Secretary Clinton Meets with Embassy Personnel and Their Families

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

I am absolutely delighted to see all of you. I want to thank you for the work that you do every single day, and I am thrilled that this Embassy is right in the middle of Berlin and that it has a presence for America representing that vital relationship that the ambassador mentioned. And to see it and to be able to walk into it is absolutely thrilling personally and in every other way.

I am really pleased to have seen Ambassador Murphy. He hit the ground running here in Germany – and I don't mean just on the field as part of soccer diplomacy. (Laughter.) And both the President and I are grateful for your service and really look forward to a lot of close consultation over the next several years.

And this evening, I am very excited to be joining Chancellor Merkel, as well as many others, to commemorate that day 20 years ago when the Berlin Wall gave way to a new era of peace in a united Germany, in a united Europe.

I spend my time going around the world talking with people who are very much at loggerheads over conflicts that happened 100 or 200 or 500 or 1,000 years before. And then you come here, and you think about how horrific the conflicts of the 20th century were, right here in Europe. And tonight, we will have the chancellor of Germany and the president of France and the prime minister of Great Britain, because they are leading a Europe that understands how imperative it is to move beyond the history that we have all lived.

It doesn't matter how hard we try, we're not going to change the past. It is the past, by definition. That doesn't mean we forget about it or marginalize or trivialize it. But it does call all of us, leaders and citizens alike, to think about the kind of future we can create. And that will be on display this evening.

We’re celebrating the triumph of democracy and freedom, and the important role of the German-U.S. relationship. And it's very strong today. I had breakfast with Chancellor Merkel. We did a kind of round-the-world tour. And we are grateful that German and American troops have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in international peacekeeping and security efforts in the Balkans, throughout Africa, and now also in Afghanistan, where Germany has contributed more than 4,000 troops.

We are appreciative of the solidarity that our German counterparts have shown in the P-5+1 negotiations with Iran. And we have worked closely together on a range of transnational threats: from the global economic crisis to climate change. So we appreciate greatly our relationship with Germany, and we want to continue to grow and develop it so that it will be the strong platform for the kinds of changes that people are looking for in our world in the future.

I don't think that our relationship would be as strong as it is without all of you and the work of this Embassy. Day in and day out, you lead one of the most complex missions we have at the State Department. The five consulate general units – Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Leipzig, and Frankfurt – along with the liaison office in Bonn, reflect the breadth of our engagement with not just the German state – the German states and the people of Germany. And your coordination of the 11 federal agencies represented here ensures that all of our government is working toward common objectives.

I am very appreciative of those of you who have embraced the commitment that we’ve made to robust diplomacy and public outreach, engaging not only with representatives of the German Government, but civil society, business leaders, teachers, students, ordinary Germans. That outreach effort conducting town halls and interviews, public discussions, and yes, soccer diplomacy, has helped introduce the United States to a newer, younger, and more diverse generation of Germans.

Certainly, President Obama's leadership and the message that he exemplifies is very well received here in Germany. And we have to build on that, and translate it into institutional change, and create the environment in which we can do even more to help formulate and implement policy, and organize in the cultural and educational exchanges.

Yesterday at the dinner that the Atlantic Council sponsored, two of the leading German speakers – one from the past, one the foreign minister, very much from the present and the future – talked about what it meant to them to have participated in the International Visitors Program in the United States. I would like to see us redouble our efforts, particularly reaching out to young Germans, and particularly those from the east, to build a strong foundation of understanding and respect.

I want to pay special tribute to the nearly 500 locally employed staff, comprised not only of German citizens and resident American citizens, but also third-country nationals, who serve as the backbone of this mission. And I understand that 56 locally employed staff have worked here for more than 25 years. And two, Ishaq Mohammed – Ishaq, and Michael Hahn, have served this mission the longest, for 40 and 39 years, respectively. (Applause.)

That's a long time of service. And of all the embassies I visit, I'm not sure which can claim the longest serving employee, but Embassy Berlin must be right up there. Because the fact is that the level of dedication and skill that I have seen around the world, and what I know is present here in Germany, is absolutely critical for our mission.

This trip is too short. Lots was jammed into it. And it is at a moment when all the eyes of the world are focused on Berlin, as well it should. But I look forward to working with you as we broaden and deepen our engagement with Germany. With Chancellor Merkel reelected, we have a lot of work ahead of us.

And I know that even though it was a short trip, it was a demanding one because of all the moving parts that you’ve assisted with. And there is a tradition, Ambassador Murphy, that when I take off for Singapore tonight, and you see that plane finally clear – (laughter) – it's time for a wheels-up party – (laughter and applause) – because I then become somebody else's responsibility. (Laughter.) And everybody can go back to doing the work you're supposed to be doing every single day, right? Instead of all of the interruptions and the hurry-ups, and this and that.

But this is a beautiful Embassy. And I will end where I started, by saying it’s truly thrilling for me to see one of our new embassies right in the middle of a city. As you know, so many of our embassies are now in the outskirts. They are not accessible for security reasons, which we know are very serious. But this Embassy, with its historic location, with its beauty, is a real symbol of the seriousness of our commitment to our relationship with Germany.

And when I am privileged to speak tonight at the commemoration, I will be thinking about all those who served the United States, going back many, many years, who did their parts – diplomats and soldiers, Foreign Service officers and civil servants, locally employed staff, citizens of every kind and plight from our country, who contributed in their own and your own way to the remarkable accomplishment of what we see today.

So I thank you. There was never any doubt in my mind that someday Germany would be free and reunified, but I had no idea when. And it is such a great personal privilege to be joining with the German people, and people throughout Europe and the world, to celebrate this occasion.

Now we have to turn our attention to the challenges of the 21st century. A wall, a physical wall, may have come down, but there are other walls that exist and we have to overcome. And we will be working together to accomplish that as well. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

# # #

Interview With Tom Brokaw of NBC

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in some ways, is it a more dangerous world now than it was 20 years ago? We had two superpowers talking to each other. They both had nuclear weapons, but they were constantly in touch and Gorbachev was in the Soviet Union. Now, we have rogue states with nuclear weapons; no one in those states wants to talk to us. And we have terrorist organizations that are stateless. In 20 years, have we gone backward rather than forward?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Tom, as we always do with history, we’ve moved into a different era. The threat that the Cold War posed – and I remember it very well, I’m a child of the Cold War and I remember being told to get under my desk and put my head up against the locker, depending upon who the teacher was and how she thought we could be safe from a nuclear catastrophe. So we lived with a great deal of fear.

Looking back, it appears like it was more orderly, that there were these two superpowers in this bipolar world and we were at a kind of standoff when it came to nuclear deterrent. Now, we are in a world where there are more different kinds of dangers, the terrain is more complex, and we’re called upon to navigate it and navigate through it the way that a prior generation did the Cold War.

QUESTION: Is the Middle East the new Berlin, the crossroads of the confrontation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that, unfortunately, there are many Berlins. I think that’s one of the problems that we face. We have the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, we have Iran, we have the Middle East, we have other conflicts that can easily get out of control. We have, as you’ve said, stateless terrorists and networks that are pursuing their own objectives. So when you look at the map, there’s not one place you can put your finger and say this is where it’s possible that we would have another confrontation. You look and you say this could get out of hand here and that could be a problem there.

But I am fundamentally optimistic. I think that despite the challenges we confront, we are focused on them. We understand the threats that are posed and we’re trying to get the world to be not a multi-polar world so much as a multi-partner world.

QUESTION: Last night, you described Germany as our partner in Afghanistan. But almost everyone who’s looked at Germany’s performance there believes that both politically and militarily Germany is a reluctant partner at best. Shouldn’t we expect more from the Germans in Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the Germans have done a lot in Afghanistan. Everyone can look at everyone else and say, well, you weren’t ready for this and you didn’t perform to the utmost here. But I think it’s in part because this is a very different kind of challenge that we’re confronting together, and we’re learning as we go. I think we are resolved to handle the threat posed by terrorism and this syndicate of terror that al-Qaida and their extremist allies are part of.

And certainly on many different levels, the Germans have been resolute. They have put in 4,000 troops. They have been willing to take responsibility for large parts of the territory in the north. They have worked to train and prepare the police and the security forces. But I think it’s fair to say that it’s only been for the last couple of years that the United States has understood how better to confront the challenge that is posed by organized terrorist groups, and we’re working closely with our NATO allies and other allies around the world and we’re getting better at it. But we didn’t start off that well. Right before the first Iraq war, we thought we knew what warfare was, and the first Iraq war turned out to be pretty much in line with what people thought. Well, the second Iraq was a whole different challenge. So I think we’ve evolved our military and our political strategy and understanding, and it’s a learning experience and I think we’re getting better at it.

QUESTION: Given all of that, all the military analysts that I talk to across the board say the Canadians are helping us a lot, the British are helping us a lot, the Poles are doing a great job, but the Germans are kind of sitting on their hands. They don’t want to leave their bases because there is not much will here in Berlin in the political leadership.

SECRETARY CLINTON: But to be fair, Tom, after World War II nobody wanted to see German troops anywhere. Think about it. And the German people themselves wanted to rein in their military capacity and certainly their military ambitions. Having an out-of-territory conflict like what we’re seeing in Afghanistan has really pushed the Germans, and it’s been remarkable that they have responded with as much commitment and sacrifice as they’ve shown.

So I think it’s easy to stand back and say, well, the Germans this, the Germans that. I’m very impressed that the Germans have made a political decision that has put them in harm’s way, that has moved troops out of Europe to a battlefield far from home, because this has been a very difficult political decision for them given their understandable allergy to being looked at as though they were once again a military power.

QUESTION: So as Secretary of State, you think they’re doing as well as can be expected?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that they have done very well under the circumstances. I think that, like us, they are learning all the time. And like us, they’ve taken casualties and they’ve put their men and women in harm’s way, and they have been willing to join us. But we’re all in this together.

QUESTION: As Secretary of State, would you rather see a Mikhail Gorbachev back in charge of Russia than Vladimir Putin?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I kind of like President Medvedev myself. (Laughter.) I am very impressed with him and what he’s trying to do. He is clearly speaking out on issues ranging from democracy and human rights and the need to modernize the Russian economy that need to be discussed in Russia. So I don’t pretend to understand how the balance of power actually works inside of Russia, but I think he’s a modern man with a clear and compelling understanding of what he wants to see his country achieve.

QUESTION: I talked to Mikhail Gorbachev here, and he said the United States made a mistake in ignoring Russia for too long, and Russia struck back in its own manner. Are we about to enter a new phase with Russia and a more cooperative arrangement?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m very pleased at what we’ve seen thus far. As we have famously said, we wanted to reset the relationship, and we wanted to work with the Russians wherever we could, narrow the areas of disagreement, stand up where we must against some of what we thought were their excessive behavior. But I think that when it comes to nuclear disarmament, we’re in the midst of complex, important negotiations over reduction of our nuclear arsenals. We work together on everything from North Korea to Armenia and Turkey. I think that they fully appreciate that we’re not always going to agree, but that at least the Obama Administration, and certainly the President and myself, are showing them the respect that they deserve to have and are looking for ways that we can work together.

QUESTION: Do you remember where you were 20 years ago tonight?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I was in Arkansas. And it was – I remember being glued to our TV sets, which in those days, as you might recall, were a lot smaller. And they were in boxes. They weren’t hung on walls. And just hanging on all of the coverage. I saw a lot of you that night, and it was extraordinary because you could give us that firsthand feeling. And I heard last night you were just – you just happened to be there. You didn’t have any inside information that tonight was the night, but there was something happening, it was kind of building, and you were there. And you said, I think, the war is over and the wall is down. And it was just one of those extraordinary historical moments. So I saw a lot of you that day – (laughter) – and a day or two later.

QUESTION: You’re a veteran of another kind of war. Do you have any advice for the President on how to get healthcare finally passed?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I was thrilled that it was finally passed in the House. I called him as soon as the vote was over. I called the Speaker. This is an extraordinary accomplishment. Now we turn our attention to the Senate, try to get them to go along with their own version, because having been in the Senate for eight years, I know they won’t take the House version and just pass it. But I’m very optimistic. I think we’re going to get a bill by the end of the year.

QUESTION: How long do you think it’ll be before we see Harry and Louise on television?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know what, I think Harry and Louise have thought better of what they said 16 years ago. (Laughter.) So I don’t think you’ll see Harry and Louise. You see the tea parties and interrupted town halls, but most Americans over the course of the last 16 years have really understood more about what was at stake in this healthcare debate. It’s not just about those who don’t have insurance. It’s about the quality of your insurance and the cost of your insurance. And for a while, people thought, well, we’ll haggle it through the insurance system itself. But that didn’t work. And so now there’s a readiness that we saw enacted in that close vote in the House, and I think that the senators heard that message.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, Tom.

# # #

Interview With Der Spiegel

Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Washington, DC

October 26, 2009

QUESTION: You’ve written in your book that one very important imperative is for American policy to restore its moral authority. So what does it look like after nine months? A new government?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I do think that restoring America’s credibility and moral authority in the world was a key premise of the Obama campaign and presidency and I think since he has been in office he has taken important steps to do so. Announcing the plans to close Guantanamo right from the very start of the administration, taking a lead on issues like climate change that most of the rest of the world cared significantly about, reaching out across the board in a number of ways, his speech in Cairo on the Islamic world, and then just, frankly, a general style and tone of diplomacy, of taking the concerns of others seriously. I think all of that together shows a real respect for the views of others around the world and is a key premise to the goal of restoring our moral authority in the world.

QUESTION: That was something we all waited for, signals like that. But there were a lot of signals, there were a lot of speeches, there are a lot of approaches. But is there also real progress?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think there is. I mean if you think about the issues that undermined America’s moral authority, the greatest questions in the views of others after -- For many, the American leadership role was welcomed for decades and then it came into question. What was responsible for that? I think it was issues like not acting on climate change which was very important to people around the world. The Guantanamo prison, the issue of torture and detainee treatment, the invasion of Iraq. And I think in all of those areas we’ve seen policy change and progress. That has significantly, I mean just look at opinion polls of what people think of America’s leadership and moral authority, it has, these actions have --

QUESTION: -- The approval rate in Germany is 90 percent.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Not just the approval of the President but the respect for American leadership, the desire for American leadership

QUESTION: I think nobody can doubt this. But do you see real progress if you look at the bad guys? If you look to Iran, if you look to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to the Muslim world, do you get what you want?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Well, I mean these are two separate issues. I don’t think anybody thought A, that it would be easy to just restore moral authority and everyone would change their view of the United States; or B, that somehow this would translate quickly and immediately into the resolution of difficult problems.

We would be the first to admit that the challenges we face in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, are huge challenges and we don’t have simple answers. But I think that’s also, frankly, part of the Obama approach. We recognize that we don’t have simple answers. These are very difficult problems.

We also recognize that we can’t deal with them alone. We need to deal with them together with our friends and allies around the world and that’s why I started with this notion that we want to hear from our friends and allies, we respect their views. We don’t believe we have the absolute truth and know how to solve these problems alone. But we’re determined to do our best with the support of our friends.

QUESTION: Where do you see the most successful area of U.S. foreign policy right now?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Well the first point is that President Obama’s only been in for nine months and it takes time to deal with all aspects of foreign policy.

I think restoring the unity of the Atlantic Alliance is an important thing that in some ways has already been accomplished, I would argue, as that’s the part of the world I’m responsible for. When -- especially in comparison with past periods, certainly the previous eight years, but even before that -- when I compare where we stand with our key European Allies today, on the key issues of the day, I think there’s more transatlantic unity than at almost anytime in the post World War II period.

If you really think about -- again that’s not to say we have solved these problems, but when you look at the problems of dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East conflict, Iran nuclear issue, --

QUESTION: That’s apart from the economic crisis --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: -- climate change, dealing with the global financial crisis, we are very much on the same page and are working very well together. Again, that doesn’t make the problems go away but it is certainly a key component of our foreign policy to deal with these challenges together and I think that we’re doing very well in that regard.

QUESTION: No disappointment?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think we’re very satisfied with the way we’re working with our European allies on all these things. Would we like to be making more and quicker progress in the problems themselves? Of course. Do we demand more and expect more of our allies? Always, because you always want more especially when facing a difficult situation. But we are very pleased with the degree of consensus and cooperation that we’re getting from our European allies.

QUESTION: You have a little change in the administration of one of your most important allies in Europe, and we have a new government in Germany. Do you see that as a positive development when it comes to the transatlantic friendship?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I am sure that we’ll work very well with the new German government. First of all, it’s not an enormous change. The chancellor is still the same as previously. But yes, it’s a new coalition and it’s just getting underway and so we’ll look forward to getting to know them and working with them, but I’m sure we’ll work very well together.

QUESTION: We have a new Secretary of State, Mr. Guido Westerwelle, who will sooner or later come to Washington. You have met him before? Do you have any experience with him?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t know him personally. Of course I’ve followed his career and know what he’s done and look forward to working with him, but I don’t know him personally.

QUESTION: But there’s still, even if it’s at the beginning of the new government, some disappointment in Germany about the U.S. because you are reviewing your Afghanistan strategy, and nearly all the allies are out of the room. They don’t feel very well informed. Maybe it’s not possible to inform them because you’re in the middle of a very difficult process. What’s your take on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I would say just that. We are in the middle of a very difficult process. I think allies had some experience previously with an administration that made quick decisions and went on to implement them and then informed the allies what those decisions were, and that’s not what we are doing or plan to do. I think we are in close touch with our allies as we work this through, but it is true there is not a quick and simple decision emerging from this process because it’s a very difficult question. I think and hope that our allies appreciate the fact that we want to get it right.

The election outcome in Afghanistan was not the one we expected and much of the strategy was designed to pivot on a clear-cut result of election that didn’t happen. So we are now reassessing how to implement the Afghan strategy the President decided last spring in a context with some new variables like this very ambiguous election outcome that required waiting for the reports of the Independent Electoral Commission and so on.

That is now starting to move forward finally with the decision to have a runoff, which wasn’t clear before, and what the parties are going to do. So I think we understand allied impatience at the result of the strategy review. It’s not really a strategy review, but the review of policy and of notation.

I would add we’re impatient too. I mean no one has a greater stake in getting on with this and knowing what we’re doing and succeeding as we do. But we hope and think that allies understand that there are a lot of variables. They should be talked through, they should be examined carefully.

QUESTION: When?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: That is ongoing now. It’s been ongoing for a few weeks.

QUESTION: When do you think --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t think it will last much longer because now we know that there will be a second round of the Afghan election on November 7. It will take a little bit of time for the results to come in. Then at least we’ll know what Afghan government we’re dealing with. We have said that --

QUESTION: Obama will be over in Asia I think for nearly ten days. During this period of time do you expect anything?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I can’t say. We’ll have to see exactly what the timing is. No doubt much of the work I believe will be done before that. But I think that is one key unknown that will become clear on November 7^th and allow the process to move forward. But I would stress it’s better to get the right answer having examined all of the possibilities than to rush into something just to show that you’re capable of making quick decisions and then find out with new information or a new analysis that it wasn’t really the right thing to do.

And we’re in very close touch with our coalition partners who are also expending a lot of resources and lives, taking risks in Afghanistan, and they need to be part of this process too.

QUESTION: One of your generals criticized the German Bundeswehr very heavily in public, in the Washington Post, General McChrystal, after the bombing of two trucks in the north of Afghanistan. Do you remember this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I know the incident, yes.

QUESTION: What’s your take on that? Do you think it was the right way to criticize the German troops there in public?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I’m not familiar with his specific comments, but I would just generally say we have great respect for what the Bundeswehr is doing in Afghanistan. Germany has more than 4,000 troops there. They make a great and important contribution.

It’s a very difficult situation and it’s easy to second-guess things that happen on the ground. But in general we have great appreciation and respect for what Germany is doing in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: The election fraud in Afghanistan was an eye-opener for many people in the U.S. and Germany as well. Many people came to the conclusion this government is not only corrupt as it was described before, it’s also making political legitimacy [inaudible]. So how can we ask our people to provide more troops to support a government like that? Or let’s word it a little bit more towards the U.S., how can you ask the people or your allies to support more lives for a war like that, for a government like that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I think that the straightest answer to that question is out of self interest and out of concern for the people of Afghanistan.

We were disappointed with the election outcome. It’s a good thing that procedures are being used and fraudulent votes have been disqualified and they’re moving towards a second round which will hopefully provide more legitimacy to the outcome. So it’s a good thing that we are sticking to the rules that we put out there and not white-washing anything and not allowing fraudulent votes to count even though we were disappointed that the problem existed to that degree in the first place.

I don’t think anyone expected that the election would be immaculate in the first place. Even in other countries there have been complicated elections with electoral problems.

QUESTION: Even in a huge country.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: In other countries there have been. Afghanistan, without a history of democracy and regulations and legal systems in place, no one was surprised that the election was imperfect. It was more imperfect than we hoped and wanted it to be. But again, we hope that the second round will provide more legitimacy.

And even with the imperfections, the bottom line is we’re not there to do favors for people or reward their good behavior in elections. We’re there because we think that abandoning Afghanistan as the international community did before can lead it to regress into chaos, warlordism, drug trafficking, and a haven for al-Qaida which has struck Europe and America alike.

So the first reason we’re there is simply self interest. Why are we asking our sons and daughters, men and women to go and fight and spending all these resources? Because we think that helps protect ourselves, because in the absence of it, it could degrade to where it was before.

We’re also doing it for the Afghan people. Most of whom aren’t responsible for this particular mess, but many of whom suffer horribly the consequences if we were to leave and allow the Taliban and even worse, al-Qaida to come to power and treat people the way that they did when the Taliban was in power before. So it’s also a question of helping millions of Afghans avoid such a horrible outcome.

QUESTION: We knew that since a couple of years now, we’ve poured billions into the country. We’ve provided a lot of troops and human lives for it --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and still what we don’t see is basically the basic structures of a civil society emerging, as we perhaps see it in Iraq which is more used to structures anyway. But do we have the right approach in Afghanistan?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Do we have the right approach is a question that the President and the policy review have been asking because we should constantly ask whether we have the right approach and that’s what the McChrystal report was about, suggesting changes in the approach. We need to constantly ask that question. But I think there’s much less debate about whether we need to continue to do what we can to avoid the Taliban coming back and al-Qaida coming back. We can ask questions about the best way of implementing --

The overall strategy is to defeat and deter al-Qaida in Afghanistan. There is little debate about whether we need to do that. There is a discussion about the best way to do that and we should --

QUESTION: But in Germany and in Europe as you know, a lot of countries decided to withdraw, some of the countries and in Germany for example the wise politicians like Helmut Schmidt, but also [inaudible], the old gray-haired leaders. They all advise the people, let’s go home. That’s not the part of the world -- We can accomplish nearly nothing, even if we would like to accomplish something, we cannot do it. Do you understand? And how would you explain for yourself this European, maybe typical German approach?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: It’s not surprising that there are serious questions being raised about our commitment in Afghanistan. It’s very costly and it has uncertain outcomes, so it’s not surprising that people are discussing and debating it.

I would challenge the notion that Europeans are somehow rushing for the exits or withdrawing. I mean largely, they’re not. There are more European troops there possibly than there ever have been. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about countries that might withdraw their contingents of a thousand. But the bottom line is that there are more European troops there then there were last year or the year before that.

Some increased in the context of the elections and others are talking about increasing in the future. So even if you might have the feeling that questioning is blossoming, in fact Europeans are there in very significant numbers and more than in the past.

And I think we need to, no one claimed or should claim that a couple of months or years of intervention turns Afghanistan into a completely stable place with stable structures and nothing to worry about. That’s not the realistic goal. But comparing even what we’ve achieved now, which is far from perfect, with what the situation would be like if we followed that advice and simply said we can’t help this place, let’s just go. I think that comparison is pretty easy and there’s broad support even in Europe for that.

QUESTION: What else is on the transatlantic agenda? In Germany there’s a lot of [inaudible] about the protection and debate in the U.S. Congress. And what would you answer the German voice, the German business community about that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Protectionism?

QUESTION: Protectionism.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I would say that given the depth of the financial and economic and unemployment crisis that we have just gone through, there is a remarkably small protectionist quotient in the United States. I mean I think if you had imagined even five or ten years ago and you said what if we had this massive crisis and ten percent unemployment, I think you would have predicted a real protectionist surge, you know, like in the early ‘90s and Ross Perot and opposition to NAFTA. And you’ve got Democrats taking the Congress and a Democrat in the White House and there’s not a protectionist surge. There’s maybe a little bit more clamoring for -- Let’s say there’s less enthusiasm for new free trade agreements than there had been, but I actually think given the circumstances, and I think this President understands the benefits of globalization and believes in free trade.

QUESTION: The problem is not the President or the administration. The problem is more about what will go on.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Those are legitimate worries, but again I think unemployment has doubled in the past couple of years and there’s not a massive protectionist surge.

QUESTION: So America will be a free trade country?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Yes. America will continue to believe in free trade and the benefits of free trade. And certainly in the transatlantic context, one of the most open markets in the world.

QUESTION: Another thing which is watched by Europeans with a little concern is when we come to financial regulation. We have gone through this crisis. We know the causes for the crisis. We see a huge rise in speculation again. We see huge masses of money floating around. And everybody’s asking wasn’t there something a year ago, something very fundamental?

Basically where are the tight measures? Are we awaiting, the Europeans perhaps a bit more eagerly than the Americans, where are the tough rules which should put the financial markets a little bit more under control?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t think that the gap on that issue is that great, either. There are obviously historical and cultural reasons why some Europeans are more inclined to implement regulations and Americans more averse to it, but on the whole I think the G20 process has actually been pretty good in having that debate, structuring that debate, and keeping us more or less on the same page. I know President Obama and Chancellor Merkel have discussed this several times including in person, and they understand each other’s perspectives. Not to say that they would speak about it in exactly the same way, but there’s not a huge gap there.

I think Americans as a whole, especially in the midst of a financial crisis, understand the need for more regulation. But Europeans understand that you need a functioning market. I’ll leave it to experts to design exactly how the international regulation rules should work.

But I think we have a constructive process going on within the G20 that’s doing exactly what it was set up to do which is to make sure this works together among the big powers because we can’t do it in a disjointed fashion.

QUESTION: But if you look at the market for derivatives which were responsible for part of this crisis, or partly responsible for this crisis, this market is totally unregulated. Huge masses of money are floating around. Entities like [inaudible] are speculating like years before. So we don’t see any progress there.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: I don’t know. I don’t think it’s necessarily like years before, but that is going to be the task of this review is how do you regulate these new tools without choking off the benefits that come from free market activities? And I think the needle has moved towards more regulation on both sides of the Atlantic.

QUESTION: The difference is we don’t have Wall Street in Germany. Maybe we would look at it in a different way if we would have this kind of industry.

What else do you expect? Do you have another point where you think it’s important for the Germans and the Europeans to have a closer look, or maybe to contribute more to the Obama policy?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Well again, I would stress the point I made before that despite whatever appearances might be, the U.S.-European relationship is actually in great shape and that’s a good and necessary thing.

President Obama came to office understanding that Americans cannot deal with these challenges alone. Whoever might have thought that, especially after the 1990’s and in the 2000’s when we were so rich and powerful and militarily powerful, some Americans might have thought Europe get out of the way, we’re going to do this ourselves.

President Obama understood that’s not possible. We need to work together with allies, and as we look around the world what allies matter? It’s mostly our successful, democratic, like-minded, prosperous European friends who are key. And so it is a good thing that on most of these big challenges we’re working together and that we see the problems very much alike.

I think that will continue under the new German government and we will continue to look to our European friends as we deal with everything that we have been talking here about.

QUESTION: One last question. Copenhagen. Do you expect that the Americans will set their underwriting under a new climate change treaty?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Well, I don’t think it’s going to depend just on the Americans for there to be a treaty at Copenhagen. Everyone is going to have to agree and that’s going be a major challenge. I know many are starting to think now that a treaty in Copenhagen, that the world is not going to be ready for a treaty. But that doesn’t mean we should lower our objectives.

We take the issue very seriously. I think the Obama administration has taken a number of important steps including $80 billion for clean energy in the stimulus bill and support for measures in Congress that will vastly reduce our emissions by 2050. And all of that needs to be consolidated in advance in time for Copenhagen.

Whether that’s enough to get a treaty that would have to involve China and India and everyone else is unclear, but we need to continue to strive for that, and even if the world falls short of a treaty get a political agreement that will be the basis for a treaty. Because whatever the timing of it, it’s clear that we need action in this area and the United States needs to continue to lead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GORDON: Thank you.

Remarks With German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) Madame Secretary, ladies and gentlemen, I extend a very warm, warm welcome to all of you here, and a very warm welcome goes out to the Secretary of State of the United States of America. Dear Hillary Clinton, once again, I’d like to use this opportunity to extend a very warm welcome to you. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and the members of her delegation to Berlin.

Today, on a day that is of historic importance, we thank you for your visit (inaudible) very much of the importance of the contribution of the United States of America and the American people to the freedom of the country I represent. Since the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of America has, in a hands-on manner, stood up for our freedom and for our security. This is why the Germans are deeply grateful to the United States of America and its people. Allow me, dear Hillary, to use this opportunity to once again express the gratitude of the Federal Republic of Germany and of its people here in Germany, and speaking on behalf of my people, thank you, and you represent your country, the United States of America.

It’s our third (inaudible). Last week, I paid my first introductory visit to the United States of America, to the American Government when I came to Washington. Yesterday, we both enjoyed a dinner at the Atlantic Council and we enjoyed the honor of receiving the Freedom Award from the Atlantic Council. That was a deeply moving moment, a very touching moment.

Today, we focused on a number of political issues and discussed them in detail. We exchanged views on climate policy issues. Both the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany want to ensure that Copenhagen becomes a success. We would want to see an improvement in the field of climate protection. What we want to achieve is concrete results at Copenhagen so as to better protect our climate, and we’re (inaudible) to believe that if we do so, we stand a chance to achieve good results. Europe and the United States of America have to closely coordinate their policies and have to act together using their strengths and their force to (inaudible) outcome.

We talked in detail about security issues, development of (inaudible), and of course, we also touched on Afghanistan. Afghanistan, we’re really focused (inaudible) the exchanges we had last week. Here again, there is agreement on (inaudible) necessary to make the Afghan Government, to make President Karzai realize that good governance has to become (inaudible). We want to see improvement here. We want the Afghan Government to be a government for the people as a (inaudible) who are (inaudible) to make our contribution towards reaching this objective.

We want to ensure that a good and peaceful development can occur within Afghanistan; and in return, we expect of the Afghan Government that it makes its own contribution towards this objective and that it becomes a government of the people as a whole and that it adheres to the (inaudible) that underlie good governance. Last week already, we talked in detail about this issue.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear Hillary, once again (inaudible) welcome to you. I had indeed very interesting exchanges with you. They were more than interesting, though. Some were characterized by the inclusive atmosphere, and I want to thank you for that. Personally, I’d like to thank you for that. It’s not (inaudible) something which (inaudible) ultimately (inaudible). Having come to (inaudible) a brief time ago, we can only expect to receive such a friendly welcome and to develop such close contact. I’m looking forward to close cooperation with you, and I’m confident that American-German friendship will continue to deepen and to be developed further. When we talk about Germany and the United States of America, we’re talking about more than a friendship and partnership. It’s a deep and heartfelt friendship between those peoples and countries.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. I can only echo exactly what the foreign minister had said. We have had three very productive and personally rewarding meetings over the last week. I particularly appreciate the words that I heard from Guido last night about his own personal experience as a young boy of 13, when his father took him to see the wall, and how emotionally that affected him and I’m sure influenced his values in politics and his personal commitment. It was a remarkable story and one that I will long remember.

We had constructive and productive discussions starting in Washington last week, continuing here in Berlin. The United States is eager to work with the new German Government on a full range of shared challenges. We face complex threats that cannot be stopped by borders or oceans. Global recession, violent extremism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, hunger, and disease are only some that are the transnational threats of our time. And only by working together in close partnership can we meet these challenges. So I want to recognize Germany’s leadership and applaud Germany’s work for peace and prosperity in Europe, in NATO, and around the world.

Germany and the United States are working together to rebuild the global economy, to forge a strong international agreement to combat climate change and chart a clean energy future. Chancellor Merkel made a very important speech to the Congress last week, and called the test of climate change one of the greatest that humanity has faced.

In Afghanistan, German soldiers are working to bring stability to a troubled land and hope to people who have known too much violence for too long. We honor their service and their sacrifice. And we recognize the commitment that it takes, not just from the men and women in uniform, but from their families and indeed the entire German nation.

We also appreciate Germany’s generous support for the Pakistani people who are working to turn back violent extremism and try to ensure a more democratic, prosperous future for themselves and their children.

And we are grateful for Germany’s leadership and partnership in our efforts to ensure that Iran lives up to its international obligation, that it complies fully with UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA directives on its nuclear program. In her moving address before Congress, Chancellor Merkel urged us to come together as partners to tear down the walls of today. As one of the millions of Germans who grew up in East Germany, she knows what it is like to yearn for freedom long denied. And she knows that there are no walls that cannot be torn down when people stand up and work together.

So here in Berlin on this important anniversary, I am more confident than ever that we are up to the challenges we face. I had an opportunity to discuss these challenges at breakfast with the chancellor, at lunch with the foreign minister – I am certainly well informed and well fed – and to underscore that we are united by core values of democracy, tolerance, respect for human dignity. These are the principles on which Germany and the United States stand today. In fact, they’re enshrined in Germany’s basic law.

But equally importantly, they are in the hearts of the brave men and women who took control of their destinies 20 years ago and gave the world a new birth and burst of freedom, and they exist in the hearts of men and women around the world today. We are very grateful that this partnership is one of our strongest and most important. I am personally looking forward to working with the foreign minister and this new government, because even though we meet today to honor the past, our eyes are squarely on the future, our minds are focused on the challenges we face, and our hearts are beating faster at the possibility that we will be able to meet the challenges of today, as those who came before us met theirs.

So thank you so much for your commitment to freedom and democracy and the values that we think belong to all people, and which are exemplified by our two nations today.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) I’m (inaudible) from the (inaudible). I have a question for both of you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: See, the foreign minister and I talked in English, so I have to stick these in my ears.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: You can tell this – them, but they won’t believe it. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: I am a witness. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Madame Secretary, you stressed in your speech that we must continue fighting for freedom (inaudible). Could you be somewhat more concrete as far as the role of NATO is concerned and your expectations regarding Germany?

And Mr. Foreign Minister, could you mention for us what you perhaps have offered on behalf of the federal government and Afghanistan above and beyond what has already been provided? And another question regarding Ms. Steinbach. Do you reject her chairmanship of the foundation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that we have consulted continually with our German partners and our allies in NATO. There was an important defense ministers meeting in Bratislava about 10 days, two weeks ago. As you know, Chancellor Merkel met with President Obama on her trip last week. The foreign minister and I have been discussing the way forward. And I think as the foreign minister rightly said, any commitment by the governments and the people of the United States, Germany, and others who have joined with us through both NATO and the international forces has to be met by an even greater commitment on behalf of the new government of President Karzai to deliver services for the people of Afghanistan, to begin the effort to root out corruption, to have more accountability and transparency in the way that the government operates.

We are very clear that we will be expecting more from the Government of Afghanistan. And it is certainly a mutual commitment that the foreign minister and I feel on behalf of our two countries. The United States would not be in Afghanistan, the President would not be engaging in such a thoughtful, deliberative process if we did not believe that conditions in Afghanistan directly impact and threaten the security of the American people and our friends and allies like Germany.

We are not in Afghanistan because it’s a good thing to do or because it’s a nice way to show our concern for people around the world, and particularly to try to help with the development of the people of Afghanistan. Those are important and worthy objectives. We are there because we view the syndicate of terrorism directed and led, funded, and inspired by al-Qaida to be a direct security threat to our values, our way of life, and to our interests and our friends and allies.

So any decision that President Obama makes is premised on that fundamental security assessment. And I believe that the German Government and this new government in particular is conducting its own analysis, and we will be continuing to consult. The President will be reaching out to the chancellor and we will be talking as well. But we are going to present to the Government of Afghanistan and President Karzai a clear set of expectations and of accountability measures, so there can be no doubt as to what we expect from this relationship.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) And I’d like to provide a brief answer to your question. Currently, we are conducting strategic discussions, strategic debate, and from our perspective, it’s also important that we also follow procedure in this discussion/debate. First of all, it sets targets, objectives, and then discuss the strategy. And then after that, additional questions will be answered, particularly regarding implementation.

And I am pleased to be able to state that our contributions and achievements regarding the training of the police forces and the schools is something that’s kindly appreciated by our American partners and others. And Germany can indeed provide an important contribution in this area. And we do want to make sure that Afghanistan is self-sufficient regarding security. And if we want this, then we have to make sure that Afghanistan has its own security infrastructure, that that system is there, and we want to help build it. This is an important contribution that we can (inaudible) discuss this as well. And this is also fully in line with my personal statements and the policies of the new government.

Now as far as the foundation is concerned, I would like to provide another – only a very brief answer regarding – because the Secretary is here. This foundation is called reconciliation for displaced individuals. It has to do with reconciliation, and for this reason, the federal government’s decision will be fully in line with this goal of reconciliation.

QUESTION: Sorry about that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) This is Matt Lee from the Associated Press. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, first of all, congratulations on your --

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: Nice to meet you.

QUESTION: Very nice to meet you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think he was caught somewhat unawares so –

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: We interrupted you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: My apologies. First of all, congratulations on your day, Mr. Minister. I want to break with – I was going to try to break with tradition and ask only one question, but ask you –ask it of both of you. But something has just happened which – in Iran, which is that the reports that the three American hikers have been – who were detained have been charged now with espionage, and I’m wondering if I could get your comment on that, Madame Secretary.

And then, for both of you, what was going to be my only question is on Iran as well, and that is that for weeks the Iranians have been stalling, have not been answering – have not been giving an answer to your – to the offer that was proposed in early October. And I want to know when can they reasonably conclude that your warnings of sanctions, if they don’t agree, is just an idle threat? Because there are obviously some who believe that it is just an idle threat. When does that time come? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Matt. With respect to the three American hikers who were detained by the Iranians when they were hiking in northern Iraq, we believe strongly that there is no evidence to support any charge whatsoever. And we would renew our request on behalf of these three young people and their families that the Iranian Government exercise compassion and release them so they can return home, and we will continue to make that case through our Swiss protecting power who represents the United States in Tehran.

Secondly, the question of Iran’s response to the proposal by the P-5+1 regarding the exporting out of their low-enriched uranium for reprocessing and then return to the Tehran research reactor has not yet been formally replied to by the Iranians. We believe that this offer represents an important opportunity for Iran both to meet the medical and humanitarian needs that the Tehran research reactor fulfills and to begin to restore international confidence in their nuclear program. We are at very close consultation with our P-5+1 colleagues on next steps; we very much appreciate the active involvement of our German partners. And because we don’t yet have a formal reply from the Iranians, it would be premature to go to any next steps if Iran decides ultimately to reject this offer.

So what we intend to do is press, both through P-5+1 and through the IAEA, to convince Iran to accept this opportunity. But as you know, during the United Nations General Assembly, there was an important meeting in New York where each of the countries in the P-5+1, which include China and Russia, obviously the United States and Germany, France and the UK and the European Union was represented. We all signed a statement that set forth the understanding that what we were pursuing was a dual-track strategy – one track aimed at engagement and diplomacy and efforts like the one represented with the offer on the Tehran research reactor, but the second track very clearly intended to show the Iranians that there were consequences if they failed to fulfill their obligations and if they continued to ignore the opportunity to work with the international community.

So although it is premature to speculate at this point, I think the Iranians are well aware that this is a two-track process, and we continue to urge them to work with us on the first track of diplomacy and engagement.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) First of all, with the – even if the question was not addressed to me, I would like to stress the solidarity of Germany with the three young individuals and their families. This is, of course, a very difficult situation, and those individuals who are impacted by this should know that we are looking to them and that we are at their sides.

And I would also like to make a brief statement regarding your question on Iran. We want dialogue and we want a diplomatic solution. We also we know that dialogue and partnership and talks are what are most important with Iran. But Iran must also know that our patience in the international community is not unlimited. The federal chancellor made a very clear statement in her speech in Washington and we (inaudible) nothing from this.

# # #

U.S. Perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe

Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

CSIS Conference: The United States and Central Europe Converging or Diverging Strategic Interests?

Washington, DC

November 4, 2009

Janusz, thank you very much for inviting me here and for putting this on, together with Slawomir and the Polish Institute for International Affairs. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. I regret I missed the opening panels which looked very interesting. I actually spent my morning at the U.S.-EU Summit which was also relevant for much of the discussions here, not least because of the degree to which we talked about Central and Eastern Europe and the Eastern partnership, and for the past hour, the launch of the U.S.-EU Energy Council, which I think is also relevant for our discussions today.

I’ve been a long admirer of the CSIS Europe program and Central Europe program with which I have worked extensively in the past. In deed I remember a year or so ago being at this very podium, then speaking about Senator Obama’s view of Europe and Central and Eastern Europe, and I’m delighted to be back now, less than a year into the new administration, to talk about our perspectives and accomplishments and the challenges that we face together in this part of the world.

This is also a timely conference, because Central and Eastern Europe is in the spotlight this fall. Not only because of the many policy issues at the forefront which I hope to discuss including Russia and missile defense and NATO and the global financial crisis, but it’s also in the spotlight because this year, of course, marks the 20^th Anniversary of the revolutions that toppled dictatorial regimes in the region, and communism. As I believe you know, this Sunday Secretary Clinton will travel to Berlin for the 20^th Anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, to join other European leaders to celebrate that anniversary which set off such a positive domino effect throughout Central and Eastern Europe, liberating tens of millions of people.

These events deserve to be recalled, not just to honor and celebrate those who took part in them, but also to learn the lessons about how to get rid of ideology and authoritarianism and to promote democracy, stability and prosperity -- a set of issues that is, alas, all too relevant for many other parts of the world today.

The remarks I was asked to give are about U.S. perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe, and that is what I will do. But I would like to just make one point about the overall focus of this conference which is the question of whether U.S. and Central and Eastern Europe strategic interests are converging or diverging. And let me say, and I particularly want to do so because I think it challenges some of the conventional wisdom and perhaps some of the views that were expressed this morning here, that I actually think U.S. and Central European interests are converging and not diverging.

The main reason I say that is actually a consequence of the point to the reference I just made to 20 years ago and what has happened in Central and Eastern Europe since. That is to say that the democratic revolutions that took place in Central and Eastern Europe 20 years ago put that region on a path towards Europe and the West in terms of its values and institutions and economies and interests, and these countries are now very far along that path.

In other words, we see increasingly Central and Eastern European countries the same way we see Western European countries which is to say stable prosperous democracies with which we cooperate extensively on a whole range of global interests.

When you think about Central and Eastern Europe’s strategic interests, in other words, there are some particular regional interests, but what are the main ones? They include, just as our own, coping with the international financial crisis, succeeding in Afghanistan where we’re fighting together, preventing climate change, improving energy security, helping to develop a democratic and non-threatening Russia, dealing with immigration. These are the questions the United States deals with; these are the questions Western Europe deals with; and these are the questions more and more Central and Eastern Europe deals with.

Obviously, and I want to make this clear, we are sensitive to Central and Eastern Europe’s enduring particular interests. Historical legacies do not quickly disappear and geography does not change. Central Europeans still face security threats that, and I think for understandable reasons, are felt with more intensity than in the distant United States. Countries in Eastern Europe have been subject to energy cutoffs, cyber attacks, political pressure, and in the case of Georgia the use of disproportionate military force by a large neighbor. That’s all clear.

But my point is, these are not causes for a divergence in interests between Central and Eastern Europe and the United States because the United States strongly shares Central and Eastern Europe’s interest in security from such threats and risks. That’s not only because of the rock solid Article 5 commitment that the United States has with some of these countries, but out of our own interests. History has taught the United States that security risks in Central Europe are a threat to all of Europe, and that the security of all of Europe is a vital national interest of the United States. So I see no divergence between Central and Eastern Europe and the United States when it comes to keeping the region safe from outside threats, whether they be political, military, economic or in the area of energy security.

So that’s a broad overall point I wanted to begin with. What I’d like to do now is turn to some of the particular policy issues that I think are relevant to the region and offer our, offer the Obama administration’s perspective on some of them.

I’d like to start with Russia. I’d like to start with the President’s thinking on Russia and what we’re trying to do in a policy sense on Russia in ways that I think are relevant to the region.

The President explained early on in the administration and the Vice President articulated it publicly early on at the Munich Security Conference, the way that we’re thinking about Russia and relations with Russia. That is to say what we inherited was a poor and deteriorating relationship with Russia that we think served nobody. And President Obama thought it should be possible to pursue concrete cooperation with Russia in areas where we have common interests, and there are some; while at the same time agreeing to disagree about other issues where we have different interests, and without sacrificing any of our important principles or our friends. And that is what the President announced we would try to do as part of his foreign policy. It’s what the Vice President talked about in Munich. And it’s what we’ve been trying to do ever since.

So there was a reset with Russia announced, but it came with the corollaries that were quite clear as well, that we didn’t accept the notion of privileged spheres of influence within Europe; that we felt that democracies in Europe should have the right to join the security alliances of their choosing. And that we would not recognize break-away regions like South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The President’s summit in Moscow in July I think demonstrated how this can work. There were some concrete achievements. The Presidents agreed on the START follow-on framework. They agreed on an Afghanistan lethal transit arrangement, which is just the sort of concrete agreement in areas of common interest that we were talking about -- benefits to the United States, because we have more diverse supply routes to Afghanistan, it saves us potentially a lot of money, depending on how many flights there are to Afghanistan, we could save over $100 million -- and there was no tradeoff to get it, because both countries have a common interest in succeeding.

Military to military cooperation was reestablished to try to overcome some of the mistrust. And a Bilateral Presidential Commission was launched with 17 sub-areas ranging from the environment to culture to allow us to pursue these common interests more institutionally. And the two countries agreed on a joint threat assessment regarding the ballistic missile threat including from countries like Iran and North Korea.

So all of that was in the basket of things where we think we can work together, but at the same time the President made crystal clear, both publicly and in his private meetings, that our core principles still held, and that we had some differences on issues like NATO enlargement and on Georgia and on democracy and human rights which he talked about in his speech at the New Economic School and in his private meetings with NGOs, civil society, and opposition leaders.

Secretary Clinton, as you know, was in Moscow two weeks ago and did the same thing. Pursued common interests in areas where we have some and we want to cooperate -- like Iran, Afghanistan, and START, nuclear non-proliferation; but at the same time making clear our differences and our determination to uphold our principles.

So in short, some have questioned whether this pursuit of a reset with Russia is a sign of a diverging strategic interest with Central Europe. I think not. I think a more open and trusting relationship with Russia where possible and the pursuit of common interests where possible is actually in the interest of both the United States and Central Europe.

Let me offer a couple of thoughts on the issue of missile defense, which has also, I know, been a great focus of people in the region. And I specifically want to address this issue because I think there has been a significant amount of misunderstanding about it, especially when we saw, after the Obama administration announced its plans about how to pursue missile defense, headlines about sellouts or betrayal. And there’s still talk, frankly, and no doubt there was some of it this morning, I’ll just venture a guess, from critics of the administration suggesting that somehow the missile defense plan was designed to appease Russia and somehow sold out Central and European interests in the name of a reset with Russia.

I’ll be blunt about this. I think that line of thinking is simply wrong. We’ve had a chance to explain the missile defense approach. We’ve had a chance to explain it publicly and to our friends in the region. I actually think that understanding of what we are doing is growing, and we’re getting to the point that we wanted to get to which is people understanding that we think we have a better plan to protect Americans and Europeans from the growing threat from nuclear proliferation and ballistic missiles. But also a better plan to enhance and encourage strategic cooperation with our Central and East European partners. And that’s the part of it that I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding about.

Again, I think in the time since the announcement we’ve had plenty of opportunity to explain this, to underscore that the factors driving this had to do with the intelligence. The realization that Iran was moving forward very quickly on short and medium range ballistic missiles which posed a threat already to Europe, including Southeastern Europe and soon to Central Europe and then soon thereafter to Western Europe, and that to us it didn’t make a lot of sense to deploy ten interceptors against ICBMs that didn’t exist while leaving these countries vulnerable to a threat from dozens or hundreds of short and medium range missiles that do exist and will soon exist in much greater numbers.

So that was the critique of the old plan, and the reason for exploration of a different one which was supplemented by technological developments, namely success in the development of the Standard Missile 3 technology which is what the new phased adaptive approach is going to be based on, in phases that will lead ultimately by 2020 to a very significant capability to deal with both short, medium, and longer range threats. Then finally, in addition to intelligence and technology, it was a policy decision. We wanted to cover all of Europe and we wanted to do it together with NATO, rather than simply bilaterally. And that is what we’re working towards, as well.

So frankly, we think it’s a better plan on every level to defend Americans, deployed American forces and our allies in Europe.

As for the speculation on Russia, of which there has been a lot, some have criticized us for doing it for Russia, some have criticized us for not doing so, for not trying to negotiate or bargain something. On that I would simply say the reality is that Russia was an ancillary point to the points that I just made.

The decision was made about how to best protect America, its allies and its forward deployed troops, and the reality is we didn’t know how Russia would respond. It was always an open question whether Russia would decide that this was more in their interests than the previous plan. They might have decided otherwise. We had no control over that. As it happens, they have been largely positive about it, which is also okay. Just because the Russians aren’t criticizing it doesn’t mean that it’s a bad plan.

Let me also reinforce the point about cooperation with Central and Eastern European allies, because I’ve had conversations with some friends in Central and Eastern Europe who said, actually prior to our decision, who were saying -- we actually don’t believe in missile defense, we don’t think it’s necessary, we don’t think it will work, but we really want you to go ahead with the plans with Poland and the Czech Republic -- because they wanted strategic cooperation with the United States which is fair enough.

But the point I want to make here is, in the new plan we think we have just such strategic cooperation with our partners in Central and Eastern Europe. Much of the focus has been on Poland where the decision was made, of course, not to pursue the previous agreement on ground-based interceptors. But think about the current agreement or what is on offer from the Obama administration. It was an offer, a right of first refusal to Poland for whose cooperation we were grateful in the previous plan, to deploy SM-3s if it so chose. It was an agreement to move forward with the Patriot anti-air system, indeed a more robust version than had been previously on offer, and a decision to move forward with all of the strategic dialogue and defense cooperation groups that the Bush administration had agreed with Poland in the final year.

So if someone can explain to me how moving forward in basing missile defense interceptors, moving forward with all sorts of strategic dialogues, and moving forward on Patriots is somehow walking back from strategic cooperation, I would like to hear it because we, in fact, think it’s moving in the opposite direction.

We have also with the Czech Republic engaged in serious discussions about how they might be involved in the new plan and about moving forward with our strategic and defense dialogue with the Czech Republic. And finally, the new plan will offer other opportunities for Central and Eastern European countries and all NATO allies to be involved in what will be a much more NATO-ized missile defense plan.

In short, far from abandoning Central and Eastern Europe, this phased adaptive approach to missile defense should be seen as a sign of enduring commitment.

Let me say a word about our perspective on NATO and how it relates to the region.

We think that NATO enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe has been a historic achievement of democratic and republican administrations since the end of the Cold War. I’m proud to have been involved in that process earlier in the Clinton administration and to continue the process in the Obama administration.

In 1999 we of course welcomed in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to the alliance. Since then, under the Bush administration, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, have all come in. Croatia and Albania in 2009. This really is a historic set of achievements that has contributed to stability and prosperity throughout the region, and we believe that the door to NATO enlargement must remain open.

Applicants need to meet demanding criteria, but if they do they should be free to fulfill their EuroAtlantic aspirations just like those who preceded them.

There’s also the issue of NATO’s strategic concept, which of course is being revised this year for the first time in ten years. There’s a great debate about whether the focus should be on Article 5 or if it should be on global engagement or on new threats. Our answer to that question is simple. It needs to be all of the above. It’s not a choice between focus on Article 5 or focus on global engagement. Obviously Afghanistan is important. The alliance is at war. We’re at war there together. There are more than 30,000 European troops as part of ISAF, including many troops who are making important contributions from Central and Eastern Europe. That is a core part of what NATO does in the 21^st Century. But that doesn’t mean that Article 5 doesn’t remain central and we need to make that clear in the strategic concept and in the reality of what we do on the ground.

President Obama has said that NATO must have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats wherever they come from, and that task needs to be reflected in the strategic concept and that’s what we’re seeking to do as it is revised.

Let me just mention a final issue because I want to make sure we have plenty of time for your questions and comments, which is the wider Central and Eastern Europe neighborhood.

I mentioned that this morning and yesterday in the extensive discussions as part of the U.S.-EU Summit with the Vice President, the President, and today at the State Department, many of these issues were discussed. Stability in Ukraine, prospects of engagement with Belarus, the hope to integrate the Balkans into EuroAtlantic institutions, our desire to bring stability to the Caucasus, and in the course of these discussions we expressed our very strong support for the EU’s Eastern Partnership which is in many ways a Central and Eastern European brain child with the Czechs, the Poles, and together with the Swedish presidency providing resources and engagement with Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia and Azerbaijan. We strongly support this. It is a reflection of a process that we think needs to move forward.

The extension of democracy and stability to Central and Eastern Europe, as I said previously, was a huge bipartisan success over the past 20 years, but that process is not yet complete. We look forward to working with our partners in Central and Eastern Europe and throughout the EU to bring those countries in the Balkans and in the Eastern Partnership closer to EuroAtlantic institutions if they so choose.

There are many other issues that we could address. I haven’t said much about the economic crisis that we have been working together with our partners to deal with and the U.S. has contributed to tackling through our stimulus plan and support for international financial institutions. We could and should talk about energy security which is another central concern of the countries in the region, and I’m happy to discuss any of these in the discussion period.

But here in conclusion I would just say that I think and I hope that the perspectives I have offered on the issues I have addressed -- Russia, missile defense, NATO, the neighborhood -- underscores my initial point which is that U.S. and Central European strategic interests are deeply entwined and converging.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

Keynote Address at the Atlantic Council Gala Dinner

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Adlon Hotel

Berlin, Germany

November 8, 2009

(Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I like Henry, too.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: And I am especially honored to have been introduced by him today, and to be with all of you for this extraordinary occasion.

There are so many in this room, and then so many others who have been mentioned, who deserve all of the appreciation and admiration we can bestow upon them. But I have the great and high honor today to accept this freedom award on behalf of the American people, some of whose names are already in the history books, but many of whom will never be known to history.

But because of their steadfastness, because of their conviction about freedom and the hope that it would be, once again, alive and well throughout all of Europe, and particularly in Germany, they supported the policies of successive presidents of both parties, they voted for people who believed strongly in the importance of the Transatlantic Alliance, they paid taxes year after year after year to support our defense of Europe, the NATO Alliance, and to give a tangible and very clear message, that the people of the United States wanted to see a strong and vibrant Germany and Europe.

And there is no better place for this award or this moment than right here in Berlin, a city where some of the greatest victories in the 20th century occurred, and a city that, today, embodies the strength of our democracies and what we have achieved together. So, I gratefully accept this on behalf of all of those Americans.

And I thank the Atlantic Council and Fred, thank you for your coverage of this part of the world over many years, and your leadership of this council, and Alan Spence, as well, for co-hosting this evening, the presidents of both Estonia and Latvia, who sit here today representing two nations that were considered captives.
And, on a personal note, when I was in high school, I was part of an organization that, in our own way, as high school students, tried to speak out for freedom of those who were in the Baltics and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe. We would often host events at the school, or at our public library of those who had escaped, to hear their stories, to remind ourselves, to remind all Americans what was at stake, and to put a personal face on what seemed to be a faceless and terrible oppression.

So, thank you. And thank you for taking this time on the eve of the occasion tomorrow to look back, to remember, to convey the emotion and commitment that so many of you who have already spoken have demonstrated clearly, in order to pass it on to that next generation and the one after that.

I am delighted to be joined by members of the United States Presidential Delegation who have come to represent the United States on this historic occasion. We have already heard from most of them: our ambassador, Phil Murphy; our former national security advisors, Dr. Brzezinski and Lt. Gen. Scowcroft; and Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund.

And, of course, as Henry Kissinger said, we are in a federation. And we do understand the challenges and difficulties that each of us has faced, and not only are facing today, but whoever holds these positions of National Security Advisor or Secretary of State will face, new challenges. But that is part of the responsibility that we, together, have assumed.

And I want to personally express my appreciation to the Vice Chancellor and the Foreign Minister. We had our first meeting just a few days ago in Washington, where I was very pleased to host Guido. And tomorrow he will host me for a working lunch. The emotion that his remarks conveyed, the story of going to Berlin with his father, will stay with me. And I look forward to working with you on so many of the important challenges we face today.

This award comes in a year of anniversaries -- the one we celebrate tomorrow, the night 20 years ago when history broke through concrete and barbed wire and brought liberty to millions across this continent, but that's not the only milestone that should be remembered.

Sixty-five summers ago, allied troops landed in Europe with the goal of liberating Berlin. And in 1949, 60 years ago, we formed the NATO Alliance, and completed the largest humanitarian airlift in history, well over a quarter million flights, to sustain West Berlin during the Soviet blockade. And, Admiral, thank you for accepting the award on behalf of not only those who serve today, but most importantly, those who have served in years past, in a continuous chain of commitment.

The Americans and their allies who fought to liberate this city in the Second World War, the farmers and airmen who helped to feed Berlin's people and fuel its homes, and the soldiers who stood guard for generations to preserve the peace, all did so with the hope that someday Berlin might stand at the center of a free, peaceful, prosperous, reunified Germany in a free, peaceful, prosperous, unified Europe.

But there wasn't anything inevitable about it. And there is nothing that we can take for granted about that history. The circumstances that surround us today are a culmination of an effort by Europeans and Americans that spanned generations. And, yes, the end to the Berlin Wall was an iconic moment. It was an hour when the hopes and prayers and sacrifice of millions came together in an unwavering exclamation of freedom. But it did not begin with the mistake of a flustered Communist spokesman in East Berlin, or even the peaceful masses that took to the street that evening. It had been building over years.

Edward Gibbon, the great historian of the fall of Rome once observed that a "mighty state reared by the labors of successive ages could not be overturned by the misfortune of a single day." But I would add the accumulation of days, of days where people no longer could tolerate the oppression and the denial that they had to live with, who could no longer stomach what they saw in those who pretended to lead them, built and built. So, with the destruction of the Berlin Wall, we witnessed the climax of a broader saga that had been playing out in Budapest and Bucharest and Bratislava and a thousand other communities across Europe.

In Poland, that son of a carpenter, who has already been honored, was elected prime minister of a free nation. For the Polish people, it was the end of a campaign for liberty that was marked by scores of protests and years of privation. And for an electrician from Gda?sk, it was the end of a journey that began when he climbed over a wall of the Lenin Shipyards to lead a strike that became Solidarity.

In the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, a human chain comprised of one-fourth the population joined hands across their lands, and helped break the chains that held their nations captive. Tens of thousands gathered at Heroes' Square in Budapest to witness the reburial of Imre Nagy, a hero of the 1956 revolution.

And later that summer, Hungary's Communist leaders opened the border to refugees seeking freedom and, in the morning darkness of September 11th, allowed a vast army of East German automobiles to surge across the Hungarian frontier into Austria. The small cars filled with vacationers didn't have much in common with the armored battalions of the Warsaw Pact that had menaced generations of Western military planners. But their impact on history was as dramatic as any invasion. There was little use in a wall that you could walk around.

So, when capitals across the region, refugees from the East, found sanctuary in the embassies of West Germany, and when a dying government tried to end the exodus of its people by allowing a handful of them free passage to the West in a sealed train, the sight spawned an outcry for change. East Germans took to the streets of Leipzig in peaceful protests that affirmed, "Wir sind das Volk,"or, "We are the People," which became, "We are One People," after the events of November 9th.

Then, only eight days after the destruction of the Wall, we watched students in Prague march and begin what became the Velvet Revolution that would bring Havel, a playwright, to the presidency. For a nation that had grasped for liberty in the spring of 1968, the transition to democracy couldn't come quickly enough.

There were many authors of the changes we witnessed in 1989. Some acted knowingly, like the Polish pope who resurrected a gospel of liberty. Others, like President Gorbachev, sought a break from a darker past. But in doing so, helped to break down the wall.

But again, I say these events were not inevitable. In January of 1989, East Germany's Communist leaders predicted that the Wall would still be standing in 50 or even 100 years. History could have gone another way. And, in some parts of the world, it did, and it has.

So, where do we stand now? As we commemorate that moment when history pierced concrete and concertina wire, we remember the troops who faced down war and kept the peace, the dissidents and activists who risked all they had to demand a free and better life, the millions of mothers and fathers, workers and students who never lost faith that a system built on tyranny and oppression could and would be overcome.

So, we remember every citizen of every nation who helped preserve the world with the gift that we accept today. But that gift came with strings, as gifts often do. It came with the responsibility to advance the principles that were vindicated in this city 20 years ago. When the Wall came down, we could not know what the people of Europe would build in its place. And the Atlantic community confronted a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence.

I well remember, following from afar, the debates over reunification: the cost, how it could be possibly accomplished. How would one ever integrate the industries, the militaries, the mindsets of peoples who had been divided by that wall? And the Euro-Atlantic coalition struggled to find policies worthy of the sacrifices made by the people of Central and Eastern Europe, and to help them build democracies on the rubble of a ruined system.

Now, ultimately and together, we achieved successes that would have been unthinkable on this night 20 years ago. And, as we welcomed the historic nations of Central Europe into NATO, and saw them become members of the European Union, the landscape of this continent was transformed.

But our history did not end the night the Wall came down. It began anew. And this matters not only to tens of millions of Europeans, and to the United States, but to people everywhere. How do we take this gift of freedom, this alliance of values, this commitment for a better future, and put it to work to meet the challenges of freedom today?

The new nations of a united Europe are our partners, standing with us in Afghanistan, patrolling waters against pirates, working to combat poverty, helping to prevent terrorism, promoting our common values. Today our battles may be different, and our nations remain imperfect vessels of democracy. But our objectives have not changed. And our work has certainly not ended.

So, we should look to the examples of the generations who brought us successfully through the 20th century, and once again, together, chart a clear and common course to safeguard our people and our planet, defeat violent extremists, and prevent nuclear proliferation, come together to cut carbon emissions and address climate change, increase our energy security -- an issue of special importance in this region that carries ramifications for the future of Europe and the world.

To expand freedom to more people, we cannot accept that freedom does not belong to all people. We cannot allow oppression, defined and justified by religion or tribe to replace that of ideology. We have a responsibility to address conditions everywhere that undermine the potential of boys and girls and men and women that sap human dignity and threaten global progress.

European countries have been leaders in addressing the economic and social development challenges of the world. We need to continue our work on an economic recovery, and we need to continue to promote democracy and human rights beyond freedom's current frontiers, so that citizens everywhere are afforded the opportunity to pursue their dreams and live up to their own God-given potential.

When Chancellor Merkel came to Washington last week, she spoke eloquently about the walls of the last century, and the less visible but equally daunting walls we face today. These are walls between the present and the future, walls between modernity and nihilistic attitudes, walls that divide our common heart, that deny progress and opportunity to the many who yearn for both.

As one who came of age amid the barriers of oppression, Chancellor knows of what she speaks. But tomorrow, when she walks through the Brandenburg Gate, she will do so as a free daughter of Brandenburg, and the leader of an emancipated people. That moment should be a call to action, not just a commemoration of past actions. That call should spur us to continue our cooperation and to look for new ways that we can meet the challenges that freedom faces now.

We owe it to ourselves and to those who yearn for the same freedoms that are enjoyed and even taken for granted in Berlin today. And we need to form an even stronger partnership to bring down the walls of the 21st century, and to confront those who hide behind them: the suicide bombers; those who murder and maim girls whose only wish is to go to school; leaders who choose their own fortunes over the fortunes of their people.

In place of these new walls, we must renew the Transatlantic Alliance as a cornerstone of a global architecture of cooperation. When we come together to uphold the common good, there is no constellation of countries on earth that has greater strength. There is no wall we cannot topple. There is no truth we can be afraid of.

Now, as in the past, we know that the work ahead will not be quick, and it will certainly not be easy. But once again, we are called to take ownership of our future, and to affirm the principles and the sacrifice of the generations who helped us reach the milestone we commemorate. The ideals that drove Berliners to tear down that wall are no less relevant today. The freedoms championed that night are no less precious. And the rights and principles that brought us to this hour are no less deserving of our defense.

Now, some of us may not be here to celebrate the 50th anniversary. Although, if I were placing bets, I would bet on Henry.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: But we must be confident that the men and women who gather on that occasion will look back on us as we look back now on them, on the generations that brought us through the Cold War, and eventually saw the blossoming of all that sacrifice during 1989.

So, let us resolve that when our actions are examined against that backdrop of history, our children and their children will be able to say that we served them well. Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

SPEAKER: As they are standing here and having their pictures taken, let me just say, Madame Secretary, thank you for that powerful and significant speech on this historic occasion. You talked about bringing down the walls of the 21st century and confronting those who stand behind them. You have carried the lessons of the past into the responsibilities of the future.

You now have standing beside you tonight's awardees, but you also have what Dr. Kissinger, the longest-serving member of the Atlantic Council Board, called "The Club," the club of national security advisors and foreign ministers who are looking out for the best of their countries and the best of the alliance, and the best of the world. We salute you all, and I declare the inaugural Atlantic Council of Freedom Awards concluded.

(Applause.)

Camera Spray at Top of Trilateral Meeting with Estonia and Latvia

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 8, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am delighted to have this opportunity to meet with the presidents of two countries with which the United States has long historical, familial, political ties. And I look forward to hearing from each of them about what is happening in Estonia and Latvia, and how the United States can broaden and deepen our relationship.

PRESIDENT ILVES: Well, we are just happy to be here. This is a wonderful occasion, 20 years (inaudible). I am glad to see (inaudible). When I was ambassador (inaudible) in charge of your visit to Estonia.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That is right.

PRESIDENT ILVES: (Inaudible) years ago, yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That's right.

PRESIDENT ILVES: Yes, so it is old friends getting together again.

PRESIDENT ZATLERS: I agree that it is a very important occasion. We are meeting here in Berlin, and (inaudible) turning point in our history and also a turning part for democracy in the eastern part of Europe. It is very important that we are all together today here in Berlin, saying that nothing is going to change (inaudible) future for a better Europe, for a better America.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Indeed. Thank you. Thank you all.

Remarks With German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, DC

November 5, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, my goodness, we have a good crowd today. Well, we have had an excellent conversation, and I welcomed the new foreign minister to Washington so early in his tenure, and I am looking forward to spending more time with him when I travel to Berlin and participate in the very exciting and important commemoration of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

For Americans, our relationship with Germany is rooted in our commitment to freedom and democracy. And certainly, the new government that the minister represents exemplifies that. This time is a reminder of the values that we share and that we will use to chart a new future together: democracy, tolerance, human rights, the pursuit of a peaceful and prosperous future for our people and for all people.

This is the foundation of such a strong partnership, and we will, through our own efforts, try to deepen and broaden that partnership, because the challenges that we face today are not the challenges that our parents and grandfathers faced and that we will celebrate the end of in Berlin on Monday. They are new challenges which come to every generation, from rebuilding the global economy, combating climate change, understanding and combating violent extremism, curbing nuclear proliferation. This all demands the kind of international cooperation that the United States and Germany must provide, not only for each of us in our bilateral relationship, but within Europe and globally as well.

So we discussed a very broad array of issues. And I want to express publicly our appreciation and the honor that we show toward the German soldiers who are working to bring peace and stability in Afghanistan. Their sacrifice is deeply respected and honored by Americans. And we appreciate also the generous support that Germany has provided Pakistan to help the Pakistanis improve health and education, encourage energy efficiency and responsible governance, and assist people who are displaced by the current conflict.

The United States is also grateful for Germany’s participation and leadership in the P-5+1 and the E-3+3 processes to ensure Iran’s full compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and IAEA directives on its nuclear program. We are speaking with one voice on this critical issue, and it is a voice that is amplified by our friends from Britain and France, from Russia, China and the European Union. We are pressing Iran together in our support of the recent proposal to provide new fuel for the Tehran research reactor in exchange for Iran shipping out its low-enriched uranium. We both support the IAEA’s efforts to inspect the recently disclosed uranium enrichment facility near Qom. And we both remain ready, along with our partners, to meet with Iranian representatives to discuss further steps to build confidence and transparency in its nuclear program. As I have said, this is a pivotal moment for Iran, and we urge Iran to accept the agreement as proposed. We will not alter it, and we will not wait forever.

The United States and Germany are also working together to forge a strong international agreement to combat climate change. We applaud Germany’s efforts in transitioning toward a clean energy future, and we appreciate and admire its leadership. With one month to go before the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, it is absolutely imperative that we work together. And as Chancellor Merkel said in her important address to Congress last week, the only way we are going to meet the challenges of the 21^st century, the only way we are going to tear down the walls of today, is by working together as partners.

So I am looking forward to continuing these discussions. It is wonderful to welcome you, Guido, here to Washington, and --

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- I am delighted that I will see you again very soon in Berlin.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) Ladies and gentlemen, I was delighted about the very warm welcome I received on my introductory visit here to Washington and my counterpart. The fact that I traveled to Washington, to the United States right after taking on my tenure as foreign minister, is meant to underline the great friendship existing between the peoples of both our countries, and the fact that we intend to continue that partnership and cordial relationship and friendship between both our countries.

These days, especially, we think back with gratitude as Germans for what the Americans did to ensure our freedom, our reunification, and the unity of Europe. In many of the international issues that we discussed during our meeting today, we noticed a high degree of agreement.

On the Afghanistan issue, the policy that we pursue towards Afghanistan, we noticed high agreement. We both believe that, on the one hand, our commitment goes towards the freedom and peace in the country and the region; but at the same time, we also have certain expectations from the reconfirmed Government of Afghanistan with respect to good governance. And here again, we want them to pursue a policy that not only accepts and acknowledges certain irregularities in the country but does its best to do away with them. And in order to be successful in that endeavor of ours, our intention is to cooperate and consult very closely.

I again strongly underline the point that the peace policy and the disarmament policy pursued by the American Administration, from the German viewpoint, is not only a very good path to pursue, but that we want to do whatever we can not only to accompany it with words but also with deeds. But it’s, of course, quite clear, very clear indeed, that we intend to do so in close consultation together with our allies and partners.

And of course, today in our exchanges we also talked about an issue that affects both our countries, and that is being intensively debated in Germany right now. And again, the American Secretary of State made it very clear and strongly underlined the fact that the decision taken by General Motors was a decision taken without any political influence having been exerted beforehand by the American Administration, and that is – indeed it’s very good news to receive.

But for the German Government, it’s equally clear that, on the one hand, we have to make sure that as few jobs in Germany are being lost as possible; and at the same time, we place great value on the fact that the funds that we’ve provided to General Motors are being paid back, because we are talking about funds here that have been provided by the German taxpayer and thus the German taxpayer wants that money to be paid back. And I thank you very much for the understanding that you showed on that issue.

And generally speaking, we got off on a very good start not only politically speaking but also on a personal note. Thus, I am looking forward to receiving you very soon, Madame Secretary, Sunday evening, that is, and then again on Monday in Berlin. I will have the honor and the pleasure of being your host then and returning your hospitality, and we will have a chance to continue the discussions of today. Thus, our cooperation has got off on a very good start. We intend to make sure that it continues in that very same vein. We will focus very much on continuing to cooperate very closely between both our governments and both our people. I am looking forward to that.

MR. KELLY: Thank you. We’ll take a few questions. The first question to Nick Kralev, Washington Times.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi, Nick. How are you?

QUESTION: I am well. How are you?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good, thank you.

QUESTION: Welcome back.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I wanted to ask you for updates on two issues that have to do with Iran. The first one is the hikers with whose families you just met today. If you can tell us what you heard, what you told them, and what’s the course from here.

And the second on the negotiations in the P-5+1 group, you say, on one hand, that you want to work this out diplomatically, you want to keep negotiating; but on the other hand, you are saying that the proposal as it is, it’s not up for discussion. So what is to negotiate, and how do you reconcile those two things? And perhaps the minister would like to comment on the Iran question, too.

Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that earlier today I met with the families of the three American hikers who are detained in Iran. These three young people are obviously not only on the minds of their family members but on the minds of all of us. It was an emotional meeting, and I described to the families everything that we are doing. I was impressed by their strength and fortitude and their commitment. They are determined, as we are, to see these young people return home.

As a mother, my heart went out to all of them. I cannot imagine what it would feel like to know that your child was imprisoned for now a hundred days with very little contact between you and them. I told them we were doing everything we possibly could to get Shane and Joshua and Sarah home, and we are exploring every angle. Obviously, I would hope that the Government of Iran would free them on a humanitarian and compassionate basis as soon as possible and return them home to their families.

On the second issue, we have a unified position that we have presented to the Iranians. That position is clear. It was agreed to originally in principle by the Iranians. There were, of course, questions that they were asking about the details that stood behind the agreement, which both the IAEA and our experts have been answering. But the terms of the agreement, the heart of the agreement, is not and will not be altered. And that is why we continue to call on the Iranian Government to go ahead and accept this agreement and begin to implement it, which we think is in the best interests of the Iranians as well as the rest of the world.

And finally, the point to make is that this offer has been made in good faith. We have worked hard to make sure that there was no misunderstanding about the offer. And we continue to hope that the Iranians will accept it, but our patience is not unlimited.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) Allow me to begin by expressing my solidarity with the three young people affected and their families and relatives.

With respect to our Iran policy, I can only strongly underline what was just said by the American Secretary of State. We're pursuing a dual-track approach. On the one hand, we are ready to enter into a dialogue, to pursue that dialogue, to have negotiations, to talk to the Iranians, and the international community has expressed that readiness on several occasions.

On the one hand – on the other hand, it's equally clear that our patience is not endless. We very much hope that our offer to pursue a dialogue is accepted, but we also want to see good results. The federal chancellor has been very clear, unequivocal, in the speech she delivered to the two houses of Congress earlier this week. And I can only underline what she said in that speech, speaking as the federal foreign minister of Germany: This is the position of the Federal Republic of Germany.

MR. KELLY: Next question for Reinald Becker from ARD.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) A question addressed to both secretaries, both ministers, a question with respect to General Motors and Opel, the recent decision taken by General Motors. Did you agree today that you would bring your influence to bear with respect to General Motors; that is to say, take up the issue with those responsible at General Motors and point out the situation that is the consequence of this decision in Germany?

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) The American Secretary of State showed great understanding for the position that I presented and to the clear words that I found earlier today. Now, as to any further steps that might be taken, these will be steps to be taken by those politicians responsible in our government. As far as the German side is concerned, it will be our economics minister who would have to and will be ready to take the respective steps.

MR. KELLY: Question for Desmond Butler from AP.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, are you concerned about Mahmoud Abbas's announcement that he is not interested in running for reelection and that it's come so quickly after your trip? Did it surprise you, and will you try and persuade him otherwise?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have tremendous respect for President Abbas and the leadership that he has offered the Palestinian people for decades. I just saw him on Saturday. George Mitchell saw him on Monday. In each of those conversations, he described in great detail the challenges that he faces, and we talked about his own political future. He reiterated his personal commitment to do whatever he can to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something that he’s actually been working on since 1972.

And I agree with him; I think it is the only way for the Palestinian people to fulfill their own aspirations, for Israel to have the kind of security that it deserves. And I look forward to working with President Abbas in any new capacity in order to help achieve this goal.

MR. KELLY: And the last question from Peter Carstens from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) A question addressed to both of you: What are your expectations of the upcoming Afghanistan conference at the beginning of next year?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we discussed this at length, and we have a very strong sense of agreement about what we would like to see going forward with the newly elected government. We have been both committed to the people of Afghanistan and to the institutions of their government to carry out a constitutional electoral process.

Now that it is over, it is time for us to begin working together and with our other partners in the international community, as well as with the government and people of Afghanistan, to reach understandings of the kinds of commitments that will be made to the people of Afghanistan, to look for ways we can measure those commitments going forward, and then to make explicit what the international community would be expecting.

I think that the minister and I see eye to eye on this, and we will be working together. I am sure we will talk about it again in Berlin because we want to enlist our counterparts as well as others in making it very clear that there is an opportunity now for President Karzai and his government to really engage on all of the issues, from corruption and transparency, to the rule of law, to good governance, to the delivery of services that the people of Afghanistan are looking for.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: (Via interpreter) What is important is that we develop our strategy together in close consultation. And this is what we agreed upon today, that we will be in close consultation on the strategic issues. And if I speak of close or when I speak of close consultation, I’m not only thinking of the United States of America and Germany, but I think of the international community as a whole, because I believe that the international community indeed does a very important – have a very important responsibility to bear with respect to freedom and the rule of law in Afghanistan.

And this is why we will continue to talk about and to discuss on the questions that are to do with the expectations that we have of the Afghan Government and the work that they need to do on the domestic front, but I think it is far too early a point in time to give any further details here now. The frame and conditions have already been mentioned earlier in our statement.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: Thank you very much.

Briefing on U.S.-EU Energy Council

Richard Morningstar
Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy 

Via Teleconference

Washington, DC

November 4, 2009

OPERATOR: Welcome, and thank you for standing by. We’d like to inform all participants your lines are in a listen-only mode. During today’s question and answer session, you may press *1 on your touchtone phone. Also, today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections, you may disconnect at this time.

I now turn today’s call over to Ambassador Richard Morningstar. Thank you. You may begin.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Hello. I’m going to now first turn you over to Ian Kelly, who will, I guess, have a few introductory comments, and then we’ll go from there.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, this is Ian. I just want to, first of all, establish the ground rules. This is on the record. Welcome to this conference call. And as you know, the participant is Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy Ambassador Richard Morningstar. Ambassador Morningstar has a few remarks to make at the beginning and then we’ll turn it over to your questions.

So, Ambassador Morningstar.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Thank you, Ian. And thank you for joining in the call, all of you who are in listen-only mode for the moment. I’ll say just a few words to open up.

Today, we launched what we’re calling the U.S.-EU Energy Council. On the European side, I suppose they’ll call it the EU-U.S. Energy Council. But this is, we think, a very important dialogue that – and very – I might add, very high-level dialogue that will allow the U.S. – the United States and the European Union to have a very open and deep dialogue on strategic energy issues, on energy policy issues, on questions relating to research and technology, and will allow us to take a holistic approach towards energy in which we look at a combination of strategic issues, technology issues and policy issues, all of which ultimately relate to each other.

This is being done at a high level. The co-chairs on the U.S. side are Secretary Chu, who is there this morning, as well as Secretary Clinton, who as I’m sure you know, is in Cairo and could not be back. But Deputy Secretary Steinberg very ably filled in for her. On the European side also represented were three of the commissioners: the commissioner for – EU Commissioner for Research Potocnik; the Commissioner for Transport and Energy Piebalgs; and the Commissioner for External Relations Ferrero-Waldner; as well as High Representative Solana and Swedish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Energy – Economics and Energy, I guess is the title – Minister Oloffson and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. They, of course, were here for – also for the U.S.-EU Summit yesterday and participated in today’s meetings. I’m sure you all know this is the Swedish presidency period for the EU.

In addition, we – I can tell you that this Energy Council will be broken down into three working groups, all of which were represented at today’s meeting. And we actually had an informal working group lunch afterwards to further talk about our agenda. And the three working groups will work in the area of energy security and markets, energy policies and regulation, as well as energy technologies and research cooperation.

And on the U.S. side, the Department of Energy will be responsible for the work on technology and research. The Department of State and myself, I’ll be responsible for the – on the U.S. side for the group on security and markets. And on the energy policy side, that’s going be shared on the U.S. side by the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce, co-chaired.

I can get into who’s involved from the European side, I guess, just very briefly. On the energy security and market side, it’ll be the directorate on external relations. Now, that’s all going to change with the passage or the finalization of the Lisbon Treaty, so that will have a state of transition. I guess the high representatives will, in effect, take that over, whoever that will be under after January.

The energy policies questions will be their directorate on research and energy, and then research – the directorate on research will do research and technology. I can get into some of the specific areas that each of these groups will work on, but I think that it probably is better to – with that brief introduction to open it up for your questions.

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time for questions on the phone, please press *1. Please unmute your line and record your name to be introduced. Again, for questions, press *1. If you’d like to withdraw the request, you may press *2.

Thank you, and one moment for your first question.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Don’t all jump up at once. (Laughter.)

OPERATOR: Okay. Currently, we’re showing no questions. As a reminder, press *1.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: I’ll get into (inaudible). Is there anybody – how can we find out if anybody is there?

OPERATOR: Okay. And for the phones, we’re currently showing no questions.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Well, if it makes any sense, I can give you a little more information on what the types of issues will be worked on. But I assume that there are people there. (Laughter.) Maybe – can our operator tell us that there are, in fact, are people who are dialed in?

OPERATOR: Okay. We actually do have some questions that came in queue.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Okay.

OPERATOR: We have Lachlan Carmichael. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes. Hi. This is from AFP News Agency. Yeah, if you can connect these meetings to the overall goals at Copenhagen? And also, how do you plan to reach out to the private sector, and are there anybody – is there anybody involved right now from the private sector?

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: I can give you the information on that. First of all, the Energy Council will have absolutely nothing to do with Copenhagen climate change negotiations – the negotiations. However, as I’m sure you would recognize, there is a clear relationship between energy technology issues and climate change. And as we work on energy technology issues, which ultimately will reduce dependence on fossil fuel resources, as we look at efficiency issues, by definition, that’s going to have a positive effect with respect to climate change.

The private sector is going to have a – is going to have to have a very significant role with respect to this work; that, one, we need private sector advice when looking at policy issues, as well as some of the regulatory issues that might come up, and that might involve areas like carbon capture and sequestration. It could involve areas like smart grids and other issues. And at the same time, on the more research and technology related issues in which maybe groundbreaking work will take place, obviously, that can’t be deployed ultimately without the private sector.

We will work – certainly work with the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, although not exclusively, although they’re clearly an organization that I think can provide some good, sound advice, and that each – and that the working groups that are working –that are dealing with the issues that I referred to, they will, as necessary, bring in the private sector. And so, they’re definitely – they’re going to have to be a part of it, and should be a part of it.

OPERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Next question we have is Oleg Zelenis. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. I’d like to ask you a question. How do you see the role of Russia in the new U.S.-EU energy dialogue? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: That’s a good question. What – and just what is your name again and your affiliation?

QUESTION: It’s Oleg Zelenis from ITAR-TASS.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Well, certainly, nothing that we’re going to be doing with respect to the U.S. energy – U.S.-EU Energy Council will have any kind of – will have no negative effect whatsoever in what we’re trying to do with Russia. And in fact, hopefully, it’ll have a very positive effect, because where the United States is working with Russia with respect to an energy dialogue – and that’s part of the new presidential Binational Commission that has been set up by President Obama and President Medvedev – there is an energy working group that will be part of that. In fact, the Secretary of State talked about that when she was in Russia two weeks ago – or three weeks ago, whenever it was.

The European Union has its own discussions with Russia. Obviously, Russia is a major energy partner with Europe. There are opportunities. We have not discussed them yet, but there clearly will be opportunities for the U.S. and Europe and the European Union perhaps to work together with Russia on certain issues.

I want to emphasize that we are seeking engagement with Russia on energy issues, that we want to work together on issues where we can agree, such as the environment, such as efficiency issues. We’re looking at investment issues on both sides of the ocean and market access issues. When we don’t agree on things, we want to talk about them openly and candidly so that we don’t distort each other’s views, and look for rational solutions so that we are – we want very much to have a very constructive dialogue with Russia.

I’ve had two very good meetings with Energy Minister Shmatko over the last several months, and we look forward to that dialogue, and I think the U.S.-European Union dialogue should actually – will ultimately help with respect to the dialogue with Russia.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Next question, Herman Wang. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello, gentlemen. My name is Herman Wang. I’m with Platts Inside Energy, and I just had a question about the current climate change or the carbon cap talks that are going on in Congress right now, and I know they’re pretty deadlocked right now. How much will the U.S.’s work with this new U.S.-EU council be hampered if the Senate and Congress, as a whole, fails to come to some sort of incentives and pass a bill on carbon caps?

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Well, I am not the person to be answering that question because I am not involved at all in the legislation, and we are certainly – this – the issue is certainly going to be on the agenda with Europe, but I can’t say what the effect will be on – with respect to the legislation and whether it passes, doesn’t pass, or whatever. I don’t know, Ian, if you want to make any comment on it.

MR. KELLY: We don’t have a view on that right now.

QUESTION: Okay.

OPERATOR: Okay, thank you. Next question, David Ivanovich, your line is open.

QUESTION: Ambassador, thanks for taking my call. Can you give us a little more specifics about what aspects of the markets the council might be looking at and what aspects of regulation you’re talking about?

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Yeah, and you’re with?

QUESTION: I’m sorry, Argus Media.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Yeah. Well, the working group – there are two working groups that will be – well, actually, all three working groups to some extent are – will be working with markets, but probably – I guess I would say it may be different stages of the development of markets. And the research and technology area will be looking at earlier stages; what are the kinds of things that they can be looking at.

Secretary Chu, for example, at the meeting this morning, talked about how important it is to get the most important minds on both sides of the ocean to look at really cutting-edge issues. An example – and I’m a little bit reluctant to give specific examples because nothing has been set in stone as to what might actually be looked at. But as an example, the – finding the best people to work on liquid metal batteries was something that came up this morning. Again, whether that’ll ultimately become a priority item, I don’t know, but it was just brainstorming as the kind of thing that can be talked about.

Then when you get into things like energy policy, and we really – I mean, that would get more into issues of how do we – what – how do we work with new areas and how do we set up a regulatory framework with respect to new areas, and how can we learn from each other and set up, upfront, best practices and regulatory frameworks that may be compatible. The carbon capture issue was one that was talked about as an example. Electric vehicles was another topic that came up as – again, as a possible example. Again, don’t hold us to that those are going to be the two top areas that are going to be worked on, but there again, just two examples of the kinds of things that were discussed this morning.

The third group which will be looking at issues relating to energy markets and security – energy security and markets will be looking at questions that – as to – that you’re all well – many of you are well aware of – diversification of roots, diversification of supplies, but also looking at how we can develop more transparent, stable, nondiscriminatory markets, how we can best promote transparency, competition, open markets in third countries, for example. And so we’ll be working a lot in that area – in those areas as well.

I talked earlier about some of the other issues that we may get into like smart grids. We could go on and on with examples. The working groups will determine over the next weeks – each working group will have a specific work plan, and then we’ll take action and then report back to the council at the ministerial level.

QUESTION: May I follow up?

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah, can --

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: I’m not sure I’ll be able to answer, but I’ll take your follow-up.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Well, how will we find out – how will we know what the working groups ultimately decide to do? Will we be informed of that, or is there a way we can keep track of this?

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Well, we don’t have a specific methodology to keep track of it, but there’s nothing that will be nontransparent about what’s happening. Certainly, the reports that will be – that will go back to the full council will be open. But you raise a good question as to how, on an ongoing basis, can we keep people informed. And that’s – we haven’t – we really haven’t thought that through, but again, there’s nothing nontransparent. And we will definitely think of some way that we can keep people informed. And we’re always open to your calls and questions.

QUESTION: Good. Thanks very much.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Next question, Corine Lesnes, your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. I have a question about nuclear energy. This is Corine from LeMonde newspaper. How do you deal with nuclear energy with knowing that European countries have very different policies on that?

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Well, you answered the question. (Laughter.) European countries have different policies. Nuclear power in general is going to be – I’m sure will end up being, to some extent, part of the energy answer over the next – over the coming 10 to 20 years, and – but each member state within Europe is going to have to make their own determinations as to making use of nuclear energy. And just as we have our issues here, some countries have their issues there. So, I mean, nuclear power will be part of the equation, and it’s going to depend on the country.

OPERATOR: All right, thank you. Once again, for questions, press *1, please.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Before the next question, let me just – my colleague, Jonathan Kessler here, who has been working hard on these issues, pointed out that for more information, more specific information, you can refer to the summit declaration, which is on the White House website and the Swedish presidency website, as well as the annex to that declaration. There is an annex specifically on the energy council, and you can find out some additional details by looking at that.

And so if there are any other questions?

OPERATOR: Thank you. At this time, we’re showing no questions. As a reminder, press *1, please. (No response.) Thank you. We’re showing no questions at this time.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Ian, do you have any --

MR. KELLY: No, just thank you all for participating, and just to remind you, this was on the record with Ambassador Richard Morningstar.

AMBASSADOR MORNINGSTAR: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

OPERATOR: Thank you for joining today’s conference. You may disconnect. Have a great day.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the OSCE: Shared Core Values

Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Statement before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Washington, DC

October 28, 2009

As Prepared

Introduction

Chairman Cardin, Co-Chairman Hastings, Members of the Commission: Thank you very much for inviting me here today to discuss U.S. policy and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE remains one of the top three key European institutions with which the United States engages, alongside the EU and NATO. While NATO and EU enlargement have perhaps enjoyed more prominence in recent years, the OSCE nonetheless remains an essential venue for dialogue, cooperation and democracy promotion precisely with those countries that are not yet members of, or do not intend to become, members of these two other organizations. The OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security offers a vehicle for engagement across the political-military, economic, and human rights dimensions. That it is a process, and that such a process takes time, does not lessen its important or the necessity for sustained U.S. engagement.

The Helsinki Final Act says that promoting democracy and respect for human rights is fundamental to achieving sustainable security in Europe and Eurasia. It links security among states to respect for human rights within states. OSCE’s core values are among the reasons this organization has a central role to play in advancing President Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s foreign policy strategy.

Indeed, the remarkable success of the Organization during many of the past 35 years is proof of what the participating States can achieve when we implement commitments based on shared values and objectives. Improvements in the lives of our citizens in the OSCE area are the result of hard work, conviction and persistence, and I would like to thank the Helsinki Commission members and staff for partnering with us in this endeavor. Our cooperation is only increasing. I especially appreciate the institutional knowledge and abiding dedication to human rights that the Helsinki Commission team brings to our joint efforts.

The Helsinki Final Act has long stood as a beacon for the silenced, the trafficked, the disenfranchised and the displaced.  The OSCE is among the most effective –and cost effective – international organizations working on human dimension issues today.  The OSCE’s eighteen field missions in the Balkans, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, and the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) are the front line of this work.  They continue to be instrumental not only in helping new democracies build sustainable political institutions and vibrant civil societies, but also in addressing a myriad of critical needs when they arise, from border monitoring to crisis prevention to combating human trafficking and corruption.  More widely known, of course, is OSCE’s election monitoring expertise, its historic efforts to promote basic freedoms and human rights, including religious freedom and freedom of the media, association, and assembly and its groundbreaking work in combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.

We look forward to Secretary Clinton’s participation in the Athens Ministerial in December, which would be the first time since 2004 that the Secretary of State has participated in such a meeting.  In Athens, we will highlight the accomplishments of the OSCE, and work to rejuvenate the OSCE itself through revitalizing its contributions in each of its three dimensions of security – the human dimension; political-military aspects of security; and economic and environmental issues.  The “Corfu Process,” inaugurated by the Greek OSCE chairmanship to take a fresh look at the OSCE itself and European security more generally, is at the center of that revitalization effort. 

We will continue to press for the re-establishment of an OSCE field presence in Georgia, the mandate for which does not prejudice Georgia’s territorial integrity.  We will also continue our efforts to advance the OSCE-Afghanistan border security initiative by gaining agreement to pursue technical assistance in northern Afghanistan.  We expect the Ministerial to endorse future OSCE work on media freedom, rule of law, gender equality, energy security, counterterrorism and police reform consistent with respect for human rights, as well as on combating trafficking and hate crimes.  It is our hope that the Euro-Atlantic family will not only renew its commitment to OSCE’s core values at Athens, but also begin to chart its future in engaging on new and old security challenges and putting at its helm in 2010 the organization’s first-ever Central Asian Chair-in Office (CiO).   

European Security Proposals and the Corfu Process

In June, the Greek CiO launched the “Corfu Process” as a structured dialogue among all participating States. The process offers an opportunity to review the state of play in European security, including the implementation of existing commitments, as well as a chance to identify new challenges and discuss ideas for reinvigorating or re-inventing the mechanisms we have available for dealing with traditional and new challenges. In 2008 Russian President Medvedev called for a fresh look at European security institutions. We strongly believe that any dialogue must take place primarily within the OSCE and build upon existing institutions. Most importantly, such a dialogue should be based on the OSCE’s comprehensive concept of security, which encompasses all three dimensions of security: human, economic/environmental, and political-military. There have been six Corfu sessions in Vienna so far, with several more to follow before the Athens Ministerial.

The United States participates actively in this broad dialogue and we are open to ideas for improving European security. We hope that a substantive agenda can be agreed in Athens that will enable us to take further, more detailed and concrete work in the following year. If the Corfu dialogue identifies a worthwhile substantive agenda at the Athens ministerial, we would expect even more fruitful discussions next year under Kazakhstan’s chairmanship. This is an open-ended dialogue at the moment, the outcome of which is not pre-ordained.

As for ongoing work in each of OSCE’s three dimensions, allow me to say the following.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the OSCE: Shared Core Values

On border security, the OSCE developed a set of sixteen projects related to Afghanistan and its Central Asian neighbors and worked in 2008 to find new ways to facilitate capacity-building for border services and to reinforce cross-border cooperation in the OSCE region. We have yet to reach consensus on two border security projects within Afghanistan and hope that Kazakhstan will renew efforts for the OSCE to work inside Afghanistan’s northern border to strengthen border controls and reduce trafficking in drugs, weapons, and other illicit goods.

The OSCE’s Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) is developing a set of best practices guides for national implementation of the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540, which is aimed at preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and related materials. To better monitor the weapons trade in recent years, the FSC actively reviews implementation of the documents it has adopted which are aimed at controlling stockpiles of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and conventional ammunition, including export controls for man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and exchanges of national practices on arms brokering and end-use certificates and related mechanisms.

Economic and Environment Dimension

The OSCE has been a catalyst for regional cooperation on a broad array of economic and environmental activities, including good governance, water resource management, migration assistance, and disposal of hazardous waste. The United States supports the OSCE’s efforts to play a complementary role – through its field missions and along with other international organizations – in confronting emerging trans-boundary challenges, such as energy security and environmental protection. The 2008 Ukrainian-Russian gas crisis highlighted the need for continued OSCE involvement in energy security issues. In July 2009, the United States co-sponsored, in collaboration with Russia and the European Union, a two-day OSCE conference in Bratislava to help fulfill a mandate on promoting an energy security dialogue within the OSCE region. The Athens Ministerial will provide an opportunity to advance this work, and we will advocate incorporating transparency and energy infrastructure protection initiatives into the discussion.

Efforts Beyond the OSCE Region

We greatly appreciate the OSCE’s recent efforts outside the region itself, with and within Afghanistan, such as the recent ODIHR Election Support Team (EST) mission deployed for Afghanistan’s August Presidential and Provincial Council elections. The EST will re-deploy for the November 7 Presidential run-off and will produce a report that outlines a set of recommendations for future elections in Afghanistan several weeks after the second round. There is scope for additional cooperation in other areas outside the OSCE region. For example, in late 2004, the Palestinian Authority requested the OSCE to provide assistance for its January 2005 elections, and the OSCE responded by sending a Training Needs Assessment Team, resulting in a number of recommendations to the Palestinian Authority on how to improve the conduct of elections. We believe ODIHR’s encouragement of democratization in areas of instability is money very well spent.

Kazakhstan as OSCE Chair-in-Office

The United States stands ready to assist Kazakhstan in its goal of a successful term as Chair-in-Office. There are frankly many challenges, but also promising opportunities. It is critical that the Chair of the OSCE meet the high standards of democracy and fundamental human rights upon which the OSCE is based. Only if this occurs will Kazakhstan’s chairmanship of the OSCE – the first from Central Asia – be beneficial both for the OSCE and for the countries in the region. The United States generally supports Kazakhstan’s goals for its Chairmanship, that include a focus on Afghanistan (an OSCE Partner State), protracted conflicts, border management, transportation, tolerance, and human trafficking. At the same time, we are urging Kazakhstan – in line with the commitments it made in Madrid in 2007 – to be proactive in its approach in protecting the organization’s human rights and democratic commitments, and to demonstrate its willingness to protect those commitments at home.

Unfortunately, there remain key areas in which Kazakhstan’s domestic legislation and practices on democracy and human rights fall short of OSCE standards, notably with respect to key portions of its media law, election law, and the law on political parties. Kazakhstan has not held an election that the OSCE has deemed fully to have met OSCE commitments and international standards. Kazakhstan also has not taken action to reduce criminal liability for defamation. We have deep concerns about the fairness of the judicial proceeding in the recent conviction, upheld on appeal, of prominent human rights activist Yevgheniy Zhovtis on charges of vehicular manslaughter. We continue to have, intensive discussions with the Government of Kazakhstan to encourage authorities to implement democratic reforms in line with their Madrid commitments.

Conclusion

The OSCE’s record on the promotion of democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms, together with its efforts in building civil society is second to none. The OSCE’s multidimensional approach to security is directly relevant to the transnational issues we face as we work together to build a democratic, prosperous, and secure Trans-Atlantic community. Decades ago the CSCE spoke up for the rights of Soviet dissidents who could not find a voice for themselves. Today ODIHR supports those in OSCE participating States who wish to promote democracy and entrench human rights and the rule of law. Much remains to be done.

I would like to thank the Commission for inviting me here today to discuss the United States’ continued support for the OSCE’s vitally important work. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Co-Chairman Hastings, Members of the Commission, and your outstanding staffs for your stalwart support of the OSCE’s multidimensional approach to security and your continued dedication to the ideals and values of the OSCE – a crown jewel of multilateral diplomacy.

Ian Kelly

Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

1:34 p.m. EDT

MR. KELLY: Good afternoon. I’d like to, first of all, make a few remarks at the top about Honduras, to give you an update. As you know, we’ve been working very hard with our partners in the hemisphere to reach our goal of restoring democratic and constitutional order in Honduras, and we continue to believe that the best solution to this is the San Jose Accord. As you know, President Zelaya is in Washington this week. He has meetings at the Organization of American States today. I’d refer you to them for further details on that. And on Thursday, Secretary Clinton plans to meet with him to discuss the best way forward on the situation in Honduras.

And with that, I’ll turn it over to you.

QUESTION: Does she expect to make the determination at that point?

MR. KELLY: Well, we still haven’t made the determination. I think you know the issues that are being considered here, but I can’t give you an exact time when that determination will be --

QUESTION: I understand the issues that are being considered.

QUESTION: It’s been more than two months now --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- since the events transpired --

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: -- so one would – would think that one would have had enough time to judge whether it was a military coup.

MR. KELLY: Right. Well, we have taken the actions that we would be required to take if that determination is made, and that is that we have suspended assistance that goes directly to support the Government of Honduras. And you know what the issue at hand is a – it’s a provision of the Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2009.

QUESTION: Before you launch into the whole explanation of what exact – we already know what it --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- exactly it is. What is the holdup?

MR. KELLY: We – as I said – as I’ve said many times, we have – there are a number of diplomatic activities going on. We are – we have done what we have to do under the law, and that is not to provide assistance to the Government of Honduras if the Secretary decides to make this determination. But she hasn’t made the determination yet.

QUESTION: Can you follow up on that? I mean, one big exception to that, as I understand it, is the grant money from the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which would also be – could be implicated in such a decision.

QUESTION: And it’s my understanding that the MCC has so-called notwithstanding authority, so their aid is not automatically cut off? Their board has to make --

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: -- an affirmative decision to do so.

MR. KELLY: I think that’s right, Arshad.

QUESTION: And that’s more than a hundred – I think it’s something like 111 – well, it’s more. But it’s more than $100 million that would have to be scrutinized and that’s much bigger than the 18 – about 18.4, I think, that’s already been suspended. So in a way, there’s a big, big chunk of money out there that’s going to have to be – on which decisions are going to have to be made.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. You’re right. I mean, in the case of the Millennium money and the Challenge Corporation, it is something that will have to be decided by the board. Of course, Secretary Clinton is a member of that board, and so we’ll see about what exactly we have to do with both the USAID – with the USAID programs, military programs, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation programs.

QUESTION: One other thing on this. I mean when, in response to Matt’s question, you said that there are a number of diplomatic activities that are underway, are we to understand it is the case that it is solely a question of the diplomacy, that – in other words, the hope that you can find a diplomatic solution, that is holding off the determination? Or are there other factors, perhaps within the U.S. Government, that are holding it up?

MR. KELLY: As I’ve already suggested, of course, it is a – it’s not just a decision that affects the Department of State and the Agency for International Development. There’s a number of other – another – a number of other avenues that we have to go down, including briefing Congress. We need to – we have to coordinate with the Department of Defense. All along, in this whole conflict that we’ve had around Honduras, we’ve had to, as well, coordinate with the Organization of American States and with our partners in the region. So there is quite a bit of coordination that has to go on.

QUESTION: And regarding the DOD, would this affect Soto Cano Air Base – Soto Cano Air Base, excuse me – would such a cutoff have any effect on that air base and U.S. use of it?

MR. KELLY: Well, obviously, the Department of Defense is best positioned to answer that question. As I understand it, it will – I mean, the military – I shouldn’t say that the determination will affect programs. The suspension has already affected a number of programs that the U.S. military runs. Soto Cano is a – it’s not our base. It’s a Honduran base. Again, you really should – you should get the nitty-gritty details on this from the Department of Defense, but I think that they have suspended their programs except for the kind of activities that you would need to support a base – guarding the perimeter and provisions and activities like that. But please do try and get those kinds of details from DOD.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through what this meeting on Thursday will look like, what kind of access we’ll have to it, what kind of readout there will be?

MR. KELLY: Well, we haven’t determined the arrangements yet for the press. I am – I feel confident that there will be some kind of – that there will be – it will be closed to the press. I mean, there will be some – you will have some kind of engagement with the two principals, but --

QUESTION: But will we be able to --

MR. KELLY: -- it hasn’t been determined. In terms of readout, of course we’ll be happy to give you a readout.

QUESTION: Will we be able to actually ask them questions?

MR. KELLY: That hasn’t been determined yet, so I can’t give you an answer to that yet.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about a report by the Project of Government Oversight about the Embassy in Kabul that lists, among other things, incredible understaffing, long hours, extreme long hours of guards, improper training, a language barrier between the guards and the staff at the Embassy, and also hazing of new recruits of guards, which has been – some of which has been listed in letters from the State Department to the contractor complaining about some of this behavior over the last two years?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, Elise, we have received a long letter from the Project On Government Oversight with quite a few documents attached. You make reference to some of them. Let me just say that these are very serious allegations, and we are treating them that way. As soon as we received the documents, they were turned over immediately to our Office of the Inspector General. Secretary Clinton has been apprised of the allegations in these documents and has directed the Department and the Office of the Inspector General to take appropriate action.

And let me just say that the Secretary and the Department have made it clear that we will have zero tolerance for the type of conduct that is alleged in these documents.

QUESTION: If I might, I’d like to quote from a letter from the State Department to the contractor in June of 2007. So this was two years ago that you recognized that some of these deficiencies exist and you said these deficiencies endanger the performance of the contract to such a degree that the security of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul is in jeopardy, and that you threatened to terminate the contract.

Yet over the last two years, there are about 11 letters that have been released not just by the project, but by Senator McCaskill’s office, who is in charge of the Subcommittee on Government Oversight, that you continued to warn the contractor about these deficiencies and that you said that the security of the Embassy is in jeopardy, yet why did you continue to extend the contract?

MR. KELLY: Well, as I say, these are serious allegations. What you just read me, I would – I think they’re very serious too.

QUESTION: These aren’t allegations. These are your own words. These are your own words.

MR. KELLY: Well, I – let’s --

QUESTION: I mean, if this report came out today, yes.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But over the last two years, you’ve been continuing to warn this contractor about its performance. So does it take an independent nongovernment organization to cast light on what you’ve been kind of overlooking for the last two years?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I mean, look, as I understand it, we have – we’ve been investigating this organization for some time now. We understand that we have made some – we have pointed out to them some of the deficiencies. And I can’t answer right now from this podium exactly what they have done in response to this letter.

QUESTION: Well, in your letters, it says that they’ve continued to let them go unaddressed.

MR. KELLY: Well, let me see if I can get you more information. But I just don’t have the information right now. And the matter is also under investigation.

QUESTION: Can I follow up with that, though?

MR. KELLY: Sure.

QUESTION: In June when Senator McCaskill held hearings, the Assistant Secretary of – Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management William Moser told the hearing that these problems have been looked at, and that since January, they had been addressed. So on what basis did he give that testimony when, according to the POGO report, this behavior, this whole pattern that Elise just sketched out, this --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- whole pattern has continued up to the present day, up to August?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I’ll have to ask Mr. Moser. I’m not exactly sure what he was basing his determination on when he did tell Congress that these issues have been addressed.

QUESTION: Can you tell us if, up till now, the State Department has been satisfied with the performance of ArmorGroup in providing security for the Embassy in Kabul?

MR. KELLY: I’m just not prepared to say that right now. I mean, let me just see what we can say about this congressional testimony that you --

QUESTION: The letter says Secretary Clinton says that the contract – it says the management of the contract to protect the U.S. Embassy Kabul is grossly deficient, posing a significant threat to the security of the Embassy and its personnel.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And this is a now question. Is this the case? Are you worried about how well your staff is protected?

MR. KELLY: Well, we always worry about our staff and how well they’re protected. There is no higher priority for us than the safety and well-being of our people, especially our people who are serving in a dangerous environment, like Kabul.

QUESTION: And the question of language was raised, which is that many of the staff on this security contract don’t speak English, and indeed, the State Department was made aware of that. If there are lots of security staff, something like two-thirds, who don’t speak proper English, how can you make that assurance?

MR. KELLY: Well, you’re asking a lot of good questions. But I just – I can’t comment on them. One, I don’t have the answers to them right now at this moment from this podium. And two, the matter is under investigation. I can’t comment on it.

QUESTION: Well, why is this matter under investigation, Ian? It looks like it’s been under investigation for the past two years.

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, Elise. I can’t answer it. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Can you answer one other matter raised in the letter, which is that POGO is saying essentially the State Department has a pattern of ineffectual oversight, and that Congress or somebody ought to give the oversight of embassy security, when you’re in a war zone to the military? Now what’s the State Department’s position on that?

MR. KELLY: Well, again, these are very serious allegations. This is – these particular recommendations are from this particular organization. We’re happy to consider them. But these are extremely serious questions that you’re asking. And I want to make sure that you get a good answer to it, because as I say, the security of our colleagues serving overseas is an extremely serious matter.

QUESTION: When did this stuff, this material, get turned over to the IG?

MR. KELLY: I don’t have an exact time, but it was – as I said when I was first asked this question, they were turned over as soon as we got them.

QUESTION: Well, which was when?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think we got the material in the last week or so. But I don’t have any --

QUESTION: Well, if you got it in the last week or so – they’re talking about letters that go back two years.

MR. KELLY: Oh – well, I mean, it’s a matter --

QUESTION: You’re saying that the IG – the IG has not been looking in --

MR. KELLY: -- a lot of this is a matter of public record --

QUESTION: -- the IG has not been looking --

MR. KELLY: -- because we testified in June.

QUESTION: -- the IG has not been looking into this since 2007? Is that --

MR. KELLY: Matt, I don’t --

QUESTION: And it’s only since you got this stuff from POGO that you’ve looked into this?

MR. KELLY: I think that we’ve been looking into – separate from some of these very serious allegations of a more recent nature in the POGO documents, I mean, we have been – as I say, we have been communicating with Congress. I know that Congress does have concerns. And we’ve also been talking to the contractors too asking them to redress some of these deficiencies.

QUESTION: Well, has the IG been looking into it since 2007, since the --

MR. KELLY: That I don’t know.

QUESTION: Well, because if they have, and it’s been two years and nothing has been done, that would suggest that you have a problem.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I just don’t know the answer to the question of when they actually started investigating.

QUESTION: That’s –

QUESTION: Well, you know, can I just make – this is unwarranted advice, but you know, you have all this stuff, you know it’s coming out, the briefing gets delayed by an hour.

MR. KELLY: Right. Well --

QUESTION: One would think that someone in the IG’s office or in a legal office or somewhere that come up – you had to anticipate these questions coming.

MR. KELLY: I – Matt, I have told you what I know. And I’ve talked to the IG Office, I’ve talked to the Office of Diplomatic Security. I understand that they have been looking into certain deficiencies in their performance. And then as soon as we got these documents relating to – the documents that you see in the POGO report, those were turned over as well.

QUESTION: They’ve been on a congressman – they’ve been on Senator McCaskill’s website for months, since June.

MR. KELLY: All of these documents?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that.

QUESTION: No, I mean, not the photos of these – of this lewd – not the photos of the lewd behavior. But I mean, all of these complaints that are in the report, you’ve been --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- making to the contractor yourself over the past two years.

MR. KELLY: All right, all right. I really – I’ve told you really all that I know, and then – and I can’t really address a lot of these issue because they’re under investigation.

QUESTION: Just back to the issue of contract – of oversight of contractors, I mean, obviously, there was a huge issue of oversight over Blackwater.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: And there were major revisions to the procedures and all of that stuff. Didn’t at that time, considering this was going on concurrently, I mean, isn’t there a need to kind of reevaluate all of contractor oversight of the State Department, not just in particular instances where there’s a – where there’s a case of abuse?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I – I don’t know if you recall, but the Secretary herself, and I think in one of her town halls, has said that it is her view that we have to lessen our reliance on contractors for security of our embassies. And so she’s asked for a review of the whole system. Whether or not we can move to banning them, I mean, I would highly, highly doubt that. There are contracts involved, and there’s also the whole issue, as I said before, of the importance of protecting our people. And this is not something that we can do overnight.

QUESTION: Could you explain – just a factual matter – what part of the security ArmorGroup is responsible for, where their responsibility ends and DS begins?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Whether the U.S. military has any role in protecting that compound.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: And of course, there are also Afghan military forces --

MR. KELLY: Right, right.

QUESTION: -- on the perimeter as well.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah. I can only address that in a very general way from my own experience as a Foreign Service officer serving overseas, and I haven’t served in Kabul. But I know that the – it’s the Regional Security Office which is in charge of security basically of our perimeter, and that is usually local guards that provide that. There’s also, of course, the Marine security guard program, and they – they’re more responsible for protection of classified information and also protection of the chancery. There’s also, of course, protection of Americans themselves. A number of embassies, including at least one I served at, had a residential security program as well, where you had local guards at our residences.

So that’s just kind of a general overview. But obviously, in a place like Kabul, it has its own challenges, to put it mildly. And there’s also coordination with the military as well.

QUESTION: Could you take that question and give us an outline of what they do there, their area of --

QUESTION: Specifically what their area --

MR. KELLY: Can you repeat the exact question that I’m taking?

QUESTION: Well, the exact question is exactly what is ArmorGroup responsible for?

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: We were told it’s what they call static security and they don’t do the so-called close protection --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- of moving around with the ambassador.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: But that they are fairly – that they are in charge of, except for the most outer entry point, but really all the entry points, checking cars and all that.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: But if you could just describe that and what is DS’s role.

MR. KELLY: Sure. I mean, DS’s role, I think, is mainly to over – the oversight of the guard program. But that’s a good question, and we’ll get you the info on it.

QUESTION: And what is the oversight of this particular contractor? Does DS have an oversight of that contractor? Because in the whole Blackwater situation there was a lot of complaints that DS didn’t have enough oversight over the contractors. So who specifically --

MR. KELLY: Well, I do have a specific answer to that question.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: The contracting officer is assigned here in Washington, D.C., and that person has overall responsibility for oversight of the contract and participates in weekly meetings between the program office and AGNA, or the ArmorGroup. And this person is also the one who has interactions on a more frequent basis --

QUESTION: From here?

MR. KELLY: From here in Washington.

QUESTION: So there’s no adult supervision of this contractor on the ground?

MR. KELLY: I’m getting to that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: In Kabul, there are two assistant Regional Security Officers designated as the contracting officer’s representative and assistant contracting officer representative, respectively. There is also always a duty RSO who deals with the routine guard force matters such as access requests and on-compound events.

So that’s – I guess that goes some way to answer your question. Right? It does appear that they do have the guard force responsibility.

QUESTION: Meaning the Armour Guard force?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, it’s an embassy guard force, and Armour has the contract for it.

Can we --

QUESTION: To guard the perimeter of the embassy? Is that what they do?

MR. KELLY: Well, let’s find out exactly.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: New subject?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: In Pakistan, the nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan said he has been set free from the court. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. KELLY: Just a moment. Our concern over the potential for proliferation activities by Mr. Khan are well known to the Pakistani Government. We believe that he remains a proliferation risk. We’re following this closely, and of course, the Pakistani Government, as I say, is well aware of our concerns about Mr. Khan.

QUESTION: So why do you think he still remains a proliferation risk? Has been something come to your notice about this?

MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, say that one more time.

QUESTION: Why do you think so he still remains a risk to the international community?

MR. KELLY: Well, I just – his activities, I think, are well known. And we have concerns about them, and we’ve made those concerns known to the Pakistani Government.

QUESTION: When was the last time that you raised this with the Pakistanis?

MR. KELLY: I’m not sure of the answer to that.

QUESTION: Well, has it – I mean, this popped up last week or --

MR. KELLY: I think it popped up on Friday.

QUESTION: Friday. Exactly.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I just – I don’t have an exact answer to that question. I’m sure we’ve had frequent contact with the government through our Embassy in Islamabad.

QUESTION: Related?

QUESTION: Do you believe that he’s just under house arrest and that he is still now in a position where he is not a proliferation risk given the measures that have been taken about his movement and his access to information?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Arshad, I just don’t have the information to be able to answer that question.

QUESTION: Related?

MR. KELLY: Related? Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Bureau of Atomic Scientists confirms that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is increasing 60 to somewhere to 70 to 90, and yesterday in Geneva, they refused to discuss disarmament, saying their national security is not being respected. Do you have a response to that?

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of that report, so I don’t have a response to it. Yeah.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. KELLY: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Pakistan?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Have you ever discussed with – State Department ever discussed with the Justice Department attempts to prosecute him? Isn’t there enough evidence in some countries, even in the U.S., to have him prosecuted for violation of various laws?

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware of that either. I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to that question.

QUESTION: One more on –

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. KELLY: Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: No. One more on –

MR. KELLY: One more on A.Q. Khan?

QUESTION: There are some reports also in Pakistan that recently Pakistan has upgraded its missiles, and maybe A.Q. Khan has a hand, which was sold by the U.S. And is there any reaction from India to the State Department?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t – yeah, I think you’ll have to talk to the Government of India if they’ve had any reaction to these press reports. I mean, we’re – we’ve seen these reports in The New York Times. We take the possibility of any potential violations of obligations entered into pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act – we take these allegations very seriously. We have engaged the Government of Pakistan at the highest levels. We recently negotiated an agreement in principle to establish mutually agreed inspections to address possible modifications to any arms that we’ve transferred, and we’ve notified Congress of potential violations of obligations entered in pursuant to the Arms Control Export Control Act to ensure that key leaders are provided information on U.S. efforts to address them.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. Before the press – I mean, in the press in The New York Times, did Ambassador Holbrooke during his trip to Pakistan raise these questions with the Pakistani authorities?

MR. KELLY: Well, first of all, I’m not – I’m just – I’m talking in very general terms. I’m not addressing these – this particular allegation. And I’m not aware of any representations by Ambassador Holbrooke.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Iran says that it has prepared a counter-offer to your offer. I’m wondering if you’ve heard – if anyone in the P-5+1 has heard from the Iranians. Will this offer be discussed tomorrow at the political directors meeting, and will there be an Iranian representative there?

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: Were you expecting one?

MR. KELLY: First of all, we’re not expecting any Iranian representative tomorrow in Frankfurt. There is a – as you know, this is a meeting of the six political directors from the P-5+1 countries. And of course, the main item on the agenda is Iran’s nuclear program.

We’ve seen these press reports that they’re developing a new proposal. We have not received any proposal. We would review any proposal that they give us seriously, and in the spirit of mutual respect we would welcome the Iranian Government’s constructive response to the P-5+1 to their April 2009 invitation to meet face-to-face.

Moving forward with these discussions could begin to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations and create confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programs.

QUESTION: But just to be clear, you haven’t seen an offer or --

MR. KELLY: No, we have not.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And none of the other members of the P-5+1 --

MR. KELLY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about al-Megrahi’s return to Libya?

MR. KELLY: Any other on Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is your sense about – from their – what they’ve said? Are they willing to meet, or it’s just that they’re saying that they have a package to offer? Because --

MR. KELLY: We don’t have any understanding of that. I mean, all we’ve seen is what you’ve seen, is that there is one Iranian press report that purported to quote their Iranian – the Iranian nuclear negotiator that there was a new proposal. But we haven’t seen any new proposal and we haven’t received any answer to our proposals, the P-5+1 – the issues outlined in their declaration of April and our proposal to engage with them and talk about these issues, the nuclear issues.

QUESTION: When Jalili made his announcement, he blamed --

MR. KELLY: I don’t think he – did he make an announcement, though? I --

QUESTION: To the press in Iran.

MR. KELLY: Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: He blamed the West for the talks when they stopped last year, saying that the West did not want to go further because of what was going on in the world, the financial crisis, the Georgian war, and so on and so forth. So they basically put the blame on the suspension of the talks on the West.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Would you agree with that?

MR. KELLY: No. Look, I mean, we’re prepared to respond to some kind of meaningful response. We’re not going to respond to something that’s made through the media. The offer of the P-5+1 remains on the table, and we’re – we can respond to that when they respond officially. In the meantime, as we saw in the most recent IAEA report, they are not complying with their obligations to the international community and their behavior remains a matter of deep concern to us. And I’ll just say what I’ve said before, that we provided a path whereby they can become a full and respected member of the international community, and it’s up to them as to whether or not they want to choose that path.

QUESTION: One last one --

QUESTION: This is Iran-related. Have you – are you going to be on the nuclear issue?

QUESTION: Yeah. Still on the nuclear stuff, yeah.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Look, Ian, why shouldn’t one regard these reports of a new proposal that just happened to surface on the eve of a P-5+1 meeting and about three weeks in advance of the UN General Assembly when this is going to be a major subject of --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- topic of conversation, why shouldn’t one regard this as something other than an effort by the Iranians to blunt the U.S. push to consider additional sanctions?

MR. KELLY: It may well be, but it’s just nothing that we can respond to because it’s not done – they still haven’t officially responded to our various initiatives.

QUESTION: And they haven’t given you anything, just not – not just they haven’t responded officially?

MR. KELLY: Well, to the best of my knowledge --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: -- we have not received a response.

QUESTION: What would you consider a meaningful response?

MR. KELLY: A response that said we understand that we have certain obligations that we have to adhere to, and that they welcome a reengagement with us in the P-5+1 context to try and address some of these concerns that we have.

QUESTION: Have you heard anything from the Russians and the Chinese yet about what they --

MR. KELLY: Regarding the most recent press reports, you mean?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: I’m not aware that we have received anything from the Russians (inaudible).

QUESTION: Because, related to Arshad’s question, it seems that, you know, oftentimes in the past on the cusp of big meetings or events, the Iranians have come out with statements like this talking about proposals which appear to be designed entirely to isolate the Russians and the China – or to keep the Chinese and the Russians from getting – from getting on board with the rest of the group on sanctions.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: You don’t see that this --

MR. KELLY: You’re asking me to speculate on what their motives might be for this one statement being made to the media. It may well be, but it would be just speculation on my part.

QUESTION: Why do you keep – why do you keep referring to this as, you know, made to the media or press reports or some kind of --

MR. KELLY: Because we’re still waiting for an official response. They’re not talking to us. They’re talking to the media.

QUESTION: Well, you don’t think when Jalili gets up there as the chief negotiator and makes it – like what you’re doing right now, what you’re – you’ve given us the official --

MR. KELLY: I’m not a negotiator.

QUESTION: You gave the official U.S. – you gave the official State Department response to us about these allegations of the Afghan Embassy.

MR. KELLY: That’s my job.

QUESTION: Why isn’t Jalili?

MR. KELLY: Well, Mr. Jalili is their representative?

QUESTION: He’s a representative of the Iranian Government.

MR. KELLY: Right.

QUESTION: He’s a spokesman for the government.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, but I’m a spokesman. This is what I do. I talk to you guys. We’re waiting for him to respond officially to our --

QUESTION: Fair enough. Well, fair enough. But you get Bill Burns down here and tell us something, we’re going to report it as you said this, and the Iranians aren’t going to say, “Well, that’s just a press report.” They’ll take it as coming from – it’s coming from the government.

QUESTION: You said – you said from this podium – or not you, but previous spokesmen have said from the podium that we’ve present – we’re getting ready to present an offer to the Iranians. I mean, how do we know?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. We have made an offer to the Iranians and we made them --

QUESTION: I know, but – but before you did it, you told – you announced that you were doing it.

MR. KELLY: All right, look. This is very simple. They – all they need to do is respond to our proposal in some serious and official way.

QUESTION: Through what channel would you expect that to come through?

MR. KELLY: The – we don’t have an embassy in Tehran, but our partners in the P-5+1 have embassies.

QUESTION: Another one on Iran, if --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Iranian president has apparently decided to come to the UNGA, participate there. Has he applied for a visa? And if so, is it anywhere close?

MR. KELLY: Actually, I’m not aware that he has. I understand that he does plan to come. He’s come in years past. I mean, I would have every expectation that he would receive a visa under our obligations, under our agreement with the UN.

QUESTION: On Iran again.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Anything new on the three Americans held there?

MR. KELLY: No, I’m afraid I don’t. I’m sorry to say I don’t have any --

QUESTION: This was – nothing from the --

MR. KELLY: -- further information on consular access or information on their welfare or whereabouts, which is, of course, very distressing to their families and of great concern to us.

QUESTION: Can we go back to powerful world leaders who plan to come to the UN? (Laughter.) Is there any movement on Qadhafi yet?

MR. KELLY: Not that I’m aware of, Matt.

QUESTION: All right. And then the segue into that is what do you make of these – the release of these letters in Britain about al-Megrahi --

MR. KELLY: Well, this is – as I said --

QUESTION: -- release?

MR. KELLY: As I said yesterday, this is a – this has been a matter for the UK Government and the Scottish authorities to make. They consulted with us with respect to the release of certain documents relating to the U.S. view. And our views, of course, are well known. I mean, the – those views are that we strongly oppose any outcome that would result in the transfer of Mr. Megrahi to Libya.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. Government believe that the – they had – it had a commitment from the British Government that Megrahi would not be released?

MR. KELLY: I think we’ve said all along that we understood that this was a matter for the Scottish executive to decide. The – our interlocutors in London made it clear that this was a matter for their justice officials to --

QUESTION: Did you seek such a commitment?

MR. KELLY: Well, we’ve told you that we – on many different occasions --

QUESTION: Well, you said you didn’t want him released.

MR. KELLY: -- on many different occasions at very high levels have made our views known to the Scottish authorities, including Secretary Clinton.

QUESTION: We understand that there was, if not a written, then at least a reasonably solemn, informal agreement between the then-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and the then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder that he would not be released.

MR. KELLY: That I’m not sure about. I’m not sure of any kind of agreement in the past between our Department of Justice and the British authorities.

QUESTION: We understand that there was such an agreement. If we can accept that there is no written document --

MR. KELLY: I think there was an understanding that he would serve out his sentence in Scotland. But --

QUESTION: Is the Department --

MR. KELLY: -- I don’t know if I would characterize that as an agreement. If you’re talking about some specific agreement relating to a previous attorney general, I think you have to ask the Department of Justice.

QUESTION: A previous deputy attorney general who is now the attorney general, by coincidence. But is the Department comfortable with the fact that even if a – there is no written agreement that has been broken, nonetheless, a significant agreement between two close allies has been broken?

MR. KELLY: Well, we’ve said many times that we disagreed strenuously with the decision of the Scottish authorities to release him and allow him to return to Libya. And it won’t be the first disagreement we’ve had with a close ally and it won’t be the last. But this is – but whether or not it’s – I don’t know if I’d characterize it as an agreement. There was an understanding that we had that he would serve out his sentence. But the British Government has also let us know that because of their policy of devolution and allowing Scotland to be responsible for its own home affairs, that it was a decision for the Scottish Executive to make. So there’s been complete transparency throughout.

QUESTION: Well, it was their decision to make. I mean, yes it was a Scottish decision to make, but as we’ve seen from all these documents that are coming out, that the British intervene to the Scots to --

MR. KELLY: I have to refer you to the British authorities.

QUESTION: You don’t feel like the Brits sold you out?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t feel like the Brits sold me out.

QUESTION: Even though it’s (inaudible) that under the terms of the devolution that foreign policy remains a matter for the UK Government as opposed to the Scottish authorities?

MR. KELLY: I just have to refer you to the Government of Britain for issues like that.

QUESTION: Of course, it’s up to them in the end how they play this. But how does the Department feel?

MR. KELLY: Well, it’s been very clear how we feel. We – this was a – we just think it was the wrong decision. I mean, that – nobody’s trying to hide that.

Yeah, go ahead, Michel.

QUESTION: Different subject. Do you have any time and date for Senator Mitchell’s meeting with the Israeli delegation?

MR. KELLY: Yes, I do. Just a moment. All right. I know what – I know what the answer is. It’s not in here. But the answer is that they’re going to meet tomorrow in New York. The Israeli side will be represented by the deputy chief – is it the deputy chief?

STAFF: Defense ministry chief of staff.

MR. KELLY: Defense ministry chief of staff, Michael Herzog. And we hope to have further details on the meeting and whatever media arrangements there are, I hope, later today.

QUESTION: Is Molcho, Zitzhas Molcho, who is Prime Minister Netanyahu – one of his key aides, coming as well?

MR. KELLY: That I don’t know, Arshad. You’ll have to ask --

QUESTION: You don’t have the time and place?

MR. KELLY: The place is – well, the place is in New York. But the exact --

QUESTION: It’s a big state, Ian.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I know it is. New York City.

QUESTION: That’s a big city – (laughter) – I hear.

MR. KELLY: It’s a great city, too.

QUESTION: Near the UN?

MR. KELLY: Not as good as Chicago, but it’s a great city.

QUESTION: Is it going to be at USUN?

MR. KELLY: That I don’t know. But we’ll find out. You know in the past that they have had a camera spray and statements afterwards, so I would expect that – that model to be followed.

QUESTION: You expect they will have statements afterwards?

MR. KELLY: I do expect that.

QUESTION: You expect that to be coming from here or coming from them up there?

MR. KELLY: Both.

QUESTION: You mean a written statement?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Maybe I should stop right there and say that we’ll get you further information.

QUESTION: That leaves me – I’m a little concerned about that, because from what I understand, this meeting is not going to be on the early side; it’s going to be on the late side. And that means --

MR. KELLY: That’s probably right.

QUESTION: Yeah. And that means that – are we going to be waiting around until 2 o’clock in the morning for it?

MR. KELLY: No, you won’t, Matt.

QUESTION: And is it --

MR. KELLY: I will call you personally when I have --

QUESTION: Before 2 o’clock?

QUESTION: If you would --

MR. KELLY: I’m not staying up that late.

QUESTION: You can call me and I’ll call Matt. (Laughter.) I promise. But --

MR. KELLY: That’s one of the better lines I’ve heard. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m not sure you’re on camera here. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Listen, what do – when you said statements, you meant a written statement. You don’t expect anybody to come out and talk in front of a camera?

MR. KELLY: No, I don’t. I --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. KELLY: And again, these are my personal expectations. I don’t know this for a fact. But we’ll get you --

QUESTION: Okay. And this meeting’s in preparation for another Mitchell trip to Jerusalem and a meeting with Ehud Barak. Is that right?

MR. KELLY: We’ll have more information about regional travel very soon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have any more information as a follow-up to the story last night on CBS about the Afghan ministry of defense being in contact with one of the Afghans arrested in an incident earlier this week in which a U.S. soldier was killed and a journalist injured?

MR. KELLY: No. I really – I don’t have any information on that. I’ll take one more question.

QUESTION: Bosworth?

QUESTION: Quick one.

MR. KELLY: Bosworth. I don’t have any information on, but we will have information about his travel soon as well.

QUESTION: A quick one --

QUESTION: One on Syria/Iraq. How do you view the escalation in tension between the two countries after August 19^th bombs in Baghdad?

MR. KELLY: You’re asking about Syria?

QUESTION: Syria and Iraq, yeah.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, okay. And this will be the last one, okay, and then we can talk – we can talk afterwards.

QUESTION: Can I have one more, please?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Can I have one more, please?

MR. KELLY: I am such a softie.

QUESTION: There’s a lot going on.

MR. KELLY: I know there’s a lot going on. Uh-oh. Yeah, I’m afraid I don’t have that information on Syria.

Okay, go ahead. We’ll get you the information. I know I have it. It’s just not --

QUESTION: Japanese new government, DPJ, says they will reexamine the role of U.S. military bases and U.S. military forces. And what is U.S. current position on that?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. I have really nothing to add from what I said yesterday. Our relationship with Japan is a – one of the cornerstones of peace and security in Asia. It’s one of the most important relationships that we have. We’re going to welcome the opportunity to work with the new government and we’ve – with the view to building on our past successes and developing very productive relations for the future. But beyond that --

QUESTION: How about Futenma issues?

MR. KELLY: Sorry?

QUESTION: Futenma issues.

MR. KELLY: Oh, as I say, I don’t have anything to add to what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: Well, wait a minute.

MR. KELLY: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can you give us a little bit of an idea of what your involvement was in the agreement between Armenia and Turkey to start talks to establish diplomatic relations?

MR. KELLY: That was, I think, mostly worked out bilaterally between the two governments through the facilitation of the Swiss. Of course, we took a great interest in the talks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:18 p.m.)

DPB # 148

# # #