Interview With Fouad Arif of Al-Aoula Television

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Marakech, Morocco

November 3, 2009

QUESTION: First of all, on behalf of the Moroccan viewers, Madame Secretary of State, I would like to thank you very much, despite a busy week and a very heavy schedule. My first question is during the past 10 years, His Majesty the King Mohammed VI has initiated reforms across the board – social, economic, human rights, and more specifically, women’s rights.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: I would like to have your take on these changes that have been taking place in Morocco.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say I am delighted to speak with you. I always enjoy my visits to Morocco. I was here 10 years ago and I have very fond memories of that trip and a prior trip. So for me, this is a special privilege. And I wanted to express my appreciation, as I did when I met with His Majesty King Mohammed VI, for the changes that he is instituting and that under his leadership the Government of Morocco is following through on.

I think the changes are important. I particularly applaud the new freedoms for women. It has enhanced the cooperation and the participation that women have been able to show. I know in recent local elections more than 3,000 women were elected. I think it will make Morocco a stronger country. The more you involve the citizens, the more you empower citizens to make responsible decisions, the stronger Morocco will be.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, as you know, Morocco and the United States are two countries tied by a free trade agreement, which is, by the way, the only one with an African country. But how can the two countries combine their efforts so that there – it has more economic ties?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, we’re very proud that our relationship with Morocco goes back more than 220 years, our longest relationship in the world that is unbroken by any kind of difficulty. And the recent free trade agreement, which I was privileged to vote for when I was a senator from New York, is a modern example of this very deep and broad relationship.

I think that the significance of it is, as you say, the first free trade agreement with any country in Africa on a bilateral basis, a recognition that Morocco’s economy is growing and the United States wants to invest, and a platform for further work that we must do together.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Madame Secretary, you reaffirmed that there is no change in the Obama Administration’s position as far as the Moroccan autonomy plan in the Sahara is concerned. Would you like please to elaborate some more?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is a plan, as you know, that originated in the Clinton Administration. It was reaffirmed in the Bush Administration and it remains the policy of the United States in the Obama Administration. Now, we are supporting the United Nations process because we think that if there can be a peaceful resolution to the difficulties that exist with your neighbors, both to the east and to the south and the west, that is in everyone’s interest.

But because of our long relationship, we are very aware of how challenging the circumstances are. And I don’t want anyone in the region or elsewhere to have any doubt about our policy, which remains the same.

QUESTION: President Obama has more than once called for a renewed and a new beginning with the Islamic world. How can Morocco, with its longstanding tradition of coexistence and tolerance, help in this regard? And how do you envision the relations of Morocco and the United States in light of the Cairo speech?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s an excellent question because I think that Morocco is especially well positioned to take a leadership role in fulfilling the call for greater cooperation and understanding that President Obama set forth in his Cairo speech. In fact, the President has reached out to His Majesty King Mohammed VI to ask that the King lead one of the interfaith dialogue working groups because of the history of toleration and interfaith cooperation that exists in Morocco. We are looking to Morocco as a model in many areas, and we think in this area of greater understanding between the United States and the Muslim world, Morocco can help lead the way.

QUESTION: How can both countries again combine efforts to advance the peace process towards a two-state solution?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think by continuing the very helpful support for the process, recognizing how difficult it is for the parties to do this solely on their own, that they need other countries and leaders like His Majesty to be very much pushing and prodding the process along, and I think refraining from inflammatory comments that sometimes come from others in the region, which unfortunately just get everyone agitated and stall the process.

This is very difficult work. It’s an intensely time-consuming effort. The President has evidenced great sincerity and commitment, but we know that you have to build on that by the painstaking outreach to both. And we would welcome and seek the active support of others.

QUESTION: We are going to move a little bit away from the Near East. I would like to ask you a question about the Maghreb region and its neighborhood. This region is facing several challenges, not least of which the economic ones which are made now more problematic because of the borders – Moroccan-Algerian borders are closed for the time being, and also because of the al-Qaida in the Maghreb, which is causing lots of problems. What is your take on this situation, and how can we move to the more positive path?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are grateful for our close cooperation with Morocco and with other countries in the Maghreb on counterterrorism, on law enforcement, on mutual cooperation against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, against drug traffickers and human traffickers. So we are committed to working with you and other nations to help you defend yourself and to create a more positive atmosphere.

But we also hope that there can be greater regional understanding and cooperation across borders, opening up borders, economic cooperation which would benefit – if you look across North Africa through the Maghreb, there is such an opportunity to build a region of economic success. And that requires political discussion and consultation, so we would encourage our friends, certainly Morocco and others, to see how possible that might be and not to be discouraged by the difficulty at starting such a political consultation.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I would like to thank you very much on behalf of the Moroccan viewers again. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Great to be back here. Thank you.

Interview With Michel Ghandour of Al Hurra Television

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Marakech, Morocco

November 3, 2009

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, first, thank you for your time. You have met yesterday with Arab foreign ministers. Were you able to convince them to take some gestures toward Israel?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we had a very constructive meeting yesterday. I have pledged to consult with my counterparts, and I try to keep them informed as to what we are doing. I think there was an opportunity at our meeting to explain better how we saw the current situation with respect to the resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. I was able to clearly answer questions about what is the Israeli offer on no new settlement activity. And we talked about how important it was for President Abbas to continue his leadership and his commitment to the two-state solution – something that he had first stated back in 1972. So we had a very broad-ranging discussion.

But ultimately, I asked for their continuing support for the process, and I asked them to look for ways that they can demonstrate that support both to the Palestinians and to the Israelis.

QUESTION: In the Arab world, they are saying that the U.S. Administration started by criticizing Israel and asking it to – for a settlement freeze, and ended by praising Prime Minister Netanyahu after he denied the American calls. What can you answer?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I think President Obama has demonstrated his commitment and sincerity in pursuing a comprehensive peace that includes a two-state solution.

Secondly, both I and Senator Mitchell, our special envoy, have worked constantly since President Obama became our president to reach out not only to the Israelis and the Palestinians, but to the larger region and the world, about everyone working toward this goal.

Thirdly, I believe it’s important to recognize the positive steps that either side takes. That’s why I have been very strongly in favor of what the Palestinians have done on security. And I have done that publicly and privately, not only with them, of course, but with the Israelis and the Arab nations. Because when people do things which advance the cause of a two-state solution, they should be recognized.

Now, when we called under President Obama’s leadership for an end to settlement activity, it was a restatement of American policy and a recommitment to the Obama Administration’s very strong conviction that settlement activity is not legitimate. The President said that in New York.

What the Israeli Government has offered would end all settlement activity that would be going forward. It would end permits, it would end approvals, it would end expropriation of land. It is not at all everything we would want, but for that government to do anything is unprecedented.

So I think that the foreign ministers from Arab nations understood. I showed them how it would work. Now, it is not what anybody would want, but when you negotiate, very often you start off with the maximum position but you try to figure out where you can realistically end up.

What I want is a discussion between the parties on the final status issues – the ’67 borders, the refugees, Jerusalem, everything that needs to be resolved. Anything which moves us toward the resumption of negotiations and closer to our goal of a two-state solution, I am going to say is a positive development.

QUESTION: Do you expect resuming negotiations in the near future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are pushing very hard for such a resumption to occur. But as I have also said, I’m a very patient and persistent person. I know how difficult this is for everyone. And yet I believe it is so much in the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis that I am very hopeful we’re going to see that resumption occur.

QUESTION: Last question on the peace process side. Saeb Erekat has said if America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze, what chance do Palestinians have of reaching agreement with Israel on permanent status issues? Can you give the Palestinians and the Arab states guarantees regarding these issues?

SECRETARY CLINTON: There have been numerous peace negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I know very well what happened in the 1990s with my husband and Yasser Arafat, how close everyone got. And there was no demand or expectation that settlements would be dealt with before the entire negotiation. After my husband’s administration, I know what Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Olmert were talking about with President Abbas and his negotiating team, and there was no demand about settlements. Everyone believed that when the borders of a new state were set, the settlement issue would take care of itself.

So President Obama has gotten more before negotiations ever started out of Israel than anybody has ever gotten, more than was ever asked for before. So I think everyone should take a deep breath and say, look, what is our goal here? Is our goal to end a few hundred settlements or a few thousand more units? Or is our goal a Palestinian state? And I think if we keep that in mind, we’ve actually made some progress along that way, even though not everybody is satisfied with it. But nevertheless, do we want to say, oh, well, that’s not good enough?

Michel, if there had been a final agreement at Camp David, there would have been no more settlements. The capital of a new state would have been in East Jerusalem. And we were so close, but we didn’t achieve it. So now we are here talking about what we talked about 10 years ago. I want to end the talk. I want to see Israel have the security it needs. I want to see the Palestinian people have the state they deserve.

QUESTION: On Iran, Iran has expressed its readiness for a third meeting with the P5+1 in Geneva to discuss how – or to buy uranium from the international community. Are you ready, first, to attend this meeting, the third meeting with Iran, and to sell Iran uranium?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the P5+1, which are the group of nations negotiating with Iran, have said that they were willing for another meeting. I am sure that the United States will attend. We are waiting for an answer to the offer that was made by the United States and Russia and China and France and the United Kingdom and Germany and the European Union. We believe Iran should accept the offer that was made, and we are hoping that it does so.

QUESTION: On Lebanon, the Lebanese leaders have been trying to form a new government since six or seven months, and they failed. Some leaders are blaming Iran and Syria. How do you view the situation in Lebanon?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the situation in Lebanon is distressing, and I think it’s time for the people and leadership of Lebanon to stand up for Lebanon, not to stand up for any foreign influence or any other outside concern. And they should put personal interests or personal ambition behind the interests of the entire nation and form a government that represents the full diversity of Lebanon so that decisions can be made that will improve the future for Lebanon.

QUESTION: Last question, Madame Secretary, on Syria. After months of engagement with Syria, how do you assess the dialogue with Damascus? Are you planning to visit Syria in the near future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have no plans to visit Syria in the near future, but I do want to see changes in Syrian behavior and actions. We have, as you know, engaged in diplomacy with Syria on a number of issues. But the jury is out as to how Syria intends to respond. We are hoping for a positive response, and we will continue to try to achieve that. But it can’t be just talk. There has to be action as well.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.

Interview With Jackie Northam of NPR

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Fairmont Hotel

Cairo, Egypt

November 4, 2009

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton’s trip was initially intended to shore up American credentials in Pakistan, but a Middle Eastern leg was added to her tour and ended up becoming the focus of her week overseas. I spoke with her shortly before she was to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Madame Secretary, thank you very much for taking the time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: You’re here in Cairo and about to meet with President Mubarak. Even though you started in Pakistan, most of your nine-day trip has been spent focusing on the Middle East. Now, as you’re about to head back home, do you feel that you have made any progress in that area? Do you feel that you’ve been able to nudge the Israelis and the Palestinians a little bit closer to the negotiating table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jackie, I think that I had always intended to end in Morocco for the Forum for the Future and meet with my Middle Eastern and Arab counterparts. And it was, I think, a good opportunity, since I was in the region, to visit in depth with both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas, as well as others who have been involved in this effort from around the region.

I think it’s important to just put this in a broader perspective. The President always knew that this would be hard, and is committed and is absolutely determined that the United States will stay very involved and working to bring the parties together. Our goal is to re-launch negotiations as soon as practical. And on the way to that, we’re going to keep talking and listening and encouraging and prodding, because I’ve been around this issue in a very close and personal way for, gosh, 16 years now. And I know that when the United States leaves the field and basically says, “Well, the parties have to work this out themselves,” we don’t get the kind of forward movement that we think is necessary.

QUESTION: Great, thank you. If you were able to convince both sides to at least take a couple steps forward and sit at that table and restart the peace negotiations, wouldn’t Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas look weaker than ever?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so, but of course, what matters is not what I think, but what he thinks. And there’s been a sequence of actions which have complicated the effort for him. I, however, believe that getting into negotiations, having his negotiators discuss with the Israeli negotiators what are called the final status issues, which President Obama listed in his United Nations speech in September in New York – everything from borders to Jerusalem to refugees – has to be resolved between the parties.

So I think his getting into negotiations would actually change the dynamic and give him a very strong platform. But for all kinds of reasons, most particularly his willingness to work with the Israeli Government to postpone the so-called Goldstone report, has made it very difficult for him to go forward at this time.

QUESTION: Okay. Just to switch gears a bit, you spent a lot of time explaining to Arab states and others over the past few days what you meant in Jerusalem when you were talking about the Israeli West Bank settlements. And your comments were viewed by quite a number of people as praising Israel’s proposal to slow rather than halt the construction. And yesterday, you acknowledged that perhaps you should have been a bit more clear when you were explaining President Obama’s policies on that.

How much of a problem did your comments in Jerusalem create?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think it created a long-term problem, but it certainly created a lot of questions. And the reason is because President Obama has tried to do something which no previous American president, including my husband, tried to do, which was to make absolutely clear what has been American policy for 40 years – namely that we view Israeli settlement activity as not legitimate. We think that their changing the facts on the ground, so to speak, is something that should be ended.

So when President Obama said look, we want to see an end to settlement activity, that was unprecedented. And then when the Israeli Government, under this prime minister, said we will agree to end all new settlement activity, that was really unprecedented as well.

I have taken the position that when the Israelis or when the Palestinians make a positive step, they should be encouraged, so that – I have said to the Israelis, I’ve said publicly and privately that the Palestinians have made real progress on security, something which people did not expect, and to this day, a lot of people don’t give enough credit to. So I think my job is to try to keep people focused on what is actually both possible and positive. And the Israeli offer was not at all what we would prefer. It did not go far enough, but it went further than anybody has before.

QUESTION: Were you surprised at the – how big a stir that created, though?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, I’m not surprised by anything – (laughter) – because this is the tightrope of all tightropes, and I’m well aware of that. But I also think it’s important to make the case. Settlements have never been a precondition by anyone – Palestinian or Arab or the United States – to getting into negotiations, because what is so clear is that once borders are decided, the settlement issue goes away. The Israelis build whatever they want in their territory, the Palestinians build whatever they want in theirs.

But what President Obama tried to do was to say look, this is such an irritant, it is such a terribly – it’s a terrible flashpoint for people in the region. And I was surprised that the Israelis went as far as they did. The Arabs and the Palestinians said it wasn’t far enough. I understand both sides.

QUESTION: Just a couple more questions if you don’t mind, if we could just switch over to Pakistan. And again, you spent time earlier on this trip explaining comments that you made in Pakistan as well, that al-Qaida had been in there since 2002, and that you found it hard to believe that no one in the government there knew where al-Qaida leaders were, and also – al-Qaida leaders were and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.

Can I ask you, was that just – were those just spontaneous remarks or was that --

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not at all, no. I mean, as you saw, the whole purpose of my trip was to try to clear the air with the Pakistani people and government, to reassert our support for Pakistan, particularly in this very difficult conflict they’re engaged in with the Taliban, and to listen and absorb all the criticisms they have. They had this sort of pent-up frustration with the United States. And as you know and as you saw, I listened and under – and tried to convey understanding of all of their questions about our policy, going back years.

But at the same time, I wanted to stress that we’re looking for a partnership, and they have to listen to our concerns as well as we listen to their concerns. I feel strongly that as we move forward in these very complex areas that pose real concerns to our national security, concerns to partners like Pakistan’s security, that it is important to make clear to the people – not just the leaders – that we have to speak openly with each other.

And the reaction that I got in Pakistan was overwhelmingly positive – and I’ve been reading a lot of the blogging and the reaction on the press – in part because they’re not used to anyone from the United States Government coming and opening herself to their concerns. They’re just used to saying – to having somebody say, take it or leave it, with us or against us, go forward or not. And so I think we’re building a stronger base for our relationship.

QUESTION: I have just one last question. We’ve seen Hamid Karzai be declared the winner of Afghanistan’s presidential elections while you were on this trip. There have long been concerns about his credibility and whether he can be counted upon as an ally of the U.S. And now that he has been reelected, is the Obama Administration more confident now that it can depend on him as a reliable ally, or is this sort of a wait-and-see situation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I spoke with President Karzai after the election results were announced. And I told him that we now had a lot of work to do, and there were expectations on both sides. But certainly, from the American perspective, we believed it was important for him to establish a compact with the people of Afghanistan that would commit him and his new government to an anti-corruption campaign, to more accountability and transparency, to a recognition that there has to be more cooperation with local officials, that they have to work with us to build an adequate Afghan security force to protect and defend their country.

So we are laying out very clear expectations. We’re willing to offer our assistance, but we’re going to hold the Government of Afghanistan accountable for what they claim they want, which is the United States and the international community’s assistance in providing security for their people and in producing results for them as well.

QUESTION: Does he appear to be on board with all these initiatives that the --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he certainly – he and I have a long relationship, and I have met with him many times over the last eight years, both in Afghanistan, in Washington, even in New York when he came to visit Fort Drum in upstate New York, where a lot of the soldiers who were part of the first wave of the invasion against the Taliban and al-Qaida in 2001 were based.

So he and I know each other. I have been waiting for the election, frankly, to finally be over. It has caused a delay in our policy, because how do you decide on important matters that are going to depend upon whatever agreements you make with the government until you finally get a result? So that is, thankfully, over. And our people, both Ambassador Holbrooke and Ambassador Eikenberry and the people working with them, are working to implement what we see as the necessary assurances we require from him.

QUESTION: Secretary of State Clinton, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Jackie. Good to talk with you.

Remarks on The Plane in Cairo, Egypt

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Cairo, Egypt, DC

November 4, 2009

QUESTION: There seems to be a little confusion over whether the Egyptian position, which, as expressed by the foreign minister earlier in the week, seemed quite harsh, was very much (inaudible) Palestinians (inaudible), that the (inaudible) take up an opportunity to (inaudible), said fine, (inaudible), yeah, we’re not going to come out and scream and yell anymore, and maybe we’re going to tell them they shouldn’t do it, or he was just being polite? How did you interpret it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I thought it was a very productive meeting. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Candid, cooperative?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Candid, cooperative, productive, constructive – and shows the value of consultation and listening and sharing ideas and hearing the other side and putting forth your views and explaining. I thought it was a very, very (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in order to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table for – to start talking about full – about final status issues, would you – are you able to give them a guarantee that the negotiations would be about a state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are working – and I don’t want to get into negotiating details, but we are working to really fulfill what were, in essence, the terms of reference for any negotiations set forth in President Obama’s speech to the United Nations. I don’t think enough attention may have been paid to exactly what the President said and the importance of what he reaffirmed as the American position. And it obviously is about the territory occupied since 1967, it is about Jerusalem, it is about refugees, it’s about all of those final status issues.

So we want to be facilitating the return to negotiations. We don’t think that there’s any question in anybody’s mind about what’s going to be talked about.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I just want to clarify something the Egyptian foreign minister said. On the one hand in the briefing, he said that any more settlement activity is completely unacceptable, but then in another breath, he said we’re focused on the endgame; we don’t want this issue or that issue to impede getting there. So in your private conversation with him, how did you understand the resolution of those seemingly conflicting comments?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) one issue means don’t let settlements get in the way –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but that’s our position. We don’t think there should be continued settlement activity either. We would like to make it as clear as possible, which, as you heard, I repeated for the question from the Egyptian media. Our position has not changed. We have the same position. There is a desire to get into these final status negotiations, and we think taking advantage of a stop to all new settlement construction happens to be in the best interests of the negotiations.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton --

QUESTION: So then it wouldn’t be a precondition anymore? The Egyptians might go along with saying, okay, then don’t have a precondition, get it back to the table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t want to speak for the Egyptians.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And I think that you should let the foreign minister’s words stand for themselves. And Jeff speaks Arabic, so he can go into more detail about that. But I think it was very clear that the – and this is not very different from what I heard from my counterparts in Morocco. We have to figure out a way to get into the re-launch of negotiations.

And things have happened along the way, the Goldstone report being the most recent and the most difficult for everybody. And that was not – and you saw what happened is the Palestinians tried to postpone so that it wouldn’t be an issue and then they got criticized for that. And I mean, so – but that doesn’t take away from what the ultimate objective is, and that’s what I think you heard from Aboul Gheit and what you heard from me.

QUESTION: Have you talked with --

QUESTION: But how – where does Abbas get the cover to take that heat? Where does Abbas get the cover to drop the precondition?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Go ahead, (inaudible).

U.S. OFFICIAL: But he does not have to sign up for this deal. This is something that the Israelis are putting on – are talking about putting on the table. He doesn’t have to sign up for it at all. No one’s asking him to bless it.

QUESTION: No, you’re asking him to sign up for talks though, right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but that’s slightly different. The Israelis are offering this. It can be rejected by everyone. There’s no imposition of it, no requirement for it. The Israelis will decide whether or not they want to go forward with it. That’s up to the Israelis, obviously. But at the end of the day, this discussion about settlements will be mooted by getting into negotiations about borders. Because then, you can build what you want in your state and the other can build what they want in their state.

QUESTION: So just to follow up on my question very quickly, some Palestinians – some Palestinian officials have said that if you were – if the Americans were to give guarantees that negotiations would be about a state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, they would consider this as an encouragement to sit down at the table of negotiations.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and I think that’s --

QUESTION: Is that one way of getting around the settlement issue?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that’s a very welcome suggestion, and it is something that --

QUESTION: Is that something you’ve talked – discussed with them?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We have. We have discussed it with nearly everyone.

STAFF: I think it’s time to buckle up, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit (Revised)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Presidential Palace

Cairo, Egypt

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: (Via interpreter) I would like to welcome the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We had – she has had – just finished now a meeting with President Mubarak, a meeting that lasted more than an hour. We also met with Secretary Clinton yesterday evening, myself personally, as well as Omar Suleiman (inaudible). These were two-hour – that was a two-hour meeting of very intensive work. Our consultations between the U.S. and Egypt touched on the issue of the situation in Palestine, the effort for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and how we can put back the negotiations on track.

We have also talked about the regional issues, such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Lebanon. And also our consultations between the two countries are productive, are frank, candid, and are clear. And we have a good understanding of all the issues. Each side put forth his own vision. And we also report our vision of the Egypt vision for the peace – for pushing peace forward, and our consultations keep on being productive.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure for me to be here with my counterpart Foreign Minister Gheit. He and I have had numerous meetings and telephone conversations ever since I assumed the position of Secretary of State. As he has just said, we’ve had a very productive, comprehensive meeting last night with the foreign minister and with General Suleiman, and then, we had a constructive and very positive meeting with President Mubarak.

The United States sees Egypt as an essential partner, not only in the Middle East, but on global and regional issues, as well. And we are committed to working with Egypt to strengthen and deepen our cooperation and our partnership on these vital matters.

Our main focus today with President Mubarak was, of course, on Middle East peace efforts. I emphasized to the president that President Obama, Special Envoy Mitchell who is here with me today, and I are all deeply and personally committed to achieving a two-state solution and comprehensive peace between Israelis, Palestinians, and all of their Arab neighbors. It is a commitment that brought us to the region this week and to Cairo specifically last night and today. We are working hard to help the parties come together in negotiations that can yield progress toward our shared objectives. And we regard Egypt and other Arab neighbors as critical partners in helping to move this effort forward. I assured the president, the minister, and the general that the United States shares their deep concerns about the people of Gaza.

As I said in Marrakech two days ago, I believe we can find a way through the difficult and tangled history that too often prevents us from making progress for a comprehensive peace and a two-state solution. We can maintain an allegiance to the past, but we cannot change the past. No matter what we say about it, it is behind us. So we must follow the (inaudible) that has been put forward by President Obama and help shape a future that will be vastly better for the children of both Palestinians and Israelis.

I came to Sharm el-Sheikh shortly after becoming Secretary of State and expressed that deep commitment in a very personal and public way. So as we work together on this critical issue, we are also cooperating in a spirit of mutual respect to build a better future for the people of Egypt. As part of that effort, President Obama and I are committed to realizing the vision of the Cairo speech: education, human development, economic partnership, the promotion of human rights. We support the efforts of civil society, political parties, and minority communities, and we support improvements in the lives of everyday Egyptians.

I also expressed our gratitude for Egypt’s leadership on regional and global issues. We discussed the threat that Iran poses to regional stability, including the nuclear file. As President Obama has said, it is time for the Iranian Government to decide what kind of future it seeks. And we have made very clear to them that patience does have its limits. We also consulted on matters ranging from Afghanistan to Yemen, and in particular, on our shared support for the formation of a strong, sovereign government in Lebanon that can advance the aspirations of all of the Lebanese people. So Mr. Minister, thank you again. Thank you also to President Mubarak for a very good and fruitful discussion. And I look forward to the continuing good work that we can do together.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: Thank you very much, Secretary. We will answer two questions – one from the Egyptian side and one from the American side, if there will be any questions from the Americans. So you will make the selection from (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, you have to choose.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you choose me? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Thank you. Madame Secretary, my question is President Obama’s lecture in the Cairo University gives us some hope that you are backing the position that Israel has to stop settlements. What is the reasons for this change in the position that (inaudible) through the hard work? And a second point, if I can.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: What’s your view concerning the Egyptian ideas of having the paper of guarantees given to the Palestinians concerning a deadline for the negotiations? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, and thank you for asking. First, I want to start by saying our policy on settlements has not changed. And I want to say it again, our policy on settlement activity has not changed. We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity. And we have a very firm belief that ending all settlement activity, current and future, would be preferable, and that is what we have put forth, and that is what we have continued to support.

What we have received from the Israelis to halt all new settlement activity – and I’ll repeat that again, too – to halt all new settlement activities and to end the expropriation of land, and to issue no permits or approvals, is unprecedented. It is not what we would prefer, because we would like to see everything ended forever. But it is something that I think shows at least a positive movement toward the final status issues being addressed. Just as when the Palestinians made progress on security, I stand and say that is a positive step, even though some may not believe it, I think it’s a positive step, and I say that.

So what we’re looking at here is a recognition that getting into the final status negotiations will allow us to bring an end to settlement activity because we will be moving toward the Palestinian state that I and many others have long advocated and worked for. So I think that that perhaps clarifies where we are on this, and I appreciate your question.

Secondly, on the paper of guarantees, we discussed in great detail what is a productive way forward. And there are some ideas that we’ve received from our Egyptian counterparts that we are going to be taking back today to the President and to the White House, and we very much appreciate the suggestions that they have put forward to us.

QUESTION: And make the choice of the American (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’ll delegate that to Colonel Crowley. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Hi, I’m Andy Quinn from Reuters. First thing, a quick follow-up to the previous question, and this is a question for Mr. Aboul Gheit: Secretary Clinton has just described the U.S. policy as unchanged on settlements. After your discussions today and yesterday evening, are you persuaded that the U.S. still backs a freeze on Israeli settlement activity, or do you feel that there’s some backtracking going on?

And the second question is for both of you: The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to condemn the Goldstone report which goes before the United Nations General Assembly shortly. To what extent do you believe that the Goldstone report has become an impediment to the resumption of peace talks?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ll start because he’s an American – (laughter) – and then I’ll let Ahmed finish.

We believe that it is important to focus on the long-term aspirations of the Palestinian people. I have said this before, and you will not be surprised to hear me say it again, it is very painful to me personally, that with Egypt’s help when my husband was President, we came so close. And the last meeting in Taba laid out what would have been a path toward a Palestinian state that would be operating today. So I carry with me a personal conviction that nothing can be allowed to interfere with our determination and our resolve and our commitment to move this forward.

So yes, are there impediments along the way? You mentioned one; there are many others. But we cannot let anything deter us. In talking with President Mubarak, we were reminiscing about some of the hard decisions that we have seen that had to be faced in this area over the past years, and of course, he has so many years of experience. And he was telling us about how even at the very end of the Camp David agreement that ended the difficulties between Israel and Egypt, there were still people who wanted to change it, derail it, and prevent it.

So this is something that, when you are doing the work we are doing, the foreign minister and I, you have to stay focused on what is the ultimate outcome you are seeking, and I think we share that commitment. We want to see a Palestinian state. We want to see Israel living in security. We want to see the Palestinian people given a chance to chart their own destiny. So we’re not going to let anything deter us or prevent us from working as hard as we possibly can, going forward.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: May I answer? I will respond in Arabic after your permission, for the benefit of the Egyptian and Arab news media, and then we would have a translation. (Speaking in Arabic.) She will be translating, and I think I spoke at length. (Laughter.)

(Via interpreter) About the U.S. position towards the settlements, we have listened with great interest to the reaction of the U.S. Secretary of State yesterday and today about the conceptions, or perceptions, , if you will, that there has been a sort of backtracking from the side – from the U.S. side. We talked about this very clearly and very candidly. We listened to the U.S. vision. The United States holds on – is committed to its vision that there is no legitimacy to settlement, that the United States rejects settlements. And we also listened that Israel has not been responsive to the desires of the United States, that it rests opposed to them. The United States has not changed its position of rejecting settlements and the settlement activities. And the United States is calling on the resumption of negotiations.

So now I give you the answer that you gave them about our – the Egyptian answer. We feel that Israel is hindering the process. Israel is putting conditions for the – in order to benefit – to continue the settlement activities even and – if these settlement activities will be limited. Therefore, the United States and Secretary Clinton feel that there has been a progress nevertheless by – about the issue of freezing the settlements, even if it’s not fully complete. And here, we feel that we need to focus on the end of the course. We have listened to the U.S. position that we also – and it has been conveyed to us we need to focus on the end of the road and on the road. We should not waste time. The United States is --

QUESTION: What is the end game?

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: (Via interpreter) And the U.S. is committed to see the negotiations move forward on clear basis.

Now about your second segment of the question about the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Congress calling – not considering the Goldstone report, I’ll tell you this: This report is at the UN General Assembly. It’s been under discussion. There will be a resolution issued in a few hours about it. And we will move forward on this particular course. Nevertheless, and I can tell you that Egypt or the broader international community had anything to do with the views of the members of congress, as also I can tell you that members – some members of congress have also said that this report needs further deep studying and examination, and that there should be an extra effort, as this report has taken a lot of time to be (inaudible) and should not be thrown out of the window.

STAFF: Another – two questions, as the Secretary has agreed.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) My question is addressed to Secretary of State Clinton and those who go to the region see that isolating, separating wall, look that the Palestinian areas and the – some territories in the West Bank, some large chunks of it is in the West Bank. In those areas, it is forbidden for the Palestinians to build anything. The Israelis continue on a daily basis to confiscate land.

So talking also about the greater Jerusalem picture, knowing that this would – there is a split between the north and the south of the city, what would be the shape of the Palestinian state in the U.S. opinion? And would it have (inaudible) contiguity – would it be an impact to shape, or also can we say that it would look like the Native American entity or status within the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I can repeat to you what President Obama said in his speech at the United Nations and what he said here in Cairo – that the United States believes that we need a state that is based on the territory that has been occupied since 1967. And we believe that that is the appropriate approach. It is what has been discussed when my husband was president with Yasser Arafat, and it is what has been discussed between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Bush Administration when President Abbas has been there.

I think that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that moving toward a state that reflects the aspirations and the rights of the Palestinian people must include all of the issues that have both been discussed and mentioned by President Obama, and that includes Jerusalem. And I would only repeat that it’s such an emotional issue for me. We would not be having this discussion if we had reached a deal, because as you remember, the parameters that were laid out would have recognized a state on the ’67 borders with some swapping of land agreeable to both sides, and it would have also established the capital for the Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, and it would have created a shared responsibility with international support to protect the holy places that are holy to all three major religions of Abraham.

So we want to assure you that our goal is a real state with real sovereignty with the kind of borders that will enable the people of Palestine to make decisions about where they live and what they do on their own. And it is important to us, and we know that it is vitally important to the people of the region and particularly, most especially, the Palestinians and the Israelis.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: May I follow up on what the Secretary has just stated?

(Via interpreter) Here, this position that was just stated by Secretary Clinton – we say that we approve it and we are in agreement totally with it. We support it fully, we support fully this U.S. position because it reflects a conviction that – of a Palestinian state that is capable, that will be on all of the territories that were occupied in 1967 and that will be a hundred percent of those territories, because a hundred percent of those territories goes to the Palestinians despite the swaps that would happen.

And with this, also East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians. With this, this is clear and with this such position, we support the U.S. fully.

STAFF: Finally, Robert Burns from AP.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Over to your question of your trip --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Looking back over the past eight or nine days – somehow it seems longer than that. (Laughter.) You’ve dealt with a wide range of the major issues affecting the entire region, from Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Middle East and North Africa. I wonder if you could give us an assessment of areas in which you feel you made some advancements and areas where you fell short or stumbled?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, I think I only made advancements – (laughter) – and I happen to believe that, not just responding to your question. I think that the level and intensity of the discussions that I have taken part in over the last days, starting in Pakistan, have certainly been productive, constructive, and helped to clarify the approach that the United States is taking and is committed to taking in all of the different settings that I was part of.

I think that in talking about this with President Mubarak earlier, every issue that we touched on during this trip is complicated and difficult. Each requires patience, perseverance, and determination to see them through. There are – if these were easy questions with simple answers, I would not have made this trip. I know how challenging they are. We have some of the best people in the United States with Ambassador Holbrooke and Senator Mitchell working on these complicated matters.

But it is important to recognize that after a period of time in which the United States’s position was rejected, or was certainly questioned, what we are doing is very carefully and consistently rebuilding those bonds, creating those partnerships, finding common ground so that we and our international partners will be able to make progress.

And so I feel very satisfied by what we accomplished on this trip in every one of our settings. I am not someone who is in any way affected by difficulty, who is living in a world apart from the real world in which we inhabit where it takes just an enormous amount of effort to get to where we are headed. The two-state solution is one of the most difficult. We know that from years of efforts. But I have a great team. I have a lot of confidence in the team of people working on these matters. And we have a president who is 100 percent committed. And so I think that’s exactly the combination that we need.

STAFF: Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, what happens now? How far or close are we toward the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks, if you (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are working hard to see that happen.

QUESTION: Weeks, months?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to make predictions. One of the things that President Mubarak and I were talking about is how we have to be so focused on what we’re doing, but we also have to try, the best we can, to answer questions. So I will say we’re working hard to get there.

# # #

Secretary Clinton Announces New Initiatives to Bolster Science and Technology Collaboration With Muslim Communities Around the World

Marrakech, Morocco

November 3, 2009

In remarks at the Forum for the Future in Marrakech today, Secretary Clinton announced new initiatives to bolster science and technology collaboration with Muslim communities around the world. The Secretary named Dr. Bruce Alberts, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, and Dr. Ahmed Zewail as the first three U.S. Science and Technology Envoys and announced that the State Department will expand positions for environment, science, technology, and health officers at U.S. embassies.

“We want to help Muslim majority communities develop the capacity to meet economic, social and ecological challenges through science, technology, and innovation,” Secretary Clinton said.

The U.S. Science Envoy program is part of President Obama’s “New Beginning” initiative with Muslim communities around the world that he launched in a June 4 speech in Cairo, Egypt. He pledged that the United States would “appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.” The initiative received key support from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Richard Lugar.

In the coming months, the first Science Envoys will travel to countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia. They will engage their counterparts, deepen partnerships in all areas of science and technology, and foster meaningful collaboration to meet the greatest challenges facing the world today in health, energy, the environment, as well as in water and resource management. Additional U.S. scientists and engineers will be invited to join the Science Envoy program to expand it to other Muslim countries and regions of the globe.

Dr. Bruce Alberts is widely recognized for his work in the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology. Dr. Alberts is a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco. As president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from 1993 to 2005, he was instrumental in developing the landmark National Science Education standards that have been implemented in school systems throughout the U.S.

Dr. Elias Zerhouni, M.D., was director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 2002 to 2008. Dr. Zerhouni is currently a senior advisor to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was instrumental in creating the University’s Institute for Cell Engineering. Dr. Zerhouni received his medical degree at the University of Algiers School of Medicine and completed his residency at the John Hopkins School of Medicine.

Dr. Ahmed Zewail is the Linus Pauling Chair Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology and Director of the Institute’s Physical Biology Center for Ultrafast Science and Technology. Dr. Zewail was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1999 for his pioneering work in femtoscience, which allowed observation of exceedingly rapid molecular transformations. Most recently, Dr. Zewail was appointed to the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The envoys will be supported by new embassy officers who will also engage with international partners on the full range of environmental, scientific and health issues, from climate change and the protection of oceans and wildlife to cooperation on satellites and global positioning systems. They will work with multilateral institutions, non-governmental organizations and private sector partners to promote responsible environmental governance, foster innovation, and increase public engagement on shared environmental and health challenges.

Briefing En Route Cairo

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs

Cairo, Egypt

November 3, 2009

MR. CROWLEY: Just to kind of give you a little bit of a sense of when we land in Cairo, George Mitchell will just have flown over from Amman, Jordan. He’ll come on the airplane, and the Secretary and he will spend a few minutes comparing notes on what each has done since we last saw them Saturday night. George stayed in Jerusalem, had some additional meetings with Israeli officials on Monday, and then traveled over to Amman and – for meetings with Jordanian officials.

From our standpoint, Egypt has a 30-year history of direct involvement in peace in the Middle East going back to the historic treaty of 1979. So from the Secretary’s point of view, given that Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit was not able to come to the Forum for the Future – he was hosting some Iraqi officials in Cairo – that we thought it was just very important that before leaving the region that we touch base with one of the key players in the peace effort.

So the Secretary will first meet with General Suleiman, the national security advisor to President Mubarak. He has been focused on the reconciliation effort among the Palestinians, and he’ll have the opportunity to update us on his efforts. Then the meeting will be joined by Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, and then they’ll have dinner, and then tomorrow morning before we depart Cairo for home, the Secretary will meet with President Mubarak and I think there’ll be a press availability for all of you before we head back to the States.

QUESTION: Sorry. You were talking about the meetings that Senator Mitchell had. Can you tell us who all he met with? I understand King Abdullah. Did he meet with Abu Mazen again? And what happened differently than in the meeting with – in Abu Dhabi with the Secretary?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not aware that he met with Abu Mazen. I believe he did meet with King Abdullah. I have not gotten a readout, to be honest with you, on what they discussed.

QUESTION: P.J., this may seem obvious, but can we – do you – the totality of what the Secretary is saying recently about how positive it is for Israel to offer a halt to settlements and no more expropriations, can we deduce from that that part of what’s going on here is she’s asking the Palestinians to drop the precondition and to consider what Israel has done as important and something that they can sell as a freeze to their public and get on with the peace talks? Is that what she’s doing?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me start from a different place and come back to that. As we’ve said throughout the trip, there’s clearly a gap between the two parties. We’ve been encouraging for several weeks now for negotiations to begin as soon as possible. That remains our hope. So on the standpoint, we’re simply trying to chip away at this gap. And as she has said yesterday and today, any steps that we feel narrow this gap and move the parties forward to a negotiation we see as a positive development.

So certainly, she – in her meeting with President Abbas the other day, she suggested very directly that, in our view, his best interest is to get to negotiations as soon as possible. And obviously, in her meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, while their offer falls short of what we had suggested, obviously that is, in her view – the word again – unprecedented. And so – but certainly, we’ll have the opportunity with President Mubarak to compare notes on – he’s a very adroit reader of the parties. He’s had his own interaction. President Mubarak has a very good working relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

QUESTION: Just as a follow, so is it too strong for us to report that she’s become an advocate for them dropping the precondition?

MR. CROWLEY: Let me get there a different way. We do not think that there should be preconditions to negotiations, and we do not think – and we believe that it – that both parties will be best served by getting into negotiations as quickly as possible. But we do understand how the settlement issue is important to the Palestinians. It’s important to the Israelis. It’s important to others in the region. And what we’re trying to do, what we were doing in our consultations with various leaders in Morocco is to try to just figure out what is the best way forward. How can we help move the parties towards the start of negotiations? So I wouldn't – I just wouldn't say it as directly as that, but our view is, on the one hand, there should be no preconditions. On the other hand, we want to see negotiations start as quickly as possible, and we’re just simply trying to see how we can move the two closer to where they feel comfortable with making that decision.

QUESTION: Two questions. One, the Palestinians say that it’s not a precondition that they’re putting to restart the talks. They’re simply saying Israel has to fulfill its obligations under the Roadmap, and if they can’t even do that, why should we sit down to talk to them? But another question is you’ve said several times that you’re looking at creative ideas to kickstart this process. Can you tell us a little bit more? I mean, what is the way around this issue of settlement freeze? It’s – neither side is really budging enough to satisfy the other.

MR. CROWLEY: I suppose I would just say this will take political courage on both sides. These are very difficult issues. As the Secretary has reflected at various times, they’ve been close before and for whatever reason, or a combination of circumstances, they’ve just never been able to get over the finish line. So this is a – I mean, there are specific technical issues involved here. They’re well known. But this is also a political challenge, and so it does take what kind of confidence-building measures can we establish that, whether or not they’re perfect – and the Secretary has said again today in the interviews – we can’t – in this process, you can’t afford to make perfect an obstacle to the very good. So if you take absolute positions, then it’s unlikely that negotiations are going to start. We feel very strongly that both parties are best served by getting to negotiation, putting all of these issues on the table. And if you get to an agreement, then you’ve solved – you have, in fact, solved these various issues, including settlements, including borders, including refugees, and obviously including Jerusalem.

So I’m not sure I can answer it any – in a different way, but to the extent that we can take steps, encourage them to take steps that then give them confidence, provide some momentum to this effort that gets them to a point where they might say it’s not everything we were looking for, but it’s enough, there’s enough of an investment or they’re beginning to have enough confidence that the dynamic will begin to – they’ll see the dynamic as constructive. So we’ll be looking at a variety of ways that increase the interaction between the parties in some form, find ways that they can begin to address the issues. If we can do that, then we think that at some point baby steps then create a momentum of their own and the effort can pick up steam. So we recognized coming into the region that things have stalled, and we’re just looking – keep looking to see how we can begin to create some forward momentum again.

QUESTION: P.J., you mentioned that General Suleiman will be – is focusing a lot on this issue of Palestinian reconciliation and unity government. Does – do you have any particular message that you will be giving him on that issue?

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think so. We have a fairly clear stated position, which is we look for whatever combination of circumstances make negotiation more feasible and success more likely. Clearly, you have a situation now where you have a divided Palestine between the West Bank and Gaza. There’s a – obviously, the president, Abu Mazen, has requested of his electoral body to evaluate whether elections are even feasible at this point in time given the situation on the West Bank and Gaza. And I think they’re due to report back to him sometime in the next couple of weeks.

A national – a government of national unity, we feel would be clearly more effective. But obviously, that government would – has to be guided by the well-established Quartet principles fundamentally including recognizing Israel’s right to exist. But – so we will be comparing notes with General Suleiman on where the reconciliation process stands, and then charting out how that fits into some of the other pieces of the puzzle that we currently see.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask – I mean, given all the difficulties over the Goldstone report which you have talked about, plus the – on both sides, and the challenges that are coming up with the planned Palestinian election, tell us what is the real feasibility of anything happening before January, and to what extent is it taking all of your effort to simply just keep this alive?

QUESTION: Why not wait?

QUESTION: Yeah, and that’s the other question. Why not wait, as Jay said?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the Palestinian Authority that sorts themselves out of it because it’s so fluid?

QUESTION: It’s its life support.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, on the first question, I don’t want to get ahead of the Palestinian electoral bodies. I mean, they’re evaluating the feasibility of elections under the current circumstances. They could come back and say, look, Hamas refuses to even hold it in Gaza. So let’s wait and see. That’s a pretty effective body. Let’s wait and see what their determination is.

On the other issue, Jay, I just think those who are experienced in these issues, waiting is never a good thing. I mean, we always carry a sense of urgency into the Middle East because if there’s a vacuum, there are lots of spoilers very willing to take advantage of that vacuum. Sometimes the effort has an impact in and of itself. As you – it does give people a sense of hope that there’s something better out there. In the absence of that hope, we too often in the past have seen events spiral into violence. And so with so much unresolved, we just think that this is part of the commitment that the Obama Administration made that they would tackle this issue on day one. And so this is just – this is a continuation of that because we just think that without this effort, it’s likely that things will go from difficult to worse.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: There is value in having a process, even though sometimes it will advance more rapidly and sometimes it will advance at a snail’s pace.

QUESTION: I was just wondering – I mean, Middle East peace talks have taken place often over the last few years, and most people agree that both parties know what the final settlement is going to look like, what the deal is really going to look like. It’s just about making it happen and crossing that finish line. Has the time come for Washington to say to put a deal on the table, say okay guys, come to the table, this is what we’re going to negotiate, just come and sit down, enough of all this going back and forth about settlements and et cetera, et cetera?

MR. CROWLEY: We have constructed this phase to have discussions with the parties to see what they might be able to put forward together with other countries in the region and to see if that combination of confidence-building measures would get the parties to negotiation. That’s still where we are. And as the President said, as the Secretary reported to the President a couple of weeks ago, there has been some progress, but clearly, at this point, not enough. I think that's part of why the Secretary is here. She wanted to look Prime Minister Netanyahu in the eye, face to face. She wanted to look President Abbas in the eye, face to face. She wanted to talk directly to key players in the region, as she will President Mubarak tomorrow morning. And then based on these discussions, we'll say is there still potential in this current structure or do we need to look at other alternatives. They are available. But I think for the moment, we will – we're going to keep on this path as long as we think it has promise.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I'm sorry, so you're actually opening up the possibility that she's going to – that the result of this analysis and these consultations might be that there is not hope in this particular way you're doing it now, that there might be a better way to do it? So I didn't realize you were even thinking of maybe scrapping this (inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: Let's not leap ahead of ourselves. I mean, we're still on the path we've been on for several months, dealing directly with the Palestinians, the Israelis, working the various countries in the region. We think we've pocketed some actions that countries are willing to take if the parties get to negotiation. We want to see the parties get to negotiation as quickly as possible. And if this particular path we don’t think can get there, then we'll look at other opportunities.

I mean, clearly, as the Secretary said, we believe the only way to solve these issues is through a negotiation. And only through a negotiation will you get to the aspirations of the two sides – security on the one hand and a state on the other hand. The United States has in the past put forward its ideas to the parties. But I don't want to – we're on this current path. I don't want to project too far ahead.

QUESTION: P.J., it's pretty clear what you're asking the Palestinians is to drop the demand for a freeze. Are you making an analogous demand to the Israelis? What are you asking them to do or to sacrifice, specifically right now, to get to negotiations? And – well, let's just leave it at that.

MR. CROWLEY: I think I'll defer and not do the negotiation in public. I mean, that's one of the reasons George Mitchell stayed behind is to continue the conversation with the Israel side on the ideas that they have put forward and to see what else might be there. And we've had the same – similar conversations with various leaders in the region. But we think we've closed the gap some in these last few days coming up. And – but that gap is still there, so there's still more work to be done.

QUESTION: Can you just give us a readout on her bilat with the Libyan and give us the spelling of his name?

MR. CROWLEY: Hold on a second. All right. We'll branch off a little bit. She did two bilaterals this morning. The first was with Foreign Minister Frattini of Italy. They talked about three subjects – the situation in Afghanistan, the Middle East peace, and Iran.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Iran.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me – the vast majority of the discussion was on Afghanistan. Obviously, the Italians have some efforts that they're already doing, and they kind of traded ideas on what the international community can do specifically on building different kinds of capacity within Afghanistan as the new government takes office, things like the rule of law. The Secretary obviously mentioned the importance of security forces, judges, and so forth. So it's just simply now you're beginning to get – we are in that transition period where – now it's – and as – I mean, you heard from the Secretary in terms of raising our expectations in terms of the performance of the Afghan Government.

I won't speak for the Italian Government, but they were also just trading some ideas on how the international community can be supportive of a Palestinian Authority from a – in terms of helping build further technical capacity within the PA in support of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.

On Iran, I think it was mostly the Secretary just reporting on our view of the current situation, and quite honestly, it tracked, in fact, very directly to what she said to you all last night.

And then she met with Foreign Minister Musa Kusa -- M-u-s-a, K-u-s-a – who's a – he's a graduate of Michigan State University. At one point, he said, Spartans and gave a thumbs up.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Wasn't Musa Kusa indicted for terrorism at one point? Can you check, because was the intelligence chief before he became the foreign minister?

QUESTION: I thought he was indicted for killing Americans.

QUESTION: Were you going to tell us about this? Can I have the next question?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why was this not on the schedule and why was there no photo opportunity of this?

MR. CROWLEY: The short answer is it happened almost – let me back up. I mean, we had a limited time and we had a number of potential candidates for bilats. And in some cases, there were a couple countries that we were looking at bilats. And for example, and – but the Secretary was able to have pull-asides during the GCC meeting, for example. I mean, Libya is a country that we are – we have an emerging relationship with. And we think it's best to continue talking to them and seeing where we can continue to advance the relationship.

And that – but I mean, it was something that – this was just a – kind of like a target of opportunity where the ministers found themselves with a similar hole and they got pulled into a room and sat for about 15 minutes.

QUESTION: Did they discuss the Lockerbie bomber's recent release back home?

MR. CROWLEY: I was in the meeting; that did not come up. They --

QUESTION: She didn't bring it up? I mean, you guys – excuse me, sorry. I mean, you and Ian were having to brief for about 10 days straight to us. Every single day we were asking you – hammering you guys with questions about the seeming welcome parade that he got and how upset people were about that, and you guys kept saying how upset the U.S. was about that. She didn't bring that up when she had an opportunity?

MR. CROWLEY: We didn't bring up the tent either. (Laughter.) Sorry.

QUESTION: The tent's a little bit less of foreign policy issue.

MR. CROWLEY: No, the – I mean, Libya has a perspective on the region. They have been very helpful and integrally involved in developments in Sudan, so we did talk about Sudan, talked about Darfur. There has been cooperation from the countries on counterterrorism. And they continue to talk about advancing our relationship. But it was about a 10- or 15-minute meeting.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Sorry, you just said it was only 10 or 15 minutes. Was that the first time (inaudible)?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: I'll check.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Yes, that's the first time that they've met.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Is the Secretary talking with the President by phone during this?

MR. CROWLEY: We're staying in close contact with the White House throughout this, but I can't say that she has talked to the President. But I'll double check that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: I think – I don't think so, other than the press conference.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: Tonight, I think, you go relax in the hotel, and we go to dinner. But we'll see you in the morning. Okay.

But just to close the loop, obviously, while the issue of Megrahi did not come up, we – our views on that have not changed and our view – the Libyans understand our concerns very, very well. The Libyans understand our concern about Megrahi very, very well.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR. CROWLEY: It did not come up.

# # #

Remarks at the Forum for the Future

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Marrakech, Morocco

Remarks in Arabic | French | Indonesian | Russian | Swahili | Turkish | Urdu

SECRETARY CLINTON: So it is a pleasure to join you for this discussion, and I especially recognize the significance of having governor – government ministers and civil society leaders talking together about these issues of common concern. That may be too rare at sight, but it shouldn’t be, because our goal is to listen, learn, and discover new ways that we can work as partners for the good of the people that we represent.

Like all of you, I have experienced firsthand the warm hospitality and openness of the Moroccan people. And yesterday, I had the opportunity in a meeting with King Mohammed VI to express my appreciation for the progress that Morocco is achieving; in particular, the reforms that have granted new freedom to women who now bring their considerable talents to strengthening democratic institutions, accelerating economic growth, and broadening the work of civil society.

On a previous visit to this beautiful country 10 years ago, I had the opportunity to meet with many of the citizens of Morocco. I remember well having a chance to listen to an illiterate father who endorsed his young daughter’s dream of becoming a doctor and meeting devout women who had risen up to become advocates for human rights on local councils. Examples like this remind us there is much in Morocco’s experience that we can look to guide our efforts today.

Five months ago in Cairo, President Obama called for a new beginning between the United States and Muslim communities around the world – a relationship that is comprehensive rather than focused on a few political and security issues, a relationship based on partnership between people as well as government, and a relationship that lasts for the long term. Those were some of the important words that President Obama spoke in Cairo, and his speech generated a great deal of enthusiasm around the world. Many people heard his call and asked, what can we do; what can you, the United States do; how will President Obama’s vision bear out in a new approach to U.S. policy; and how will that new approach translate into meaningful changes in people’s everyday lives?

As President Obama and I believe, it is results, not rhetoric, that matter in the end. Economic empowerment, education, healthcare, access to energy and to credit, these are the basics that all communities need to thrive. And the United States seeks to pursue these common aspirations through concrete actions. We know that true progress comes from within a society and cannot be imposed from the outside, and we know that change does not happen overnight. So we will not focus our energies on one-time projects, but we will seek to work with all of you in government and in civil society to try to build local capacity and empower local organizations and individuals to create sustainable change.

I have asked our Embassy to engage with local communities to solicit ideas for how the United States could be a better partner. I also appointed the first-ever U.S. Special Representative to Muslim communities. The ideas we have heard have helped to shape our plan. Farah Pandith, our new Special Representative, is traveling widely and listening and coming back and expressing the concerns that she has heard from those who are living and working for a better life.

Now, we are focused on three broad areas where we believe U.S. support can make a difference. The first comes from the work and research that has been done over many years. When you ask people in all countries in this region or anywhere in the world what is the biggest concern you have and what do you want to see that happens differently in the future, the answer overwhelmingly is “I want a better job. I want rising income. I want to give my family, especially my children, more opportunities.” It cuts across every society no matter where that society is.

I often say that while talent is universal, opportunity is not. And so we are committed to building ladders of opportunity to help develop the enormous talents that reside in the people of this region. Early next year, the President will host an entrepreneurship summit in Washington to convene people focused on creating small businesses, expanding their businesses, taking the talent that they have and translating it into income generations to assist their families.

We have launched a website for this summit. It is www.entrepreneurship.gov/summit. And I invite you to submit the names for delegates that could possibly benefit from coming to this summit, and please provide your comments on topics for the agenda. Because this summit is part of a broader effort to expand support for entrepreneurship in the region, including by establishing new business development centers. It is also my hope that together, we can launch a virtual entrepreneur network that connects the range of people engaged in such activities in the region and even beyond.

There are so many good ideas that die because the conditions are not right for bringing those ideas to market. There are so many people who work so hard every day that they can’t realize the benefits of that hard work to the extent that they should. Now we already, as you know, give billions of dollars in ongoing direct aid programs in this region, ranging from a community’s livelihood program in Yemen to a youth employment program in Jordan to our work here in Morocco.

We have invested $700 million in Morocco through a Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. And this is an approach that we are working on that grows and has a partnership between our government and the government of people of a country – in this case, Morocco – where we say we’re not here to tell you what you need from us; we’re here to ask you what we can do to help you realize your own goals. In this case, we are supporting to two agricultural sectors – fruit tree farms and small-scale fisheries – as well as artisan craft and strengthening financial services and enterprise support. Over and over, we hear from small and medium-sized businesses that cannot get the financial assistance, they can’t get the technical support that would grow their business. So working with the Government of Morocco, we are hoping to really help to see blossom a lot more economic activity at the lower level that will then, from the bottom up, build prosperity.

Our second area will be advancing science and technology, something that we have heard from many of you, to help create jobs and to meet global challenges. It’s not something you don’t know; it is your history. But it was the Islamic world that led the way in science and medicine. It was the Islamic world that paved the way for much of the technology and science that we now take for granted. And now we face global challenges. How do we address water issues? How do we solve the climate crisis? How do we eradicate disease? Well, we want to look to your societies and we want to help Muslim majority communities develop the capacity to meet economic, social and ecological challenges through science, technology, and innovation.

The State Department has established a science envoys program, and I’m pleased to announce today that the first envoys will be three of America’s leading scientists: Dr. Bruce Alberts, a former president of our National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Elias Zerhouni, a former director of our National Institutes of Health; and Dr. Ahmed Zewail, the Nobel Prize-winning chemist. Each of these men has agreed to travel to North Africa, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia to fulfill President Obama’s mandate to foster scientific and technological collaboration. The State Department will also expand positions for environment, science, technology, and health officers at our embassies. To finance these solutions, the United States Overseas Private Investment Corporation known as OPIC is launching a technology and innovation fund.

Our third area of engagement is education. Last week, I announced our support for a new program for higher education in Pakistan. We have also begun a program to support partnership between U.S. community colleges and institutions in Muslim communities to share knowledge and to train students for good jobs. We are expanding our scholarship opportunities, particularly for underserved secondary school students. One of our most successful education programs is called Access. It provides English language instructions to bright students in poor communities. I am personally committed to this program, and I look for ways to provide additional support, because I have seen firsthand its power.

Earlier this year, I visited an Access classroom in Ramallah. I walked into an enthusiastic discussion of Women’s History Month. These were students who did not come from educated families, but they were students with the same ambition and motivation that we heard described by our colleague, the Palestinian foreign minister, about his own son. We want to create more opportunities for students like these to fulfill their God-given potential.

And this points to a related priority – the empowerment of women. I have said, as some of you know, for many years, and President Obama said it in Cairo, no country can achieve true progress or fulfill its own potential when half of its people are left behind. When little girls are not given the same opportunities for education, we have no idea what we are losing out on because they’re not going to be able to contribute to the growth and the development of their countries.

The United States has named our first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Ambassador Melanne Verveer. We strongly support the call made at last year’s Forum for the Future for the creation of a regional gender institute to help advance women’s empowerment across the board politically, economically, educationally, legally, socially, and culturally. And we look forward to working with other governments and civil societies to launch this initiative soon. And we will provide initial funding to make it a priority.

We seek to support civil society efforts worldwide because we believe that civil society helps to make communities more prosperous and stable. It helps to drive economic growth that benefits the greatest number of people. And it pushes political institutions to be agile and responsive to the people they serve. So the United States is launching an initiative called Civil Society 2.0. This organized effort will provide new technologies to civil society organizations. We will send experts in digital technology and communications to help build capacity.

Now, these are some of the ways that the United States is pursuing President Obama’s vision for a new relationship. Our work is based on empowering individuals rather than promoting ideologies; listening and embracing others’ ideas rather than simply imposing our own; and pursuing partnerships that are sustainable and broad-based. We believe that despite our differences, there is so much more that unites us. Fathers and mothers everywhere want safety and opportunity for their daughters and sons. People everywhere want to have a role in the decisions that affect them, to express their needs to their leaders to be heard, and to help chart their own futures.

I also want to make clear that the United States is committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. I know this is a matter that is of grave and pervasive concern among the countries represented here, but even far beyond this region. We are committed to a two-state solution, and we are determined and persistent in the pursuit of that goal. It is important that we all work toward that objective. And I think that does require that all parties should be careful about what we say, the kind of recriminations that are so understandable, but we need to work together in a constructive spirit toward this shared goal of a comprehensive peace.

I believe very strongly that it is attainable. I believe that President Obama’s commitment is understood. And I believe that with your support, we can find a way through the difficult and tangled history that too often prevents us from making progress on this most important issue. As leaders of countries that have a direct stake and care deeply about all of the final status issues that must be resolved, I would just ask you to think about how we can each demonstrate the commitment that is necessary for us to go forward.

Now, we can maintain an allegiance to the past, but we cannot change the past. No matter what we say about it, it is behind us. Or we can work together and follow the vision and the inspiration of President Obama to help shape a future that will be so much better for the children of both the Palestinians and the Israeli families. I am hopeful we can succeed in creating that better world together, because I know what could lie ahead for us if we do.

And I thank you for having a forum about the future, because that is what we have to determine together. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here to build on the vision of the President’s speech in Cairo, but to go to the concrete actions with specific results that are necessary, whether it is making peace, creating jobs, or educating our children so that the people we represent can see their lives improving, because at the end of the day, that is what we are all committed to try to achieve. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Secretary Clinton Announces Civil Society 2.0 Initiative to Build Capacity of Grassroots Organizations

Marrakech, Morocco

November 3, 2009

In her remarks today to the Forum for the Future, Secretary Clinton announced Civil Society 2.0, which will help grassroots organizations around the world use digital technology to tell their stories, build their memberships and support bases, and connect to their community of peers around the world.

Building the capacity of grassroots civil society organizations will enable them to do the work that, in the past, Western NGOs and governments have done. With increased capacity, communities are better able to initiate, administer and sustain their
own programs and solutions to shared problems.

“Civil Society 2.0” includes the following components:

1. Deploying a team of experienced technologists to work with civil society organizations around the globe to provide training and support to build their digital capacity. The competencies developed in the trainings will include:
   • How to build a website
   • How to blog
   • How to launch a text messaging campaign
   • How to build an online community
   • How to leverage social networks for a cause
2. Partnering these technologists with local civil society organizations and governments to develop and implement
   technology-based solutions to local problems.
3. Publishing interactive “how to” programs and curriculum online to help organizations that do not have access to in-person assistance.
4. Creating a curated open platform that allows any citizen or company to develop, share or suggest content for the curriculum.
5. Allocating $5 million in grant funds for pilot programs in the Middle East and North Africa that will bolster the new media and networking capabilities of civil society organizations and promote online learning in the region.

The United States is a strong supporter of civil society around the world. Civil society activists and organizations work to improve the quality of people’s lives and protect their rights, hold leaders accountable to their constituents, shine light on abuses in both the public and private sectors, and advance the rule of law and social justice. They are key partners for progress.

The Forum for the Future is a joint civil society initiative of the countries of the Broader Middle East and North Africa region (BMENA) and the Group of Eight (G8). It brings together leaders from government, civil society and the private sector to exchange ideas and form partnerships to support progress, reform, and expanded opportunities for the people of the region.

Forum for the Future and Examples of U.S. Support for Civil Society

Marrakech, Morocco

November 3, 2009

The Forum for the Future is a joint civil society initiative of the countries of the Broader Middle East and North Africa region (BMENA) and the Group of Eight (G8). It brings together leaders from government, civil society and the private sector to exchange ideas and form partnerships to support progress, reform, and expanded opportunities for the people of the region.

BMENA participants are Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen.

The G8 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The BMENA initiative addresses many of the same themes President Obama articulated in his Cairo speech – including public-private partnerships – and it is a natural partner for making progress in key areas – including economic opportunity, education, good governance, human rights, and women’s empowerment. It places particular emphasis on increasing opportunity for the youth of the region.

The United States is a strong supporter of civil society around the world. Civil society activists and organizations work to improve the quality of people’s lives, solve community problems, protect their rights, hold leaders accountable to their constituents, shine light on abuses in both the public and private sectors, and advance the rule of law and social justice. They are key partners for progress.

In her remarks to the Forum for the Future, Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to supporting civil society around the world, and announced Civil Society 2.0, an initiative to help grassroots organizations use digital technology to tell their stories, build their memberships and support bases, and connect to their community of peers around the world.

Other examples of U.S.-BMENA partnerships to support civil society follow.

• 2009 BMENA Civil Society Forum for the Future local grants program -- These specialized local grants are intended for civil society participants to be able to realize goals identified and discussed at the Forum. They will help sustain the momentum and role of civil society in the Forum process.
• Initial Funding for the BMENA Gender Institute -- The Institute, based in the region, will make grants, conduct research, and promote scholarship related to gender issues and encourage active participation of diverse groups.
• Seed Program for a Women's Entrepreneurship Center in the UAE -- This project trained a core team of Emirati businesswomen on business development practices.
• Awareness Campaign: Corporate Governance in Tunisia -- The Arab Institute for Business Leaders worked to develop a corporate governance awareness campaign.
• Empowering Arab Women through Literacy -- A non-formal, integrated education kit in Arabic geared towards illiterate and semi-literate women in the Arabic-speaking World.
• Parent-Teacher Council Reform in Oman -- Community Links helped to form and activate ten model Parent-Teacher Councils in various regions throughout Oman.

For more information, visit: http://www.maec.gov.ma/future2009/en/default.htm

Remarks With Moroccan Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi-Fihri

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Marrakech, Morocco

FOREIGN MINISTER FASSI-FIRHI: (Via interpreter) In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, first of all, I wish to apologize in my name and on behalf of my colleague, the Honorable Secretary of State, for this delay over which we had no control, considering that we have had many bilateral and regional meetings.

So we shall now convene the Forum for the Future. However, beforehand, I wish on behalf of His Majesty’s government, express our heartfelt and earnest gratitude to the Honorable Speaker. Secretary of State wanted to confer a bilateral dimension by honoring us and gracing us with her presence here in the Kingdom of Morocco. And effectively, the Secretary of State entertained meetings with His Majesty, The King today in Ouarzazate, as you all know, and also with me before and after the said meeting.

First of all, we have resolved to give a strong impetus to our bilateral relations, traditional relations of friendship and mutual understanding that were given strong impetus under the Clinton Administration. And I would say that ever since, our relations have continued to grow. However, today, we stand ready to give it further impetus so as to deepen and strengthen our partnership and to give a new dimension to our strategic political dialogue between Rabat and Washington with regard to what has taken place within the African continent as a whole, within North Africa as well as in the Arab Maghreb and also in the Middle East and in other areas where we are facing issues of great importance.

And I also wish, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, to express the extent to which we give great importance to what – through the actions and deeds of – and the positions of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton so as to (inaudible) our bilateral and multilateral positions. And we also observe and keep a close eye on the importance of investing further our energy in entertaining issues of importance to our region and to the Middle East.

So these are my words as I have spoken before I give you the floor to ask your questions, and with a particular focus to the decision and the resolve – the resolution that was made during the bilateral meeting between the Secretary of State and His Majesty, The King in terms of strengthening our bilateral relations.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister Fassi-Fihri. I appreciate the very positive day that we have had here in Morocco. On a personal note, it is wonderful to be back in this country, a country with such extraordinary history and culture, and to be here this time representing President Obama and the United States as Secretary of State.

Many of you know that Morocco was the very first nation to recognize the United States. And our Treaty of Peace and Friendship has been in force since 1787, making ours the longest unbroken treaty relationship in my country’s history. And the people of the United States are proud of our friendship with the Moroccan people and we are grateful for what this partnership has accomplished for more than two centuries, and we look forward to the future.

This morning, the foreign minister and I had a very productive conversation about a range of issues, including our shared goal of strengthening stability and prosperity throughout North Africa and the Middle East. I’m looking forward to participating tomorrow in the Forum for the Future, and I look forward also to working with the foreign minister on the issues that come from this forum.

The Forum for the Future is a gathering dedicated to creating the broadest possible network of partnerships in pursuit of common goals. It brings together not only government ministers, but representatives from civil society. And I am grateful too that we will work on the important issues confronting us – from regional security, economic development, religious tolerance, social reforms – because none of these goals can be accomplished through laws or governments alone. They require a broad coalition of likeminded people who translate laws into lasting change.

I particularly appreciate the opportunity I had this afternoon to meet with His Majesty King Mohammed VI. Like many countries, the United States has watched with great admiration the progress that Morocco has achieved under his leadership and the democratically elected Government of Morocco. Together, under His Majesty’s leadership, this government has passed reforms that have made new opportunities available to people who didn’t have the chance before to participate fully in the political, social, and economic life of their country.

It will not surprise you to hear that I want particularly to praise the reforms that have granted new freedoms to women who are now bringing their talents and energy to bear in strengthening democratic institutions, accelerating economic growth, and broadening the work of civil society. These opportunities have flourished for the Moroccan people amid an environment of religious tolerance, another example of how government leadership with the support of civil and religious institutions can create conditions in which people and communities thrive.

During my meeting with His Majesty this afternoon in Ouarzazate, I witnessed the launch of the King’s renewable energy initiative, an infrastructure program that will include American solar and steam technology. I know I speak for the American scientists and entrepreneurs who design these technologies in saying how happy we are that their work can help bring clean energy to Morocco. We also discussed the Free Trade Agreement, the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact. Our collaboration includes the Peace Corps as well as new entrepreneurial and economic initiatives, and we work together on counterterrorism, trying to stop the scourge of trafficking in drugs and persons, promoting human rights, and creating an atmosphere of regional stability.

So, Minister, I have come to Morocco to echo and amplify President Obama’s message of partnership and respect, and we will work together to advance our shared goals of security, prosperity, and opportunity. Much of what you have done can serve as a model for other nations, and I believe that this model can benefit people not only here in Morocco, but those who care about increasing the opportunities for a better life for all people. Thank you, sir.

FOREIGN MINISTER FASSI-FIRHI: Thank you very much. (Via interpreter) You may ask your questions now.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Thank you. (Inaudible), Mrs. Clinton, you have met with His Majesty the King this afternoon for a little over an hour. I wish to know what is it that you have talked about, and what is your assessment of the Moroccan experience in the area of democracy, human rights, and in governance? And these are the subjects to be addressed by the Forum of the Future in this present edition.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that Morocco has made significant progress in those three areas. I believe that there is more work to be done, but that is a challenge that faces many countries. But what is significant about Morocco and about the King’s leadership is the commitment that has been shown to the improvement of the lives of the Moroccan people.

I think that over the last 10 years, there has been a number of very important measurements of progress, and I discussed with His Majesty his hopes and his commitments to continuing the progress, to building on it; our bilateral relationship, which is very meaningful to both of our countries; how we can deepen and broaden our work together, which we are committed to doing, and the foreign minister and I have discussed our intention to do that. We spoke about some of the regional and international issues that are of concern to both of our nations.

It was a very substantive, productive conversation. It also had some personal elements to it because I was very pleased toward the end of my husband’s term in office to have us be able to host the then new King at the White House. And we know each other’s families. We have a friendship, and it is of great, great import to me.

So we had a very broad-ranging conversation and laid out a set of issues that we’re going to continue to work on. And I hope for signs of even more progress here in Morocco and more broadly.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, as part of its Mideast peace diplomacy, the Obama Administration has asked Arab governments to take some confidence-building steps toward Israel. A number of the governments represented here this week have said that your remarks in Jerusalem may have undermined that effort. I know you clarified those remarks this morning, but have you reissued your confidence-building appeal here in Marrakesh, and what response have you gotten? Also, your spokesman has just announced that you’ll be traveling to Egypt on Wednesday to meet with President Mubarak, and I wonder if you could tell us what you hope to accomplish during that visit.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Karen, none of the leaders here at all characterized what I said as in any way representing a change in position. They engaged with me at length about what it is that Israel is offering, why I believe it is unprecedented. We discussed how the position of the Obama Administration has not changed. We do not believe that settlements are legitimate. We have said that repeatedly, and we have made that clear to the Israelis, the Arabs, the Palestinians, and the world.

It is important, however, in any kind of discussion to get the facts out on the table. And I think a number of my counterparts were not aware that what the Israeli Government is offering would be an end to all new settlement activity in the West Bank, it would be an end to expropriation, it would mean an end to any permits or approvals. It is not enough. It is not what many people in the region and elsewhere would want to see, but it is fair to characterize it as unprecedented. And we discussed it, and I made clear that when we praise what the Palestinians do on security, it is meant to send a signal that progress is underway and it is progress toward a two-state solution. When I say that the Israeli Government is making an unprecedented offer, even though it is not what many would hope for, and even though our position remains the same that settlement activity is not legitimate, nevertheless, it holds out the promise of moving a step closer to a two-state solution.

So I think that our conversation was very, very open. It had – it touched on many aspects of not only the Israeli-Palestinian situation but other situation as well. And it kept coming back to what our goal is. Our goal is to give the aspirations of the Palestinian people a reality, namely their own state, and to have sovereignty and control over their future. That is my goal, that has been my goal for many years, and we’re going to continue to work toward achieving that goal.

With respect to your second question, we are continuing our consultations in the region. I had the opportunity to consult here with many counterparts from the greater region. Because of a predetermined commitment, neither the foreign ministers of Iraq or of Egypt were able to be here, so we will be going to Egypt to continue these consultations. And it evidences the very strong commitment that President Obama, Senator Mitchell, and myself have to this effort.

FOREIGN MINISTER FASSI-FIHRI: May I maybe, just on behalf of the Arab world, try to say to you that how we appreciate the role, key role, played by the new U.S. Administration, how we follow (inaudible) encourage what Madame Secretary of State did the last months and will continue to do. And naturally, His Majesty as the president of Jerusalem Committee in the context of OIC, and Morocco with its tradition, because we believe since a long time that the peace is possible and the vision of two states it’s the best things, and the negotiations will help to reach this important institutional goal. Then we have to continue and we are sure that thanks to this contact what we heard from Madame Secretary today and what we can also humbly contribute for, we will help each other for this important goal of peace between all Arabs and Israel.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, change of subject, if I may. During the past few years, the United States, just like other members of the Security Council, have characterized the Moroccan initiative for autonomy in the Sahara as being serious and credible. My question is: Does the Obama Administration stand by that position? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. Our policy has not changed, and I thank you for asking the question because I think it’s important for me to reaffirm here in the Morocco that there has been no change in policy.

MODERATOR: Last question maybe.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, regarding Iran, there’s increased concern that Iran is not going to follow through on the offer made by the United States and other members of the Security Council regarding the shipment of LEU outside of its borders. I was hoping you could give us some sense on what you discussed concerning Iran today and what measures are being discussed with members of the GCC and other Arab states about increasing pressure on Iran if they don’t come through going forward.

And for the minister, I would just hope we get some comment from you on the what the feeling is amongst the Arab states about the threat from Iran’s nuclear program, as it doesn't seem to be responding to international offers.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Jay. We had a very good discussion about Iran. I brought the GCC+3 members up to date. I explained that the P-5+1, including Russia and France and the United States, which are directly involved in the mechanics of this proposal, as well as the other members – China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and of course, the European Union – are absolutely united that we continue to press the Iranians to accept fully the proposal that has been made, which they accepted in principle. The IAEA continues to work with them to answer any questions that they have.

And we do not yet have a final disposition, but I want to reiterate that this is a pivotal moment for Iran. Acceptance fully of this proposal which we have put forth and which we are unified behind would be a good indication that Iran does not wish to be isolated and does wish to cooperate with the international community and fulfill their international responsibilities. And we urge Iran to accept the agreement as proposed because we are not altering it – it is the proposal that they agreed to in principle – so that we can move forward and work with Iran on a full range of issues, including but not limited to their nuclear program.

FOREIGN MINISTER FASSI-FIHRI: (Via interpreter) With regard to Iran, of course, Morocco says that this is an ancient civilization that has great regional importance, but at the same time we want for Iran to respect others and to entertain good relations unto others and also to comply with international conventions so that the entire region be able to enjoy peace and security that we give Iran the opportunity to take part in the joint effort to develop the region, this region that is, as you know, fraught with sensitivities – the Middle East.

I thank you all so much.

Secretary Clinton To Deliver Speech at the Forum for the Future on Tuesday November 3, 2009

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

November 2, 2009

Secretary Clinton will deliver remarks at the opening session of the Forum for the Future in Marrakech, Morocco at 4:00 am ET / 9:00 am LOCAL tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3, 2009. Video of the Secretary's remarks will be available shortly after the speech concludes.

The Forum for the Future is a joint civil society initiative of the countries of the Broader Middle East and North Africa region (BMENA) and the Group of Eight (G8). It brings together leaders from government, civil society and the private sector to exchange ideas and form partnerships to support progress, reform, and expanded opportunities for the people of the region.

The Secretary’s speech will reaffirm the commitment of the United States to broad engagement with Muslim communities around the world and outline concrete steps the United States is taking to follow up on the “New Beginning” that President Obama launched in Cairo.

###

Secretary Clinton on the Middle East

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Marrakech, Morocco

November 2, 2009

Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks Monday morning at a camera spray upon meeting with Moroccan Foreign Minister Fassi-Fihri in Marrakech, Morocco:

For 40 years, successive American administrations of both parties have opposed Israel’s settlement policy. That is absolutely a fact.

And the Obama Administration’s position on settlements is clear, unequivocal. It has not changed. And as the President has said on many occasions, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Now, the Israelis have responded to the call from the United States, the Palestinians and the Arab world to stop settlement activity by expressing a willingness to restrain settlement activity. They will build no new settlements, expropriate no land, allow no new construction or approvals.

And let me just say this offer falls far short of what we would characterize as our position, or what our preference would be. But if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth.

Let me take a step back because I want to put this into the broader context. I will offer positive reinforcement to the parties when I believe they are taking steps that support the objective of reaching a two-state solution.

I will also push them as I have in public and in private to do even more. And in my report to the President last month, I talked about Israeli willingness to restrain settlement activity as a positive step.

In the same report, I praised President Abbas’ leadership of the Palestinian Authority for their courage and the security measures on the West Bank. The steps being taken under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayed are also unprecedented and we have never seen such effective security. I have on many occasions going back – as you know in Sharm El Sheikh - praised the accomplishments that the Palestinian Authority has demonstrated in building, training, and reforming their security forces.

I told Prime Minister Netanyahu that these positive steps on the part of the Palestinians should be met by positive steps from Israel - movement and access, operations by the IDF and on Israeli security arrangements on the West Bank. Israel has done a few things in that regard but they need to do much more. And President Abbas has shown leadership and determination on this issue and Israel should reciprocate.

I just want to clarify that what we are trying to achieve is a two-state solution with a state that represents the aspirations of the Palestinian people – the sovereignty and to have control over their own future, and provide the security guarantees to Israel for their own future. That is my goal. And when either party takes any steps that looks like it moves us in the right direction – even if it is not what I would like or what I would prefer - I’m going to positively reinforce that.

This is an opportunity for both sides to try to move forward together, to get into negotiations, and to realize the goal that many of us around this table have supported and worked for for many years.

###

Remarks With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Jerusalem

MODERATOR: Good evening, and we welcome Secretary of State Clinton. We shall start with a few words, and then we’ll take two questions from each side. Prime Minister, please.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Clinton to Jerusalem. Welcome, Hillary. You are a great friend and a great champion of peace. I think that we owe a vote of thanks to you, to George Mitchell, to your staffs, and of course, to President Obama and the entire Obama Administration for the tireless efforts to re-launch the peace process – the peace process between us and the Palestinians, and between us and the Arab world – following the President’s vision of a regional peace.

We are eager to advance on both. We think that the place to resolve outstanding issues and differences of opinion is around a negotiating table. We think we should sit around that negotiating table right away. We’re prepared to start peace talks immediately. I think what we should do on the path to peace is to simply get on it and get with it. So I’m sure we’ll discuss these things and other things in the spirit of friendship between us and you, between Israel and the United States. Welcome to Jerusalem.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Prime Minister. It is a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Jerusalem and a great honor to be here as Secretary of State once again. And I look forward to our discussion, and I appreciate the very positive words about the need to get back into a negotiation that would be in the best interests of Israel and Israel’s security, as well as create a state for the Palestinian people. Both President Obama and I are committed to a comprehensive peace agreement because we do believe that it holds out the best promise for the security and future of Israel, and for the aspirations of the Palestinians.

So I’m looking forward to our discussion tonight. I know you’re someone who is indefatigable, so even though we’re starting our meeting so late, I have no doubt that it will be intense and cover a lot of ground. And I’m very much eager to begin those discussions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, do you think both sides should re-launch the peace process without any preconditions?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to see both sides begin as soon as possible in negotiations. We have worked – and of course, Senator Mitchell has worked tirelessly – in setting forth what are the approaches that each side wishes to pursue in order to get into those negotiations, so I’m not going to express my opinion as to whether or not there should be conditions. The important thing, as the prime minister just said, is to get into the negotiations. I gave the same message today when I met with President Abbas.

We know that negotiations often take positions that then have to be worked through once the actual process starts. I think the best way to determine the way forward is, as the prime minister said, get on the path.

MODERATOR: Mark.

QUESTION: Mark Landler, New York Times. Madame Secretary, when you were here in March on the first visit, you issued a strong statement condemning the demolition of housing units in East Jerusalem. Yet, that demolition has continued unabated, and indeed, a few days ago, the mayor of the city of Jerusalem issued a new order for demolition. How would you characterize this policy today?

For the prime minister, sir, there’s been increasing tension, as you know, around – surrounding the Temple Mount, some civil unrest in the streets. Every time the peace process has lagged, often matters have been settled through violence. Are you worried that we are heading into that phase?

And then a last question, if I may. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s the New York Times, for you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Dr. Abdullah’s aides in Kabul have confirmed that he’s not going to take part in the runoff. Are you concerned that a Karzai government elected without the benefit of a runoff, given all the fraud in the first round, will be lacking in legitimacy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say I have nothing to add to my statement in March. I continue to stand by what I said then.

With respect to Afghanistan and Dr. Abdullah’s decision, I think that it is his decision to make. Whatever went into that determination is obviously his choice. But I do not think it affects the legitimacy. There have been other situations in our own country as well as around the world where, in a runoff election, one of the parties decides, for whatever reason, that they are not going to go on. I do not think that that in any way affects the legitimacy. And I would just add that when President Karzai accepted the second round without knowing what the consequences and outcome would be, that bestowed legitimacy from that moment forward, and Dr. Abdullah’s decision does not in any way take away from that.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I’m concerned with the attempts to create provocations around the issue of the Temple Mount. There are parties who are trying to do that. I assure you that the Government of Israel is not one of them. There are also extraordinary falsifications. My staff decided to have a meeting, a free evening, a few weeks ago. They decided to have it in the Old City. In the David City there’s a little restaurant there. They said, “Could you come for dessert,” because I worked long hours. I said, “Sure, I’ll see what I can do. I don’t promise, but we’ll make the arrangements.”

Our security people went there. Within an hour, Palestinian news agencies carried the story that Netanyahu was coming to the Old City to burrow a new tunnel under the Temple Mount. So help me God, this became an issue of great consequence. There were rumors that the violence would break out, exactly as you said. Now, this is entirely false. I give that as one example. There are daily examples of this and daily actions by militants, particularly the militant Islamic radicals who are trying to stir up trouble on the Temple Mount.

We are going to continue our efforts to keep Jerusalem safe, open, quiet, accessible to all three great faiths – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And the city is now very robust. It’s got a lot of tourism, as you see in the entire area. And the best way to see what is happening there is to go for yourself. Go take a look. You’ll see. And you’ll see our actual policy in place. We want a peaceful Jerusalem without provocations on the Temple Mount or anywhere else.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you went to Abu Dhabi, and I believe you came up with not much from Abu Mazen, who is actually presenting Israel and the United States with lots of no’s. Also, United States is encountering many no’s from Iran. At the moment, it doesn't look like some arrangement is being made at the moment. What is your reaction to what – receiving the no’s from the Arab world?

And the same question, please, to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I believe that strategic patience is a necessary part of my job, and I view the conversations that we had this morning with President Abbas and his team as being very constructive and useful in continuing the move toward engagement that leads to negotiations. So if Senator Mitchell and I appear to be patient and persistent, it’s because we are. We think it’s worth being both.

With respect to Iran, there is not yet a final decision with respect to the Tehran research reactor. The important matter that I would underscore is the unity among the P-5+1, which includes not only the United States but the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and also the EU, in putting forth and in staying firm with this. The world is united in a view that Iran should not have or acquire nuclear weapons capacity. And our view is that we are willing to work toward creative outcomes like shipping out the low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed outside of Iran. But we’re not going to wait forever. Patience does have, finally, its limits. And it is time for Iran to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities to the international community, and accepting this deal would be a good beginning.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: You asked two questions, one on Iran and the other on the peace process. On Iran, I want to express our appreciation for the very clear stance adopted by President Obama that has united, as Secretary Clinton has just said, an international consensus that Iran must cease its efforts to become a nuclear military power. I think the fact that there has been unity that has not been seen for a long time on this position is something very valuable, very important. And I think it’s important not only for Israel, I think it’s important for the Middle East, for our region, for the peace of the world. So I want to commend the efforts of you and President Obama and the Western and other leaders have taken here to – on this issue that I think is central to the future of the world, to the future of peace.

As far as the question about the peace process is concerned, look, first let me, before you talk about the no’s, talk about the yes. And I want to put rhetoric aside and talk about facts. It’s a fact that since my government took office, we dismantled hundreds of earth blocks, checkpoints, facilitated movement in the Allenby Bridge, and eliminated a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to daily life and economic activity in the Palestinian Authority’s areas. And as a result, there’s been a Palestinian economic boom. That is a fact.

The second fact is that I gave a speech at Bar Ilan University in which I said that Israel will accept the vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. It wasn’t easy to do, but we did it. That is a fact.

The third fact is that we’ve been talking earnestly, openly, and transparently to the American Administration, and we’ve talked about measures that we can take to facilitate further the launching – the re-launching of the peace process. That is a fact.

The simple fact is this: We are willing to engage in peace talks immediately without preconditions. The other fact is that, unfortunately, the other side is not. It is asking and piling on preconditions that it never put on in the 16 years that we’ve had that the peace process since the annunciation of the Oslo Accords. There have not been these preconditions. It’s a change of Palestinian policy, and I hope they change back to the right thing, which is to get into the negotiating tent. We’re eager and sincere in our desire to reach an agreement to end this conflict. I happen to think that we’re able to do this, contrary to all the pessimists around us. But the only way we can get to an agreement is to begin negotiating, and that is something that we are prepared to do. That is a fact.

MODERATOR: Finally, Joe Klein from Time Magazine. Yes.

QUESTION: I’m tempted to ask why is this night different from all other nights --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Do you want us to burst into song? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes. For 40 years, we’ve seen American secretaries of state and Israeli prime ministers in a similar situation. Despite the prime minister’s optimism, the talks are stalled. The prospect of talks is stalled. And while you’ve said yes without preconditions to talks, so many of your – you’ve said no to a settlement freeze. And I wonder whether that would be open to negotiation.

And Madame Secretary, is the Obama Administration still in favor of a total freeze? And if not, what’s plan b?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Joe, the specific question you asked about the settlements also has to be fully factual. The fact of the matter is that we – I said we would not build new settlements, not expropriate land for addition for the existing settlements, and that we were prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements, but also one that would still enable normal life for the residents who are living there.

Now, there has not been in the last 16 years – not 40 years but 16 years, since the beginning of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – any demand every put not on restraint, but on any limitation on settlement activity as a precondition for entering negotiations. This is a new thing. Now, it’s true that you can take a new thing and you can repeat it ad nauseum for a few weeks and a few months, and it becomes something that is obvious and has been there all the time. It’s not been there all the time.

QUESTION: It was there in the first Bush Administration, right?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: No, there has not been a precondition for entering or continuing with the peace process between us and the Palestinians. There’s not been a demand coming from the Palestinians that said we will not negotiate with you unless you freeze all activity – something that is problematic in so many ways, judicial and in other ways. I won’t get into that. But this is a new demand. It’s a change of policy, the Palestinian policy. And it doesn't do much for peace. It doesn't work to advance negotiations. It actually – this uses a pretext, or at least does something as an obstacle that prevents the reestablishment of negotiations.

Now, mind you, the issue of settlements, the issue of territories, the issue of borders – these will be engaged in the negotiations, and they’ll have to be resolved for a peace agreement to be achieved. But you can’t resolve it in advance of the negotiations, and you certainly shouldn’t pile it on as a precondition.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would add just for context that what the prime minister is saying is historically accurate. There has never been a precondition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations. What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described – no new starts, for example – is unprecedented in the context of the prior two negotiations. It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.

But I think that where we are right now is to try to get into the negotiations. The prime minister will be able to present his government’s proposal about what they are doing regarding settlements, which I think when fully explained will be seen as being not only unprecedented but in response to many of the concerns that have been expressed. There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized. I mean, negotiation, by its very definition, is a process of trying to meet the other’s needs while protecting your core interests. And on settlements, there’s never been a precondition, there’s never been such an offer from any Israeli government. And we hope that we’ll be able to move in to the negotiations where all the issues that President Obama mentioned in his speech at the United Nations will be on the table for the parties to begin to resolve.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you very much.

# # #

Interview With Jim Sciutto of ABC

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Islamabad, Pakistan

October 30, 2009

QUESTION: Okay. So first off, the reaction in Pakistan to your comments yesterday – a little bit of shock, some anger. Though we know this has been the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community for some time, these are blunt things for America’s top diplomat to say. Was this an intentional message to the Pakistani Government to take on al-Qaida more directly, or was this the result of frustration after what you’ve heard here these last few days?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, it really was neither. It was part of the larger context of what my trip is about. I knew before I came, because I’ve been following this closely, that there was a lot of mistrust of the United States, of our intentions and our actions, coming out of the last eight years that had not been erased overnight because we elected a new president, even one who’s as popular as President Obama is here in Pakistan.

Yet I also believe that the relationship between our two countries is so critical – it’s critical for each of our security, it’s critical for our long-term strategic possibilities. And therefore, I wanted to spend three days, and I wanted to put myself in as many different settings as possible. So that’s what I’ve been doing, and I’ve answered all kinds of questions from the Pakistani press and the Pakistani public about their concerns, their fears about what we are up to.

But I wanted it to be clear that trust is a two-way street. There is a trust deficit. And when we arrested somebody, like we did recently, Zazi, who was trained in Pakistan at a training camp by al-Qaida, it’s not just our intelligence service or our government. The American people say, “Well, wait a minute, what’s going on here?”

But in the context of what’s happening now in Pakistan, I think it is an appropriate time to say, we applaud your resolve; you’re going after the Pakistan Taliban; you’ve gone after them in Swat successfully; you’re now going after them in South Waziristan. This is an incredibly important campaign, and the military sacrifice and the democratic government support is making a big difference.

But let’s remember that the Pakistan Taliban is part of a terrorist syndicate that is directed, funded, inspired by al-Qaida. And it will not be sufficient to achieve the level of security the Pakistanis deserve if we don’t go after those who are still threatening not only Pakistan, but Afghanistan and the rest of the world. And we wanted to put that on the table, and I think it was important that we did.

QUESTION: So it sounds like this was an intentional message.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s part of this relationship that I want to see develop where we have built up – we build up more trust because we don’t paper over the questions. They’re free to ask me about the Kerry-Lugar legislation, why it said the things it said, and I do my best to respond. But I want to have the kind of relationship where we really are talking honestly about everything between us, because there’s just too much at stake.

QUESTION: Do you believe the Pakistani Government is, in effect, harboring terrorists? Or is your message that they’re not being aggressive enough in seeking them out?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think that they are. I think that they have gone after the enemies who most directly threaten them, and I understand that priority. I mean, I think any country would do the same. But I think it would be a missed opportunity and a lack of recognition of the full extent of the threat if they did not realize that any safe haven anywhere for terrorists threatens them, threatens us, and has to be addressed. Let’s do what needs to be done – first at hand, go after those who are most directly threatening the state institutions and killing innocent people, like just happened in Peshawar. But then let’s turn around and together go after those who are still behind this terrorist syndicate.

QUESTION: You’ve heard animosity here. You’ve heard real doubts about America’s intentions. You’ve heard conspiracy theories. These are familiar points of view in this part of the world. Is this a result of the mountain America still has to climb in terms of its public image that existed already, or are you – is the U.S. having a fundamental problem getting its message out?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that we haven’t done as good a job as I wish we had in the past, having the kind of public diplomacy, people-to-people connection, and the sensitivity that comes with listening and consulting with people as opposed to just stating our opinion and kind of saying take it or leave it. I don’t think that’s always the best way to communicate.

But in the 21^st century, it’s a losing proposition. We’re not living in a time where you just talk government to government and expect everything to be taken care of. We’re living in a time where people have access to mountains of information, and if we don’t take that into account in our diplomacy and in our interactions with other countries and people, we’re not going to be as effective in communicating as I would like to see us.

So inheriting what we inherited, which you know very well was a lot of unfortunate feelings and attitudes that had been built up in people toward our country, we’re going at it sort of one by one. And part of the way I define my job is not just being confined to the government offices, but getting out into countries, listening to people. Again, I’m not going to satisfy every question that they have right off the bat; there’s just too much baggage that we’re carrying. But I’m going to keep trying, and I want, at least, people to go away saying, “Well, no American official has ever come and listened to us like this. They haven’t been willing to entertain that we had some concerns.”

And I have acknowledged that we’ve made mistakes, and I have no problem acknowledging that. I think it’s only fair. But I want to move beyond that. I don’t think we can have the kind of civilian and military, development and security relationship that we want to have unless we clear the air.

QUESTION: I want to talk about Afghanistan. I’ve just come here from there. And you’re aware this has been a very bad week.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: And each of those attacks symbolic of wider challenges here – the danger of IEDs, the vulnerability of the capital, Kabul. In your view, does the U.S. need a significant infusion of troops and a change in counterterrorist strategy, counterinsurgency strategy, in Afghanistan to stop from losing this war?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m not going to preempt the President’s decision. He has to make the decision about troop levels and the like. But let me just say this: No one should doubt our resolve. We are committed to going after the Taliban, and we are committed to working with the Afghan people and their government, both nationally and locally, to help them develop the capacity to protect themselves from this threat. Because we know – talking about public opinion – the people of Afghanistan do not want the Taliban back, but they do want security and they do want services that give them a chance to have a better and different future. And so we have to have an integrated civilian-military strategy, which is what the President announced back in March.

But at the time, he said, “We will reevaluate how we’re doing and where we’re going once the Afghan election is over.” And as you know, it’s not yet over, but hopefully soon will be, because our resolve is just as firm as ever. But let’s be honest, we have to take a hard look at how we are operationalizing our strategy on both the civilian and the military front. We’ve made some very important changes looking at Afghanistan and Pakistan together, integrating the civilian and military, appointing a special representative for both – Ambassador Holbrooke. We’ve sent a message that it’s not going to be just a repeat of the same old approach. We’re trying some different things, and when the President makes his decision, I think that will be evident.

QUESTION: In a word, is the U.S. losing the war in Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I don’t think so. But I do think that, as not only General McChrystal, but others have said, the Taliban has some momentum because it is easy to blow up things. Unfortunately, as we have seen in too many places over the last years, a very few people who are willing to die can do a lot of damage and take lives and property with them. And so what we have here is a dedicated band of people who are committed to trying to reverse the gains that the people of Afghanistan have made. I mean, you’ve seen it – I mean, more people going to school, particularly girls, more opportunities for people. There’s a lot of good things that have happened in the last eight years.

But we have to have a commitment from the international community matched by a commitment from the government and people of Afghanistan in order to turn the tables on the Taliban, to make sure that the people of Afghanistan are not intimidated into accepting their reign of terror.

QUESTION: Briefly on Iran, Iran it looks like, has now gone back on an agreement that its negotiators made in Geneva. Is that nuclear fuel transfer deal dead, in your view? And what does it mean? Does it mean a reassessment is necessary for the Administration’s reengagement policy with Iran?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jim, it’s not dead yet, because we have a solid, unified international community. And working with the International Atomic Energy Agency, we’re trying to clarify exactly what Iran will or will not do. I think the important story is that there’s absolute unity among all of us – the United Kingdom, obviously France, Germany, China, Russia, the United States, European Union – and we’re putting Iran to the test. They said they would agree in principle; let’s see if they will deliver.

QUESTION: Changing topic for a moment, David Plouffe’s book mentions a story about your potential selection as Obama’s vice president. Do you believe, as he says in his book, that your husband lost you that job?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) I have no idea. But I really am satisfied and happy to be doing what I’m doing, and I think Joe Biden’s doing a great job as Vice President. I’m not somebody who looks backwards; I look forward, and I’m very proud to be representing both President Obama and my country.

QUESTION: I want to ask you personally about your trip here. You mentioned in recent days how your daughter studied Islamic history.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Your own – you’re no newcomer to this part of this world. You have an appreciation for the culture, for the food, and you’re here on a listening tour, in effect. Are you frustrated with the level of animosity you’ve heard here, even in the context of sending billions of dollars this way, and the message that you’re trying to send here about long-term commitment and a change to the relationship, to be not just a counter-terror relationship? Are you personally frustrated at that – to hear that level of animosity wherever you go?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I’m not. I’m challenged by it, because I think we have our work cut out for us, which is why I’m here and why I’m engaging with so many different aspects of Pakistani society.

But I also think it’s important for us to put ourselves in the shoes of other people. And we can’t just reject out of hand the concerns that people have and expect them then to feel like they have a partner in us. And I think we could do a better job. We can be more sensitive and aware of some of the attitudes and expectations in this part of the world or any part of the world.

It’s so – I think that we are still coming to grips in our country with the new environment in which we operate. I’ll be going in a short time to Berlin for the commemoration of the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the wall. And we had a pretty clear idea of what our job was as a nation in the Cold War. And in the last 20 years, we’ve seen different approaches tried. And I think we’ve made some progress in having a clearer vision about how to deal in a multi-polar world as opposed to a bipolar world.

But the change in communication, the access to information that is at the fingertips of so many millions of people today, particularly young people, means that we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard of outreach and understanding as we go forward with what we think is in the American interest as well as what we hope is in the international interest.

So it matters now what students in a college in Lahore think, because they have access to being heard by their country. It matters what I hear from the business community or from others in civil society. And we’re just really coming to grips with what public diplomacy means in the 21^st century.

We did a good job during the Cold War in communicating behind the old Iron Curtain. We kept hope alive, so to speak. We gave people information they couldn’t get. And then we kind of got out of that business. We thought, “Oh, thank goodness, democracy won.” We had commentators that said, “It’s the end of history. It’s clear sailing.” And we didn’t really take into account the rise of the reactions to modernity, to the reversion to ideological and tribalistic and ethnic and other kinds of familiarity.

So we have our work cut out for us. So I’m challenged by it. But I think it’s important that we accept that we have to do a better job if we’re going to have the influence that I believe we should have because of what our country represents.

QUESTION: Did you believe that a year after – almost a year after coming into office, that the U.S. image would be in better shape than it was today, considering all the hope that Obama and you, your appointment, brought in this part of the world?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, but I think it is. I mean, I think that there are very few places where we haven’t made significant improvement in how we’re perceived. And that was a big part of the job in the beginning, to kind of clear the decks and the underbrush and get people to believe that we were well motivated, that we cared what they were thinking and doing. And now we have to work hard on the agenda that we’re putting forth.

QUESTION: Okay. I’m overtime, so I really enjoyed it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: So good to meet you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: My pleasure.

QUESTION: And I look forward to seeing you again, and I’ll --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good.

QUESTION: -- see you on the plane.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay. Thanks a lot, Jim.

# # #

Bombings in Baghdad

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

October 25, 2009

I want to personally express my heartfelt condolences to the victims of today’s savage attacks in Baghdad and for the tragic loss of so many Iraqi lives. I strongly condemn the bombings at the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and the headquarters of the Baghdad Provincial Administration.

These despicable terrorist attacks seek to undermine the impressive progress that Iraq has made towards stability and self-reliance. They will not succeed. They will not deter Iraqis from administering justice based on the rule of law and carrying out their legitimate responsibilities in governing Baghdad.

We stand by all Iraqis, at this crucial time leading up to national elections, and we pledge to join them in working together to combat all forms of violence and attempts at intimidation. Those responsible for such horrific acts must be pursued and brought to justice in accordance with Iraqi law.

We will continue to support the people and government of Iraq in fighting terrorism. We mourn the senseless loss of life and extend our condolences to the victims’ families, friends, and community.

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

# # #

Press Conference With Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Via Digital Video Conference

Washington, DC

MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon from Washington, and good evening to our friends in Ramallah. Here in Washington we are joined by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and in Ramallah by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. We’ll begin the program with Secretary Clinton and then follow by remarks by the prime minister.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. Welcome, and I’m delighted to be able to speak via technology on this important issue. I know that Prime Minister Fayyad and our Consul General in Jerusalem, Jake Walles, and others are joining us from Ramallah. I want to thank you for taking the time to meet with us. And I express – especially appreciate, Mr. Prime Minister, that you and your colleagues agreed to do this late on Friday evening, which I know is not convenient, to allow me to participate once I returned to Washington from Asia.

I wanted personally to announce the delivery of budget support to the Palestinian Authority, under the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Because what is at stake for the Palestinian people, for the future of a Palestinian state, for the future security of Israel, and for the region is so critical. This is important also to the United States and the Obama Administration. Finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader conflict that has plagued the Middle East for decades has been a priority for the President and me from the very beginning of the Administration.

I am pleased that Senator George Mitchell, our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, is back in the region. And I believe we are making progress in our efforts to create the environment for a successful resumption of negotiations in the near future. As I said at Sharm el-Sheikh, human progress depends on the human spirit. The broader goals we seek to accomplish – a comprehensive Arab-Israeli agreement and a two-state solution – are more likely to grow out of opportunity than futility, out of hope rather than misery.

As I also said, the point of our engagement is to help the parties make the decisions that are in their best interests. And it is our hope that the support of the United States and other nations will help foster conditions in which a Palestinian state can be fully realized, a state that is a responsible partner, is at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors, accountable to its people, a state that Palestinians everywhere can be proud of and that will be respected worldwide.

This shared goal depends on strengthening the Palestinian Authority and its ability to meet the needs of its people. In just over two years, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad have put in place the foundations of a responsible, transparent, accountable government. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the United States has transferred $200 million in direct support to the Palestinian Authority. This transfer fulfills a critical portion of the assistance package that I announced in March in Sharm el-Sheikh. The ability of the United States to provide support directly to the Palestinian Authority is an indication of the bipartisan support for the effort to secure the peace in the Middle East, as well as for the fundamental reforms that the Palestinian Authority has undertaken. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle worked closely with us to make this assistance possible.

An important marker of progress is that the Palestinian Authority now has systems in place to ensure that donor funds are handled transparently and in an accountable manner. We will continue to work with the Palestinian leadership to bolster these safeguards to make sure that the funding ends up exactly where – and for whom – it is intended.

But we are confident, because the Palestinian Authority, under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, has a very exceptional two-year track record of performance on economic reform and prudent financial management, as noted by the World Bank, the IMF, and our own internal reviews. These fiscal reforms serve a larger purpose. We are seeing the positive impact that responsible government is having on the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, daily improvements in security, law and order, and economic opportunities.

For these improvements to take root, the capacity of the PA must be both deepened and strengthened. To continue this impressive record of reform, the PA needs financial help, and they need it now. President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad have worked hard to lower the burden on donors, but continued progress will depend on donors meeting their commitments. The United States has and will continue to be a partner with the Palestinian people for peace, prosperity, and security.

Now many other nations, including our European partners, have contributed generously to support the PA. I call on all nations that wish to see a strong, viable Palestinian state living in peace and security with its neighbors to join us in supporting the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority has proven to be a reliable partner for peace. It offers the Palestinian people the option of a peaceful, free, and prosperous future, and an end to the violence and conflict that have deprived so many Palestinians of the opportunity to fulfill their hopes and dreams and for their children to live up to their God-given potential.

So these are the goals we seek to accomplish: a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace agreement and a two-state solution. And it is our hope that this support will further conditions in which a Palestinian state can be realized.

I’m very grateful for the changes and reforms that have been instituted in the Palestinian Authority, and I look forward to continuing to work with President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad on moving forward with these extremely important and critical goals. Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER FAYYAD: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madame Secretary, for taking the time to be with us today to take part in a very important event. Indeed, it is a hugely important event on at least three counts. For one, $200 million assistance package of yours represents the largest amount of external financial assistance to be made available to the Palestinian Authority in a single tranche by any donor toward any purpose since the inception of the PA, Palestinian Authority.

Second, the entire amount assistance is earmarked for budget support – the very type of external assistance we need the most, particularly at this juncture, given the severe financial difficulties that we have been facing for many months now. So your assistance couldn’t have been more timely, and it will enhance our capacity to deliver vital and needed services to our people in Gaza and in the West Bank. For all of this, we are grateful to you, Madame Secretary.

In this case, our sense of deep gratitude is matched, if not even surpassed by the by immense pride in what we have accomplished – to be worthy of the confidence of our people and the international community in the legitimacy of our financial management system. Given the very high and indeed exacting standards of accountability and transparency set forth by the U.S. Congress of aid disbursement, the fact that you have chosen to disburse the full $200 million directly to our treasury carries with it a clear signal amount of confidence in our financial systems and our financial management.

It is indeed a huge vote of confidence and one which we deeply cherish. Madame Secretary, any aid receiving country would be proud to qualify for your assistance being delivered directly to its treasury. For us Palestinians, it takes on added significance, given what it implies, in terms of our readiness for statehood and the fulfillment of our ultimate goal of living in freedom and dignity in a country of our own.

So, Madame Secretary, on behalf of President Abbas, the Palestinian National Authority, and the Palestinian people, I thank you personally. I also would like to thank President Obama, the U.S. Congress, and of course, the American people. Thank you so very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Prime Minister Fayyad, and I just want to underscore how much we appreciate all of the steps and changes that your government has undertaken. Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER FAYYAD: (Inaudible), thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we’ll take a question or two. Is that okay, Jake?

STAFF: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: On this subject. Yes.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we’ve heard from Maliki, and perhaps Prime Minister Fayyad can speak to this as well, that as you’re – as you say, you’re making progress in creating the conditions for negotiations, that they’d like to see the Obama Administration make some kind of declaration or vision statement in terms of how you see the negotiations taking place, and your vision for a Middle East settlement so that that perhaps could, you know, get the parties onboard in terms of moving forward, that that’s what you need, and they want you to do it before Ramadan.

Do you anticipate any statement of this nature? Do you think that the Obama Administration will lay out its vision before the negotiations resume? And – because Senator Mitchell had said that he thought it would be done in weeks, not months, and we’re kind of approaching months at this point.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is one step at a time. And as you know, Senator Mitchell is back in the region having further consultations and exploring, in depth, some of the actions that are being considered. He will be in Israel in a few days, and we’re going to let the parties continue to drive this process because we want to get back to the negotiations between the two of them. The final status issues, which are obviously very important, can only be resolved by agreement between the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis. So at this point, we’re working very hard to get to that step and then we’ll see where we go from there.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you be a bit more specific, though, as to when you think these negotiations could begin? Are you making any progress, for example, on the settlement issues? That seems to be the key issue that’s holding this up. Are you expecting Senator Mitchell to come back with something special, something resolved there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m not going to preempt Senator Mitchell. He is the person conducting these consultations on behalf of the President and myself. Obviously, this is very complicated work. There are lots of moving parts. So I think we’ll wait until there is some announcement to be made, and then once that happens, it will be, obviously, right to ask questions about it. But let’s let Senator Mitchell continue the important work that he’s doing.

MR. CROWLEY: Perhaps one or two more and then --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay. Okay, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Madame Secretary, a large number of senior American officials are going to Israel next week to talk with senior Israeli officials. I wonder if the Administration has decided maybe this is a good time to try to ratchet down some of the tensions with the Israelis over the issues that are being discussed, led by the settlements.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when we talk with the Israelis, they are conversations between friends. I mean, we have a deep and durable relationship with Israel. It has been our commitment, no matter who is in the White House and no matter who is the prime minister in Israel. So I think that the conversations that we’re engaged in with our Israeli counterparts are very forthright, very clear that we have to work through a lot of the concerns that are expressed. Our goal is to ensure a peaceful and secure future for the Israeli people and future generations of Israelis.

So I think that there is a great deal of positive communication that is taking place. And it’s not only on the issues that Senator Mitchell is driving, but we have many interests and concerns with the Israelis that will be explored and discussed when General Jones and his delegation arrive there.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Senator Mitchell is going to Syria. Do you expect that you can make progress on the Syrian-Israeli track before the Palestinian-Israeli track?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Again, I think this is one of the issues that is being explored. As you know, we began a policy of reengaging Syria when I became Secretary of State, and working with our teams here, Jeff Feltman and others from the State Department and the White House. And we think that it’s a fruitful engagement that we intend to pursue. We have notified the Syrians that we are returning an ambassador to Damascus.

But it is just the beginning. I mean, I don’t want to leapfrog over the hard work that has to be done in working through many of the issues that are of great concern to the United States that Syria has to be willing to discuss with us and, hopefully, make some changes going forward.

So as we move through this process, we obviously will be informing you as to where we are. But I think the question of either/or track – Senator Mitchell is exploring deeply with the Syrians how they would respond to renewed negotiations with the Israelis. The timing on that, the simultaneity of it; that’s all to be determined.

Yeah, go ahead.

MR. CROWLEY: One more?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Following up on this track, on the Syrian track and also Senator Mitchell’s visit, importantly, for a solution to be viable, other Palestinian actors will have be to involved. Syria has important sway with Hamas and other Palestinian factions. So what do you expect from the Syrians on that track, and how important is it for national unity between the Palestinians? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, the Palestinians themselves have been, as you know, meeting in Cairo over a number of months to discuss some of the challenges to unity, and I leave that to them to describe, because there are internal dynamics that have nothing to do with any other party. It’s between them.

But with respect to Hamas being a part of any negotiations, we’ve set forth the conditions that would be necessary for Hamas to meet. And they’re conditions that not only do we support, but the Quartet -- the UN, EU, United States, and Russia – support, and the Palestinian Authority supports. I mean, the Palestinian Authority is working very hard, as evidenced by their reform efforts, the changes that they’ve instituted, to try to be a responsible and effective partner with Israel in any peace negotiations going forward.

So they don’t want someone at the table who doesn’t even agree with the purpose of the negotiations. So the conditions are clear – Hamas has to renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to the enforcement of prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

That hasn’t yet come to pass. But I think the path forward for Hamas is very clear. If the Syrians or anyone else can persuade them to take a positive path forward, well, clearly, I think the Palestinian Authority and others would welcome that. But at this moment, that is not yet their position.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much. I leave you in the good hands of P.J. And I don’t see anybody who was on that trip with me. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, well, I mean, gosh, I was just looking to see who (inaudible). (Laughter.) Thank you all.

MR. CROWLEY: We can say for the record, she got off the airplane, came straight to the office. (Laughter.)

# # #