Remarks at No Limits Public Policy Conference Luncheon

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Ronald Reagan Building

Washington, DC

November 6, 2009

Thank you so, so much. Thank you. I told Terry after that introduction, there was no limit to his enthusiasm. (Laughter.) I cannot tell you how excited and really grateful I am to be here with all of you. I want to thank Mark for his remarkable commitment to be the chair of the board of No Limits, Ann Lewis who has served the – so many roles, who is the president of this new, but exciting organization.

Before I start, I just want to say that our thoughts and our prayers are with the soldiers killed at Ft. Hood, and with their families and their friends and their colleagues. I join all Americans in expressing our sympathy and in wishing the more than 40 who were injured a full and speedy recovery. These terrible incidents, especially one like yesterday, reminds us of the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make every day. It is difficult when you lose brave Americans overseas, but it is horrifying when they come under fire because they wear the uniform of our country or they work to defend our nation right here on American soil. So we all owe them a debt of gratitude and are recommitting ourselves to make sure that they know that they have a grateful nation behind them.

This conference is really a special opportunity for me because I get to see so many of my friends. I look around this room and there are countless familiar faces of people who – (applause) – I have worked with and we have had some extraordinary times. You’ve heard from some real stars today, including the incomparable Barney Frank. Now, Barney, as those of you who may not have known before, is one of the most talented public servants in Washington. He’s also famous as the man with the best one-liners on Capitol Hill. But of course, we in this room know the secret of his success, namely, he learned from his long-suffering older sister, Ann Lewis. (Laughter.) And it was funny when I said to Ann, I said, “Oh, I’m so sorry I missed Barney.” And she goes, “Oh, he was brilliant, but he didn’t have his shirt tucked in.” (Laughter.) I mean, it sounded like every big sister, including myself, that I have ever heard.

Ann is the reason that we are here today, because she’s been in the trenches fighting for equal rights, and equal pay, and equal opportunity, blazing a trail for generations of women like me whose path in politics was a little easier because of the battles that Ann Lewis fought and won. Before there was an EMILY’s List, or a Feminist Majority, or even a sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits – (laughter) – there was Ann Lewis, and she is still going strong. I am so proud to call her my friend. And I am so impressed that in less than a year, she decided to bring us all together, put this organization together and create a platform for people to think of new ways to join together on behalf of issues and causes that we all share.

In this room are people who I went through the battles of the 1990s on behalf of healthcare. And I think tomorrow, we’re going to win a major part of that effort. (Applause.) I cannot tell you how excited I am at the prospect that, for the first time in American history, the House of Representatives is poised to pass a comprehensive health care reform. I am still keeping fingers and toes crossed because we know that there are those who would try to derail it, even at the last minute. But it looks so promising, and it is so long overdue. And as someone who has fought this battle for so many years, I cannot tell you how proud I am that it will be under a democratic President and a democratic speaker and a democratic speaker and a democratic Congress, that we’re going to actually get this to happen. (Applause.)

And there are others of you in this room who stood with me as we told the world something that was self-evident, but needed to be said, that women’s rights are human rights, as well. (Applause.) And as Terry said, there are many friends from New York who worked with me and stood with me and campaigned with me, on behalf of not only working families, but 9/11 victims and survivors and so many others who looked to us to help them have a chance to end the limits on their own dreams and pursue those.

And of course, there are so many of you here who were with me on that long, exciting, death-defying journey across our country. (Applause.) And you’re the ones who helped put all those cracks in the glass ceiling. And I want to thank each and every one of you for really committing yourselves to the political process, believing in the importance of what needed to be done in our country, working with me and then working with me to elect Barack Obama. And now working with all of us to try to translate into reality the dreams that we hold for our nation and our world.

We’ve stood together over all these years because we share a deep conviction about the importance of our nation and the significance of public service. And I have to say that, my path into politics and what still guides me today is my belief that every child deserves a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential, and that is what motivates me and what I know is important to all of you. (Applause.)

And so here we are, and there has been just an enormous amount of extraordinary happenings in the time since I’ve seen many of you last. And for me, this new position just reaffirms that we live in an interconnected, interdependent world. Whether I’m in a small town in Africa or I’m in a big metropolis in Asia, I’m always reminded of how important it is that we see each other as fellow human beings, that we share a journey. We may come from very different backgrounds, have all kinds of experiences that are not at all in common. But we do actually share a commitment to making it possible for not only our nation, but all nations to forge a new future. It is hard because we face some of the most complex problems that I think any time in history has ever presented. And for me, being in this new position and being so mindful of the responsibility that the Obama Administration holds just encourages and urges me to work as hard as I can on behalf of creating new partnerships, on reaching out and explaining what the United States stands for, showing people the respect they deserve by listening to them, but standing our ground, making clear what it is we value, and how we intend to pursue our interests.

And so for the last nine months, I’ve had the good fortune and the high honor of representing our country around the world, whether it was in Zurich for the landmark signing of an agreement between Turkey and Armenia, with such a long and difficult history between them and seeing the last-minute falling apart of that, and having to work hard with my colleagues to make it happen and reminding people that every day leaders around the world have a choice – whether they continue to show allegiance to a past they cannot change or a new commitment to a future that they can shape. And one of the biggest issues we have to overcome is how people cannot leave behind their history. That doesn’t mean that they have to forget it. It doesn’t mean they have to deny it, but it means they have to be willing to keep looking forward instead of in the rearview mirror.

Every conflict we have in the world today is really bound up in whether people will invest in the future, whether they will seek common ground with others, or whether they will either stay frozen or go backwards. And part of our job in the State Department is to better explain what it is the United States represents. We got a little off track over the last eight years. We’re trying to get back on track today. I was very pleased that – some of you know Judith McHale was appointed the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, and she is traveling the world, looking for the ways that we can better connect so that we can tell our story. Because everyone has a story to tell, and everyone needs to be thinking about how we better tell America’s story.

Whenever I travel, as Terry said, I try not just to meet with diplomats and officials, but to go out and meet with people. And that’s been kind of a interesting experience the last nine months, because a lot of people thought, “Well, why are you doing that?” Well, it’s because no matter what society you’re in, public opinion matters to a greater or a lesser degree, but it matters. You can be an authoritarian dictator, but you still have to listen to what people are saying and thinking. And we needed to do some concerted work to try to create a better communication between our country and others.

That’s why I’ve held town hall meetings from Santo Domingo to Moscow to Nairobi to Bangkok. I even appeared on what’s called the Awesome Show in Indonesia. (Laughter.) And at every turn, I have listened and responded, but also stood up for what I think are our core values. It is critical in today’s world that we recognize information is not compartmentalized; it doesn’t stay in official channels or in diplomatic cables. It is pervasive.

And we are now using the new tools of technology. Some of you might remember during the demonstrations in Iran during the post-election period, the way people were finding out where they should go and learning what was happening was through Twitter. And the young men and women who work for me in the State Department, the twenty-somethings, realized that Twitter was going to shut down for some kind of technical rebooting whatever they do. (Laughter.) So these young people called Twitter and said, “You can’t shut down. The demonstrators in Iran are depending on you.” I mean, that could not have happened five years ago. And so part of what our challenge is, is to really try as directly as possible to reach people through governments, around governments, under governments, in every way possible. We’re also doing more to build partnerships, which I think are key to our success. Again, another long-time friend of many of us, Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley, is now heading up our global public-private partnerships effort. And she’s reaching out, working with business, working with NGOs to create opportunities for people to contribute to America’s diplomacy.

And there’s a lot that we can do and we can do better, and it’s an area where I think that we can enlist the help of those of you who are interested in trying to be part of reaching out to the rest of the world. It is important that we look to the pillars of the American foreign policy that I have laid out in numerous speeches, pretty simple – defense, diplomacy, and development. We know defense because it gets a lot of the funding and a lot of the attention, rightfully so. But we can’t have a strong and positive and successful foreign policy without also building up diplomacy and development. So I’ve been working very hard to make the case to the Congress for more Foreign Service officers, for more civil servants, for more development experts, because we’ve got to do a better job.

So we’re doing a complete review. We’re having the first-ever what’s called Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which mirrors something the Defense Department has done forever, the Quadrennial Defense Review. Because what we’re trying to figure out is what works and what doesn’t work. Let’s quit doing what doesn’t work and let’s start doing more of what we think will work around the world. (Applause.) Because if we truly believe, as I know all of you do, that there should be no limits to opportunity, then we have to forge partnerships that provide people with the tools they need to solve their own problems.

I like to say that talent is universal, but opportunity is not. And I think all the time when I’m in places that don’t educate women or do not respect the dignity of work for both men and women, that have systems that are engrained in their society, that really keep a large group of people subordinate to a small group of people, just think of what that society is missing. It is missing future doctors and academics and researchers and businessmen and women. What a loss that they really cannot afford to have.

So we are also investing in a new approach toward food and hunger. It’s a terrible problem in the year 2009 that so many people are dying of hunger or who are malnourished. And in discussing the priorities that I brought to the job, I asked if we could have a big focus on food security, and people said, well, sure, we do a program over here and we do a program over there and we do – I said, well, how about if we bring them all together and we actually have an organized whole-of-government approach? So President Obama asked me and the State Department to take the lead on that, and we’ve really had a remarkable process.

And it’s the first time where people from all over our own government are actually in the same room trying to decide what it is we can do that will deliver not only food aid, as important as that is, especially with drought and the effects of climate change, but better agricultural productivity. Let’s start helping people grow their own food, bring it to harvest, bring it to market, support themselves so that they can become more self-sufficient. (Applause.)

So every day, we wake up and we think about all of these great ideas, and then we work hard to implement them. But there is nothing that has been more important to me over the course of my lifetime than advancing the rights of women and girls. It’s been a cause of my public life. (Applause.) And it is now a cornerstone of American foreign policy.

We have appointed the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues. Some of you know Melanne Verveer, who – (applause) – was my chief of staff at the White House, went on to run Vital Voice, which some of you have become involved in, which I am delighted about because everywhere I go in the world, the Vital Voices women come to meet me. And they wear their little pins, the kind of Vs that look like wings taking flight that give them a better future. And we want to do more in partnerships like that, so we’re opening up on the State Department website that we will notify everybody about, a way for you to be part of supporting some of these projects and supporting individual women; individual women and their own needs, whether it’s a small microloan or a program to help rape survivors or victims.

Melanne, as you know, has been one of the most consistent voices turning up the volume on the problem of gender and sexual-based violence, especially in conflict areas. And on my trip to Africa this summer, Melanne was with me in the Eastern Congo when we visited a refugee camp, when we went to HEAL Africa, an extraordinary hospital that helps the women who have been attacked and so brutally raped, and met with the doctors and the advocates and some of the victims themselves.

And it was, as I’m sure you can imagine, the most poignant and personally painful experience, because this has become a tactic of war, not just in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but in other places around the world as well. But just to take the Congo as an example, about 1,100 rapes are reported each month. That’s an average of 36 women and girls raped every day. The camp that Melanne and I visited was home to about 18,000 people seeking refuge from a cycle of violence that has left 5.4 million people dead since 1998.

And when you see that, the depth of suffering and the brutality, it just tears at your heart. But what lifts your spirits is the courage and the resolve of the people themselves, the victims who go on every day, who show a resilience that I find awe-inspiring, and those who are there on the front lines helping them. The United States condemns these attacks. They are crimes against humanity. I announced more than $17 million in new funding to prevent and respond to gender and sexual violence and to help survivors rebuild their lives.

Then I was privileged to chair a special United Nations Security Council session that passed a resolution to strengthen international efforts to curb these atrocities and hold those who commit them accountable. We have to do more, and I think this is an area where a number of you have told me you’re interested in working, and Anne will give you a menu of options that you can choose from as to how you can personally try to strike back at this atrocity that happens all too frequently.

But there are good news stories as well. In fact, as I travel around and see the developments in many countries that I hadn’t been to for about 10 years, I see the change. Recently in Indonesia, I was able to celebrate 10 years of democracy and to really hold up what a democratic Islamic secular society looks like. And we have to keep holding up those examples.

And when we go and see the courage of people who are willing to risk it all against the forces that are arrayed against them, it just encourages me and gives me even more of a push to go out and do what I need to do.

But what’s important about No Limits is your message. That is such an American message, but it shouldn’t be only an American message. And what I’ve been trying to do is to help people separate their historical sense of limits from what is possible going forward, that it is hard in traditional societies, it is hard when the odds seem stacked against you, but it is part of the American message at core that we believe not just in a better life for our own people, but we think helping those around the world to a better life is good for America, that it gives us a chance to see our values in action.

So I hope that you believe, as I do, that foreign policy matters, that public diplomacy matters, that standing up for the rights of people we will never meet very far away matters. And who does it matter to? It doesn't just matter to someone else. It matters to us as Americans. I say to my staff all the time, “I want to make sure that our foreign policy, our diplomacy, and our development are delivering for the laid off auto worker in Michigan or the laborer in Ohio. I want to make sure that what we’re doing can be explained and understood by the small business owner in Colorado or the homemaker in California who says, ‘Look, we’re having a hard time here at home. Why are we taking our money and educating somebody else’s children or providing healthcare to other people, or why do we involve ourselves in these conflicts far away that are so insoluble and hard to follow half the time?’” Because it is important to our security and it’s important to who we are as a nation, what we stand for in pursuit of our interests and in accordance with our values.

I think it’s imperative that in today’s world we keep our eyes on where we want to lead the rest of the world. Sometimes they claim they don’t want to listen. Sometimes they reject our advice. But that doesn't mean we quit. It just means we get smarter about how we’re trying to work with everyone else.

I said when I got to the State Department on the very first day that I wanted to see smart power in action. And smart power requires smart people, and we have just a wonderful group of really smart, dedicated people here in the State Department, at USAID, and around the world.

But ultimately, it rests on you. It rests on our fellow Americans as to whether you think that the United States has to keep getting up every day and going out and trying to solve problems and manage situations and create space for good things to happen. I believe that. That’s what motivates me. But we have to make the case to the rest of our country as well.

I’ll be leaving again tomorrow for another trip. (Laughter.) I know. Hard to believe. One that will take me first to Berlin, where I will be representing the United States at the commemoration of the 10^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. (Applause.) And since I grew up in the Cold War, as some of you did, and I well remember the duck and cover drills in the hallway and under our desks, it was an extraordinary moment in history when the wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved and people in Central and Eastern Europe finally had a chance to chart their own futures without the heavy hand of communism.

But I think that event 20 years ago was to some extent the end of an era where, perhaps as dangerous as the times were, it was easier to explain. It was us and it was them. Everything we did, everything that they did, was aimed at gaining advantage versus the other. We supported terrible countries and terrible rulers because they said they’d be against us – or against them, and then they did the same to us. So there was a very clear moral clarity about it. There was a very clear almost black and white sense of it. And I think people, when that wall came down, thought oh, great, the world will be so much better now, democracy is going to absolutely thrive. And people were saying history is over, we can go on with the dreams that America was founded on and export them everywhere.

That’s not the way the world works, and that’s not the way history has ever worked. So we find ourselves now in a much more complex world, and we just have to be up for it. And we have to be smarter about it, and we have to demand more from ourselves and our partners.

And from Berlin I’ll be going to Singapore for a meeting with my counterparts from Asia and the Pacific. And we want to have a very positive relationship with them, particularly with China, but we don’t get that by just sitting back. We have to be engaged and involved and working to create conditions that we think will foster democracy and development and human dignity and results for people.

And then I will be paying a visit to China with President Obama on a very important trip to further the dialogue between our two countries. And somewhere along that schedule – I’ve lost track of when – I’ll be going to the Philippines to show solidarity with our friends in the Philippines who have been battered by typhoons and have just suffered so much over the last weeks.

And everywhere I go, I will be thinking about how we translate the slogan “No Limits” into opportunities, how we give people the sense that they too, if they will be committed to democracy, if they will care about their neighbor, if they will make investments in their people and their children, they too can have a better life.

This, for me, is an extraordinary experience in a very blessed life that I really relish sharing with you. I’ve known some of you my entire life. My best friend from sixth grade is here. And I’ve known many of you in a very personal and intense way over a number of years, and some our relationship was created in the cauldron of 2008 politics. But every single one of you is here today because you want to stay involved and you want to give back and you want to be part of something bigger than yourself. And there is no limit to what we can do together.

So let me thank you for being part of this new organization that holds out such promise. Let me encourage those of you who want to personally develop an ability to speak out and participate to stay for this afternoon’s sessions about acquiring the skills of being able to speak. Public speaking – it ranks up as the biggest fear that most people have. It’s more than dying in a fire. (Laughter.) I mean, it’s just really scary to a lot of people. And so we want to help you and we want to give you that chance. That’s what Ann is setting up so that people can feel empowered. So it’s not just what you want to do. It’s how you get the tools to do it. Because we don’t think there are any limits to what any of you can do if you’re willing to invest the time and the effort.

So finally, let me just end by saying that we share a lot of history and we share friendships and we share all kinds of experiences together. But fundamentally, we share an optimism about what can be done if people are given the opportunities to break through glass ceilings, to break the chains of history that sometimes hold them down. And we believe strongly that our country has both the opportunity and the responsibility to take that message around the world. There must be no limits on human potential, and it is up to us to continue to make that a core value of who we are as Americans and what we hope for others around the world.

Thank you all so much. (Applause.)

# # #

Remarks Upon Departure from Chulalongkorn University

Scot Marciel
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Bangkok, Thailand

November 5, 2009

Question: (Inaudible). What are the most important things she said to you?

Ambassador Marciel: Really, particularly since she isn’t able to speak to the press, I don’t really want to try to speak on her behalf or comment on what she said. I would just say we had a very full and meaningful conversation with her about a wide range of issues on Burma. But I want to be careful not to characterize what she said.

Question: What would be a realistic timeframe for the election. And you mentioned that the government, you are waiting to see if the government (inaudible). What would you consider to be the single moment (inaudible) complete (inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: I don’t want to sort of speculate on the timeframe for the election. We didn’t get any indication of when they would be other than next year sometime. It would seem that if there’s going to be any hope of elections that actually produce progress, there needs to be plenty of time ahead for this dialogue to sort of create the conditions. Beyond that, I don’t know. In terms of what they could do, I mean frankly, there are a whole lot of things that we would like them to do.

Question: (Inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: Well, they can do a lot of things. They can release political prisoners, all the political prisoners including Aung San Suu Kyi. They can stop attacks against ethnic groups. They can begin this dialogue. There’s a whole host of things that we would like them to do. I don’t want to pick one over the other.

Question: The U.S., (inaudible) the U.S. facilitator meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi and with members of the Committee of the NLD, she actually rejected this. Is that correct? (Inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: What we have been urging, as have others for some time, is that the government allow her to meet with the NLD Central Executive Committee. So I wouldn’t say we facilitated. I would say we’ve been urging that. We understand there was some discussion between the government and her about that, but I don’t know all the details.

QUESTION: If she’s turning down these rare opportunities to meet with her party, that’s not pushing this dialogue that you're pulling for, it’s not much progress towards that. This must be a setback.

Ambassador Marciel: Again, I think it’s important to talk to the NLD about this. I don’t want to speak for her or the NLD on this. I think it was more complicated than that.

Question: (Inaudible) from Myanmar, (inaudible) will be released?

Ambassador Marciel: They didn’t make any promises like that.

Question: (Inaudible) release after (inaudible). They used to release a few prisoners.

Ambassador Marciel: First, they did not make any such promises. And let me stress, it’s very important that there be sustained progress. We’re not looking to take a trip, they release five prisoners and then arrest five more the next week. That’s not the kind of progress we’re looking for. What real progress would mean would be release of all political prisoners, beginning a dialogue, these sorts of things. That’s why I stress, we’re being very clear here. We want to move forward, but we will be looking for real, sustained progress.

Question: (Inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: I think there are a lot of things we could do to improve the relationship, and we’re not going to do a sort of tit for tat, if you do this, we’ll do that. I think you have to look at sort of objectively what’s happening in Burma and come to some conclusion as to whether there’s progress, then there are things we can do in terms of more on a diplomatic side and other steps, a whole range of things we can do.

Question: (Inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: We’re talking about a whole range of things we can do. As I said, we’re not saying if you do X, we’ll do Y. More if you make progress, these are the sorts of areas where we can move in.

Question: Are there any prerequisites? Does Suu Kyi have to be released before the election? Or suppose they just let her have a dialogue with NLD? Is that sufficient?

Ambassador Marciel: I think, as I said, we need to see sustained progress. I want to be careful not to say if they just do X, that’s good enough, because there are a lot of scenarios where they make progress in one area and backtrack in another. So I think what we want to see is broad progress. Certainly release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners we think is critical to that. Release of Aung San Suu Kyi no matter, while it would be very important and very positive, does not solve all the problems.

Question: Why do you think Senator Jim Webb was allowed to meet (inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: You’d have to ask the Burmese government that. I don’t know.

Question: How much of a setback --

Question: I have two questions. One about Thailand. Because the situation along the border is very, very serious, and more and more refugees are expected to flood into Thailand. So how what is your concern, comment? Also did you mention this with the Burmese authorities?

Second question. Are you concerned that the nuclear issue, but would you like to ask the issue directly to North Korea, (inaudible), and also from other players? I think it is, (inaudible) didn’t want to mention the company name, China, so what do you think China feedback on this (inaudible) in Burma?

Ambassador Marciel: First on the refugee issue. We appreciate the fact that Thailand has taken and hosted a significant number of refugees. It’s unfortunate that those refugees have to leave their country because of conflict, but we appreciate what Thailand has done and want to keep working with the Thai authorities.

We hope that there are not more refugees. Of course, should there be, we’re confident that Thai authorities will handle them and treat them in a humanitarian way, and if we can be helpful, we certainly will.

On the nuclear issue, you have a lot of issues here, but fundamentally there’s a UN Security Council resolution on what North Korea is allowed to do, and I think all the members of the Security Council and the UN have an interest in working together on that.

I would just, on your very last point about a growing U.S. presence in Burma, there actually isn’t a growing U.S. presence in Burma. We have an embassy, as we’ve had, and now we’ve had a meeting, a set of meetings there, but I wouldn’t characterize it as a growing presence.

Question: You mentioned many times about the dialogue. (Inaudible) sustained and what the role of the U.S. in the dialogue? Mediator or (inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: Of course, I did stress too many times probably for you the importance of a dialogue. Obviously it’s not enough that there just be meetings that don’t make progress. The whole point of a dialogue is to see if there can be some common ground among the various key players, including the government, the opposition, and the ethnic minority groups. And of course what we would like to see is a dialogue that leads to progress.

It’s not for us, I think, to define that progress but rather for the people inside the country. And if they were to have a dialogue and they’d say there’s significant progress, we would certainly welcome that.

Question: Can an election without Aung San Suu Kyi participating (inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: I think an election without Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD would be, it would be very hard to see that as credible. But in the end, I think it’s up for Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD to make that call, too.

Question: (Inaudible) of Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD. The U.S. sanctions (inaudible).

Ambassador Marciel: There are a lot of scenarios going ahead. I don’t want to say if this happens we’ll do this, or if something doesn’t happen we won’t, because there are a lot of scenarios.

The bottom line, I think, is that if the political process -- it’s not just about the elections, it’s about the entire political process, before the elections, during, and after. If that is not a fully inclusive process that includes the participation of the party and the parties that won the vast majority of the votes in the last election, it’s very hard for me to see how it would be credible.

Now there are lots of details associated with that, but the fundamental point is if the key parties that won the majority in the last election do not participate, I think you can draw your own conclusions. It’s very hard for me to see how that’s credible.

Question: So did you discuss about the release of all political prisoners and the need for any, any message from (inaudible)? And another thing is, what did you know about American-Burmese (inaudible) trial (inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: We have repeatedly and consistently called for the release of all political prisoners, and so we continue to do that. And again, rather than talking about what people said to us, I think the question is will they release political prisoners, and we’ll wait for that.

Question: (Inaudible)?

Ambassador Marciel: I want to be very careful here not to put adjectives next to these meetings. We went for an initial set of meetings. We were very focused on being able to have access to a wide range of people, particularly the opposition and the ethnic minority groups. And this is early in the process so I don’t want to really characterize it.

# # #

Burma: Policy Review

Scot Marciel
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Chulalongkorn University

Bangkok, Thailand

November 5, 2009

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Thank you very much, and thank you all for coming. Assistant Secretary Campbell and I just returned last night from a two-day visit to Burma. It was an exploratory mission. The main purpose of the visit was really to explain to the key parties there, and I don’t just mean political parties, but the stakeholders in the country - government, political parties, opposition, ethnic minority groups, et cetera - to kind of explain the context of our recently concluded policy review, but also to hear from them, their views and their ideas.

Let me begin by talking a little bit about the policy review. As you know, Secretary Clinton announced in Jakarta in February that we would begin this policy review and she stated quite clearly at the outset that the reason for the policy review was that our previous approach, which relied heavily on sanctions, had not achieved the desired results. That’s a factual statement.

She also said that the ASEAN approach of engagement had not achieved the results. So the purpose of the review was not really to question the fundamental goals of our approach, but rather to see if there was a more effective way that we could try to bring about positive developments in the country.

So we undertook that review. It went on for quite some time. It was recently concluded a few months ago. The results of that review were first, to reaffirm our fundamental goals for Burma. That we want to see a Burma that is at peace, unified, prosperous, stable, respects the rights of all of its citizens, and is democratic. That hasn’t changed.

What we said, what we concluded in terms of approach, was that we were going to maintain our existing sanctions, even though sanctions by themselves had not worked sufficiently - they were still a valid tool of our policy, so we’re maintaining the existing sanctions pending progress; that we would begin pragmatic engagement with the government; that we would continue our humanitarian assistance to help the people of the country as long as we were confident that that assistance was actually reaching the people and doing what it was intended to do. And we also committed to talk to the Burmese authorities about our concerns about non-proliferation, particularly related to North Korea.

So as part of our pragmatic engagement piece we agreed to begin a dialogue - a senior level dialogue with the government - but also with opposition groups, ethnic minority groups, all of the people who have an important role to play in the country’s future.

We had an introductory meeting in New York, I believe it was late September, where we met with the Burmese Minister of Science and Technology who the government had designated to meet with us, and we sort of laid out where we were and what we hoped to achieve. Then, as I said, we took this trip the last two days to meet with the government, to meet with others.

We spent a day in Naypyidaw where we met with several government officials, government ministers, including the Minister of Science and Technology; the Minister of Information; and then yesterday morning, with the Prime Minister as well as with some others.

Then we were in Rangoon most of the day yesterday where we met with representatives from several of the ethnic minority groups. We met with the Central Executive Committee of the National League for Democracy. We met with Aung San Suu Kyi, and we met with some other people who had views on both the political and the economic situation in Burma.

In all of these meetings we explained the results of our policy review, where we were. There’s been some, I think, misunderstanding or misinterpretation about some elements of it so we tried to clarify what we were doing and what we were not doing. We reaffirmed our commitment in all the meetings to a peaceful, prosperous, democratic Burma.

We stressed in our view the importance of a beginning genuine dialogue within the country, between the government, the opposition, and ethnic minority groups which we really see as critical. There’s a lot of talk about elections, there’s a lot of talk about sanctions, but fundamentally the main problem there is the lack of an inclusive political process, and we think that a dialogue among the key players is the best way forward.

And of course we’re not alone. The international community, the United Nations, have long been calling for that kind of dialogue.

We stressed that in our view the purpose of a dialogue should be to move toward national reconciliation and a fully inclusive political process. And toward that end, we again urged the government to allow Aung San Suu Kyi to have regular access and engagement with her NLD colleagues as well as with others.

We highlighted the importance and the concerns about a wide range of human rights issues including but not limited to political prisoners, treatment of ethnic minorities, et cetera.

In our meetings with the government we underscored, as we’ve said publicly, our willingness to move toward better relations, to take steps on our part to improve relations with the country of Burma, but also that this would only be possible to the extent that there was progress inside the country. This is very important. We’re willing to move ahead, but there needs to be progress inside the country.

So we had, as I said, significant serious meetings with a wide range of people. We laid out our views. We listened a lot to people both in the government and the ethnic minority groups and in the opposition.

Let me stress again that this was an exploratory mission. I read yesterday Bertil Lintner’s good article warning of past failures of diplomatic efforts. I think we’re aware of that. It’s useful to be reminded of that.

My own view is that when you look at the record, these past efforts haven’t succeeded. You can draw two conclusions from that. One is don’t try. Two is to try but to be aware of just how difficult this is. We go into this knowing full well how difficult this is going to be. We’re not under any illusions. But we feel that there are 50-55 million people in the country who deserve the efforts of the international community to try to help bring about progress and we’re very committed to that.

So let me stop there, and I look forward to your questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Ambassador Marciel. We have a good chunk of time, about 45 minutes. I would like to do this in rounds. Let’s take the first round. The first round perhaps by diplomats, academics, members of the public; and then the second round we’ll go to the media maybe.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: If there are no questions, I’ll go ahead and…(laughter).

MODERATOR: Go to the airport.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). The first question is do you anticipate any (inaudible) to come up with an inclusive dialogue within the country of Burma? The second question is after you have been explaining this to the people you met, the partners, the stakeholders, what is their response?
Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: On your first question, I won’t, to be honest, try to anticipate. I don’t know what’s going to happen. We don’t know what’s going to happen. We will have to see. I’ve seen in the past people suggesting that they think this or that is going to happen inside Burma. I just don’t know.

We certainly hope there will be a dialogue. I don’t frankly see how there can be a credible election that brings legitimacy without inclusive participation, and I don’t see how that can happen without a dialogue. So if there is to be a credible election that fundamentally changes the dynamics in the country, I think there needs to be dialogue and there needs to be participation.

In terms of the reaction, what I would say is I think many of the opposition groups and the ethnic minority groups have been very clear publicly for some time that they support a dialogue, an internal dialogue, and would look forward to participating in that. We’ll have to see where the government comes out on that.

QUESTION: Mr. Marciel, you mentioned that during these discussions you have also touched on the issue of nuclear proliferation and the contacts between the regime and North Korea. Would you be able in any way to elaborate on that? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: What I can say is that there have been reports of cooperation and closer relations between Burma and North Korea, including on the military side. There have been things in the press you’ve seen speculating about nuclear cooperation. And I think the situation we’re in is we want to, I think the international community wants to work with the Burmese authorities to find out what the facts are and to impress upon the government the importance particularly of honoring and abiding by UN Security Council Resolution 1874.

So I think there is a need for information sharing and dialogue.

QUESTION: Thank you for a very clear message to hear from you. We hope also that you received our open letter that we have tried to reach to you before the eve of your trip. My first question is already addressed by my colleague from the Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma.

My second question is actually, when we look at since the review of the U.S. policy, many key players both internationally and in the region have looked up to what is coming from the U.S. We have also observed, there are some positive steps being taken, particularly by the ASEAN, such as calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. (Inaudible) particularly after looking to the new policy of the U.S. and saying that it looks to us like on one hand first of all is that we would like to see the Burma democracy movement, Burma’s movement for democracy and rights of ethnic nationalities. We see the new policy is in line with our call, and we really appreciate and we are very encouraged to see that.

But on the other hand we also would like to get more clarification from you because we observe that there seems to be a misinterpretation by some of the key ASEAN players of the new policy of the U.S., with the aims to follow the ASEAN’s, I would say highly problematic brand of constructive engagement. I would like to her the comment from you. Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Thank you. It’s a very good question. Various countries have taken various approaches to Burma. None of us have succeeded so I think we all should be very humble and not assume that we have the answers until we actually produce some results.

For there to be progress in Burma there are two things that have to happen. One, there has to be the primary effort inside the country. The international community by itself cannot do this. It has to happen from within the country. But second, the international community has to work in support of that, including ASEAN. We talk about this with our ASEAN colleagues a lot, as well as with others. I think the message from all of us ought to be very clear.

There is an opportunity for progress not for the first time in Burma. The elections could be, could be an opportunity, but they will only be an opportunity if they’re done right and that means involving everybody in a way, starting with a dialogue so that all sides can agree to the conditions. There can be a real campaign, real elections.

I think the message from the international community, including ASEAN, needs to be that the first step has to be a dialogue inside the country. I think it’s critical that all of us reiterate that message. Because if there’s not, and if the so-called seven step road map goes ahead without the broader participation and inclusiveness, it doesn’t solve any problems.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MODERATOR: Let me repeat the question. The question has to do with the fear and intimidation from the SPDC, from the military regime, and whether the U.S. is mindful of this.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: If I understood correctly, it’s also whether we’re taking steps to address the regime’s potential fear that they may suffer if they lose power.

QUESTION: The real (inaudible), is why would they give up power? Why wouldn’t they resist? (Inaudible) very afraid that if they do they’re going to get retribution (inaudible), so it seems to me that the (inaudible) policy (inaudible) take into account their paranoia, which is legitimate. What I’m asking is, is the U.S. government discussing with the other side, so to speak, what they think about this issue, how they would handle it.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: I understand. This is, again, why there needs to be a dialogue. I don’t want to speak for the opposition, the NLD, but my understanding is that the opposition has said they’re asking for a dialogue -- dialogue to find a way ahead. I think in that dialogue it would be for the participants on the Burmese side to address all of these issues. I don’t think it’s for the United States to address those issues.

To the extent that people in the government are concerned, I think sooner or later there’s going to be change in the country. Much better for many reasons, much, much better for that to be change that’s worked out over in a meeting, a series of meetings, over a table, for a smooth process. I think my view is that actually reduces the risks and should reduce the fears.

QUESTION: Ambassador, you’ve laid out the issues that you spoke about, the American positions on a range of issues. What is the sense you got from the SPDC, from the people you met from the government? What are their issues? What are their concerns? And have they taken on board -- to what extent have they taken on board some of the issues that you spoke about from the American point of view? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: They listened. We listened a lot as well to them. Much of what they talked about was explaining their view of their political process. We, as I said, highlighted what we thought was essential. As I said, this is early days. It’s the first time we’ve met most of these people, so I think it’s going to take some time to see how they respond.

QUESTION: Ambassador Marciel, Assistant Secretary Campbell recently testified to the Congress that the United States priorities on Burma are, and I quote, “The unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, an end to conflicts with ethnic minority groups, accountability to those responsible for human rights violations, and the initiation of a genuine dialogue among the Burmese government, democratic opposition, and the ethnic minorities on a shared vision for the way forward in Burma.”

So in your view, my first question is how much closer is Burma to the achievement of these priorities now that you have had a chance to visit the SPDC and Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma? My second question is, in view of the escalating military threats against ethnic communities, what will be the catalyst for the United States to push harder on accountability of those responsible for human rights violations? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: How much closer is Burma to meeting these goals? I think it’s really important in these situations not to anticipate progress, but to wait and see if there is tangible progress. If there is, we will see it and we will all know it. Until that happens I don’t want to predict progress. My view is it’s quite clear: we will see progress if and when it happens. I’m not sure we’re there yet.

In terms of the second question on the ethnic minorities we again, Secretary Campbell and I highlighted our concerns about the treatment of ethnic minorities and we’ll continue to raise those concerns.

To the extent that the government continues to, if it pursues more military attacks against the ethnic minorities, obviously that’s a step in the wrong direction and it’s not helpful. I’m sorry for stating the obvious, but I’m not sure I can say much more than that.

QUESTION: Two questions. In your meetings with the Burmese officials, could you describe the body language? (Laughter). Because they are known for nodding, listening, and ignoring what envoys say. My second question is, in your encounter with Aung San Suu Kyi, is she interested in participating in the elections? Or do you think in the spirit of compromise she might settle for stepping out of the equation to let the process go forward?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: We have the term body English. I speak English so I can do that, but I don’t speak Burmese. I really wouldn’t try to comment on the body language. I can say that in our meetings with Burmese officials they were, both sides spoke, both sides listened. There was nothing, I just don’t want to comment too much on that. As to whether they ignored us, I think time will tell.

On Aung San Suu Kyi, I am definitely not going to speak on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi or speculate as to what she and others in NLD may decide. That’s really their decision. One thing that would certainly help and I think is essential is for her to be able to have a regular opportunity to interact with her NLD colleagues so that they as a party can decide how they want to proceed.

Question: Thank you and apologies, in a way. I think my question has already recently been asked and answered. What I was going to ask, I guess in brief, is what next? What will keep this process going? Obviously progress, broadly defined, was your answer. But in terms of in whose court the ball is, what steps might you anticipate happening next, what will help sustain the process to another iteration, perhaps a further meeting. Again, as I say, apologies, because in a way the question has already been asked, but I wanted to take the opportunity to ask it in another way.

Ambassador Marciel: Thanks, I think I can add a little bit to what I said earlier. We did not anticipate that one trip to Burma by us would solve all the problems that so many able people over many years have not been able to solve. So I think we understood from the beginning that this was going to be a process and not simply a matter of a meeting or two.

On the other hand, we’re very well aware that there is a time concern because you have the Burmese political process moving ahead, and if it moves ahead in a way that’s not inclusive, that doesn’t promote national reconciliation, then the Burmese government will have lost a huge opportunity.

So it’s one of those situations where on the one hand it takes time to achieve progress. On the other hand, time is finite. So we’re very well aware of that. We certainly expect to continue working and talking to all the stakeholders, including the government, but also others trying to find a way forward. But obviously the key question is will the government be willing to take some positive steps. We just have to wait and see.

QUESTION: I have two questions. One is about your engagement policies. You have alluded to some of the principal issues like a dialogue and then the release of political prisoners and also the inclusive process. But apart from these principal issues, can you describe what are the benchmarks for (inaudible) diplomacy? What are the next steps that you would like to follow in the few months? And in that strategy, to what extent will you also repeat what you did in 2007 with support of government of China?

My second question has to do with humanitarian assistance. You have emphasized that you will continue providing humanitarian assistance. So my question is to what extent do you have any discussions with the Burmese authorities with regard to the modality of increasing humanitarian assistance with the country, and whether that assistance might be also used in promoting the civil society involvement in the humanitarian space? And to what extent that could also become a tool for exempting the sanction regime - which I understood that there are humanitarian exemptions in the sanction policies - to what extent that can be also used.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: First, your question about benchmarks. Again, the goal here is for there to be a genuine sustained dialogue inside the country as I’d say a medium term step. Obviously there are long term goals that I outlined earlier about democracy and increased prosperity and peace and all those sorts of things, but we think a dialogue, sustained dialogue is an essential benchmark.

There’s any number of things that the Burmese government could do to create the conditions for that. Certainly, releasing political prisoners, allowing more interaction by Aung San Suu Kyi with her counterparts, these sorts of things. And there’s a whole host of things they could do to improve the human rights situation. I won’t try to list them here, but mostly stop doing a number of things that are very problematic. And I think we’re going to be very clear about this, that we certainly want to see progress. We’re willing to move in terms of the bilateral relationship, but we’re only going to do that if there’s real progress. We’re not going to do it absent that.

In terms of 2007, the one-time dialogue that took place in Beijing, my predecessor and current ambassador to Thailand, Eric John, met with Burmese officials in Beijing in June of 2007. We were prepared to meet following that. That Burmese government showed no interest. And subsequently there was the crackdown. That happened then, we’re taking a different approach now.

On humanitarian assistance, we did have discussions in Naypyidaw with Kyaw Thu, the Chairman of the Tripartheid core group who briefed us on relief efforts. We reiterated our willingness to continue to provide assistance as long as we were confident that we had access and that assistance was getting to the right people. We highlighted the importance of continuing to allow NGOs to work.

In terms of the effect on civil society, we’re providing humanitarian assistance because we think it’s helping people. Any other derivatives from that may or may not happen, but that’s not our intent. Our focus is that it’s not the reason that we’re doing it. We’re actually trying to provide humanitarian assistance for the obvious humanitarian reasons.

QUESTION: I have two questions. One is where does the process go from here? The logistics? I understood that there was going to be appointment of special envoys on both sides. Is Kurt Campbell going to remain the envoy as far as America’s concerned? And U Thaung, the Burmese counterpart? What kinds of meetings might there be from now on? Are we going to see Hillary Clinton meet (inaudible) in the sidelines of APEC or the U.S.-ASEAN Summit?

Secondly, one of the things that has failed has been the UN efforts to bring about dialogue and facilitate progress. Since the American policy shift was announced there’s been a hiatus within the UN as to what they can do and one suspects that the Burmese only want to deal with one person or with one country and that they’re no longer happy or interested in the UN. What does the U.S. see as the UN’s role, given that in some ways you’ve big-footed them?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Big-footed is your term, Larry, not mine. (Laughter).
Logistics. Look, we expect that we’ll have a series of conversations both with Burmese officials and with others in Burma, and of course we have an embassy in Rangoon that interacts regularly with a wide range of people both in and out of the government, so I think there will be a whole series of conversations that continue to take place.

In terms of special envoys, the JADE ACT mandates that we name a special envoy. We are in the process of moving to name a special envoy. Meanwhile, Kurt Campbell and to some extent I are working on that. Once a special envoy is named I think all of us will work together. Exactly how we’ll divide things up is to be seen. On the Burmese side, we understand the Burmese have asked Minister U Thaung to be our counterpart. I haven’t heard anything different and of course that’s up to them.

Next steps in terms of anything in Singapore, I don’t anticipate a meeting at a level that you’re talking about but there could be lower level conversations. We just don’t know.

UN efforts. Again, as I said earlier, I think it’s important that all elements of the international community, including the United Nations, work together. We have been in close touch with the United Nations. I met with Ibrahim Gambari before we went out. Because it’s essential that the international community speak as much as possible with one voice here, I think we all have roles to play. So no big-footing on our part.

QUESTION: The constitution that the Burmese rulers have drawn up last year has been widely dismissed as perpetuating military rule irrespective of what happens with the elections, reconciliation, dialogue, et cetera. Did you raise this issue specifically during your meetings? And the NLD has called for a constitutional review. Are you going to specifically back that?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: We heard a lot from people about the constitution. I think when the constitution was being drafted we spoke out very clearly that we thought the process was seriously flawed. It was not inclusive.

When the referendum took place in the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, I think we spoke out very clearly, I don’t remember our exact language, but we made it very clear that we did not think that was a credible referendum by any stretch of the imagination. So we do agree that the constitution is significantly flawed.

I think you have a situation where the way ahead that we can see goes back to the point about a dialogue where the NLD, ethnic minority groups - many of whom also have strong views about the constitution - and the government have to sit down and try to find a way ahead. I think we have to leave it to them to decide on the details of that, but I don’t see any way forward without that kind of dialogue.

QUESTION: Ambassador, I wonder whether you could discuss - let me go back to talk about election next year - whether the ambassador talked with the government, the military, and stakeholders about next year free and fair elections. I wonder whether how they can have free elections when the media have been controlled totally in Burma like that. That is the first part.

The second part is about independent election commission. Are they going to have this kind of independent institution that we have in other countries in Asia? And also have you talked about whether they will allow the international community to observe their election next year or even the international media to make the news about the election next year? Thank you very much.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: I think the best way to answer that is we have not taken a position on the elections at this point. I think there are sort of two stages here potentially. Before you get to questions in our mind about whether there will be an independent electoral commission and media allowed to participate and that sort of thing, I think you have to go back to the question about whether these elections are going to be managed - that’s the wrong word. Whether the government is going to create conditions leading up to the election that make it possible at all for them to be credible, let alone free or fair.

So before getting into the details about the election process itself, I think you first have to answer the question about whether the government is going to allow -- have this dialogue that I keep stressing with the opposition and the ethnic minority groups.

But let’s be honest. If the government moves ahead with its election without participation by the parties and the groups that won substantial majority in the last election, it doesn’t matter what electoral commission they have or how much media there is. It’s not going to be credible.

So the first question, and I think we have to keep focused on this - you can have an election day in which people observe and the votes are counted freely, but if in the lead-up to that you have not created the conditions for full participation by everybody under agreed upon rules, it doesn’t really solve the problem. So again, it’s important that the first step take place before the second step.

QUESTION: A question about the ethnic groups. Can you tell us which ones you met with? I presume, for instance, not the Wa. Can you tell us what the reading was, what the Burmese officials told you about the stand-off in the north? And how you would like to see better treatment for the ethnic groups, and you’d also like to see crackdown on a lot of the drugs that are produced by these ethnic groups. How do you reconcile those two positions given that a crackdown on the drug producers would probably, by the Burmese army and they’re incapable of acting without, in the past they have, inflicting human rights abuses.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: We met with seven or eight representatives of ethnic minority groups. I’m not going to say who specifically, but I would say we met with representatives from several of the largest ethnic groups in Rangoon. We met in Rangoon with them.

They offered their views on a whole range of issues. The constitution, elections, the question of the government’s effort to agree to transform into border guards, et cetera. They had a variety of views obviously representing different groups. We were mostly listening to their views. Obviously [they have] big concerns about the upcoming elections as well as the government’s concerns about how the government will deal with them militarily.

In terms of better treatment of the ethnic groups and squaring that with drug trade, it’s obviously very complicated. I think, again, I know I’m repeating myself here, but in the end there needs to be a dialogue that works out an agreement here on the military side of things. And I think that’s very separate from the issue of drugs. Certainly we’re opposed to drug trafficking but certainly don’t want the military to go in and attack people and create human rights violations as they have in the past. So it’s very complicated, I agree with you.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, you touched a lot on the issue of the international community speaking with one voice. We didn’t talk about the EU yet. Have you been in touch with EU officials prior to this trip? Do you think it’s desirable to have coordination? Have you tried? Has it failed? Do you think it’s okay if the U.S. and Europe may have their own approaches which may differ?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Yes, we have been in touch with the EU before we came out here, and we’re in regular conversation with them. I think generally we have quite similar approaches.

I think it’s possible for the international community to have slightly different approaches, but to agree on some key points. I think that’s where we are with the EU. I think we’re in general agreement on the key essential points. We might have slightly different approaches, and that’s fine. So we’re very comfortable with where we are with the EU and appreciate their role.

QUESTION: There are a variety of reasons I guess why America is keen to be involved in trying to help the situation in Burma at the moment. Can you tell us why do you think the Burmese government, the military generals, are so keen to be involved in this process of dialogue at the moment? What do you think?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: I don’t know. (Laughter). We’ve asked them. I don’t know. I mean you can speculate, but I don’t want to try to speculate on behalf of them.

QUESTION: No theories?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Speculation, which I think I’ll avoid.

QUESTION: Ambassador Marciel, you have mentioned you have discussed with the Burmese government about the human rights issue. There are a lot of Muslims in Western Burma (inaudible), they are fleeing their land to (inaudible) due to the religious suppression and human rights violations. Have you discussed with the Burmese government about this issue? And how do you solve the problem? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: We agree; we’re very aware of the situation. It’s terrible. It’s a big problem. It’s one of unfortunately many very serious human rights problems. I can say that we’ve talked with the Burmese government in general about our concerns about the treatment of different ethnic groups and sometimes that treatment is different as in the case of the Rohingya.

How it’s solved, it will be solved when the Burmese government decides to treat them better. I don’t mean to be flip, but it’s not something, I think it’s something that the international community needs to push the Burmese government to address because the treatment is quite bad. There’s no easy answer other than the Burmese authorities, I hope, by talking to people, listening to people in their own country, will see that there’s a better way to manage this.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask, I know the sanctions remain in place, and we continue to be engaged in humanitarian efforts in Myanmar. But how should or should we be engaged in trying to help ensure that the elections next year are as free and fair as possible? Or should we, the international community, be stepping back and waiting to see what the government in Burma does?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: As I said earlier, you can see a scenario under which the elections could be a step forward, but as I said, that would require well before the elections a serious and sustained dialogue among all the players to see if there could be agreement on the way forward. That would have to address the constitutional issues among many others.

Our view is that it’s important for the international community to focus first on trying to create that basic dialogue toward national reconciliation so that the political process can be broadened and be inclusive. If that happens, then I think there’s a potential to look at the elections more hopefully. Absent that, it’s quite hard to be optimistic.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, a couple of questions. When you asked for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, what specifically was the government response? On the constitution, it guarantees 25 percent of the seats to the military. Does State believe that it is possible to have a free and fair election while that still stands?

Also, since you announced your policy review in February, the government has locked up Aung San Suu Kyi for 18 months, launched offensives against two ethnic minorities, and recently conducted another crackdown against political opponents. What lessons do you draw from those series of events, and how hopeful does it make you about the process?

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: Let me take your last question first.

As I said earlier, when we began this process we were not under any illusions that this was going to be easy and that our announcement of a new approach was suddenly going to change things. This is very difficult, and we certainly see and are concerned about the actions that you mentioned. Again, we have been very clear going into this that we did not think this was going to be easy and there are going to be setbacks and we’ll have to see whether there can be progress over time.

In terms of the first question about Aung San Suu Kyi, we’ve been asking repeatedly for her release. My view is that it really doesn’t matter what the Burmese government says so much as what it does. They release her or they don’t. The point here is that there has been talk about them hinting here and there. That’s not particularly useful. Either they release her or they don’t, so we’re looking for them to release her.

On the constitution and the seats reserved for the military and the impact on the elections, I think there are two separate issues. We’ve talked already about the flaws in the constitution and key groups inside the country that don’t accept that constitution. So for the elections to be free and fair, there needs to be some process that would make all the groups, the key groups, feel that they had confidence in the elections, and that goes back to the point about dialogue including about possibly the terms of the constitution.

QUESTION: I’d just like to, first of all, I applaud your efforts of the U.S .government to engage constructively and to have dialogue, but I would like to take a devil’s advocate position right now since it’s only five days after Halloween. (Laughter). And three days after Loy Krathong.

Anyway, the fact is that exactly almost a year ago President Obama was elected on a platform of change. But a year since, if you look at just some of the domestic legislation that’s in the Congress and so forth, there’s quite a lot of resistance to change, and now here we are even talking about a democratic country.

So if we switch to our neighboring country here, which I would characterize as rather impervious to change up to now it seems, how do you think whether the U.S. policy on Myanmar would be able to succeed? Taking into consideration not so much in this case resistance maybe domestically, but perhaps from some of the countries that are still supporting Burma. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: It’s no question that change is difficult in most places, and certainly in Burma as we’ve seen over the last 20 years. I guess what I would say is I do think that the Burmese will make their own decisions. I don’t think it will be because if they want to change I don’t think they’re going to let another country stop them.

The key here, I think, is for all of us in the international community to work to try to persuade the people inside the country that there is a way ahead that doesn’t have to be threatening to them, and that could put the country on a much better path, not only in terms of democracy and human rights, but in terms of economic progress, et cetera.

If you look at Burma, it has fallen dramatically relative to all of its neighbors in terms of a wide range of measures - everything from infant mortality, maternal health, prevalence of serious diseases, quality of education, et cetera. This is a country that’s been moving steadily backwards, unfortunately, for a long time.

I do think that there are a lot of people in the country who care about their country and want to see it move ahead.

The whole point here is that there is a way ahead and it will involve change. There cannot be progress without change. It will not be easy. There will be people who will resist, obviously. But the alternative is for the country to continue to move backwards. It’s not just about politics, it’s much broader than that. So the key is for the international community to sort of point out that there is a way ahead. There really is, and it would have to involve working with people throughout the country. The opposition has reached out and called for a dialogue. I think this is an opportunity that I hope the government will take.

QUESTION: Thank you for giving us a briefing on what took place a few days ago and yesterday.

You mentioned that many before you have failed, and I’m curious, again, following the devil’s advocate, if I can be a little bit of a pessimist, how is the State Department, how is the policy adjusting itself to the possibility that having linked progress internally to diplomatic progress of the possibility that it will fail, the possibility that the dialogue that you talked about as being crucial for it to be a fair and free election won’t take place?

And I’m wondering if the U.S. State Department is considering other possibilities of the stick to follow the carrot and if those would include Security Council. There has been a movement for ICC, ICJ, to examine war crimes taking place in Eastern Burma and other places in Arakhine state, and if the U.S. is open to supporting those efforts. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: As I said, we’re going into this with eyes wide open. I’ve been working on Burma for five years, others much longer. So we’re not under any illusions and we’re aware that success is far from guaranteed. I think though, before we sort of come to any conclusions about what we do next, we’re going to proceed for a while. Then if it doesn’t work, we’ll try something different.

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier that you reviewed the policy of sanctions and decided it wasn’t achieving its goals, in which case what do you plan to do about this? Do you plan to tweak them? Are there some sanctions which are more effective than others? Are there things you could do with the sanctions regime which would have a better effect? Or is there an argument for lifting them as an incentive for further progress?

My follow-up question would be what you’re here to see, to meet with Thai officials during your trip to Thailand. Can you just tell us what role, if any, Thailand will have beyond the "it would be nice if they could help". Is there something that Thailand can do given its trading role, the fact that you’ve got millions of Burmese here?

And also the military-to-military links between Thailand and Burma. Is there something that, some avenue you could work there? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: On sanctions, what I said was the policy that relied heavily on sanctions but without dialogue had not succeeded, but that sanctions were still, in our view, a useful tool and they remain part of what we’re trying to use as a policy instrument.

We do not think it’s appropriate or wise to lift sanctions now absent progress, but certainly we’d be looking at sanctions if there is progress. The purpose of the sanctions is not just for the satisfaction of having them, but rather to try to achieve an end, and if we begin to see progress then obviously we can look at a whole range of issues in terms of improving the bilateral relationship, and if there’s sufficient progress we can start talking to our congress about sanctions. So I continue to think they’re a useful part of the policy, but by themselves not sufficient.

In terms of Thailand’s role, I think we consult closely and regularly with our very good friends here in Thailand on a whole range of issues including on Burma. They have a lot of knowledge and history. I think and we hope that Thailand, as it has done, will continue to urge for progress, use its diplomatic engagement with its neighbor to encourage progress, to encourage dialogue. I think that’s the most helpful things they can do.

QUESTION: There seems to be a deeply set historically rooted paranoia in Burma that is reflecting the sense that there’s a fear of national disintegration and of external interference from great powers that we know about from history. I wonder if you can comment on how that’s influenced your thinking and engagement with them.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: First, we’ve been very clear that we support a unified nation of Burma. That’s always been true and we’ve highlighted that and made it clear that we certainly have no intention of any kind of intervention.

In terms of the fear of national disintegration, that’s certainly clear. But again, when you have problems like this, for us the best approach is to talk to people and see if you can work out your differences. That’s fundamentally what we’re suggesting here. I realize there’s a difference in culture, political culture and so on, and we recognize that, but I think we come back to that conclusion still, that that’s our advice as a country that wants to see a unified and prosperous and successful Burma.

QUESTION: Ambassador, you stressed many times, emphasized importance of engaging with international community. I wonder what’s the extent of U.S. Government to engage with ASEAN community in this case.

AMBASSADOR MARCIEL: One of my hats is Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs, so I spend a lot of my time in doing just that. Not just to talk about Burma, of course. We have a whole range of issues to work with ASEAN on.

But we have for a long time and continue to consult very closely with all ASEAN countries to try to hear ideas and find areas where we can work together to promote progress in Burma and we’ll certainly continue to do that. We value ASEAN’s role.

MODERATOR: Ambassador Marciel has been frank, wide ranging, and expansive. I also want to thank the audience and those who raised questions for keeping them brief. Please join me in thanking Ambassador Scot Marciel for his remarks today and for his time. Thank you.

# # # #

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

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

Statement before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Washington, DC

October 28, 2009

As Prepared

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Security Proposals and the Corfu Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic and Environment Dimension

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

Efforts Beyond the OSCE Region

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

Kazakhstan as OSCE Chair-in-Office

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

U.S. Engagement With Multilateral Organizations

Esther Brimmer
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs

Foreign Press Center

Washington, DC

October 22, 2009

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. It’s an honor for us to have Dr. Brimmer here with us today. Dr. Brimmer is the Assistant Secretary for International Organization, and in that role, she’s the leader of the Bureau for International Organization at the Department of State. So without any further ado, let me turn it over to Dr. Brimmer. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Thank you very much for that welcome and thank you to all of you for taking time this afternoon. I know everyone’s busy, so I’m glad you were able to take time out to join me today, and I look forward to our conversation. And I would also like to thank the Foreign Press Center for bringing us all together today.

I would like to take a few minutes and talk about the important ways the President’s era of engagement is changing the multilateral landscape. I’ll spend a few minutes talking about that changed landscape. We note at the outset that it’s rooted in President Obama’s demonstrated commitment to engagement, dialogue, and shared responsibility a commitment that has been evident since even well before the election, but vividly highlighted in his speeches at Cairo and at the UN General Assembly.

Those speeches and the Administration’s active involvement in the months since demonstrates the reengagement, which covers a range of issues from classic security challenges such as nuclear proliferation to new concepts of security such as the threat posed by climate change. Ultimately, the President’s era of engagement rests upon the recognition that there’s a responsibility for addressing these important issues and one that we all share.

Take, for example – those are the most critical security issues, particularly nonproliferation. Early in his Administration, the President took the momentous decision to recommit to the goal of a nuclear-free world. As the world’s original nuclear state, I believe this commitment has particular resonance. But the President actually went much further. Rather than simply address this from a unilateral point of view, he thought it was important to work with the international community to address this issue and work at the Security Council in particular.

And as you know, last month, he became the first U.S. President to chair a Security Council session at the summit level. The session resulted in Security Council Resolution 1887, which expresses the Council’s grave concern about the continuing threat of nuclear proliferation and calls for concrete actions by all UN member-states – not only the United States – to work towards a world without nuclear weapons.

Looking at another issue, we can think about climate change. The President has taken bold action to accelerate domestic efforts to address these issues, particularly looking at efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to increase the use of renewable energy here in the United States. But he’s also working, actually, on the international level and realizing that needs to be a global response. And he charted a fundamental shift in the U.S. approach to this issue and – a shift which tries to bring together the domestic efforts and the international efforts, wedding the major economies initiative with the goals and aspirations of the emerging international framework.

But if we look at a third area, we can look particularly at issues related to food and food security. The fact that over a billion people are affected by hunger or insufficient nutrition is absolutely fundamental. One in six people are directly affected by this issue. And here again, the President has been particularly interested in looking at how we deepen our frameworks for dealing with food security issues. As you’ll recall at the April G-20 summit in London, the President announced his intention to ask Congress to double U.S. agricultural development assistance to more than $1 billion in 2010 and 3.5 billion over the next three years.

But he (inaudible) again that it was important that he link the U.S. effort with the global effort to address food security issues. And last month, as you know, at the UN General Assembly, the United States and the United Nations together looked forward to hosting future work on food security issues. So there, again, the U.S. international – the U.S. initiative and the global initiative are working together.

The U.S. initiative in particular focuses on looking at improving the efforts at sustainable agriculture based on country-led plans, but also, in addition to working on long-term efforts on food security, we maintain our support for emergency assistance through the World Food Program as well.

Looking at other issues that – overall, looking at international development issues, the United States is working on the millennium development goals along with other countries around the globe, but the U.S. Administration has made a point of committing to – more deeply to how to integrate and add the millennium development goals to complement the U.S. efforts on its bilateral assistance.

If we look at other issues across the multilateral area, particularly on the Administration – particularly interest on dealing with the issues of women, peace, and security. And as you know, at the end of September, Secretary Clinton, who is a global figure working on – she’s really worked her entire life on security issues, particularly on women’s rights and addressing these issues. But she both combined many of the lessons she had from her trip to Africa where she spent time in the Democratic Republic of Congo talking to victims of gender-based violence and bringing the ideas and the spirit of concern from that trip to her session at the Security Council, where the Council put forward Resolution 1888, which deals with women, peace, and security issues.

There are others we can talk about in greater detail, but I’d just like to actually touch on several different themes so that we have a chance to explore that in greater detail. One of the others I’d like to talk about in terms of international peace and security really has to do with peace operations. And here, the United States also is deeply into its commitment to look across the board at the mechanisms within the United Nations for working on peace operations.

As you may know, while in New York, the President hosted an event with leaders from the top troop-contributing countries to talk – to hear their concerns as the countries that really contribute to the work of peacekeeping, but also to understand that this has to be part of a larger effort looking at overall peace operations, and looking at how to really try to strengthen this by getting input from countries across the UN system that are interested in this area.

Now, I’d like to take a moment and talk a bit about the Administration’s approach to international human rights issues. One of the earliest decisions this Administration took was to stand for a seat at the Human Rights Council, and we were delighted to be elected in the month of May to take a seat in the most recent session of the Council. We took our seat in September in Geneva, and although we are new on the Council and looking at – and learning more about how the Council operates and working across lines in the Council, we thought it was important to try to identify an area where we could try to build new areas of cooperation within the Human Rights Council, a body which has had a troubled and somewhat uneven history.

And we are – I’m really pleased to say we were able to work with other delegations, including co-sponsoring a resolution with Egypt on the freedom of expression. We wanted to see if it was possible to work across some of the recent divisions within the Council to help pass those adopted by consensus a resolution reaffirming universal values of freedom of speech, opinion, expression, and freedom of the media.

So there will be a lot of work to be done there, but we thought that that was also an important element of the larger engagement of multilateral issues both working in Europe and Geneva around the UN system.

I’d be happy to go into greater detail about any of those areas in particular, but I would really like to hear your concerns, your questions, and welcome our conversation. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Well, Dr. Brimmer, perhaps we’ll just start out to your left with Sonia Schott from Radio Valera.

QUESTION: May I have the pleasure to make the first question? (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: You certainly do. Ladies first. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. In your remarks, you mentioned the human rights issue. And actually, coming from Latin America, I would like to know what kind of programs or what is new – what will be new regarding Latin America in terms of human rights, freedom of expression?

And the second one, very briefly, I noticed that once President Obama’s talk about reform the international institutions, how far is the U.S. willing to go in that regard?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Certainly. If I, first, may take up the point looking at international human rights issues. Indeed, of course, the United States is active in international human rights mechanisms, both at the global level with the Human Rights Council and other parts of the UN system, and of course at the regional level, particularly through the Organization of American States.

If you’ll look at the overall approach to international human rights issues, I would suggest you might see certain key themes. One is defending the universality of human rights and looking at mechanisms that try to reinforce that. As I mentioned, we’re particularly interested in the resolution on the freedom of expression, again talking about the universality of that particular right applying to all of us, whether working as writers, on the internet, in print or other formats. And so those are ones that the – particularly the universality of human rights and how that might be manifested.

Another is looking at the importance of transparency and good governance mechanisms and how we can try to kind of support those; supporting those human rights defenders who are working in their own countries, in their own systems, to help support international human rights. And so we would also like to be able to support as mechanisms within international organizations that help people in their own countries realize their own human rights elements.

If we look at a reform of the international system, now that’s a much larger question. And of course, if you talk to many of my colleagues across the Department, we could have a very long conversation through many different aspects of the international system. But now we’ll focus particularly on my areas of responsibility, that – in particular, that the U.S. wants to be sure that multilateral institutions are viable and vital through the 21^st century. We think they’re absolutely fundamental to the international system, and so that – as we look out across the system, we think it’s important to make sure that these institutions remain vital.

But I would suggest there’s actually quite a broad understanding of what reform of institutions means. It means sometimes it’s often the glamorous questions of “do you create a new institution or a new body.” And some people, for example, focus on the G-20 and the arrival of a new mechanism in recent years. But I would suggest also important are the elements that have to do even with our day-to-day working mechanisms.

So one of the areas we look at in terms of reform of institutions is making sure that we are diligent in trying to improve transparency and accountability within our existing institutions. And that’s not because we just want to be critical and point fingers to point fingers; it’s because we actually think that you need to have well-run, well-managed organizations with a coherent budgeting process in order to do the job that we actually need them to do.

So we’re looking at, say, on all sorts of – both the big-ticket things, but also sometimes even our daily working methods to bring a spirit of reform.

QUESTION: Frederick Nnoma-Addison, AMIP News for Africa. You talked about food security. You can’t talk about food security without talking about Africa. The question is how does the – and the President recently met 25 African leaders in New York. How does the President hope to work with African leaders and the UN to achieve food security, especially in Africa?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yes. I thank you for the question. I’d like to some to instances to go over. As you mentioned, the President had the opportunity to meet with African heads of state during the opening of the – at the UN General Assembly, indeed. And looking particularly at food security issues, the United States, working with the United Nations, wants to develop a comprehensive approach to food security issues, which is particularly driven by country-led plans; in other words, looking at – with each country about how that country feels are the most important programs relevant by country. It’s not a one size fits all.

There are certain elements, though, that are particularly – we think are particularly important. We realize that of course – that if we look at many farmers, particularly in Africa who are often farmers on smaller-scale holdings, often farming maybe even land that they don’t own personally, and we want to look at how do we actually empower those farmers, 70 percent of whom are women –

QUESTION: Yes.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: -- to be more productive on the land that they are working.

And so one of the areas we’re looking at in terms of working with the United Nations is working with the food agencies (inaudible), and particularly the World Food Program which does emergency aid, but also particularly with the Food and Agriculture Organization, working on continuing to spread knowhow on issues, and with the International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD. And there, we think that some of the mechanisms there could also be used to help get relevant technology into the field for farmers to use.

We also want to see if there are ways to help improve bringing those products to market so you both deal with the farmers who are trying to produce more and perhaps, more people who live in urban areas will try to receive that food and help develop those links. So some – those are some of the areas that we look at. We very much are working with the UN system and with our other partners to advance this.

MODERATOR: Fred, do you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: I do. I mean, the UN and the U.S. have been working with Africa on this particular subject for decades. And in spite of all the amount of investments that have gone into African countries, it’s almost unbelievable that 2009 we still talk about this. What do you think – what is the missing link, you know, from your seat? What do you think it is?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: I think one could argue that over the past several decades, that there’s actually been less investment in terms of the technologies for farmers on the ground to use, particularly in Africa. And I think it was interesting, at the Friday before the large meeting co-hosted by the Secretary and the Secretary-General, the Secretary of State actually gave a speech also on food security issues at the Clinton Global Initiative. And she and her husband, the former president, were also talking about the history of investment of food agencies. And it was interesting even to have a former president comment that he was aware that over the past several decades, irrespective of which administration was in power in the United States, at least from the U.S. point of view, we probably focused less on, I’d say, technology, though particularly usable, for smaller scale farmers, and that’s really where we need to approve productivity. So I think that’s probably made the new nuance in this particular effort.

QUESTION: Okay, okay. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Taewon.

QUESTION: Yes. Taewon Ha from (inaudible) South Korean newspaper Dong-a Libo Daily. I would like to ask a human rights issue also. Can you briefly explain is there any type of change of approach compared to Mr. Bush administration’s human rights approach? And specifically, I believe human rights is universal rights of human beings. But sometimes the U.S. Government – just tell me if it’s not correct – sometimes use the human rights issue as politically. And the reason why I am saying is that when you engage in North Korea, you are not – when you – you are not engaging with North Korea, you are very energetically criticized on the human rights issue. But once the dialogue start, you tend to make silence on that issue. So does the Obama Administration – will do the same or will there be any difference, compared to Mr. Bush’s administration?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: I think I’ll let the – both those questions, I think I would have – I would start from a different premise from the one you – I would not accept the premise that you propose. I would say, first, that if we look at the main goals for the Obama Administration, looking at human rights issues, particularly in the international system, one is the belief that it is important that the United States work with other countries on human rights issues. And that is one of the reasons that we actually ran for a seat at the Human Rights Council . This is a major body working on human rights in the UN system. It is deeply flawed. It has real challenges within the system. We thought it was more important to be part of the organization, working on trying to improve its ability to support human rights defenders and activists in different parts of the world. And therefore that, I think, is a new outlook, a new approach for this Administration.

I think also the fact that we look at human rights issues, even outside the UN system as well. And so my colleagues who work in the bureau of department – the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor look at a wider – a much wider range of issues. I will probably focus particularly on those in the UN system, so that’s my direct responsibility. But I would say that here again, that we try to infuse the approach in many parts of the UN system to – with human rights issues and we give a very high priority to them and pay particular attention to our work on Geneva.

What I would suggest also, although I would take a different premise from your second point, to say that actually the U.S. has a strong interest in human rights issues in North Korea and elsewhere around the year. Now, often – it’s often when there’s an issue in the headlines that we tend to focus on it. But day in day out, there are diplomats seriously looking at human rights issues and making the case, even when it’s not in the news, so I’d say we consciously look at that. And if you look, for example, at the – our annual human rights report, that is the result of 365 days of engagement.

QUESTION: Good. Just very – a quick follow up on that. Recently, Mr. Robert King was appointed as special representative for North Korean human rights issue. Do you work closely with him or –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: He’s not directly part of my bureau. Obviously, we all tend to work with each other very collegially across bureau lines, but he’s actually not formally part of the International Organization’s Bureau. As I mentioned, we have both a bureau that deals with democracy, human rights, and labor issues. And of course, we have a bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs issues. We all work together, but different people may be actually formally a part of our other bureaus.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Hi. I’m Jose Diaz with Reforma newspaper from Mexico. I want to touch upon the climate change issue. Many countries already are demanding the U.S. to clarify its position. You know, the Copenhagen summit is coming soon. And I want to ask first, where is the U.S. at this moment in finding its position? What – you know, what would be the main demands and objectives that the U.S. delegation will bring? And second, do you think that, you know, there is no more space almost in the legislative calendar for a climate change bill to be approved by Congress this year because of the delay in the healthcare debate. Will that affect, you know, for the U.S. in having, you know, a crucial role at Copenhagen?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: I’ll take both portions of your question, looking particularly out at the international negotiations, and then I’ll just turn to – just to some of the points on how we approach this from the domestic side. But first and foremost, indeed, we are all looking forward to working constructively at Copenhagen in December. And as you know, the U.S. teams are working very diligently towards that.

If we look overall across this year and the approach to the negotiations has been is to understand the responsibilities of all the states involved. The first one, which I mentioned briefly in my opening remarks, is the idea that the U.S. effort should also complement the global effort; that there isn’t a separate parallel track the ideas; that is, that we’re all part of a larger global responsibility in a single conversation.

I thought that was actually exemplified by the President’s first actual appearance on – at the UN was actually at the secretary general’s meeting on climate change, even the day before our President gave his speech at (inaudible) to demonstrate the importance of the U.S. working with the international system, and so I think that’s our, sort of, first overall approach.

Then if we look within the specific (inaudible), you see that both the role for developed states in understanding the developed countries particularly are looking at real reductions, overall timeframe, based on a certain baseline and the conversations that focus on what that would look like, then also understanding for countries that are developing, that – particularly looking at trying to have a trajectory for that development which then also addresses climate change. And for countries that are just in the early stages of – for – of developing that are not yet as developed as the other two categories, also understanding not specifically making demands for those countries, but saying that also for those countries that as they look at their longer-term development that they also try to bring climate change ideas into their trajectory for development. So I think the whole approach varies on the responsibilities; that is, that all of us have responsibilities, but they may vary a bit, depending on the stages of development, and we see that brought out in the negotiations.

Negotiations are ongoing and this will allow continuing conversation all the way up until December. But I did want to take a moment actually on the domestic issues, as well, that was, you’ll notice, on legislation now. Looking at this, I think it’s important to note what’s already happened. And when the President came into office, one of the things he wanted to do was demonstrate actions at the domestic level, as well as the global – the global level. So you already had actually as part of our economic recovery act, you actually had significant funding for renewable energy. And as part of the effort to create green jobs was actually in the renewable energy area, which has the benefit, both of employment in helping revitalize the economy, and for giving a boost to renewable energy in the United States.

Another thing that the Administration has already done is increase the longer term – over the longer term, the requirements for fuel efficiency for cars, and that this will grow over time. But the idea is to build the level of fuel efficiency for the domestic market, our plans for the future. So I would suggest that you already had activities that will help support activities on climate change. But these are complex issues, and this is going to be many, many steps to move forward.

QUESTION: So regarding the targets of limiting global emissions and specifically U.S. emissions, can you clarify exactly what the position will be?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: I said the ongoing – the negotiations are ongoing at this point and they will continue. So I am not yet able to say what we will say the day we walk through the door. And as I said, we will be continuing the things that we’ve highlighted up until now.

QUESTION: Do you know when – do you know if the U.S. position will be ready?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: I don’t. I know everyone is busy working very hard on it, but I wouldn’t put a date on the day. I know everyone is working – very, very concentrated on the effort on Copenhagen. It’s a very – very much a major administration priority. So a lot of people are thinking seriously about it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Next, Jose.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Olivia.

QUESTION: Hi. Just as a follow-up to that question, actually, can you at least say what the objectives are at the Copenhagen summit?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Well, ultimately, yes. I mean, overall, we’re trying to get to an international agreement to which we can all – that we can all support that will lead to real meaningful change both on carbon issues, but also a lot down the road on overall climate change issues, which has always been the goal from the very beginning. That overall goal has not changed, and it’s still fundamentally driving the approach for it.

QUESTION: And then, when you spoke more generally about international institutions like the UN, you said, you know, it’s important to be diligent in transparency, to be well-run, well-managed. And then, you also mentioned that the Human Rights Council is deeply flawed. So I just wanted to know what are some of your specific, you know, constructive criticisms that you might have towards the organization? And what is the U.S. trying to do to change that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yes. Let me give you an example. If we look at the Human Rights Council, which, as you know, is a relatively new body. It was created in 2005 as the successor to the Human Rights Commission. And one of the innovations was the creation of something called the Universal Periodic Review. And like many things, it goes by jargon, so it’s often UPR, but it’s the Universal Periodic Review. And the idea is that every member-state should be able to bring forward its own report on its – how it’s meeting international human rights issues. So there’s a schedule for every member-state to report on this – on their human rights – implementation of human rights ideas. And this actually should help spur a domestic debate, because the important thing is not be reporting to the council, it’s the domestic process that we use to make sure that we are supporting human rights issues.

And many countries have had – worked through the Universal Periodic Reviews, and we think this is potentially a good mechanism, but has not always been used as well as it could. And that process should encourage nongovernmental organizations to participate. There should be discussions across governments and civil society, as part of that conversation to bring forward to the Council, but that has not always happened. And at times, it has really been a process that it really hasn’t allowed a real frank presentation. This is an area we would hope to improve. We think this is a good mechanism. The United States itself will have its own universal periodic review at the end of 2010.

And so we hope that to be committed to using that as a way also to show how to engage on UPRs. Many countries across the globe have been very creative about how – what they presented, how they drew in many different ministries, and they’ve really showed how it could be done and we went to look to those models of states who’ve done it well to say that maybe this is how we could do this well in the system. So that’s a new mechanism, which if we encouraged it being used well, would really be an improvement for the work of the Council as a whole.

QUESTION: I guess my question was often, the U.S. criticism, the crux of it has been, oh, you know, the UN is this huge mammoth organization, it’s a bit sluggish, and sometimes that has been used in the past as an excuse not to engage with the UN. Why do you think that’s changed today? And, you know, what are some of the frustrations that you see, you know --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Well --

QUESTION: -- about UN reform in general?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Well, our approach actually is – I think you actually have to disentangle the term, UN reform, and actually say what do you want to look at. And one of the things that we think is important to look at is a – is looking at how each agency – the secretariat itself – and how each agency is actually managed and how we work on accountability. So part of it is the – perhaps, absolutely important – probably not glamorous, but absolutely important – issues of which – of looking at how each agency is managed, how budgets are prepared, how information about how money is got to be shared with member-states, and it’s absolutely crucial work. And what we do is try to make sure we work with each agency about how they do their own internal analysis, how they do their own internal oversight. We support, of course, at the UN level, the office of internal – oversight investigations. We think these are – these mechanisms are really important and we want to encourage each agency also to bring those together.

And many UN agencies have developed their own mechanisms for transparency in accounting which are very good, and so part of it is learning from each other about how to do that. And we think that that’s often a way to do it and would – rather than seeing UN reform – as I say, there’s a way to point fingers – we try to use it as a way to actually help managers who are running large organizations to think about the best practices to bring to those organizations.

QUESTION: I’m Toro Takae of Kyodo News. It’s a news wire service. I also have a question about the Human Rights Council. Can you explain when the United States decided to join and why, the --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Right.

QUESTION: -- reason to it? And what kind of reactions are you getting from the other countries so far?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Well, very early in the Administration, of course, the Administration did policy reviews looking at the Council, and then decided in the spring to join. The actual election was in – was May 12^th. We – obviously, we wanted to run earlier that spring. But there was very much a sense that human rights were a very important portion of the agenda for foreign policy issues for the Obama Administration.

And the question was how do you realize that, and I’d say there are many different ways outside the UN system, but the question was, within the UN system, what’s the best way to do that. And the decision to join – part of it, as I say, was to realize that the United States wanted to be part of helping support the international mechanisms to help realize human rights, and needed to be a part of the major body within the UN system that works on these issues, and that’s what really the (inaudible) to join the body.

As I said, there will be areas where additional work will be needed and we’ll have – all member-states will have to try to work together on trying to improve the body itself. But it was a decision very early on because, as you know, the election was fairly early on in the (inaudible) of the Administration.

QUESTION: And what kind of reactions?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yes, excuse me – yes. Actually, we’ve been fortunate in that there have been very positive reactions. I had the honor, actually, of being in Geneva the day the United States formally became a member of the Council and I was able to give a speech on behalf of the United States on – as we arrived at the Council. And I was really delighted at the warm welcome that we received from countries. That doesn’t mean that we always agree with each other, but it was really nice to realize that we all – we have a stake in this institution.

MODERATOR: Rachel.

QUESTION: My name is Rachel. I’m with KBC, but I’m currently at the University of Maryland on a (inaudible) fellowship program. Mine would be a follow-up on Frederick’s question on food and security. Much as you’ve talked about developing allocation to food and security and technological issues standing in the way, how is the U.S. planning to deal with issues of governance? Because for me, I think that’s a big issue regarding o conflict or sometimes creating official shortages. How are you trying to address that? And of course, some of them – allocations go to governments, so how are you holding the governments accountable?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Indeed. No, that’s a good question. I should say it’s both a part – a U.S. effort and an international effort. I should say, in addition to the U.S. side of things, there’s – and the UN side of things, there are also other countries that are also contributing as well, so that – who will also be part of this effort of advancing the programs and on the accountability side as well, so that – indeed, then in addition to the mechanisms through the UN, that also – that some of the – who all work on the bilateral side will also look at some of the governance issues and some of the transparency issues about how funding is used.

And that’s one of the things we’re working on now, is actually how do you make sure that you’re able to track the funding and look at how it’s actually going to be used. So now we’re also working on setting up the mechanisms that support the initiative in order to actually manage the governments of the initiative, and that’s where we’re seeing a lot of the work this fall, is looking at how do you actually do that, what do you do in your bilateral channel and what do you do in your multilateral channel to actually make sure that the funding is going the way you – where it’s actually most needed. And --

QUESTION: And is the UN planning on watching the trade barriers that’s standing in the way of maybe economic growth of the African continent?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Well, indeed, I think that there are a variety of points looking – where we’re looking at the larger trade issues as well, some outside the UN system as well, I mean, that – while I’m focusing on the work in – within the UN system, there’s – some of these issues are actually being taken up outside the UN system as well as inside the UN system, so that indeed you have to look at – so there’s many different policies beyond just particularly what falls in my bailiwick to try to support the overall food policy.

MODERATOR: Chris, you have a question?

QUESTION: Yeah, hello. My name is Chris Wernicke. I’m working for the German daily Seuddeutsche. Yes, I’d like to follow up quickly on the climate change question. I was surprised that my colleague from (inaudible) had not asked the question. (Laughter.)

How firm is the commitment of the United States to this time to join an actual treaty, which may include the danger that you have to go to the Senate and try to get a two-thirds majority? The sides are not very optimistic on that. Apart from that, I’d like to take advantage of your inside knowledge as somebody who already worked for the Clinton Administration. It’s very easy and very common to compare Obama to Bush, but how would you read so far the kind of approach to multilateral organization from the Clinton Administration in comparison to the Obama Administration? I mean, we all remember that almost – in the early ‘90s, there was some sort of multilateral enthusiasm. I mean, there were people like Tim Wirth in the administration. At that time, I used to cover all the United Nations summits and stuff, also on peacekeeping, Somalia – and then there was quite some sort of sobering going on, the way I perceive it.

But that is not so important. Your opinion is much more important. It is – looks much more sober and tentative and more based on a give-and-take calculus this time to me, but how does it look to you?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Right. I’ll try to take up both parts of your question. First, the Administration is deeply committed to working on climate change issues and bringing forward an agreement that we can all sign up to, and obviously we very much want Copenhagen to be a success, so I --

QUESTION: A legally binding one?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yeah. As I say, this is a high priority for the Administration. They’re absolutely committed and everyone is working very, very hard on that particular topic.

So we – but to take your question on this longer – long-range effort with respect to multilateral issues, I would suggest actually that the Administration combines both a very forward-looking approach trying to understand what do we need to do now on multilateral institutions, how do we support the United Nations, its agencies and other international organizations that can actually help support human well-being and dealing with international peace and security.

And so we’re very much looking forward, but I would suggest that we’re trying to draw on what are really fundamental themes in American foreign policy that have been consistent over decades. And so it’s – I think it’s actually quite interesting if you look at – even look at the speech of the Secretary recently when she was at Brookings just before the UN General Assembly and was talking about the outlook, that she talked about – looked back to the four freedoms and looked at some of the themes about responsible internationalism that have really been themes throughout American foreign policy, and I think we’re really trying to draw on that tradition as we look forward to what we need to do to shape institutions for a new century.

QUESTION: But you kind of avoided the question about the legally binding instrument on Kyoto. Is the U.S. ready for a legally binding treaty that might go – need to go to the Senate?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yeah, absolutely committed to an international agreement, then, to which we can all – could all agree that – and whatever the agreement is that will look at exactly – how – whatever form it actually takes, because it’s deeply committed to getting to Copenhagen and getting an agreement and getting something to which we can support, because the important thing is we understand that we – all of us have a responsibility on these issues. We all have to address them, because no matter what, your economic situation will be affected by this. And so we very much want to address that and deal with it.

And the next step is Kyoto – excuse me, the next step in Kyoto is now Copenhagen, but that said, this is also going to be a long-term effort. If you look at all of the national plans, these will take decades of commitment, and that’s where the leaders are, is understanding the important long-term commitment they’re making to deal with climate change issues.

MODERATOR: Maria?

QUESTION: Hello, my name is Maria Tabak and I’m U.S. correspondent of the Russia news agency RIA Novosti. Well, I’ve got three questions and two of them are connected --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Three questions.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Yeah, sorry about that. Two are connected with some statements of our Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. A few weeks ago, he said that Russian foreign office sent a request for issuing visas for some representatives from Abkhazia, in order to give them opportunity to bring their opinion in the United Nations. And Russia is expecting for some reply from the Department of State. So my first question is: What is the reaction of the Department of State and are these visas going to be issued?

Second thing is that Lavrov, he didn’t exclude the opportunity – the possibility of resuming work of the UN missions in Georgia and in Abkhazia. Again, what is the opinion of the Department of State? And third question is more general. What is the position of American administration on Security Council? I mean, in terms of extending the number, increasing the number of permanent members. So do you think it’s a good idea or you think that there is need for some other reforms of the Security Council? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Okay. Let me take the first one. I must apologize, the first one on the issuance of visas, that actually doesn’t fall under my immediate responsibility. That’s handled by the Bureau of Consular Affairs. So an update on that, we could – we’d have to go back and check and get you a follow-up answer from Consular Affairs on the state of play there.

Looking at the possibility of the UN missions in Georgia, that it is important to note that we, of course, think that there is an international interest in the well-being of Georgia, and that there, of course, are currently European Union monitors there as well. And we think that if there is a well – appropriate role thought out, we would want to understand more fully what was being proposed. But we think that obviously if there is a role for UN in terms of supporting peace and security that is very clear, we’d want to look at it. But I think I’d have to see the quote in particular that you’re discussing, since I don’t know it off the top of my head on what – to be able to respond more specifically, if there was a specific proposal within it.

QUESTION: And you are talking about Georgia and about Abkhazia?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yeah, I’m talking particularly about – looking at Georgia. But I wanted to see particularly what the quote was, if there was a particular element you would like me to respond to.

And finally, on the Security Council reform, the President has said and the Secretary and Ambassador Rice have all echoed the interest in having the Security Council, which is the – a key institution of international peace and security, be – remain a vital element through – in the 21^st century and that it should reflect the realities of the 21^st century, as was cited in (inaudible) confirmation hearings. And so we’ve been conducting an internal review looking at that. We’ve not yet come to a particular decision, but we realize the importance of the Security Council – know that there are many views about how this should be addressed, many different member-states have come forward with proposals very well thought out, very complex proposals. And we’re listening to all of them, as I think all of the other members of the Security Council are as well, because we think it’s a – it’s crucial that we maintain the vitality of the institution. But we have to look closely at the proposals that are coming forward.

MODERATOR: Well, we’ve gone around the table. I don’t know if we could –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: Yeah. I think we should be back by about three. So – but if we could probably squeeze one more in and then –

MODERATOR: Sure. These are really good contacts for the Foreign Press Center. So we do have time for one more question.

Olivia.

QUESTION: What – will it be your argument against U.S. disengagement from the UN as has happened in the past?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: I think as the President has highlighted both in several of his speeches where he’s talked about multilateral engagement, that first off that so many of the issues we addressed with our – address are transnational. They cannot be solved by one country alone, that you have to work together – work on security issues, environment issues, a whole range of questions. And then, therefore, we want to be part of the objective, because we all have a stake in it. We all benefit when we actually have the mechanism in place to work together, and we all are at a serious disadvantage when we don’t. And so we think that part of being a responsible international player is to be part of the mechanisms that help support the international system.

In his speech at the General Assembly, the President focused on responsibility and the responsibility all member-states have, and that includes all of us, including the United States. And so we think we want to be part of a system. We think that’s how you actually lead to better agreement and better cooperation.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Well, thank you very much. Ambassador Brimmer, unfortunately, has a very busy schedule.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BRIMMER: If I come back again --

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.