Transcript: Secretary of State Clinton on CBS

Iran’s Nukes: Did Gates Just Complicate the Obama Position?

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

HARRY SMITH: Madam Secretary, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us.

CLINTON: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: The president said, about this secret facility that’s been uncovered in Iran, that it is inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear program. What does the United States think this secret facility is for?

CLINTON: Well, we believe that it is a covert facility designed for uranium enrichment. It has not been disclosed. And therefore it raises additional suspicions about the Iranian intent regarding their nuclear program.

And this week we had several very important developments. First, we had, in this room, a bilateral meeting with President Medvedev and President Obama.

And in a very small setting where I was there, the president, you know, talked with great specificity with President Medvedev about the dual track that we are on regarding the Iranian nuclear program and the upcoming meeting on October 1st, and opened the discussion about the information that we had concerning this facility.

SMITH: So he told President Medvedev?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes. And what we also saw happen today, later that day, was an agreement by all the members of the so-called P-5- plus-1, United States, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia and China, all in agreement, saying that we expected answers from Iran in the October 1st meeting and that we were working on what’s called a dual track.

We’re pursuing the answers. We have made it clear to Iran that they have a right to peaceful nuclear energy for civilian purposes under appropriate safeguards and monitoring, but not to a nuclear weapons program.

And if we don’t get the answers that we’re expecting and the changes in behavior that we’re looking for, then we will work with our partners to move toward sanctions.

SMITH: You talked this summer about, if diplomacy failed, you called the sanctions “crippling sanctions” would be in order. What would those be?

CLINTON: Well, harry, we’re exploring how you broaden and deepen sanctions. Now, sanctions are already in place, as you know. But, like many sanction regimes, they’re leaky.

But in the last eight months, since we’ve been dealing with North Korea on a similar set of issues, we have forged an international consensus around very tough sanctions. And that’s given us some additional information about how to proceed on the Iranian front.

But this is a very serious matter. The Russians have come out with a strong statement saying that the burden has now shifted. It has shifted to Iran. They have to come to this meeting on October 1st and present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program.

We don’t believe that they can present convincing evidence that it’s only for peaceful purposes. But we are going to put them to the test on October 1st.

SMITH: They’ve managed to hide a nuclear weapons development system for almost 20 years. Do you suspect that this is other than peaceful purposes? Because they have insisted, for the last half dozen a years or so, the only reason they’re interested in enriching uranium is for nuclear power for electricity.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly is hard to accept that at face value.

CLINTON: This latest incident concerning the facility at Qom, it would have been disclosed were it for peaceful purposes. There would have already been IAEA inspections.

We have been following this for several years in cooperation with some of our international partners, watching and assessing what the Iranians were doing. And then when this became known actually through the Iranians beginning to provide some information about it, we disclosed the fact and gave the information we had to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So I guess one has to ask, if it’s for a peaceful purposes, why was it not public? Why was the fact of it not generally known instead of through our working with partners to discover it?

SMITH: Because the IAEA guidelines basically dictate that if you’re even...

CLINTON: That’s right.

SMITH: ... going to do anything like this, you have to send us your plans to start with.

CLINTON: That’s exactly right. And of course, as you point out rightly, there have been many other actions along the way that raise similar doubts.

Now, the Iranians keep insisting, no, no, this is just for peaceful purposes. Well, I think, as the Russians said in their statement, and as we believe, and what this meeting on October 1st is to test, is, fine, prove it, don’t assert it, prove it.

And we are looking to see what they have to say.

SMITH: You keep talking about the Russians and it’s interesting because President Medvedev almost did cartwheels once the president announced that the radar shields were going to not be constructed in the Czech Republic and the missile systems were going to be constructed in Poland.

Do you really have -- is Russia really in tune with the United States on this? Because they’ve made verbal statements in the past and then when it has come time to have the rubber meet the road, so to speak, they haven’t been there.

Will they really be there this time?

CLINTON: I think Russia has begun to see many more indications that Iran is engaging in threatening behavior, certainly these last incidents seem to confirm that.

And finally the Russians were very supportive of our sanctions against North Korea. President Medvedev said in this room that sanctions may not be preferable, but they may be inevitable.

So I think this is what diplomacy and engagement is about. We are doing what we think is right for the United States. The missile defense decision, the Iranian process, this is in the interest of our people, our security, our safety, and our friends and allies.

But we also believe that in working closely with Russia, sharing information, that they have been quite helpful this past week.

SMITH: Is there anything the Iranians can do in this meeting on October 1st to dissuade you from what you believe they’re up to? What can they say in this meeting to say we’re really -- all we’re trying to do is make electricity?

CLINTON: Well, they can’t say anything, because they’ve said that for years. But they can open up their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for.

SMITH: Is that the only thing the U.S. and the other nations that will be there -- is that the only thing you’ll be satisfied with, if they completely open the doors?

CLINTON: Well, we have to be satisfied. And there may be other approaches short of that. But, you know, I think it’s really essential that we satisfy ourselves and the international community, which has passed numerous resolutions against Iran’s program, pointing out that they’re violating U.N. and IAEA obligations and the Non- Proliferation Treaty.

So words are not enough. They’re going to have to come and demonstrate clearly to the international community what they’re up to.

SMITH: In a region and in a nation that has known some instability over the last couple of months, what do you think this means in light of that as a backdrop?

CLINTON: Well, Harry, that’s a really important question because we know that there has been instability. It’s not only what we see on the television screens, but what is reported to us. But we’re dealing with the government that is there.

We encourage the free expression of ideas and political choices, but this nuclear program really is the core of our concern right now. And we are very urgently pursuing the engagement strategy that the president talked about, while simultaneously working to get the kind of very tough sanctions that, you know, may well have to be imposed.

SMITH: All right. Let’s talk about Afghanistan for a couple of minutes.

General McChrystal made his report to President Obama. One of the things he says is there’s a year window in which the United States has to act in order to ensure that the insurgency doesn’t basically take over the country.

Do you agree with that assessment?

CLINTON: Well, let me just put General McChrystal’s report into the broader context because it doesn’t stand alone. It is part of a process. And let’s look at what we’ve done during the last nine months under President Obama’s leadership.

We inherited a situation. We didn’t reject it out of hand. We didn’t accept it out of hand. We engaged in a very thorough review. We reached some critical decisions, including looking at both Afghanistan and Pakistan together because, of course, the threat goes back and forth across the borders.

We also reaffirmed our commitment to going after Al Qaida, to dismantling, defeating them. We believe, and we’ve seen just this week here in New York; we believe that Al Qaida poses a direct threat to the United States, to friends and allies throughout the world.

So we are very clear about our mission. Our mission is to protect the United States and protect our friends and allies, and to go after the scourge of Al Qaida and related extremist groups.

Now, the decision that was made to add troops in the spring has not even been fully implemented yet. You know, you don’t get up and just deploy the 82nd Airborne and they get there the next day. We are only now reaching the end of the deployment cycle.

We also know that, going hand in hand with our military strategy was our civilian strategy, a much more focused effort, a much more accountable one, dealing with the government of Afghanistan. So we not only saw the change of commanders in the military, we saw a change in our ambassador and a beefing up of the embassy in Kabul.

At the same time, Afghanistan is going through an election. This is not like an election, you know, in Western Europe or in the United States. To carry out an election under these circumstances was going to be difficult under any conditions.

It’s not over yet. We have to wait until it is resolved -- hopefully, very soon, then make a new commitment about how we’re going to meet our strategic goals. And it’s going to be up to the president to determine how best to achieve that.

So, you know, General McChrystal, the new commander, was asked for his assessment. There’s other input that’s coming throughout the government that the president will take on board. But I think we ought to look at it in context.

SMITH: There’s growing, sort of, discontent with sending more troops into Afghanistan. And one of the issues is the Karzai government, which is corrupt, at least, and may, in fact, have tried to steal this most recent election.

Is it worth American blood and treasure to help support a regime like that?

CLINTON: Well, with all respect, we’re doing this for the United States. We’re doing this because we think that a return to a safe haven in Afghanistan with Al Qaida, with Taliban elements associated with Al Qaida, with the same purpose, to basically run a syndicate of terror out of either Afghanistan or the border region, is something we cannot tolerate.

And, you know, we have to recognize that this was always going to be a challenge.

Now, having said that, does the Karzai government or whoever is the next president have to do more to fulfill the needs of the Afghan people to understand what is expected from the rule of law, transparency and accountability? Absolutely.

But, again, we inherited a situation with a set of expectations and behaviors that we have gone about attempting to influence and change. And one of my highest priorities is, once this election is finalized, to work with our entire civilian team, with Special Representative Holbrooke, with Ambassador Eikenberry and everyone else, to really impress upon the new government what is expected of them.

But let’s not forget, Harry, this is about us sitting right here in New York. This is about making sure that we’ve got the intelligence and the capacity to interrupt potential attacks, that we try to continue our effort to destroy and defeat Al Qaida, which are unfortunately still, to this day, attempting to kill and destroy Americans and others.

SMITH: Najibullah Zazi went to Pakistan...

CLINTON: That’s right.

SMITH: ... to the border areas, in order to get bomb training. Is Pakistan doing enough to clean up its own house?

CLINTON: Well, look at -- again, what has happened in the last nine months? Pakistan has increased its commitment in the fight against the Taliban.

SMITH: They were successful in the Swat Valley.

CLINTON: Absolutely successful. A lot of people thought that would never happen. I believe that, if we engaged very intensively with our Pakistani friends -- and we did, through meetings in Washington and in Islamabad -- if we shared information, we listened to each other, that there would be a decision by the civilian and military leadership that the threat was directed at them, that it could undermine their government, in fact, you know, would lead to very dangerous consequences in terms of the survivability of the state in many parts of the country. So, yes, have they taken action? Absolutely.

SMITH: “Have they done enough?” was the question.

CLINTON: Well, you know, we are always working for more. I mean, as I just finished saying, we’re -- we’re not satisfied with anything. This is not, you know, a check-box kind of experience where, “Oh, we’re done with that. We’re done with that.”

But look at what has been accomplished. And I think that we will continue to see a very close coordination. But it is important for Americans to understand that focusing on Al Qaida and the Taliban -- who are largely, but not exclusively, now in Pakistan -- cannot be done if we allow them to return to a safe haven in Afghanistan. So this has to be viewed as part of the overall strategy.

SMITH: Madam Secretary, we thank you so much for your time.

CLINTON: Thank you, Harry. It’s always good to talk to you.

A "Normal" Middle East: US Presses for Arab Steps on Israel

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

The Jerusalem Post reports that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, working on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings, urged senior officials from Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel. She later told reporters that talks were "extremely productive."

While Arab nations still insist on an Israeli settlement freeze before gestures such as the opening of trade and commercial offices, permission for Israeli overflights, and academic and cultural exchanges; Washington is increasing its pressure. Jeffrey Feltman, the top US diplomat for the Middle East, said after Clinton's meeting:

We don't want to wait for the perfect package. It's time to start negotiations now... We hope that the Arabs would find ways to demonstrate to the Israeli public that Israel will be an accepted, normalized part of the region.

Still, progress is still far from assured. The State Department's press release did not mention any "extremely productive" outcome, balancing calls for the re-launching of Israeli-Palestnians negotiations without preconditions with the vision of a freeze on settlements to foster a viable Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders:

The Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and the United States met today in New York City to coordinate on efforts to promote their shared vision of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Middle East, and to intensify their consultations as partners and friends.

The Ministers welcomed the trilateral meeting among President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas on September 22, and expressed their hope for rapid progress towards the resumption of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Ministers welcomed President Obama’s important statement before the UN General Assembly which calls for the re-launching of negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. The Ministers reiterated their call for a freeze on settlement activities. They expressed their continued support for an independent, viable, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel, with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, the Road Map, and the Arab Peace Initiative. They reiterated their full support for the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian government led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and their efforts to build the institutions of a future state. The Ministers also reiterated their support for achieving a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Obsessing over Obama: The UK Press and the "Snubbing" of Gordon Obama

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

I had the pleasure of chatting with Kenneth Vogel of Politico as he prepared his article on the British press and the myths and realities of the US-UK "special relationship". His article pivots on the bigged-up story, which was hot for 24 hours, of a supposed "snub" of British Prime Minister by President Obama:

The British press's Obama complex

After the latest week’s worth of British press reports that there’s no love lost in the White House for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, even his one-on-one meeting Friday with President Obama only provided the papers across the pond with a reason for another round of stories.

Since Obama burst onto the international scene last year, newspapers in the United Kingdom have spilled gallons of ink on his perceived slights of British leaders, and especially Brown.

To be sure, the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K. has long been a favorite topic for the notoriously sensational British papers, but interest seems to have spiked since Obama’s 2008 campaign world tour swung through London for visits with top British leaders.

The local press claimed that Obama confided in aides that while he found former Prime Minister Tony Blair impressive, he thought Brown was boring, and dismissed Tory leader David Cameron as “a lightweight.”

While Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush went to great lengths to highlight his affection for Blair – earning the president generally favorable treatment, while the prime minister was frequently caricatured as the American’s poodle – the British press breathlessly reported on an array of alleged slights of Brown during Obama’s first 100 days as president.

Though the does-Obama-like-us-or-not storyline adds little to the public debate, expect to see more of it in British media for at least until the elections there in May, said Scott Lucas, a former American journalist who moved to the U.K. in 1984 and is a professor at the University of Birmingham specializing in U.S. and British foreign policy.

Lucas, who maintains a blog about U.S. foreign policy, conceded that stories about Obama’s feelings towards British leaders are hot since Obama is immensely popular in Western Europe, while Brown, a favorite punching bag for the British press, is lagging in U.K. polls and is expected to be trounced by Cameron’s Tory Party in next May’s election.

After Obama took office, the papers pounced in February when Obama returned to the British government a bust of legendary Prime Minister Winston Churchill, which Bush had displayed in the Oval Office. The Telegraph reported that “Barack Obama has sent Sir Winston Churchill packing and pulse rates soaring among anxious British diplomats.”

When Brown visited in March, he gave Obama a pen holder carved from the wood of the 19th century British warship HMS President and a first-edition of Sir Martin Gilbert’s seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill. Obama reciprocated with 25 DVDs of American movie classics – “a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks,” whined a Daily Mail columnist.

That’s to say nothing of the offense taken by the perceived inequity between the Obamas’ and Browns’ gifts to each others’ kids.

Brown's wife Sarah gave Obama’s daughters Sasha and Malia dresses and matching necklaces from a trendy U.K. store and a selection of books by British authors, while First Lady Michelle Obama responded with toy models of Marine One for the Brown’s two little boys “While Sarah Brown had spent time choosing gifts for the Obama girls, Michelle had clearly sent an aide to the White House gift shop at the last moment,” asserted a columnist for The Daily Telegraph, who declared the Obama’s reception of the Browns “appalling” and “rudeness personified” and concluded “All in all, (Obama) doesn’t think much of us.”

Though White House aides brushed off the British analyses as ridiculous, they did release an unusually-detailed readout of Obama’s post-visittelephone call to Brown, in which the President again expressed gratitude for the gifts and said he put the pen holder on his Oval Office desk and had put the Churchill biography in his private study.

“It is really lazy journalism,” Lucas said, because it misses real tensions between the two nations, including divergent strategies on stabilizing Afghanistan and the diminishing importance of bilateral relationships.

Read rest of article....

Video & Transcript: Palestine's Abbas at the UN General Assembly

See also Palestine Video and Transcript: Mahmoud Abbas Makes Statehood Bid at UN General Assembly (23 September 2011)

On Friday, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spoke to the UN General Assembly, blaming Israel for its continued construction of settlements and of the separation wall isolating Jerusalem from the West Bank. While praising Washington's active policy in the region, he said that time was running out for a resolution and the cost of peace was increasing. Moreover, he depicted Hamas, without mentioning the group's name, as the perpetrators of a coup in Gaza,  while assuring the Assembly that Palestinians will form a unity government with the assistance of Egypt.



Transcript of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas's speech at the United Nations General Assembly:

Mr. President, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of Israel's colonial occupation is crystal clear to the world.

Since the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including east Jerusalem in 1967, Israel continues with its settlement policy on all Palestinian land, especially in holy Jerusalem, where that policy is currently being accelerated and escalated through various means including the seizure of the homes of Palestinian inhabitants in the city and the imposition of restrictions and even preventing Palestinians from building and sometimes from repairing their homes, while new settlement neighborhoods are being established. And Jerusalem is becoming completely isolated from its surroundings because of the illegal settlements and the apartheid wall.

We now face a unique situation. If international law stipulates the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, how can we, then, deal with the current situation where Israeli settlement policy will undermine the goal of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state and implementation of the will of the international consensus that has been expressed in the various resolutions and principles, including the roadmap, which we all agreed upon and which is based on the principle of land for peace and ending the occupation that began in 1967.

Immense efforts have been exerted and many conferences have been held during the past years, particularly since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Yet all of this has not led to a conclusion of this conflict. President Barack Obama has given much hope to our people and the peoples of the region when he announced his vision of a peace agreement on the basis of a two-state solution and the cessation of all settlement activities. We welcomed the active American diplomacy to revive the peace process, and all efforts of the international quartet and its parties, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Russian Federation and the United States.

All of these active efforts and initiatives, which have been welcomed and supported by us and by the Arab states, are, however, confronted with Israeli intransigence, which refuses to adhere to the requirements for relaunching the peace process. How is it conceivable that negotiations can be held on the borders and on Jerusalem at the same time that Israeli bulldozers are working to change the reality on the ground with the aim of creating a new reality and imposing borders as Israel desires? How can one conceive holding negotiations without agreement on the terms of preference and the objective end goal of these negotiations that the whole world has unanimously agreed upon, namely ending the Israeli occupation of the territories occupied in 1967, establishing the state of Palestinian with Jerusalem as its capital, achieving a just and agreed-upon solution to the question of Palestinian refugees on the basis of resolution 194 of 1948 and achieving peace on all Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese tracts as affirmed (ph) by the Arab Peace Initiative which provides a precious opportunity that must be seized upon to achieve peace.

In this regard, I would like to express our deep appreciation for the important speech delivered before this august (ph) body two days ago by President Obama, in which he affirmed the necessity for ending the occupation that began in 1967 and the legitimacy of the settlements. He also stressed the necessity for establishing an independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state and for addressing all of the finance status issues in the negotiations, foremost among these Jerusalem, refugees, borders, water, settlements, and others. We reiterate that adherence to these principles and basis, in addition to a complete freeze of all settlement activities, can salvage the peace process and open horizon for its success.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I reaffirm the eagerness of the Palestine Liberation Organization to achieve a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy. At the same time, I caution that the settlement policy and the building of the separation wall, which continue to be pursued by the Israeli occupation, will abort opportunities to relaunch the peace process.

Time is running out and the risks are becoming greater as a result of the continued suffering of the Palestinian people under the last remaining occupation in the world. We call upon the international community to uphold international law and international legitimacy and to exert pressure on Israel to cease its settlement activities, to comply with the signed agreements, and desist from the policies of the occupation and colonial settlements, to release the 10,000 -- correction, the approximately 11,000 prisoners and detainees, to lift -- and to lift the unjust siege imposed on the Gaza Strip, which was subjected months ago to a devastating aggression, causing thousands of casualties among civilians, wreaking unprecedented destruction of infrastructure and public facilities, including even hospitals, mosques, schools, and United Nations facilities.

Ladies and gentlemen, our people, which continues to adhere to its (ph) strikes and to remain in its homeland despite all of the suffering caused by the arrests, the blockade, and the killings, is also keen to end the internal division and to restore national unity. Our sister, Egypt, is making commendable efforts to achieve. And in spite of all our suffering from occupation and its practices, we continue to work to build and develop our national institutions. We have made significant achievements in this regard, both at the level of upholding the rule of law and public order and promoting economic and social development despite the harsh conditions of the occupation and the blockade. We continue to make every possible effort for the success of the efforts of our brothers in Egypt to end the ongoing coup in the Gaza Strip and to restore our national unity by resorting to ballot boxes and holding presidential and legitimate (ph) elections on their constitutional date under the supervision and control of Arab and Islamic countries, the United Nations, and the international community. Thus, democracy will be firmly institutionalized in our political life.

Mr. President, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, hope will remain alive in our shores (ph) and we will not despair of regaining our rights on the basis of relevant resolutions of the United Nations. The historic rule of which we reaffirm for attaining peace and upholding the principle of might for right and not right for might.

From this podium I conclude by reaffirming our commitment to the road map plan, the Arab Peace Initiative and to all terms of reference of the political process. And we call upon all parties to respect and abide by them, to provide the opportunity to launch a successful and effective peace process.

We are confident that all our brothers in the sisterly Arab countries will adhere to the Arab peace initiative as a basis for safeguarding our rights and to open the way towards real peaceful relations once occupation is ended and the independent state of Palestine is established.

With my profound thanks and appreciation for your kind attention, I thank you, and God's blessing be upon you all.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: The US State Department Line

The Latest from Iran (26 September): The False Flag of the Nuke Issue

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

Following the Obama-Sarkozy-Brown statements on Iran's second enrichment facility, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and State Department spokesman Ian Kelly spoke about the issue.

Clinton stated that the US was now awaiting Iran's response at the 1 October meeting with the "5+1" powers. Asked whether Washington was willing to engage in further conversations if the Iranians did not offer a "serious" response, she said: "We’re going to take it one day at a time."

Ian Kelly added that the US had been watching and analysing the facility for several years. He claimed however, that the existnece of the plant did not invalidate the conclusions in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which said that Iran had suspended research and development of its nuclear weapons programme in 2003.