But I know very well that a team that works together is going to do a better job for America. And one thing I would add is, you know, I've read a lot of diplomatic history, and I know that very often there become sort of warring camps, you know. It's the Defense Department vs. the State Department, or the National Security Council vs. the State Department. And in fact, we've had administrations where there was just open warfare.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You don't see any of that in this administration. And in fact, I've had some of my predecessors say with, you know, some amount of surprise, this administration has no light between it.

MR. GREGORY: Well, and to that point, what has President Obama proved to you as president that you didn't believe about him as a candidate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I always had a very high respect for him as a colleague. We served in the Senate together. Now, during a campaign you're going to magnify differences. You're trying to convince people to vote for you and, and vote against the other candidate. So I always had a very healthy respect for his intelligence, for his world view, for his understanding of the complexity that we face in the 21st century. Now having worked with him for six months, what I see is his decisiveness, his discipline, his approach to difficult problems. We have a really good process in the NSC that intensely examines problems, brings people to the table, goes outside the usual circle; tries to tee up decisions for what's called the Principle's Committee, which I and the vice president and the secretaries of Defense and our CIA and our DNI and everybody sit around a table in the Situation Room, we take the work that comes from the Deputies Committee that's gone through this very rigorous process and we hash it out. And we do not always agree, and we take positions.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And at the end, though, we reach a consensus. Either we are at a point where we feel that we know the best thing to suggest to the president, or we suggest a minority and a majority point of view. And then we meet with the president, and the president hears us out. Oftentimes he'll put somebody on the spot and he'll say, "Well, David, what do you really think?"

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Or he'll go and say, "I didn't hear from you yet." And at the end of the day, the president makes the decision. And I've been very impressed by that.

MR. GREGORY: But you--but during the--during the campaign you questioned both his experience and his toughness. Are those issues that you don't feel as strongly anymore?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, I don't feel them at all. I mean, I think that, you know, those were appropriate issues to raise in the campaign. I, I have no problem with having raised those, because he hadn't yet been on the national scene. But look, I'm here to say, as somebody who spent an enormous amount of time and effort running against him, I think his performance in office has been incredible.

MR. GREGORY: You are secretary of state. You are not--I should say, your portfolio does not include domestic matters, domestic political debates. And yet health care is obviously a huge debate right now in this country and for this administration. And this is what you said when you ended your run for the presidency June 7th, 2008. Let's watch.

(Videotape, June 7, 2008)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We all want a healthcare system that is universal, high quality and affordable, so that parents don't have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance. This isn't just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: You've always been passionate about this. You're not involved in the current debate. But why is it so hard, do you think?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, it's hard because the system that we've seen grow up almost organically since World War II is so dysfunctional. And unfortunately, the incentives are often not in the right places to reward doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals for their outcomes, to really drive quality. And I applaud the president for taking it on right off the bat. You know, there are many problems we're dealing with in our country, and certainly he could have said, "OK, fine, we'll get to that when we get to it." But he's waded right into it. And I am somewhat encouraged by what I see happening in the Congress. You know, I've been there. I know how hard this is.

MR. GREGORY: Is it different than '93?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, it is. It's different in several ways. It's different because I think everybody's now convinced there's a problem. Back in '93 we had to keep making the case over and over again. Well, now we know costs will continue to rise. For everybody who has insurance, there is no safe haven, their costs will go up. We lose insurance for 14,000 people a day. We know that our system, left unchecked, is going to bankrupt not just families and businesses, but our country. So it is a central concern of President Obama and our administration.

MR. GREGORY: And yet you wrote in your memoir, "Living History," something that was very interesting. You wrote this; "Ultimately, we could never convince the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance that they wouldn't have to give up benefits and medical choices to help the minority of Americans without coverage. Nor could we persuade them that reform would protect them from losing insurance and would make their medical care more affordable in the future." And that's exactly the issue the President Obama is dealing with now. Do you think he's doing a better job getting over that hurdle?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I think he's making a very strong case. And what's important here is that people are always for change in general, and then they begin to worry about the particulars. As our process moves forward--we have legislation in both Houses. We've had the committee I use to serve on, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension, so-called HELP Committee, pass out a comprehensive bill. We're seeing action in the House. Then people will begin to see the particulars and the legislative process will begin to try to, you know, smooth out the rough edges and create the reassurances that people need. But what is so promising for me is that when I wrote that about our experience in the early '90s, there were still a lot of routes that people thought we could go down; "Well, we'll try managed care. We'll get more HMOs. We'll be able to control costs for the people who have insurance." I'm talking now...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...not about those who are uninsured, which I think is both a moral and an economic imperative, but the people without it--with it and who are wondering, "What's this going to mean for me?" I think people now realize, you know, "I could be uninsured." The, the chances that businesses will continue to pay for insurance over the next five, 10, 15 years are diminishing. I think, if I remember correctly, in '93 and '94, 61 percent of small businesses provided some kind of health insurance for their employees. It's down to 38 percent. So now everybody's worrying. And I think that gives the president a very strong case to make.

MR. GREGORY: Has he sought out your counsel on this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, we talk about everything. You know, I have a rule that I don't ever talk about what I talk about with presidents, whether it's my husband...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...when he was president, or now with President Obama. But, you know...

MR. GREGORY: But even domestic issues, you'll offer some thoughts.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I, I'm available to the president to talk about anything. Now, obviously, we have a pretty big, you know, portfolio...

MR. GREGORY: Right. Portfolio, yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...that we have to deal with on the international stage.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Bottom, bottom line, do you think health care will pass this time?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I do. I think that the time has come. I think this president is committed to it. I think the leadership in Congress understands we have to do something. And I, I think we'll get, we'll get it done.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about another big issue in the news this week, because Henry Louis Gates is also a friend of yours, in addition to being a friend of this president's. Professor Gates arrested, of course--you see the picture there--in his Cambridge home. The president talked about it at a press conference and then showed up unannounced in the, in the briefing room to address it further. What role do you think he plays or should play in sensitive matters like this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think the president did an excellent job in addressing it on Friday when he went to the press room. And, and I think his point is very clear. He said, "Look, maybe I should have chosen different words." But he's going to have a beer with Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley, and I think that's, you know, leadership by example. And I really commend him for that.

MR. GREGORY: But, you know, it's interesting, because issues of race obviously played out in the course of the campaign. And I wonder, do you think the president has a, a special responsibility and plays a special role in terms of race relations for the country?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, if something constructive can come out of this latest incident, it will be that people around the country are, are talking about the continuing challenges we face. You know, obviously the fact that the president exemplifies the progress that has been made over generations, the sacrifices of so many who came before, is a powerful statement in and of itself. His experience added to that, I think, is important for the country to, to see and to digest. But the president has said many times, he's the president of all the people in the United States. He's the president who, you know, wants to, you know, bring people together to solve problems and to make progress together.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to take another short break here and continue in our remaining minutes with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: And we're back, our remaining moments with the secretary of state.

I want to ask you about something that you deal with all over the world, and that's the topic of women in leadership. Here was a moment from Delhi University in India during your trip when you were asked a question.

(Videotape, Monday)

Unidentified Woman #2: Madam, today and even day before yesterday in one of your speeches you hinted that the progress of women and the growth of women is directly linked with the progress and growth of any and every country. India has had a woman prime minister as early as in the third decade of its post-independence era, while America has been deprived--if I, if I can say so--of the same privilege.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You can say so to me.

Woman #2: And, and on...

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: What's it going to take for a woman to be president?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, it'll take the right woman who can make the case and win the votes and get elected. And I am certainly hoping that happens in my lifetime. But what was so interesting about that exchange, David, is that I have now, as you said in the beginning, traveled more than 100,000 miles. I've been in, I think, 30 countries. I've done a lot of town halls, because, you know, I believe it's not just diplomacy between government officials, it's diplomacy between people. So I've gone out of my way to do town halls, to do events that have significance to the countries in which I'm visiting. I cannot tell you how many times I've been asked about women in leadership, women in elected office, the role of women in development. This is a subject that is on the minds of people literally around the world.

MR. GREGORY: You say the right woman. You know, supporters of yours I've talked to over time say, "You know what, we're so disappointed, because if she couldn't do it, who can?" I mean, all the establishment support, all the money, married to a former president, all of these things that you had established, and yet you couldn't do it. It's very daunting to a lot of people.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, look, I'm not going to pretend that running for president as a woman is not daunting. It is daunting. And it is, you know, probably a path that doesn't appeal to a lot of women even in elective office, because it is so difficult. But I am convinced--and I don't know if she's in elective office right now or if she's preparing to run for office--but there is a woman who I am hoping will be able to achieve that. Now, obviously, that's up to individual women...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...who have to make this decision for themselves.

MR. GREGORY: This was Governor Sarah Palin, who is stepping down as governor of Alaska, and what she said when she was named to the ticket with John McCain last year.

(Videotape, August 29, 2008)

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, you probably don't agree with her politically, but do you believe that Governor Palin represents a woman's chance to become president?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I'm not--I'm out of politics. That's one of the things about being secretary of state. And I would wish her well in her private life as she leaves the office.

MR. GREGORY: Does she have what it takes?

SEC'Y CLINTON: That's up to the voters to determine. It's up to the voters to determine with respect to anyone.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I mean, putting together a presidential campaign is an extremely complicated enterprise. So I'm just going to leave it at that, and I will be an interested observer. I do want to see a woman elected president. I hope it's a Democratic woman who represents the kind of...

MR. GREGORY: So no endorsement for Governor Palin at this stage?

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...of, kind of approach that I happen to favor.

MR. GREGORY: OK. The question, again, that comes up around the world is what you experienced during an interview on Wednesday in Thailand. Let's roll that.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

Woman #1: Will we ever get to see you as president of the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Wow. That's not anything I'm at all thinking about. I've got a very demanding and exciting job right now, and I'm not somebody who looks ahead. You know, I don't know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever, ever be part of my life.

Woman #1: So it's wait and see.

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, no, no, no. I...

Unidentified Man: Never say never.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I am saying no...

Woman #1: For now.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...because I have a very committed attitude toward the job that I'm doing now.

Woman #1: Now.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And so that's not anything that is at all on my radar screen.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: So, you know, I guess we don't have to worry about a free press in Thailand. Right? They kept coming at you.

SEC'Y CLINTON: That was a great--it was a great show. It's one of the things that I've been doing around the world, these interview shows.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: But the answer is no. I don't know how many more...

MR. GREGORY: Right. But you didn't, but you didn't say never.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, you know, I say no, never, you know, not at all. I don't know what, what else to say.

MR. GREGORY: Are you saying you wouldn't entertain another run?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen, that I have any interest in it happening. You know, as I said, I, I am so focused on what I'm doing. And, you know, I think that the interest in sort of the political dynamics is, you know, obviously fascinating, not just here, but around the world. But, you know, the more common question that I'm asked which I don't think gets enough attention, because it's so important in these emerging democracies, is how could I have run against President Obama all those months, and as hard as I did, and now work with him and work for him?

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And a lot of countries can't believe that two former competitors could now have made common cause on behalf of our country. Now, I think that's the story. And that, to me, is a message that we're trying to send to the rest of the world that this is the way a democracy works.

MR. GREGORY: Do you still think about the campaign?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Not really. I sometimes, you know, see people who worked so hard for me and who are very committed to electing a woman president someday, and obviously, you know, that provokes emotions in me. But no, I've moved on. I think it's important to move on. I, I'm not somebody--I tell countries all the time, don't get mired in the past. So I'm going to set an example and not do it either.

MR. GREGORY: Any regrets?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, none at all. I gave it all I had.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, I want you to react to the ambition of a young woman. This is a young Hillary Rodham writing in sixth grade about ambition.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: "When I grow up, I want to have had the best education I could have possible obtained. If I obtain this, I will probably be able to get a very good job. I want to be either a teacher or a nuclear physics scientist." Now, I have to ask you, has this whole thing--being the senator from New York, running for the presidency--is this all about setting yourself up to be a nuclear physic scientist?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, unfortunately, David, I learned early on that that was not in the cards for me. So, you know, I had to settle for being in public life, which has been a great reward in and of itself.

MR. GREGORY: Is this the story--how the story is playing out is what you expected?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I have to say, you know, I was looking at that. I don't--I think I wrote that in sixth grade. I think it's just a lesson to everybody, you don't know where life may lead you and what your opportunities could be. I did believe, and my mother and father impressed on me the need to get a good education, and I think my family's support and values and the education that I received set me up to be able to take advantage of a lot of these extraordinary opportunities I've been given. I mean, I'm sitting here as a very lucky person, someone who's had a chance to serve the country that I've loved my entire life, that I believe is an exemplar of what is best in human affairs, that I care deeply about our future. So how lucky can you be? I got to serve in the White House when my husband was president, working on issues I care about. I got to represent the greatest state in the country for eight years. And now I get to work with a new president who is so determined to make a better future. I have no complaints at all.

MR. GREGORY: We're going to leave it there. Secretary Clinton, thank you.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: Good luck in your important work.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David.
Friday
Jul242009

Transcript: Hillary Clinton Remarks on North Korea (23 July)

H CLINTONSecretary of State Hillary Clinton, attending the summit of Southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, used her press conference to focus on relations with North Korea. In general, her tough talk was mainly to hold the line. There is no prospect of a resumption of talks on Pyongyang's nuclear programme --- North Korea representatives to the summit offered a colourful insulting of Clinton as "a funny woman" (funny peculiar, I think, not funny ha-ha). So the overriding message, beyond Clinton's display to a US audience of her assertive diplomacy, was the call to other countries to support sanctions against North Korea.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. Let me start by saying we’ve had a series of very productive sessions here in Phuket, and I’ve had the opportunity for the first time to engage with the nations of ASEAN and our regional partners on issues of common concern, to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, and to lay the groundwork for even stronger partnerships as we move forward.

I’ve also had the opportunity to meet one on one with a number of my counterparts. Earlier, I met with Foreign Minister Qureshi of Pakistan, and we talked about the encouraging signs in Pakistan’s fight against violent extremists, including the return of significant numbers of refugees to Buner and Swat. There are still great challenges ahead facing Pakistan, including the ongoing threat of violent extremism and continuing economic difficulty. But I assured the foreign minister that the United States stands ready to help the Pakistani Government and people. And I also advised him that I support the steps Pakistan and India have taken to find a more productive way forward.

I want to take this opportunity to discuss the situation in North Korea and our efforts here in the ASEAN Regional Forum to promote security in Northeast Asia. Yesterday, I held consultations with our allies and partners in the Six-Party process, and this morning, there was a very good discussion with the ASEAN nations and regional partners. I was gratified by how many countries from throughout the region spoke up and expressed directly to the North Korean delegation their concerns over the provocative behavior we have seen these past few months.

Unfortunately, the North Korean delegation offered only an insistent refusal to recognize that North Korea has been on the wrong course. In their presentation today, they evinced no willingness to pursue the path of denuclearization. And that was troubling not only to the United States, but to the region and the international community. So the question is, where do we go from here?

I think it’s important to stress that the international community’s response to North Korea’s actions has been unequivocal and nearly unanimous, leading to a new consensus around a common set of principles. The United States and its allies and partners cannot accept a North Korea that tries to maintain nuclear weapons to launch ballistic missiles or to proliferate nuclear materials. And we are committed to the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Now this convergence of views reflected, as you will see later today in statements by ASEAN, and as you saw just a few weeks ago with the G-8 statement and others, produced two important Security Council actions – a presidential statement and a unanimous binding resolution.

Now these are more than expressions of condemnation. Resolution 1874, combined with the designations authorized by the UN Sanctions Committee, provides a powerful tool to curb North Korea’s unacceptable activities, and to put pressure on individuals and entities connected to the regime’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and other WMD-related programs. We believe that this resolution can be effective because it is unprecedented in scope, substance, and approach.

First, it differs from past efforts in that it is based on a global consensus, bringing to bear the combined weight of the international community, not just one nation or a small handful of nations. Second, it targets a spectrum of individuals, organizations, and institutions, not just one or two. Third, it fits into the broader framework of our approach to North Korea. It is accompanied by a message, as I reiterated this morning, that we are prepared to work with the North Koreans if they are willing to act on their previous commitments.

In short, our approach isolates North Korea, imposes meaningful pressure to force changes in its behavior, and provides an alterative path that would serve everyone’s interests. Our joint efforts to take Resolution 1874 from paper to practice are now underway. I asked Ambassador Philip Goldberg to lead an interagency team charged with implementing the sanctions, and he’s already traveled to the region to consolidate and coordinate our efforts. Russian and Chinese representatives have visited Washington to work together on these issues.

And in addition to this week’s meetings, I’ve spoken repeatedly with my counterparts in China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea about our common way forward. I intend to send Ambassador Goldberg back to the region in the near future to continue our common efforts to enforce the sanctions. And next Monday and Tuesday, as part of our strategic and economic dialogue with China, I will be holding intensive discussions with State Councilor Dai Bingguo on North Korea and the broader questions of peace and security in Asia.

In implementing 1874, we are asking our partners to help dissuade all nations from facilitating, directly or indirectly, North Korea’s attempts to enhance and proliferate its nuclear and missile technologies. We were gratified by Burma’s statement and those of many other countries announcing an intention to implement the resolution. Burma’s statement is significant because in the past, North Korea has provided Burma with materials now barred by Resolution 1874.

The bottom line is this: If North Korea intends to engage in international commerce, its vessels must conform to the terms of 1874 or find no port. Our goal in enforcing these sanctions and others imposed earlier is not to create suffering or to destabilize North Korea. Our quarrel is not with the North Korean people. In fact, it was the North Korean leadership that rejected humanitarian aid from the United States and forced us to suspend our food aid program.

So let me be clear: As we work to end the regime’s nuclear program, we remain committed to the well-being, dignity, and human rights of the people of North Korea. We will continue to work closely with other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to address human rights violations and abuses perpetuated by the regime. We will maintain our support of NGOs working to improve human rights in North Korea. And we will keep funding Korean language radio broadcasting for the same purposes, and we will soon announce a special envoy for North Korean human rights.

As we enforce sanctions, we are open to talks with North Korea, but we are not interested in half measures. We do not intend to reward the North just for returning to the table. We will not give them anything new for actions they have already agreed to take. And we have no appetite for pursuing protracted negotiations that will only lead us right back to where we have already been.

We and our partners have a more ambitious agenda for any future talks. Such talks must lead to irreversible steps by North Korea to denuclearize. This, in turn, would lead us and our partners to reciprocate in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Full normalization of relationships, a permanent peace regime, and significant energy and economic assistance are all possible in the context of full and verifiable denuclearization.

In the meantime, we will undertake the necessary defensive measures to protect our interests and our allies. North Korea’s ongoing threatening behavior does not inspire trust, nor does it permit us to sit idly by. Our partners in the region understand that a nuclear North Korea has far-reaching consequences for the security future of Northeast Asia. North Korea’s continued pursuit of its nuclear ambitions is sure to elevate tensions on the Korean Peninsula and could provoke an arms race in the region. This would serve no nation’s interests – not ours, not Japan’s, South Korea’s, China, nor Russia’s and nor, might I add, North Korea’s.

Our success in putting this resolution into action will also have implications beyond North Korea. It will demonstrate to other countries with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran’s, that we can and will impose costly penalties for those who violate international agreements and undermine global security. And it will give us a blueprint for how to manage any similar challenges that might arise in the future.

So our policy is clear. North Korea knows what it has to do: return to denuclearization talks and fulfill its commitments under the 2005 joint statement to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and return at an early date to the nonproliferation treaty and to IAEA safeguards. The path is open, and it is up to North Korea to take it.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Thanks. Madame Secretary, the North Korean representatives today spoke just behind us over there and said that the Six-Party Talks were dead; there is no way they’re coming back, and that whatever we have to offer them in terms of incentives is nothing new to them, and they won’t accept it.

The foreign ministry at the same time issued a statement with actual attacks and insults personally aimed at you. I wonder whether you think that perhaps the time has come to replace the Six-Party framework with perhaps a broader framework. You just suggested that there’s a broad consensus today here about what to do with North Korea. And since China has been reluctant to put it – amend the resolution so far, what would you want them to do when you meet with them on Monday and Tuesday in Washington?

Oh, and one more: Aren’t you exhausted?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Aren’t you?

QUESTION: I am. That’s why I’m asking.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that China has been very vigorous in working with us in support of full implementation of 1874. Just as we have, they created an interagency task force which is working with our own people. There has already been a meeting in Beijing, and I said, there will be a follow-on meeting in Washington.

The Chinese have been very supportive in our efforts to deliver a strong message to North Korea and to other nations that they expect, as we do, that the international community will enforce 1874. They played a very helpful role in the matter of the North Korean ship that was on its way to Burma.

In addition, today, the Six-Party members who were present, with the exception of North Korea, reiterated their commitment to this process and made it very clear that there is no place to go for North Korea. They have no friends left that will protect them from the international community’s efforts to move toward denuclearization. So I think it’s fair to say that not only were Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea very strong in making the points which they did this morning, but those points were echoed by so many of the ASEAN members and other regional partners.

So the message is coming out loudly and clearly to North Korea. And I don’t think we’ve seen at all the way this will eventually develop. I think we’re just still at the beginning of determining how they’re going to respond.

QUESTION: What framework (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The framework is the Six-Party Talks.

MR. KELLY: Next question (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what evidence do you have of Burma’s cooperation in enforcing the UN Security Council resolution? How did your talks with Burmese officials go last night? And most importantly, how do you reconcile your appreciation and gratitude that they are promising to enforce that with your two days of public, strong comments about concerns of military and even nuclear cooperation between Burma and North Korea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve expressed that very clearly and forcefully, but I do think there is a positive direction that we’ve seen with Burma, both in the already existing cooperation they showed with respect to the North Korean ship, in their statements to us and others that they intend to do their part to enforce 1874. Now, obviously, we have to see that unfold, but that’s never happened before, and we’re very encouraged by that. At the same time, we know that there has been cooperation between North Korea and Burma in the past, and we are going to be vigilant to make sure that it doesn’t occur in the future.

I was not part of any talks. Others in our Administration were, and we made it very clear, both privately and publicly, that there are expectations on our part that Aung Sun Suu Kyi be released unconditionally, that there begin a process of release of political prisoners, that the election scheduled for next year be open and fair and transparent and credible. And that view was echoed by many people in the room. It was not just a U.S. view. It was very widely and, I must say, heart – it was really expressed from the heart by so many people.

So we hope that there is going to be recognition on the part of the Burmese leadership that they have more to gain by joining the international community and by effectively taking care of their people and putting Burma on the path to democracy. We don’t expect to see a change overnight, but we’re – it’s better to have those positive statements than the negative ones. So we think that gives us at least something to work with.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. And I spoke to foreign ministers in the area, asking their help in speaking to their Burmese counterpart. And they did so, and whether or not it was a proximate cause, shortly after, the ship turned around.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from (inaudible) in Asia. I just wanted to clarify, when you said U.S. will take any defensive measurements, what exactly that mean? Is it going to be like U.S. ready to start a war with North Korea at any time? And how ASEAN, especially in Myanmar, is going to pick on that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. But I wanted to make very clear that the United States does not seek any kind of offensive action against North Korea. We have said that over and over again. The North Koreans said in a meeting today that they’ve been subjected to nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula aimed at them. That hasn’t happened for decades. So I think they are living in a historical time period that doesn’t reflect today’s realities.

We are very open to a positive relation with North Korea on the condition that they denuclearize. But if they refuse to do so, as they have in the last months, and refuse to follow the obligations they themselves signed up to in 2005 and -06, then our allies in South Korea and Japan and other countries in the region begin to worry about what North Korea’s intentions are. And we want to make clear that the United States will continue to work for the defense of allies like Japan and South Korea. And that’s unfortunately our obligation, one that we will be serious in fulfilling. But it’s not directed in any offensive manner against North Korea.

We also wish to avoid an arms race in Northeast Asia. If the North Koreans are going to continue to test nuclear weapons and their missiles, then other countries are going to start saying, well, we don’t know what they’re going to do, we’d better start taking care of ourselves and doing that and to have that capacity.

We think that would be a terrible mistake. So we’re trying to make clear that we will protect and defend our allies, but we still hope that there is an opportunity to work with North Korea toward denuclearization.

MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
Thursday
Jul232009

The Latest from Iran (23 July): Preparing the Front

The Latest from Iran (24 July): Waiting for the Next Move

Iran: Ahmadinejad v. The Conservatives?
Iran Video: The Protests Continue (21-22 July)
The Latest from Iran (22 July): “The Pendulum Swings” Towards Opposition

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

MOUSAVI5

2200 GMT: Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, who earlier in the day denounced the appointment of First Vice President Esfandiari Rahim-Mashai, has criticised the "aggressive language" of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting: "We should urge everyone to use the language of friendship and compassion because the aggressive language used by IRIB will not help resolve any of the problems."

2105 GMT: Stupidity and Sense. In the Christian Science Monitor, an opinion piece by a Joshua Gleis decides to forego any consideration of events in favour of making stuff up: "When Middle Eastern powers feel trapped, they tend to swing blindly at outside states.". Therefore Iran has "the power to make things turn ugly fast". It could "might decide to ratchet up the tension with Britain", on the basis that it detained 15 Britain soldiers in March 2007 for crossing into Iranian waters. It "may decide to use its proxy force Hezbollah to carry out a deadly terrorist attack". It could launch "a major terrorist attack, like the one it carried out in 1994 at the Buenos Aires Jewish community center". It might kidnap the Statue of Liberty, holding it to ransom for the missing components for its Nuclear Bomb. (OK, the last one was mine, based on just as much evidence as Mr Gleis has for his "maybes".)

A bit of a relief, therefore, to hear this from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which substitutes a cold appreciation of the current situation for wild fantasies: ""The internal debates going on inside Iran have made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to pursue any diplomatic engagement, not just with us but anyone, like the P5+1 [permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany]. There is so much that is on hold."

2005 GMT: Son Killed, Mourning Dad Detained. A Los Angeles Times blog summarises a story, from Norooz Online, which has been racing around the Internet. On 20 June, Massoud Hashemzadeh was killed by a gunshot to the heart during demonstrations in Tehran. Hashemzadeh was buried in his native village in northern Iran, but the family was barred from holding any commemorative ceremonies.

On Thursday afternoon, security forces and Basiji militia, accompanied by uniformed security forces, went to Hashemzadeh's home. Maybe they showed up because well-wishers insisted on going to the home to offer their condolences. Maybe they arrived because on Tuesday, Hashemzadeh's brother and father told BBC Persian of the authorities' refusal to allow a mourning service.

In any case, after ripping down photographs of Hashemzadeh and messages of condolences, his father was detained. His two brothers, unwilling to let their father be taken away on his own, were detained as well.

2000 GMT: Hours after Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi signed a letter claiming the Assembly of Experts was seeking the removal of Hashemi Rafsanjani as its head (see 1400 GMT), a group of Qom clerics have issued a statement distancing themselves from the Ayatollah.

1700 GMT: Ahmadinejad Stands Tough. The Islamic Republic News Agency has published the President's official letter of appointment of his Vice Presidents, and Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, despite the opposition of the Supreme Leader and many "conservatives", is First amongst them. The list:

1) Mehrdad Bazrpash (head of the national youth office)
2) Parviz Davoodi (highest ranking adviser to the president)
3) Seyed Mojtaba Samareh-Hashemi (highest ranking assistant to the president)
4) Ali Akbar Salehi (head of the atomic energy agency)
5) Mohammad Javad Hajaliakbari (presidential adviser in youth affairs)
6) Massoud Zaribafan (head of the martyr's foundation and veteran affairs)
7) Hamid Baghai (head of office of cultural heritage, tourism and handicrafts)
8) Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai (highest ranking vice president).

1400 GMT: Curiouser and Curiouser. The ripples from the Rahim-Mashai appointment as First Vice President spread wider and in unexpected directions. The newspaper Parto Sokhan, is headed by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who is considered as the spiritual guide of  President Ahmadinejad. Despite this, the editor of the paper, Qasem Ravanbakhsh, has written an editorial spelling out the reasons for the disapproval of Esfandiar Rahim-Moshai. He cites the famous statement by the Vice President that Iranians are friends of the Israeli people but is more upset about Rahim-Mashai's interventions into theological argument.

Given that the editorial would probably not have appeared without Mesbah Yazdi's acceptance, it appears that the President may now be defying even his spiritual mentor.

1315 GMT: Nuclear Update. While the resignation of Gholam Reza Aghazadeh as the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation received a good deal of attention, with speculation as to why he was leaving, the naming of Ali Akbar Salehi to the post has gone unnoticed.

Salehi's appointment is a sign the Iranian leadership has not closed the door to talks over the nuclear programme. Salehi was Iran’s representative at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) between 1999 and 2004. It was a sensitive time when the UN watchdog began investigating Iran’s programme: Iran's nuclear plant at Natanz was revealed, but Salehi, on Iran’s behalf, signed the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, allowing the IAEA snap inspections. He also handled Iran’s 2003-2005 talks with the European Union, which led to Tehran's suspension of uranium enrichment as a “goodwill gesture”. Salehi holds a doctorate in nuclear physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and is fluent in English.

1215 GMT: Social Media Success! Less than three hours after we were notified that publication had been blocked on the Facebook page of Zahra Rahnavard (0750 GMT), the wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the restriction was lifted. She is now posting regularly.

1025 GMT: And Furthermore. Press TV is also being much nicer to Mir Hossein Mousavi at the moment. It covers his meeting with journalists under the headline, "Mousavi shows no sign of white flag", and the opening paragraph, "Without any indication of relenting, defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi says he will not drop his challenge to the June 12 election results."

1020 GMT: Uh Oh, Mahmoud. The President may want to watch his back or to consider a climbdown from his current position. In another sign of pressure on Ahmadinejad from both the Supreme Leader and from other conservative leaders, Press TV's website decided within the last hour to run the story of Cabinet division, highlighted in our first update (0545 GMT): "Amid a continued political controversy in Iran over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first vice presidential pick, cabinet members engage in a verbal quarrel with the president over his insistence on the choice. The quarrel broke out at Wednesday's cabinet meeting between President Ahmadinejad and the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi."

0845 GMT: Meanwhile, Another Fight in the Assembly of Experts. Conservative members such as Ayatollahs Mohammad Yazdi, Jannati, and Mesbah Yazdi have released a statement reminding the public of their obligation to the Supreme Leader. More importantly, at least for the short-term political struggle, they restate that members are trying to replace Rafsanjani from his position as head of the Assembly.

The statement, aired by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, has been issued in the name of all 86 members of the Assembly, even though it has only been signed by only 16.

0835 GMT: A bit of mischief from Javan, the newspaper linked to the Revolutionary Guard, which claims (without sources) "that an effort is being made to confront Ahmadinejad's inauguration with an alternative Parliament...coordinated between radical reformists and anti-Rahim-Mashai [the First Vice President] conservatives"

0815  GMT: We have just posted an analysis, by the Iranian columnist Mohammad Abtahi, of the developing battle between President Ahmadinejad and "conservatives" over his choice of the First Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

As we were editing this, news came in that Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami (who delivered a "hard-line" warning to the protest movement when he led Tehran prayers on 26 June) has declared the President's removal of Rahim-Mashai would show his loyalty to the Supreme Leader.

0750 GMT: Not-So-Social Media. A reader points us to the Facebook page of Mir Hossein Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard. She has written, "URGENT: (July 22) THE PUBLICATION RIGHTS FOR THIS PAGE ARE BLOCKED! FACEBOOK !! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

0745 GMT: A Correction. The fatwa of Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi (0615 GMT) criticised the selection of the First Vice President rather than the inauguration of President Ahmadinejad.

0720 GMT: Regime Concession? A report this morning that Ayatollah Khameini has decided to pardon or reduce the sentences of some individuals that have been recently arrested.

0655 GMT: Perhaps the "power overload" protests against the regime are having an effect. Or perhaps the Iranian infrastructure is just buckling under economic and political tensions. There is a report that utility services in Tehran are unstable, with some facing blackouts of more than six hours.

0645 GMT: Video has been posted of the hunger strike in front of the United Nations, including prominent Iranian activists, expatriates and supporters, which began yesterday. The action will culminate on Saturday as part of a global "United for Iran Day".

0615 GMT: Make that 3 ayatollahs (see 0545 GMT) who have come out against the Government in the last 24 hours. Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, who is considered "conservative" in religious approach and had been labelled "neutral" in his post-election position, has denounced the choice of Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai as First Vice President: "Installing such an individual is not legal and should he be installed by mistake the mistake should be remedied."

0545 GMT: A quieter but still significant start to the day, as the opposition began to lay foundations for a broader-based political challenge. As Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times summarises, "Increasingly, disparate reformists appear to be acting in concert, coordinating announcements and strategy." A lot of the attention is on Mir Hossein Mousavi's declaration that a new political front would be launched by the end of the week and his comments to journalists: "Power is always inclined to become absolute, and only people's movements can put a hold on this inclination."

Still, details are sketchy on how the political front would be organised and how it would pursue its objectives. (Indeed, the Los Angeles Times headline is misleading, missing the political dimension: "Iran opposition leader plans large-scale social movement.") This is also an issue that goes beyond "disparate reformists": the relationship of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani and other "non-reformist" political and clerical leaders to the front is still to be seen.

So, the tangible story this morning is of more problems for the Government. Two more Ayatollahs took public stands against President Ahmadinejad (see yesterday's updates). Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani issued a fatwa denouncing the President's inauguaration while Ayatollah Dastgheib urged fellow clerics to support protestors, ""Using firearms and crude weapons against people and incarceration of the revolutionaries will never help safeguard Islam and the establishment."

Just as serious are the divisions within conservative ranks, furthered by Ahmadinejad's defiance of the Supreme Leader over the appointment of his First Vice President. Tabnak reports that a Cabinet meeting ended in a heated argument and profanity, as a debate between the President and Minister of Culture Hossein Safar-Harandi ended with the latter leaving the room.

Undeterred, Ahmadinejad criticized the interference of prominent individuals in the process of selecting Government officials. This indirect challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei prompted Minister of Inteligence Ejeie and the Minster of Labor to leave the meeting in protest.

And, although it may be tangential to the developments over the political front and within the Government, a sign also appeared that even the Supreme Leader could be challenged if the conflict escalates. Former Interior Minister Abdullah Nouri, compared Khamenei to the late Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi: "In the 1970s, nobody imagined that limited struggles would drive the shah out of the country."