Group Interview with Dunya TV, AAJ TV, Express TV, Geo TV, Dawn News, and PTV

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Islamabad, Pakistan

October 28, 2009

Interviewers:
Nasim Zehra, Dunya TV
Talat Husain, AAJ TV
Mubashir Luqman, Express TV
Hamid Mir, Geo TV
Naveen Naqvi, Dawn News
Moeed Pirzada, Dunya TV
Anwar ul-Hassan, PTV

 

MR. PIRZADA: Today, this is an entrusting, an entrusting new chapter and entrusting new opening in U.S.-Pakistan relationship. And in evidence of the emphasis the new Obama Administration places on people-to-people contact, that I’m joined here by United States Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton for an open and direct dialogue with the select opinion-makers of Pakistani media.

In this country, we do not know Secretary Clinton only as the United States Secretary of State. We also know her as a formidable politician, an astute politician, a very powerful ex-presidential candidate, a former First Lady. But I would also like to remind you that Secretary Clinton, even before she came into the political limelight, she was counted among the top hundred most influential lawyers that helped change the social and legal agenda within the United States.

Secretary Clinton is no stranger to Pakistan. She has been visiting this country since early ‘90s as the First Lady, and this is her fifth trip. Secretary Clinton, on behalf of my channel and all participating television channels and on behalf of the people of Pakistan, I extend to you a warm welcome into this discussion.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and I feel warmly welcomed. It is a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Pakistan, as you say, for my fifth trip. And it is also a high honor to be representing the Obama Administration and the United States.

But I’m here not just to do the official diplomacy. I have already met with the foreign minister and the prime minister. I’ll be meeting with the president. I’ll meet with the opposition. I’ll meet with parliamentarians. And that’s very important. But it is especially critical that we do more of what you’re doing today with your colleagues so that I have a chance to answer the questions that are on the minds of the people of Pakistan, so that we can have more people-to-people diplomacy. Because we need to build stronger bonds of connection, of trust, of cooperation and partnership between our two countries, and that’s what I hope today will be able to help us do – turn the page and look for an even better future.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Now with your permission, let me introduce to you all of us. My name is Moeed Pirzada. I am director and editor of world affairs for Dunya News. I also present my own current affairs program, Dunya Today, and I also write for Dawn and for Khaleej Times.

To your right, the first person is Mr. Talat Husain. He is the director of news and current affairs for AAJ Television. Before joining the electronic media, he has been the editor of The News in Islamabad. And Talat presents one popular program, Live With Talat, and given his robust opinions and very strong positions, we often refer to him as the agenda-setting anchor in Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MR. PIRZADA: Next to Talat is Mubashir Luqman. Mubashir is the lead anchor for Express News and the news network. He presents his own very hard-hitting political program called Point Blank. And Mubashir is also a columnist, and few people know that Mubashir is also a filmmaker.

Next to Mubashir is Anwar ul-Hassan. He is the lead anchor for Straight Broadcast of PTV, Pakistan television. He is also the diplomatic correspondent and Kabul is the diplomatic assignment. And he has the credit of running – of presenting the longest-running current affair programs and Straight Broadcast of PTV for the last seven years.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. PIRZADA: Here to my left is Ms. Nasim Zehra. She’s director of current affairs with Dunya News. She presents her own program, a popular political affairs program, Policy Matters. Nasim has been a columnist, a very prominent columnist, with the news and also Khaleej Times for almost 15 years now. And she has extensively covered the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

Next to Nasim is Hamid Mir, and I must emphasize that Hamid Mir is a quintessential household name in Pakistan, and he is currently the editor at Geo News in Islamabad. He presents a very popular program, Capital Talk, took a very leading role in the loyalists’ movement, civil society movement against General Musharraf. He is also a columnist with the newspapers Jang and (inaudible).

Next to Hamid Mir is Naveen Naqvi. Naveen has been part of the launch team of the Dawn News, Pakistan’s first English television channel. Naveen is a senior anchorperson. She presents a morning news program as well.

And this is it, and we’ll just say charity begins at home.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

MR. PIRZADA: Let me ask the first overall question to you, that this is your exclusive trip to Pakistan, three-day exclusive --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

MR. PIRZADA: -- trip to Pakistan. And this is coming at the – almost just after a raging controversy around the Kerry-Lugar legislation in this country. That’s one aspect. So we would like to know how do you see yourself, the significance of your visit? What is on your plate in terms of the agenda?

Also, the second thing is just before coming here on Monday, you attended the sixth Situation Room meeting with President Obama on national security --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

MR. PIRZADA: -- and on Afghanistan. And we would like to know what is the short-term and long-term vision of your Administration, the Obama Administration’s view on Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Moeed, I hope that my trip will send a very strong signal to the people of Pakistan of the sincerity and seriousness of our commitment to a long-term, durable relationship between our two countries. When I say I want to turn the page, I mean that our relationship should be much deeper and broader than our shared concern and fight against terrorism. I’m very impressed and admiring of the efforts that the government and the military are taking to root out the sources of so much anxiety and anguish and tragedy as those who attack innocents and attack the very institutions of the Pakistani Government.

We do share that very strong commitment to ending the reign of terror that has not just in Pakistan, but in many places in the world caused so much difficulty. But we also want to work together on economic development. Today, I was privileged to announce a big commitment worked out with the Pakistani Government between our experts on how we can assist in improving the energy sector toward more reliable, predictable energy, especially electricity. We want to work on education and healthcare. I announced, along with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the resumption of our strategic dialogue where we will consult and try to produce results that will benefit the people of our two countries.

So I am here hoping that I can speak directly to as many people as possible through the medium of the press, through town halls, through meetings with civil society. I’ll be doing that in both Lahore and Islamabad. And it would be presumptuous to say what will come out of a three-day trip, except I’ll have a wonderful time and get to see people that I’ve known for years as well as meet new people. But I hope it’s the start of this turning the page on our relationship.

As to your second question, the President is working very hard to determine the best way forward to achieve our strategic objectives. The objectives have not changed. We are determined to root out al-Qaida – which poses a threat to us, to you, to so many others around the world – their extremist allies, many of whom you are now fighting because they have thrown their lot in with al-Qaida, and to work to try to stabilize Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan have a better future and you don’t have threats coming to Pakistan or threats coming to the United States from Afghanistan’s territory.

And it is important for us to have a combined civilian and military strategy in Afghanistan, because so many of the problems that are feeding the presence of the Taliban are rooted in people not feeling secure, not feeling that they have a solid future for themselves and their children, the government not being able to really provide the kind of control and support that people expect. So this is an area where Pakistan and the United States have a lot in common. Our military-to-military relations are growing all the time. The Pakistani military has been very helpful in advising the American military of the best way forward in Pakistan.

So the President will be making an announcement when he’s ready, which will be most likely after the Afghan election. Last spring, he said that we would review our strategy after the Afghan election, but the Afghan election isn’t over yet. So it’s taking a little longer than perhaps we might have expected. But our strategic goals remain the same. We just want to be sure that we’re operationalizing them, that our tactics are the best for us to pursue.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.

I think, Talat, you want to raise a question?

QUESTION: Yes. Thank you very much. Well, we welcome you here, but at the same time, we have to state the facts as we see them. You speak about turning the page. That’s a laudable goal. But you would agree that words do not turn the page; policies do. Words could have done the same job if words were drafted carefully, and that brings me to the Kerry-Lugar bill. I think the debate inside Pakistan probably would have been less ferocious if the drafting of the bill could have conveyed a different kind of an intent altogether.

The drafting left a lot of phrases that were humiliating – that’s how they were seen here – conditionalities that were very (inaudible), were described in a manner that spoke of arrogance. And on top of it, what really cut most of us to the quick in the mainstream media was the way this whole debate was characterized by somebody like Mr. Holbrooke, who is a responsible representative of the Obama Administration. And let me just quote what he said in his recent press conference, that the Kerry-Lugar bill, in his opinion, didn’t spark anything; it was just an excuse for a certain group of people who were looking for an excuse to take a great piece of legislation, then rub it to the ground.

I’m just trying to understand, when you talk about turning the page and then you look at the language of the Kerry-Lugar bill, the intent through the drafting and the language doesn’t come through as that. So either we have not been able to read the genius that is in the drafting of the Kerry-Lugar bill, or, frankly, we are looking at a public policy that is so fundamentally different from your actual policy towards Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m glad you raised that, because this is one of the examples of where we are not communicating well, and I think that’s a two-way problem, not just a one-way problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill has been in our Congress for a number of years. In fact, it started off as the Biden-Lugar bill before the Vice President was elevated from the Senate. And there has been a lot of coverage of it. There has been, certainly, a lot of attention paid to it. And I believe that the intent and the motivation was to do as stated by the United States, which was to have a visible, tangible commitment over a number of years to demonstrate that our concerns and our willingness and hopefulness about working with Pakistan was not some kind of one-off commitment, but instead a long-term commitment.

And yet on the other hand, apparently much of what was written, which to members of Congress – I used to be one – was very common language. That’s the kind of language we have in so many of our aid packages. It’s not at all specific to Pakistan. And that the conditions, if that’s the way to describe them, really apply to the United States. I mean, we know that we’re going to be held accountable, the Government of the United States, to our taxpayers.

So we want to make a very big commitment in the middle of a global recession totaling $7.5 billion to another country, and we’ve got somebody sitting in Columbus, Ohio who says, “I’m unemployed. Why is my money going to Pakistan?” And we want to say we want an important relationship with a very critical ally, and yes, we’re going to commit this money and then your government – namely, me and the Secretary of Defense and others – we will report to you. We will report to the Congress as to how the money’s being spent.

It had nothing to do, in our view, with the sovereignty of Pakistan. It imposed no conditions on Pakistan. And it was, as I said, very much in line with other aid packages. However, the fact is, as you point out, that was not the message that was coming across. So we clearly did not do our homework in trying to explain what it is we were trying to accomplish. And frankly, I think one of the problems is we did not have a program to reach out to the Pakistani press. That will never happen again, because if we’re going to have this partnership, then we need to be communicating through the mechanisms that the people in each of our countries will hear and listen to. So --

QUESTION: Well, let me interject here with your permission.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: There’s a follow-up as well. It’s not just the language itself. It’s not that you will have, you know, 10 programs done in favor of Kerry-Lugar bill and the nature of the bill is going to change. I mean, surely, Pakistani people do see it as a slight to their intelligence when somebody says that, “Well, you’re not exactly reading the real intent of the bill.” You’ve got 12 conditionalities related to security put into a bill that deals with economic aid and social sector development.

So clearly, there’s something happening through the bill that the U.S. is unwilling to acknowledge. I think your PR and charm offensive is fine, explaining your position is fine. But somewhere down the line, one has to examine the bill, and it has been examined in great detail in Pakistan by people who have some expert in these matters. And you know, we believe that the bill had a sort of, you know, a hidden agenda.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know what, I am very sorry you believe that, because that was not the intention. Nor, as someone who served in the Senate for eight years, would I read it that way. But I think your question raises the larger concern that when the United States – this is how we see it – when the United States says we want to try to remedy some of the problems of the past, which I have admitted, I have given speeches about that I don’t think that our relationship was always as constructive and solid as it needed to be.

So we say we want to remedy it, and we’re going to try to do that through an aid package which we think could be extremely beneficial to the people of Pakistan, but that as a matter of course, when we do aid legislation – you can read – the aid that goes to Israel, the aid that goes to Egypt – when we have big packages of aid, I think it is absolutely understandable that there would be a desire on the part of our members of Congress to have some accountability. That doesn’t affect your sovereignty; that’s accountability on us. We have to – I’m the one that has to go before the Congress and say, well, we think we’re making progress or not, we think the money is being used as we intended it or not.

Pakistan doesn’t have to take this money. Let me be very clear: You do not have to take this money. You do not have to take any aid from us. But we believe that we can turn the page. And what is regrettable is this misunderstanding, from my perspective, as to both the intent in the motivation of the legislation and the way that we draft legislation. So we’ll certainly do better. We’ll certainly try to explain better. But this is just an authorizing piece of legislation. The money has not been appropriated. And if Pakistan doesn’t want the money, we’re not going to impose it on you.

QUESTION: Let me just quickly ask, really quick. There is an impression in this country that once the President has authorized and the money starts to roll towards Pakistan, the Pakistani Government, either the ministry of finance or foreign affairs or the prime minister’s office, will have to sign a parallel instrument that will mention – that will automatically impose the conditions of Kerry-Lugar legislation and bill, which you say is on the U.S. executive upon the Government of Pakistan. Is something like that going to happen?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I mean, what happens usually – as I say, this is what we call authorizing legislation. So the President can sign this, but that doesn’t mean any money will flow. You have to go back to the Congress to get the money appropriated. So it’s a two-step process. And when the money is appropriated, we can take a hard look at what, if any, conditions will be expressed – again, I would just reiterate these are conditions on the United States Government – and then move forward with the money being appropriated.

But I want to make very clear, we believe that our relationship with Pakistan is in both of our interests. We believe that it is important for the United States, but we believe equally it’s important for Pakistan. We believe that the kind of assistance that we could provide to fulfill the needs that are identified by the people and Government of Pakistan could be useful.

QUESTION: But Pakistanis also have to believe that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I agree with you.

QUESTION: It’s not enough for you to believe that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, no, no, no. I agree with – I agree with you.

MR. PIRZADA: I think we have to move.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but I think – we’ll move on, but I think you don’t have to believe it. We don’t have to give you the money. I mean, this is like – this is not – nobody is saying you must take this money so that we can help you rebuild your energy sector or put more kids in school or provide better maternal and child health. You don’t have to take the money.

QUESTION: But there is another side to that.

MR. PIRZADA: Let’s move ahead. Are you going to raise the question, or should we?

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

MR. PIRZADA: Okay. You go ahead.

QUESTION: If you’ll allow me.

MR. PIRZADA: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. Because – thank you very much and welcome to Pakistan. And we also believe that the United States and Pakistan, they need each other and we need friendship. But there are some questions in the mind of common people. I will start my question with Kerry-Lugar bill.

Our rule of law have been mentioned many times in Kerry-Lugar bill, which is a very good thing. But my question is about those U.S. officials who are breaking Pakistani law, again and again, in this federal capital of Pakistan, which is called Islamabad. And they have been caught many times by our police. They were carrying illegal weapons. Just last morning – in the morning of the 27^th of October, four U.S. Marines were caught at three o’clock in the morning in Islamabad. They were arrested, and within one hour they were released.

So the common man is asking this question that why the U.S. officials are free to break Pakistani law, and who have ordered them to patrol on the streets of Islamabad? And will you allow Pakistani soldiers to patrol like this, carrying illegal weapons in their hands in the streets of Washington?

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t have any of the specifics about that particular question. I can only say that there are rules which govern all countries. Diplomatic immunity applies in every country. So certain things that a Pakistani official in our capital of Washington might do would be diplomatically immune from arrest or from any kind of action. I have no idea whether that is what we’re talking about.

QUESTION: But no diplomat come on the road at three o’clock in the morning?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yes. I mean, we have diplomats and people assigned to embassies in our country who have car accidents, who get into fights, who have all kinds of problems. And there are international rules about how to deal with that. I will certainly look into it to see whether what you’re talking about is within that kind of framework or there’s something else going on.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, again, thanks, but let me move ahead.

Mubashir.

QUESTION: I just have one thing at the outset. When a perception is reality, you may be very sincere and very serious in your endeavors to provide aid to Pakistan. But if the people of Pakistan do not perceive it as an aid, then there is a serious issue and one has to look beyond that.

Now, the fact of the matter is we – all of us, and I speak for every one of us – we have our hands on the pulse of the people. We talk to people on the roads, we talk to people on the streets, we talk to people who have invested over here. And they all ask one question, and I can’t answer that. When President George Bush made a statement, either you are with us or against us in Pakistan, at that time, the Government of Pakistan at that time choose to be an ally of the United States, without any conditions put anywhere, you know, with just one phone call. How come now, when Pakistan is in need of aid, the Government of the United States or the congressmen or the Secretary of State has to come up with certain conditions?

Now, I’ll dovetail this so that we can move on as well. If the United States Government is so sincere in helping Pakistan go through its problems, why is it that you are constantly using drone attacks inside Pakistan? Why not transfer that technology to the Pakistan military that you have praised yourself just now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that one of the pages I’m turning is on the Bush Administration, because I think being for us or against was not the best way to build common purpose among other nations with our own. And we are grateful for the support that Pakistan has given in the fight against terrorism. It’s a mutual concern, and we have a common enemy. And I am very admiring of the sacrifice that the Pakistani people have had to endure in order to undertake this fight.

But I think that it is a different – I think the difference that we’re talking about here is not as great as it is perceived on the part of the people that you are referring to. But I will admit that clearly there is a lot of misperception, and perception is a reality, so therefore, it is up to us to try to set that straight. And we will certainly try to do a better job than we just haven’t apparently done, because it hasn’t been convincing to those of you who represent the media. But it’s not for any bad intent. It’s just, apparently, we were not as sensitive as we should have been in terms of presenting the legislation that was passed by the Congress.

And with respect to your second question, I don’t really talk about that. I think that’s something that the military-to-military relationship has to deal with.

QUESTION: But is there a possibility for that in the near future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to speculate on that.

QUESTION: If I may --

QUESTION: Let me – I want –

QUESTION: -- the Shura council hat has been coming up – sorry, if I may. And we’re talking about an expansion of drone strikes towards Balochistan. That’s been in the news as well. So how does that fit in with all of this?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that the discussions between our militaries and our intelligence agencies, which are in constant consultation, are really appropriate to be discussed. Those are something that goes to the very difficult decisions that your military has to make. And I think we should give them the support that they need in trying to root out the people who are our common enemies.

MR. PIRZADA: Both Nasim and Anwar are waiting for their questions. Nasim, you go ahead quickly and then Anwar.

QUESTION: Well, I would like to welcome you to Pakistan and say that I think it’s a very important point at which you’ve come, just for the reasons that you have mentioned – you yourself mentioned. When I hear you speak, Secretary of State, it again seems to be a situation where you think the issue is about lack of communication. I think the fact that you want to turn a page through more aggressive communication and the speech that you gave at USIP recently, where talked of needing to be more dealing with propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation in Pakistan.

I wonder how will we make the breakthrough, because while this bill is very crucial, very important and, I mean, we know this relationship is equally important for you as it is for us. And when you talk about take the money or don’t take the money, I think that we are obviously dealing with a more complex situation. Pakistan is an ally in war on terror, as far as the United States is concerned. And without Pakistan, you cannot move forward on that. There’s no doubt about it. Those are the facts. So obviously you need Pakistan. And for us, this relationship is important. But there is, as you’ve heard everybody talk just now, there is a fundamental issue of divergence in terms of policies also. Just the bill itself – it’s not a question of intent. You know, one of the portions in the bill, it talks about a comprehensive regional security strategy, where the President will develop an interagency regional strategy to eliminate terrorist threats and close safe havens in Pakistan, including by working with the Government of Pakistan and other relevant governments and organizations in the region, and as well as appropriate to best implement effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts in and near the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, including FATA, NWFP, parts of Baluchistan, and parts of Punjab.

When I read this bill, it seems that the policy really is of the United States that Pakistan is really the hub of the problem. Although when you look at the issue of terrorism, and if the United States is serious about the problem, then there are issues inside Afghanistan beyond just the border. There are issues inside India, which your own president during his election campaign referred to. But when you actually moved towards policy, it’s like, you know, tightening the screws on Pakistan just looking at – it’s Pakistan specific. And when, you talk of the president talking of two countries, two governments in the region, certainly, we’re not talking of Colombia or Bolivia, we are talking of India and Afghanistan.

So the question is: To what extent does the government in the United States – Obama Administration – understand the issues of security that Pakistan is facing? I think this whole emphasis on what Pakistan can do and where Pakistan’s ISI is involved or not involved – do you see what’s happening in our own country? Today, we’ve had 70 people who’ve died. So I think that you need to really look at some of the policy issues that are involved. And when I hear you speak, it seems like just issues of perception.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I am deeply sorry for the losses yet again today in the bombing and regret that the terrorists continue to target innocent people.

But I have to go back to this point, and I think this will probably require a much longer discussion than we have on this program. But in what you just read, it is also the policy of Pakistan, as it has been explained to us going back eight years now, that you, too, are worried about what’s happening on your border. You, too, are worried about what’s going on in Afghanistan.

But the bill only has money for Pakistan, so it’s – you see what I mean? That’s where the confusion, I think, lies. I mean, this is not a bill to provide civilian aid to offer services to a bunch of countries. This is a bill just for Pakistan. And when we gave money to Colombia, you would see the same kind of language when we give money to other countries.

So I regret that what we thought, and this has been going on for years – I mean, the Pakistani press has covered this before, we have worked on this for years, we’ve had consultation for years – and I regret that somehow in all that time, these problems were not recognized by any of us, because that was certainly not the intent.

With respect to what I said about the media, which, in a democracy, those of us in public office, it’s – we get to criticize you and you get to criticize us. That’s part of how it works.

QUESTION: Sure. Yeah, fair enough.

SECRETARY CLINTON: But take the example of the story that wouldn’t die, that we were on this complex somewhere building a secret barracks for a thousand Marines. Untrue. Totally untrue. We have a contingent of Marines at this Embassy like we have at every embassy in the world that is a small group of Marines who provide front line defense at our Embassy. And we kept saying it’s not true. But it was the story that wouldn’t die. That’s frustrating for us, because when we have legitimate disagreements, as we do over what the meaning of this legislation is, not with the motivation or the intent is, but how it’s being interpreted, that’s perfectly legitimate.

And as you know, Senator Kerry and Congressman Berman gave a clarifying statement, put information into the Congressional Record to try to make clear what this meant. So we have really tried to understand and respond to the concerns that have been expressed. That’s a legitimate debate, and you have every right to say, “Well, what does this mean and how does it affect us and will it impinge on our sovereignty.” And we say, “Not under our law and not under our attention.”

But the thousand Marine story, that’s just – that is the kind of thing that sort of poisons the well.

MR. PIRZADA: If I could just interject --

QUESTION: I just want to follow up.

MR. PIRZADA: Very quickly, (inaudible).

QUESTION: If I may allow to – may I just follow up?

MR. PIRZADA: Just quickly, quickly, (inaudible) waiting for the – the Secretary waiting --

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just very quickly, very quickly, just very – just very quickly, yeah.

MR. PIRZADA: We have less time.

QUESTION: Yes, just very quickly. Secretary of State, Pakistan’s concerns on Baluchistan and, you know, Afghanistan plus India, and the issues that have been raised time and again by Pakistan – security concerns – when you talk of security concerns of India, you talk of security concerns of Afghanistan. We do not hear from Washington an acknowledgment of the genuine security concerns of Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am very sorry, because I cannot tell you how many times that has been discussed both publicly and privately. We put together a trilateral commission of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve had two meetings in Washington where General Kayani came, where General Pasha came, where we spent enormous amounts of time going over the security concerns of Pakistan, pointing at the Afghans, pointing at ourselves, and saying what are we going to do to help Pakistan. All this money that you referred to that we’ve given over the last eight years, it was predominantly for security. It was military equipment. It was other kinds of technology that would assist you in defending yourselves.

So that’s why I’m here, because I want to clear the air. And I really appreciate all of you raising the questions that are kind of on the back of everybody’s mind. Because we’re not going to agree on everything, but I don’t want us to have any misunderstanding about where we do agree.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are committed to Pakistan’s security. We have spent an enormous amount of money helping you with your security, and we stand ready to do even more. But we’re not going to impose ourselves. It is up to the people and Government of Pakistan to ask what they need from us, and then we try, where we can, to respond.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, thanks. Anwar, please go ahead.

QUESTION: We thank you very much for (inaudible) time and welcome to Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Thank you.

QUESTION: I represent Pakistan Television. You’re talking about security issues. And as you know, Pakistan is fighting a full-fledged war --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: -- against Taliban and terrorist networks on its own soil. South Waziristan operation is a case in point.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: And we are bearing its cost as well. More than 250 people have died in this month, as we speak, because of suicide bombings in our towns and cities. Peshawar blast you must have heard today.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: The question which arises in my mind, and actually it agitates most of the Pakistani people mind, that we hear disturbing reports that on Pak-Afghan border which is adjacent to South Waziristan, several NATO checkposts, they have been vacated. People ask why. Because America has always been demanding from Pakistan to do more to stop cross-border movement from Pakistan side to Afghanistan side. Pakistan should fence its border, but now what we are seeing, that, you know, the NATO forces which are on the one border side, they have vacated post, and they’re not checking – I think so – the cross-border movement.

So why there is so – why there’s inaction on part of NATO? Why don’t the NATO forces seal the border, because then it will hamper Operation Rah-e-Nijaat? And last year, I was reading the statement of chief of army staff. He once said that Pakistan is linking the success in Operation Rah-e-Nijaat with its effort to curb militancy and terrorism in Pakistan.

And the second question is that on 24 April, you were testifying before the congressional committee. You said that U.S. was partly responsible for the present mess, as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. So the question is (inaudible) realization and we welcome it that you have said in your opening statement that U.S. want to turn a new page in Pakistan-U.S. relations. When there is realization, why there’s a lack of action? Why don’t you give Pakistan – you know, provide financial and military assistance without any conditions?

MR. PIRZADA: Anwar, thanks. Yes, Secretary Clinton.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, you’re right. I did say that, because I’m trying to be as clear and accurate as I can. And the United States, in my opinion, bears some of the responsibility for the difficulties that you are now confronting. And we have a commitment to assist in trying to root out the groups that both the United States and Pakistan created, funded, and used to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. We were partners in that. We were successful. Unfortunately, the aftermath is something that you have been having to deal with, and that’s why we want to be more helpful and assist you in being successful.

We have given billions and billions of dollars in aid where there is no misinterpretation, with no conditions. I mean, go back and look at the record over the last years of the amount of money that we have been providing to Pakistan, primarily for security, as you know. And it was important for us to do that because you were on the front lines, and we saw a common threat and wanted to respond.

The civilian side – I don’t know about your parliament, but in our Congress, it’s much easier to get money for military weapons than it is for schools. And so we’ve given billions of dollars with no conditions for military materiel, and we were very willing to do that to help you. And you can explain that to a constituent, and you can say we’re supporting the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Government in their fight against terrorism, and most people will say “Fine.”

But when you say, oh, by the way, we also want to help strengthen Pakistan’s democracy, and we want to help the people of Pakistan have the kind of lives that a democracy should deliver, so we want to build schools and health clinics and infrastructure and energy plants and tube wells so that farmers can get more irrigation, that’s a harder sell, because the average person sitting in America will say, well, I need a new school. My hospital’s run down.

So what we have historically done – and this is not about Pakistan, this is about the civilian side of aid – is to say we will make sure that the money is being put to good use. That’s what I think we (inaudible).

MR. PIRZADA: Great. Madame Secretary, there is only --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) checkposts, checkposts.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And the checkposts. I’m glad you asked that, because I was asked that question when I did two interviews for Dawn and Geo before I came, that I think are running today.

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY CLINTON: The fact is we are actually putting more troops on the borders, but we are closing some of the isolated checkposts that were indefensible. We have lost a number of our soldiers and Marines over the last year because they were in border outposts that were overrun. So we’re trying to consolidate them. We’re trying to have a different surveillance effort along the border, working with the Pakistani military.

This is an evolving strategy. I don’t know that anyone can close that border. That may be the most difficult border in the world to control or close. But we’re trying to use new technology and new counterinsurgency methods, along with the Pakistani military, to actually do a better job. And we’re actually putting more troops, not fewer, on the border.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, let me first – very shortly --

QUESTION: I have a question of --

QUESTION: Wait --

QUESTION: Before we go for the second round, because we have very little time, I just wanted to pick up on the seams and ask a question. When you talk of perceptions --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: -- it’s not only Pakistan which has the negative perception in terms of the media. The U.S. media has a very negative perception and stereotypes for Pakistan. Now in terms of solutions, can the State Department – because, you see, the Pentagon and State Department do not issue negative statements about Pakistan. It is the U.S. media (inaudible).

QUESTION: They (inaudible).

(Cross-talk.)

QUESTION: They leak them?

QUESTION: They – yeah, they leak them. It’s (inaudible).

QUESTION: Can anything be done to improve the relationship --

QUESTION: Sometimes it’s leaked by the State Department and the Defense Department.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and sometimes it’s just the media.

QUESTION: Let me just add one --

QUESTION: No, media doesn’t (inaudible)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on that, you see --

SECRETARY CLINTON: The media’s never wrong. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, they don’t --

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I think it’ll be unfair to judge the caliber of this debate with regard to one story that refuses to go away, because I can quote you 20 bad stories that are cast that appears in the American media about Pakistan, but – now, if you were to use that as a measure of the substance of Pakistan-U.S. ties and the debate around that, it’ll be very unfair. So let’s just leave that one story that refuses to go away, though there are question marks over that as well and we don’t have answers to that. Some of the questions Hamid has already raised.

You have thrown up some numbers at us, and let me just tell you that, one, I’m really confused about the U.S. policy. You know, for 10 years, you’ve a dictator, then you have an election, then you come back and tell Pakistani people now you want to build schools. So Pakistani public is very confused that, you know, a year ago, this very country was supporting and even rolling out the red carpet for a dictator that this entire civil society was backing against. And now suddenly, the U.S. comes to us because there’s a new administration and elections and some democracy. I guess there is that larger perspective about the way U.S. looks at Pakistan.

But let me give you numbers. You talked about the civilian aid and the military aid. Your one base in Kyrgyzstan – you know how much Kyrgyzstan charges you? Seven hundred million U.S. dollars.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That is wrong.

QUESTION: Seven hundred --

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s wrong. We negotiated the contract. I’m sorry, that is not right.

QUESTION: You negotiated it down.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: They are charging you 700 million U.S. dollars. Give us a figure on that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Fifty million dollars.

QUESTION: Fifty million dollars per month?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Fifty million dollars – no, no. I’m sorry. No --

QUESTION: Just one airbase. Do you know how many airbases U.S. uses in Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: And do you know how many billions --

QUESTION: Six --

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- of dollars we’ve provided to Pakistan?

QUESTION: All of that went under Musharraf into the (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, okay, but let me just stop you here. The United States did not install Musharraf.

QUESTION: You backed him, you --

SECRETARY CLINTON: That was the people --

QUESTION: You backed him. You supported him.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You know what? I’m --

QUESTION: George W. Bush lionized him.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. Well, George Bush is not my president right now.

QUESTION: But he did it with the U.S.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Both Musharraf and --

QUESTION: We all did (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Musharraf and Bush are gone. I’m very happy about Bush being gone. You’re apparently happy about --

QUESTION: But he’s lecturing around in your country --

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- Musharraf being gone.

QUESTION: -- about democracy.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, so is Musharraf. He’s in our country and he’s in Europe..

QUESTION: No, I was talking about Musharraf.

MR. PIRZADA: Okay, let’s --

SECRETARY CLINTON: But no, I think this is an important issue. Look, we can either argue about the past – which is always fun to do, but can’t be changed – or we can decide we’re going to shape a different future. Now, I vote that we shape a different future. And I cannot take responsibility for everything that was done in your country, just like you can’t take responsibility for everything that’s done in our country. But we can certainly try to chart a different course.

Now again, this is because I really believe it’s the right thing to do. I think it is in our interest to do it. I think that Pakistan has an enormous potential. I personally was very pleased when democracy returned to Pakistan, and I want very much to support democracy because democracy in the long run is a more stable basis for governing people than these dictators.

QUESTION: A very short one --

(Cross-talk.)

MR. PIRZADA: Just hold for a second (inaudible) because we have very little time. (Inaudible.) We have very little time.

QUESTION: Okay, but (inaudible) one question.

MR. PIRZADA: Shorten your questions to one and a half minutes. So a very short one.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. PIRZADA: So who’ll take – very short question, very short question.

QUESTION: Just very short. I just wanted –

(Cross-talk.)

MR. PIRZADA: Quickly.

QUESTION: One and a half minutes.

MR. PIRZADA: No, one minute only.

QUESTION: You were talking about democracy, which is a very good thing. Now, the parliament of Pakistan, the new parliament of Pakistan, which came into being after 18^th of February 2008, this parliament adopted unanimous resolution against U.S. drone attacks, but the U.S. drone attacks have increased a lot. So I am forced to believe that you are not ready to listen to the true voice of democracy in Pakistan which is coming through the elected parliament.

MR. PIRZADA: You made the point --

QUESTION: You don’t respect our parliament.

MR. PIRZADA: Yes, you made the point. Okay, go ahead.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that on all of these issues, there has to be a recognition of the fact that we are in the middle of a war, number one, which colors everything, and we have to maintain democracy, which is essential. And that is our goal. We want to win the war and we want to support democracy.

QUESTION: Just on democracy, in the bill, there’s this mention of how the military is going to be held accountable on many fronts. And specifically, then you talk about Pakistani army not interfering in democracy and not getting involved in the judicial process, et cetera. A clause like that doesn't strengthen democracy. It basically, in a situation where the military-civilian equation is moving towards a constitutional balance in this country, you know, a statement – a clause like that in the bill essentially creates problems and destabilizes.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, thank you.

QUESTION: And if you want to improve the image of America in this country, why do you remain silent on Kashmir, where Ambassador Holbrooke wanted to do something about that? He stood back because of Indian pressure. So why is there silence on that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are very supportive, very supportive, of India and Pakistan resuming a dialogue over resolving these longstanding issues. We believe that at the end of this process it has to be a decision by Pakistan and India that anybody on the outside is not going to be able to push or prod, and shouldn’t. It is up to you and to your counterparts in India. So we are very supportive of that. So we hope that there will be a resumption of a dialogue and it will lead to a resolution.

QUESTION: The answer to the other question --

MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: The answer to the other question --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: But I have --

MR. PIRZADA: As you see, we have only five minutes left --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to say that it’s very common to point out that in a democracy that is so young, we want to send a message to all the constituent parts of society, support that democracy. I find that very much in keeping.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) two questions --

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I’m extremely happy you’ve talked about sending a message, because here’s a message that I do not understand, and hopefully you’ll be able to communicate that to me and everyone over here. You see, you were talking about spending on military and you gave an analogy between the schools and the military and how this works over there. When you go into Afghanistan and you, I mean, fight a war over there, trust me, you are in foreign territory and everybody that comes under fire or in the line of fire is a foreigner. And – but when our army goes into Swat or Buner or Waziristan, the chances are that they are fighting in their own territory and killing their own people at the same time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Now, when I listen to the U.S. Administration, they are very open about, you know, establishing contacts with the Taliban shura and, you know, trying to identify the soft elements over there and, you know, making inroads and bridges over there. But when Government of Pakistan and elected Government of Pakistan does a similar peace agreement in Swat over here with the people who are actually demanding something that is their right to have – I mean, if they have a majority in the first place – why is there a sudden reaction? And then you clump Pakistan and Afghanistan together and you have a different set of policies for them.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me answer that.

MR. PIRZADA: Should we clump the second question together with it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay, as long as I can remember the first one. Remind me. (Laughter.)

MR. PIRZADA: Yeah, it’s okay.

QUESTION: A quick question. We are talking about the past history, talking about the present and future. President Obama and you yourself, you guys have said on television that you understand Pakistan well, you have interest in Pakistan, and you also know that there’s a predominant anti-American sentiment prevailing in Pakistan. What practical steps Obama Administration can take in addressing those sentiments and turning them into pro-American?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me try to answer two very important and complex questions as quickly as I can. On the question about the Taliban, first, as I understand what the Government of Pakistan did, they attempted to reach some kind of agreement with elements of the Taliban in Swat. And they thought that they had reached an agreement that would create stability and that there would not be any further aggressive action by those Taliban members. Next thing your government knew, those very people they thought they’d agreed with had pushed into Buner.

And so I think it was right for the Pakistan Government to try, but you also have to give the government credit for saying the agreement was one-sided. It wasn’t abided by. So we cannot allow those elements to pretend that they’re going to participate in society when they still are attempting to undermine our society. So I give the government credit for trying and I give the government even greater credit for doing the evaluation which led them to conclude that there was a very aggressive cancer that was eating away at Pakistan that has to be rooted out, because clearly the people with whom they were dealing were not willing to cease their attacks on the society.

With respect to the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is our evidence that there are many young men who are recruited into the Taliban who are not ideologically committed to the extremist agenda of the Taliban leadership. Some of them do it because there’s a kind of draft that goes on, and the Taliban intimidates families and communities and demands that these young men be basically turned over to them, some because they actually get paid. So these are not the hardcore people who your government is trying to kill or capture. These are young men who get caught up in it. I think they should be given a chance to be reintegrated into society, whether it’s on this side of the border or the other. The leaders have a very different agenda. They are out to destabilize this state. They are out to take over Afghanistan. They are in league with al-Qaida and therefore they pose a threat far beyond the borders, which, unfortunately, is something that we all have to pay attention to.

Now, with your question, just very quickly, I don’t expect this to happen overnight. I think that the spirited conversation we’ve had here today shows how much work there is to do.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: But it is very helpful to me. I have to tell you, before the reaction to the Kerry-Lugar bill occurred, I don’t think it was on my list of worries that I would have because I saw it so differently. So now we’ve been sensitized. And I don’t think that we have very many people in our own country who read legislation as closely as all of you have read it. So we’re just going to have to take a look and scrub this down and be more aware of the perceptions which turn into the reality, because if we’re going to have a relationship, I want it to be as honest as this conversation has been. Nobody has minced words. I have told you what is on my mind. That’s what true friends and partners do. We could pretend. You could pretend. You could say, well, Mrs. Clinton, how has your visit been, and we could have a nice little conversation.

QUESTION: It wouldn't be me. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: It wouldn't be you and it wouldn't be me.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And it’s not the kind of relationship we should be working to achieve. I believe we have so much in common. And what both President Obama and I feel – I had friends from Pakistan in college, he had friends from Pakistan in college. We have been in each other’s homes. I have so many very positive feelings about this country. But I know we have work to do. So I’m going to work at it.

QUESTION: One short one, Secretary. A short one.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: No, no, just very --

MR. PIRZADA: Very short, very short.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. PIRZADA: Very short question.

QUESTION: My short question is that you said that we must be honest with each other.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: So the Kerry-Lugar bill have introduced the philosophy of civilian control on the security establishment of Pakistan. Do you want a civilian to head ISI? I need a very honest answer from you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want the best person to head it.

QUESTION: Do you want a civilian to head ISI?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That – first of all, it’s not my decision. But let me tell you, the CIA has been headed by both military and civilians. It should be the person, not the position. And so if there is a military person who is the best person, that’s who it should be. If there’s a civilian who’s the best person, that’s who it should be.

MR. PIRZADA: Last question (inaudible) quick (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: But the larger question is in a democracy, at least as democracies have developed over time, it’s civilian control over the entire enterprise, not necessarily – I don’t want a civilian being the commander of our forces in Afghanistan or of Central Command, because that’s a very different job. Intelligence is different in our country. But whoever holds those positions, the principle of civilian control I think is important for democracy.

QUESTION: That is part of our constitution as well. Okay, just one last question. You talked about setting up a trilateral commission – India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. But Secretary of State, as a result of that, we haven’t seen the substantive move that we needed to see from Afghanistan and the U.S. side of the Afghan border because your forces are there and the Afghans are there, and still what we have are just 98 or 95 border posts on the Afghan side, while Pakistan has close to a thousand. So please explain why this (inaudible).

MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible) yes, quick, this must be the last question.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, as you know, the challenge of Afghanistan governmentally is far different than Pakistan. Pakistan has many more resources, assets, expertise in its government, in its military. It is our hope that we will be able to work with Afghanistan to build a professional military – something which they have not had. And so we’re looking to Pakistan to provide assistance as well as our NATO allies. So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. The reason Pakistan has done so well in putting forces along the border is because you have a very professional, highly expert military. That doesn't exist on the other side.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when do you intend to have – finally have --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: When do you intend to have the final version of your final strategy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when the President said we would --

QUESTION: That was in March.

SECRETARY CLINTON: He said – well, he adopted the strategy. And the goals are not going to change. We are still committed to a campaign against al-Qaida and their extremist allies, and to assisting the Afghans --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) yes, will we have a --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but remember when the President announced it in March, he said we will reevaluate where we are after the Afghan election. The Afghan election is not over yet.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: As soon as the Afghan election is over, you will see that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton --

QUESTION: After (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Before that. Before that. I hope the election’s over before that.

MR. PIRZADA: I wish we could have time (inaudible) it’s a pressure on your time. Thank you, all of you, for joining in this discussion, Secretary Clinton.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’ll tell you one thing, no one could doubt the free press in Pakistan. That’s a very good sign.

MR. PIRZADA: I wish you could actually tell us something to improve Pakistan’s impression of the U.S. press, the U.S. media.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have to work on that, too. And we need more exchanges like this. I mean, I wish --

QUESTION: You will send U.S. journalists to the Pakistani travel area so that they can see the (inaudible).

QUESTION: Pakistan (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we need you, though, to come to the United States more and to do forums and to do question and answer like this. It would be very helpful, and we’ll try to set some of that up if you have – I mean, after I listened to Moeed introduce you all, you all apparently work 24/7.

QUESTION: You are welcome to write us. You are welcome to write us, all of six (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. Well, we will. We’ll figure out a way to do that.

QUESTION: There’s more than six, by the way, in Pakistan. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh no, another misperception. (Laughter.)

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you. Thank you so much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you so much for joining us.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you to all of you. The time is almost over. Thank you.

# # #

Interview With Indira Lakshmanan of Bloomberg Radio

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy

Kabul, Afghanistan

November 19, 2009

QUESTION: So, since you’re here in Afghanistan, I wanted to start off by asking you about how U.S. relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai have been strained for years by concerns about corruption, drug trafficking, and the government’s inability to deliver services and security nationwide. What have you heard during this trip that makes you think this second term is going to be different?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ve heard a lot, and I’m encouraged. I had a long dinner meeting with a number of the ministers in the government, and they described in depth their plans and their accomplishments, which verified my own belief that a lot of good things have happened in Afghanistan in the last seven years that don’t really get a lot of attention.

It’s the hard, boring work of governing. It’s getting 7 million kids in school, including 40 percent girls, when there were only a million and they were all boys when you took office, or getting wheat seed out to farmers so that they can have a bumper harvest, and yet at the same time, putting aside money in the budget to buy wheat so there’s a strategic reserve.

It’s the sort of day-to-day governing that changes the lives of people on the ground that is happening, which we do need to continue to support. One of my favorite stories was the finance minister describing to me how changing the process for getting a driver’s – getting a car license was not only going to cut out corruption because it cut the number of hands that the money went through, but also put millions more dollars into the government’s revenues.

So I think that there’s a good group of ministers who are well trained and professional. They have a lot of outside experience that they’re bringing to the government. And I had a very long and fruitful conversation with President Karzai where we went over a lot of the concerns. But I also listened to his concerns, because it’s not only a one-way street. I think that there have been some mixed messages sent by the U.S. Government in the prior administration as well.

And his speech today was a visionary outline of what he’d like to see happen by the time he finishes his second term, combined with very specific ideas about everything from the security forces to the anticorruption efforts. It was a good transitional comment that we can take some credit for in the way that we’ve tried to encourage the government to think hard about what they’re doing and what kind of legacy they’re going to leave. But it’s really a window of opportunity for not just President Karzai, but the people of Afghanistan and the international community.

QUESTION: One of the things that President Karzai mentioned in his inaugural speech was this pledge that Afghan security forces should be able to take the lead in providing security from international forces within five years. Is that realistic?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that we intend to do everything we can, along with our international allies, to support the recruitment, retention, training, and equipping of the Afghan national security forces, both the army and the police. I spoke with General McChrystal about that last night. He thinks it is achievable. I spoke with Minister Wardak, the defense minister here in Afghanistan. He thinks it is achievable. And we intend to put the time, attention, and effort into making it an achievement of both the Karzai government and the international community.

QUESTION: You’ve said that U.S. civilian aid coming to Afghanistan is going to depend on anticorruption measures. Now, President Karzai said he wants half of all foreign aid within two years to go directly to his government. So what specifics has he given you about his anti-graft plan, and what benchmarks have you given him to say this is what we need from you specifically?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we actually started this earlier in the year. Our Special Representative Ambassador Holbrooke and I decided that we wanted to do two things. We wanted to create a certification process where we would evaluate ministries, determine their capacity, their honesty, the results that they’re able to achieve, and begin to increase the aid that we give to the Afghan Government following that certification. So that we wouldn’t be doing this for the entire government; we would be doing it for those ministries that we think, number one, are most critical, but, number two, really meet our standards. And we’ve been pleased by the results so far. And when we look at the positive actions that have been taken in education, in finance, in agriculture, there is a lot that demonstrates the capacity in those ministries that needs to be further developed.

So today, I spoke with my international colleagues about how we’re going to better coordinate our aid programs, because everybody has a bilateral program, we go through multilateral programs. But at some point, we need to be coordinated so we’re not replicating. We use similar standards so that we don’t have some countries refusing to aid certain programs or ministries and other countries coming in and doing it, when that would undercut our message. So we have to do more on our side to be better prepared to support the capacity of this government.

QUESTION: What about on the military assistance side? Now, experts say that having a counterinsurgency strategy depends on having a capable partner. Will the number of troops that the Obama Administration is willing to bring in here in Afghanistan depend on whether Karzai’s government is seen as a clean and competent partner?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s one of the many factors that we’ve been examining and that the President has been testing as an assumption about how we can be effective. There’s no doubt that if we can move more expeditiously on standing up a well-trained Afghan military that can begin to take more control over their country, that’s a big plus. That is something that, down the road, gives a lot of credence to our belief that one of our tasks is to get them to the point where they can do this for themselves.

QUESTION: Now, you’ve said that the main U.S. goal in Afghanistan needs to be dismantling al-Qaida and making sure it doesn’t again find safe haven here. So are the 20,000 to 30,000 troops that are most recently being talked about, is that the right number to get the U.S. to that approach? And how long would any additional U.S. forces need to stay here to make that happen?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I don’t want to speak either for the President or preempt him from making the announcement that he intends to make soon. But I would say that this has been a very thoroughly examined decision. And there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the chances for success on any aspect of our mission, including disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida, providing the Afghan Government and people with the training and support they need to defend themselves with a military that is under their government’s control – all of that depends upon having good partners. And it’s not only good partners at the national level; it’s good partners at the local level, it’s good partners in the military and police institutions, it’s good partners in society.

There’s no doubt that the people of Afghanistan do not want to see the return of the Taliban; that is an absolutely agreed-upon conclusion by everyone who knows this country. But it’s also true that if you’re living in an isolated village somewhere and you don’t feel connected to your government and there is no presence of an Afghan military force and the Taliban raid your village every night and intimidate your boys to join, you’re going to hedge your bets. How could you not? You’ve got to survive.

And what we hear over and over again from Afghans is: We want you to help us defend ourselves. That’s what we are looking for. That goes hand-in-hand with our desire to capture or kill al-Qaida.

QUESTION: Just quickly on neighboring Pakistan, where we were recently, and – you said that it was hard to imagine that some officials there don’t know where al-Qaida is hiding. If our intelligence shows that they are there, then what leverage does the U.S. have with our Pakistani partners? What can we do to finally capture Usama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we have, over the last 10 months, developed a much higher degree of cooperation and communication between our governments, between our militaries, between our intelligence services, which was just missing. It didn’t have the necessary trust that you have to have in order to listen to the other side and say, okay, I agree with you and I’m going forward. We still have a long way to go, but the cooperation between our militaries, the personal relationships that have been established between, for example, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen and chief of the army in Pakistan General Kiyani, are incredibly important in helping to break down barriers.

So when we said at the beginning of this Administration that we were disappointed that the Pakistani Government was not going after the Taliban – because we saw them as a direct threat to the Pakistani Government – and that then the Pakistanis themselves reached a consensus they had to do that, we thought there was a very significant change in attitude.

QUESTION: Going to the other neighbor of Afghanistan, Iran, the foreign minister has said that they will not ship out their uranium for use in the medical reactor. And I’m wondering if you take the foreign minister’s statement as the last word, or is the U.S. waiting for Iran to make a formal declaration to the IAEA? And what options do we have if this is the end of that road?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t take it as the final word, because there is a process here that we are respecting. Our representative to the P-5+1 discussions about Iran’s nuclear program, Under Secretary Bill Burns, will be meeting with his counterparts in Brussels on Friday. And we have an IAEA Board of Governors meeting next week, and we are continuing to press the Iranians. I even talked with some of my colleagues today, who have relations with Iran, to continue to press them to follow through on the agreement they accepted in principle some months ago.

We’ll see. I mean, they are the ones who need to demonstrate a recognition that they’ve violated international rules. They have an opportunity to begin to reverse the perception that many have of their nuclear program by sending out the low-enriched uranium. It’s up to them. They have to make the decision. But there are consequences to their failure and refusal to participate.

QUESTION: So what are those consequences specifically? And how much time does the international community have before Iran, on this track, is going to be able to produce a nuclear weapon?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the agreement that was reached by the foreign ministers, including myself in New York, about the Iranian nuclear program was very clear that we’re going to pursue a two-track approach. One track would be negotiation and diplomacy, and we have been faithful to that commitment. That is part of President Obama’s larger outreach to not only the Muslim world, but the broader family of nations, even those that we don’t agree with.

But in that very same agreement, we said this is a dual-track strategy, that in the absence of cooperation by the Iranians, there will be consequences. And we have held off having the kind of in-depth discussions that would be necessary to trigger those consequences, but we’re going to proceed with them if the answer from Iran is no.

QUESTION: Now, together with the death sentence that’s been announced on the five protestors involved in the election protest in Iran, does this mark the end of the Obama Administration’s efforts to peacefully engage the Iranian regime?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it sure doesn’t help it, does it? This has been a series of actions by the Government of Iran ever since their disputed elections that raise serious questions about their behavior, and we often engage with countries with whom we have serious disagreements. But it is really regrettable that Iran would be imposing death sentences on demonstrators who have every right to express their opinions. But again, we’re going to wait to see what the response is on the Tehran research reactor. And depending upon what it is, we will proceed to the next set of deliberations and actions.

QUESTION: Just on one other issue, North Korea, the President today said that the U.S. and South Korea are going to work together to try to break the pattern of North Korea using negotiation and then defiance. Now, you’ve said yourself many times, we’re not going to buy this horse three times. So tell me, what specifically can the U.S. do to change their behavior?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we will be sending Ambassador Bosworth to Pyongyang in early December. I think the President announced the date at the summit in South Korea. And we are going to go with a very clear message that there are significant benefits to North Korea if they recommit to the verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

On behalf of the United States, we would explore some of the issues which they have raised continually with us over the years; namely, normalization of relations, a peace treaty instead of an armistice, economic development assistance. All of that would be open for discussion. But the North Koreans have to commit to denuclearization. And we also think it’s important to do so within the context of the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: All right, last question since we’re leaving Afghanistan today: This is your fourth visit since 2003. Tell me what have you seen this time that has been the most positive change and the most negative change from your previous visit?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, on the positive side, I think the quality of people, the capacity of the people in the government, the amount of economic activity that’s taking place in most of the small business arena, the creativity of a lot of the people of Afghanistan in making a better life for themselves is immensely not only positive, but really inspiring.

On the negative side, the security situation is very dangerous. Unfortunately, some of the tactics used in Iraq and elsewhere have been imported into Afghanistan with all kinds of suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices that just put people in an insecure position. But life goes on, and there seems to be a lot of energy and a renewal of optimism following this inauguration that we’re going to work hard to help translate into reality.

QUESTION: Thank you so much for your time, Secretary Clinton. I really appreciate it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Good to talk to you.

Naming of New President of the European Council and EU High Representative

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

November 19, 2009

Today’s appointment of a permanent President of the European Council and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is a milestone for Europe and for its role in the world.

I warmly congratulate President Van Rompuy and my new counterpart High Representative Ashton. I look forward to working closely with them to strengthen and broaden our partnership -- from achieving stability in Afghanistan to securing Iranian compliance with its nonproliferation obligations and promoting a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, among many other shared objectives.

I also want to salute Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner for their service as High Representative and External Relations Commissioner. These talented diplomats have been trusted friends and valued partners.

The United States and Europe form a community of values. We are united by our deep commitment to freedom, security, human rights, the rule of law, and open markets. Our 800 million citizens are bound together by enduring links of culture and commerce, by our shared history and our common hopes for the future. We are working together as partners to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of the 21^st century. With the appointment of these distinguished leaders, I am more confident than ever that together we can build a more peaceful and prosperous world.

Republic of Suriname's Independence Day

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

November 19, 2009

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of the Republic of Suriname as they celebrate 34 years as an independent nation on November 25.  Our two nations are united by enduring links of culture and commerce, and by our shared commitment to advance peace, democracy, and human rights across the Americas and the world.  Our partnership is based on mutual respect and mutual interest, and we are working together to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of the 21^st century – from spurring economic growth and protecting the environment to promoting public health and regional security.

This is an occasion to honor Suriname’s cultural heritage and reaffirm our faith in its people and its future.  I offer warm wishes to everyone participating in the festivities, especially the runners in the Suriname Independence Day Marathon.  I am proud that several U.S. national guardsmen from South Dakota will represent the United States in the race as participants in the Suriname-South Dakota Partnership, an example of the powerful bonds between our people.

Interview With Mujahid Jawad of Radio Azadi

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Embassy Kabul

Kabul, Afganistan

November 19, 2009

QUESTION: Your Excellency Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, first thank you very much for giving time to Radio Azadi. My first question is: The international community, especially the United States, urges Hamid Karzai not to include warlords in Afghan Government. But on the other hand, you are meanwhile supporting the peace talks with Taliban, who are also armed militants.

Don’t you think the international community rejects one type of warlords and accept another kind of warlords?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what was important about today was President Karzai’s speech outlining a vision for Afghanistan in the future, where he’d like to see the country at the end of his second term. But it was also very specific about what needed to be done for the people of Afghanistan.

I had the opportunity to meet with a number of your ministers. I met with four last night who gave me very detailed accounts of what they’re doing in agriculture and education and finance and intelligence. And I think that the quality of the people in the government is really quite positive. And I know that there are all kinds of international commentary about who’s in the government and who is not in the government.

We’ve made it clear that we want to see capable people. We want to see people devoted to the people of Afghanistan who can improve their lives. So I think that if the president continues to utilize the talents of the kind of people that I met with last night, I think we will be able to work together very effectively.

With respect to the question about any political resolution regarding the Taliban, that’s really up to the people of Afghanistan. But I think it is important to make sure that anyone who would be invited back into society gives up violence. There should be the end of any kind of armed capacity outside the military and the police, which is why we are committed to helping build a professional, disciplined army and police force for your country.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. But just – I want to have a short follow-up. If there is a wide infusion of warlords in the new cabinet, so will the United States support still the new government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are warlords and there are warlords. There are people who are called back who fought on behalf of the people of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, who fought against al-Qaida and the Taliban and their allies. And there are people who had very serious breaches of human rights and mistreatment of people during war, which is always difficult to look back on and figure out how to judge.

So I have made it clear, as have others, that we would far prefer that the president have people in the cabinet with professional skills, with experience and expertise who can actually do the work that is required. And I think he understands that and he is certainly giving me the strong impression that that’s what he intends to do.

QUESTION: Thank you. And one of the main concern during Hamid Karzai’s previous term was the wide range of civilian casualties. There are American forces in Afghanistan, and this, in fact, caused it to have a negative impact on Karzai’s government credibility among Afghans. Will America put any new measures to prevent from these casualties in Karzai’s – this new term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. In fact, we’ve already begun to do that. I share the concern and regret about civilian casualties. And under the new rules of engagement that General McChrystal has put into place, not only the United States, but all of the allies plus the Afghan military will do everything they possibly can to avoid civilian casualties. It is not always possible. There are unfortunate, tragic circumstances. But I think in the last months, under General McChrystal’s leadership, there has been a decrease, a notable decrease.

QUESTION: Thank you. President Obama gave Hamid Karzai the deadline of six months to eradicate corruption, but many Afghan experts believe that it would be difficult for Karzai to meet the deadline. So if Karzai failed, what will be your country’s reaction?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I was pleased to hear what President Karzai said today about corruption, and in fact, it produced spontaneous applause in the audience when he made such a strong statement against corruption and impunity, when he set forth some of the steps that he intends to take requiring government officials to list all of their assets, creating a major crimes tribunal, reinvigorating the anticorruption commission. These are all very positive steps.

I think that that demonstrates good faith on President Karzai’s part, and so he’s taking those actions and I think that is exactly what President Obama wanted to see.

QUESTION: Thank you. Your Administration has been reportedly pressing the Pakistani military to move against the Mullah Omar-led Taliban and the Quetta Shura and the Hakani network in North Waziristan. Do you now see the Pakistani military moving against these networks after it is claiming victory against the Taliban in South Waziristan tribal region?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know that the Pakistani military is working very hard in South Waziristan, and they do have to have priorities as to how they will spend their resources and their troops. But we will continue to press them to go after all of the extremists in Pakistan, some of whom target Pakistan, some of whom, as you know, target Afghanistan. And we think there has to be an effort to root out the extremists in Pakistan who threaten Afghanistan.

So that is the message that I took to Pakistan when I was there a few weeks ago. It’s the message that I continue to stress with our friends in Pakistan. Because we know that there is a cross-border fertilization of extremism and terrorism. Afghanistan cannot get control over its territory and defeat the Taliban if they can go across the border into Pakistan as a safe haven. And similarly, Pakistan cannot root out the people that threaten them and their government if they can seek refuge across the border in Afghanistan.

So that’s why we look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together when it comes to this fight against terrorism.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. And my last question: There are reports in the media that U.S. is negotiating specific benchmarks with Afghanistan and Pakistan to pave the way for the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan. Can you speculate on these benchmarks?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that they’re benchmarks that are as you describe them. I think what we’re trying to do is create some measurements that can determine whether we’re succeeding. I had a long discussion with the minister of defense, Minister Wardak. He’s very pleased at how much better integrated the Afghan military is with ISAF and the troops under the ISAF command. There’s more sharing of intelligence. There are more joint missions, more joint training.

That’s a good benchmark. That’s the kind of benchmark we’re looking at, because what we want to see is how can we determine that we’re making progress on the path that President Karzai outlined today, where your military will have what it needs to begin to take responsibility for much of the country moving toward the primary responsibility for all of the country.

Now, the United States wants to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan. But we don’t see it as always primarily a military relationship, where we are putting our troops in to do combat. We see over time the professionalization of the Afghan military so that we would provide advice and training, certain kinds of support that you might not have on your own. But we also have a big civilian commitment. We have tripled the number of civilians who are doing development work, who are working with your government to build capacity within in your government.

That, to us, is equally important, and we want to be there for the long term to help Afghanistan increase the educational system, improve the healthcare system, see agriculture resume the rightful place that it used to have in Afghanistan where so many people know that it was the garden district of Central Asia with the orchards and the exports. And there’s a lot of good promise that we see in Afghanistan, and we want to be a good friend and a partner to help you achieve that.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Yeah.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s great to talk to you.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. It was very nice meeting you.

# # #

Interview With Kim Ghattas of BBC

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy Kabul

Kabul, Afghanistan

November 19, 2009

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you’ve just attended the inauguration of President Hamid Karzai for his second term. Now, you and your allies, including the British, have made very clear that you didn’t want to see cronies, you didn’t want to see warlords in the government, and yet, there they were sitting in the front row.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what was significant about today is the speech that President Karzai gave outlining the way forward for his government and for his people. It was both visionary in the sense that it painted a picture of what he’d like to see in Afghanistan by the end of his second term, and it was very specific about how he was going to tackle corruption, how they were going to build up their military forces and begin to defend their own country. I thought it was a very positive, comprehensive path forward. And I think the ministers who I have been meeting with over the last day are very impressive.

I’ve had briefings from the ministers of agriculture and education and finance and intelligence. And the picture in Afghanistan is much more positive than we often give it credit for. A lot of good things are happening. Seven million children, including 40 percent girls, are in school. When President Karzai took office, there were a million and they were all boys. So there’s a lot that has been accomplished. Are there still problems, challenges? As in any society, particularly one that went through 30 years of such dreadful warfare, of course. But I think that today was a very positive transition moment, and there’s a window of opportunity for the Karzai administration.

QUESTION: You mentioned a few ministers who impressed you. Are you suggesting that perhaps your approach could be to work with the ministers that you like and try to ignore those that you have a problem with?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there are a lot of ministers who are very professional and have a clear set of objectives that they are attempting to achieve. They’re the majority; they are the ones that we do work with mostly. We will continue to do so. We are working with our international allies to build up those ministries that we think have the most direct impact on both the security and the well-being of the people of Afghanistan. And there are a lot of opportunities here for us to pursue. So I am coming away from my meetings yesterday, the events today, more meetings, and the inaugural speech, encouraged, very realistic about the challenges ahead, but nevertheless, I think that we have an opportunity here to work well together.

QUESTION: You have made clear to Hamid Karzai and his government that they need to, in essence, clean up their act. But what if they don’t? I mean, is it a you should do this or else? I mean, what sort of leverage do you have? I mean, he knows that American troops aren’t simply going to pack up and leave because you and President Barack Obama have said the fight that American soldiers are fighting here are in America’s national interest.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Kim, I think that we are going to work hard to make progress together. There’s always consequences. We know that. They know that. We have impressed that upon them. But given the attitude of the people in the government with whom I met, the resolution and determination that they exhibited, let’s try to make progress together. And I don’t want to predict anything not succeeding. I’d rather work as hard as I can, along with others, to make it to succeed.

QUESTION: Well, what sort of consequences would those be? You’ve mentioned for the first time a few days ago that aid would not continue to flow to Afghanistan if there wasn’t an accountable government. Is that a realistic approach? I mean, withholding aid would undermine your dual strategy here, civilian and military.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we hope it never comes to that. But from the beginning of this Administration, I worked with our Special Representative Ambassador Holbrooke to do two things: create a certification process where we could certify those agencies of the government that we thought were functioning well and could do even better with the appropriate support and resources; and over time, to begin increasing our financial aid for them, so that we are really empowering and creating the capacity that the government needs to deliver services. And we’ve made real progress there. We’ve gone from 10 percent of the aid being directed to the agencies of government to 20 percent. We’re on a path to 40 percent, something that President Karzai mentioned in his speech. But it’s through a very rigorous analysis of who we can really count on to spend that money the way we intend it to be spent.

QUESTION: There’s some suggestion that you would consider working more with partners at the local level in districts, provincial governors, to make sure that the cash doesn’t flow into the hands of corrupt ministers, for example. Is that something that you are considering?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in fact, I discussed that with President Karzai last night, that we believe that in a country such as Afghanistan, power does need to be decentralized, that much of what happens in people’s daily lives happens not from the central government in Kabul, but from their local district leader, their local tribal elder or chief. So yes, we are going to work with our allies, with the Karzai government, to try to increase the capacity of local governance as well.

But we think that’s a reinforcing strategy. Because just as we have decentralized power in the United States, where certain responsibilities are expected from the local government compared to the national government, when President Karzai talked about the emphasis that will be placed on building up the national security force, both the military and the police, that is a responsibility here in Kabul. But when the agriculture minister spoke to me yesterday about enhancing agricultural productivity, that’s going to be carried out at the local level. So I think it’s that kind of analysis that will lead us to better direct the aid that we send.

QUESTION: I know you don’t want to discuss troop numbers, but I think one thing that everybody can agree on is that there will be more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you feel comfortable after the conversations you’ve had here over the last two days, your meetings with President Karzai, do you feel comfortable sending more American troops to Afghanistan? Do you think it’s worth it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to preempt the President and what he will announce when he announces his decision. But I do believe that, as I said before, we have a national security interest in going after the syndicate of terror that al-Qaida has helped to pull together, which includes elements of the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban. It is a direct threat to the United States, to our allies, our interests, our values. And we are determined to defeat al-Qaida.

Yet at the same time, we know we will be more successful in that effort if we help to build up the capacity of the Afghan Government and people to defend themselves. So it’s a not an either/or, it is a both/and. We are in Afghanistan originally, and still today, because of our being attacked on 9/11. But we want to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan that is not solely defined by our military commitment. Because the more democratic, more stable, more prosperous Afghanistan becomes, the less likely it would ever again be a haven for terrorism. So this is a complicated calculation, but I think it’s the right one to look at.

QUESTION: What does success look like in Afghanistan in your eyes?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the realization of the promise put forth in President Karzai’s speech today: a country able to defend itself; a country with economic opportunities where children are being educated, where the main industry in the country, namely agriculture, is more productive and creating greater incomes for people.

It was clear today in the speech that the president has a vision of where he wants to lead the country, and it was reassuring to people. It was exciting because it was such a statement of resolve. But the proof is in the pudding. Now we’ve got to work and make it happen. He knows that. His ministers know that. We’ve been meeting and talking with our counterparts from the other countries that supply troops and supply economic assistance of all kinds to say, look, how are we going to do a better job? It’s not just what we’re demanding of the Afghan Government and leadership. How do we better coordinate the donors? How do we really get everybody integrated into the military and defense and security strategy? How do we avoid duplication of efforts? There’s a lot of questions we have to be better at answering, and we’re going to take on that effort.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) one of the grievances that is often aired both here in Afghanistan and in Pakistan is that the U.S. has not always been exactly the most reliable of allies.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as I said in Pakistan and I would repeat it here in Afghanistan, there is some truth to that concern that people have expressed to me in both countries. And I’m sure if I were in their shoes, I would feel the same way. That’s why I think it’s important that we define our relationship with Afghanistan on a long-term basis that is not primarily or exclusively military. Yes, we have a troop commitment. The President increased it last spring. He is looking at how he can best go forward now. And we want to make sure that any young man or woman from our country who we send to Afghanistan has the maximum chance of succeeding at the mission that we ask. But we’re also dramatically increasing our civilian presence. I just greeted some of the civilians who had lost their colleagues in a terrible incident about two weeks ago. And there are so many people who have come to Afghanistan as part of our civilian efforts in tripling the numbers this year.

So we want to have as clear an understanding of the civilian-military integrated strategy that we’re pursuing that we believe dovetails with the needs that the people and Government of Afghanistan have.

QUESTION: Karzai – President Karzai has been in and out of favor in Washington. He’s had stormy exchanges with some American officials. You seem to have a very good rapport with him. What has it been like to sit down with him over dinner? You had a very long conversation one-on-one with him as well. Are you appealing to him to think of his legacy? I mean, what are you discussing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re discussing the challenges that he faces as the president of Afghanistan. I’ve known him for about seven years, a little over seven years, I guess. I’ve met with him numerous times here in Afghanistan, in the United States, at international conferences. I’ve always tried to listen to him to hear what’s really on his mind, his concerns, the way he views the problems that he faces, and then to be responsive but also to offer a perspective that perhaps is useful.

I think it’s clear that he really has turned his attention in a very focused way to what his legacy will be. He and his family have given 300 years of service to Afghanistan. He comes from a position of honor within the Pashtun culture in Kandahar. And he’s a real patriot, and he wants to be the leader who has ushered Afghanistan into the modern age, into a secure, democratic future.

Sometimes it’s easier to say that than to do it, and I understand that. I’m sympathetic, maybe because I’ve been in politics. It doesn't look as easy as it might from the outside as an expert or an academic or a diplomat or a bureaucrat might see it. There are so many tradeoffs in politics. I mean, you – in order to get things done, you often have to make compromises that are not very pleasant. And yet, you keep in mind always the larger goal. And I think President Karzai has a very large vision indeed of what he wants to see happen in Afghanistan in the next five years, and the really strong foundation he wants to lay for the future.

QUESTION: I want to finish with just one more question about the regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan, because it is – the solution here is regional, and it involves Pakistan and it involves India. And there’s been a lot of talk about Pakistan, but not so much anymore recently about India. Are you looking at tackling the Kashmir problem to try to help Pakistan really move its focus to the border with Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve encouraged both countries to resume a dialogue that they were engaged in which came to a halt and yet holds a lot of promise. They had made progress, I’m told, in sorting through some of the longstanding difficulties they face, and most particularly the status of Kashmir. But it’s clear that any solution has to come from the two countries themselves.

QUESTION: You’re not pushing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are encouraging them to get back into dialogue. We think that is important. But with respect to any resolution, that’s up to them.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much for your time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Nice to talk to you, as always.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

Remarks at Civil-Military Integration Briefing

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Embassy Kabul

Kabul, Afghanistan

November 19, 2009

Terrific. Well, first let me thank you all. I’m sorry that my schedule didn’t permit me to get to Bagram to actually have this meeting, but thanks for coming down. I really appreciate the opportunity to hear firsthand from all of you.

And I am very pleased that we’ve made progress. I know we still have a long way to go, but the story that needs to be told is the kind of committed service that is being shown in this integrated civilian-military effort. And I’m really grateful to each and every one of you. I want to hear from you. That’s what I’d like to spend time doing.

Press Conference at U.S. Embassy Kabul

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Kabul, Afghanistan

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much for being here. I want to start by thanking Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal and all of the dedicated men and women of the U.S. and NATO ISAF missions here in Afghanistan. The work that Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal are doing together, both their personal collaboration and the joint efforts of their teams, is a model for civilian-military cooperation and a source of confidence that we will make progress toward our objectives.

I also want to thank Ambassador Holbrooke and his team in Washington, who have provided vision and leadership to our efforts in this region.

This is an important moment. Today’s inauguration opens a real window of opportunity for a new compact between the Afghan Government and its people, and for a new chapter in the partnership between Afghanistan and the international community. And we must seize this moment. For the United States and Afghanistan, this means a renewed partnership based on mutual responsibility, where we each do our part to deliver for the Afghan people and to advance our common fight against our common enemy.

President Karzai’s inaugural address provides an important new starting point, and we intend to build on it. The speech laid out Afghanistan’s commitment to take responsibility for the security of its own country by speeding efforts to stand up a capable and effective Afghan national security force that can replace international forces over time. The United States shares this same objective, and we welcome this strong commitment.

Of course, our civilian effort will remain long after our security effort has concluded, and it will be just as decisive to Afghanistan’s future and our interests. So I was pleased that the inaugural speech also outlined the steps the Afghan Government will take to improve its efforts to deliver for its citizens, to bring them basic services, access to justice, and the educational and economic opportunities they deserve.

It’s an effort that will require steady progress on government capacity, transparency, and accountability. It will also require us to pursue a broader and deeper partnership with capable Afghan ministries responsible for carrying out their own programs. Last night, I met with the education and agriculture and finance ministers, and received detailed briefings on past progress and future plans.

Through their work and our support, we are starting to see results. Farmers are beginning to switch from poppies to pomegranates, girls are attending schools – many taught by newly trained teachers, families are visiting new health clinics and driving on freshly paved roads. Thousands of new civil servants, trained through a partnership with USAID, are helping build democratic institutions from the ground up.

Moving forward as we work with President Karzai and his government in Kabul and leaders at the local, district, and provincial levels, we will keep in mind that our most critical partnership is with the people of Afghanistan. We will use clear benchmarks and measures to ensure that our efforts are delivering results for them. We will also coordinate with our international partners to ensure we are engaged in a common and effective effort in service of their needs as well as our common interests. I had a series of extremely productive discussions with my counterparts here, with the foreign ministers from troop-contributing countries, donor countries, and those who have a stake in the future of Afghanistan.

Now, as we call for accountability from others, we will hold ourselves accountable as well. That’s why we are working to ensure that development funds are tracked, accounted for, and used as intended; that our detention facilities and procedures are consistent with our security and our values; that we do everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.

I am here in Afghanistan and so many brave Americans are serving here because we believe that we can make progress. Now, we are under no illusions about the difficulty of this mission. The road ahead is fraught with challenges and imperfect choices. Setbacks are inevitable, and we have to be realistic about what we can accomplish. But we are also clear-eyed about the stakes. For the Afghan people, it is about a better future. For the United States, it is about protecting our people, our allies, and our interests. That is why we are working so hard to renew this partnership and why it is so vital that we seize this moment, this crucial window of opportunity.

Again, I want to thank everyone serving here and really express, on behalf of not only President Obama and the Obama Administration but our country as well, our gratitude for the service of the men and women who serve the United States of America. Thank you all very much.

MODERATOR: The first question is going to be (inaudible) TV.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) First of all, let me thank you and – for coming here to Afghanistan and the inauguration ceremony. My first question is that whether President Karzai has not bring any reforms in his new cabinet, and the second is that if there is a six-month deadline as you’ve given to President Karzai to bring reforms? And the third is that – the question of whether the U.S. – Mr. Ambassador Eikenberry has said that more forces should not be sent to Afghanistan, in contrast to the request that was made by General McChrystal.

So in those cases, the first few cases, whether the United States will leave Afghanistan or will work with the new government if President Karzai does not make any changes or if that deadline is not achieved in six months time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I thought that the inaugural speech that President Karzai gave today set forth an agenda for change and reform. He was particularly strong on the steps that he intends to take regarding corruption, the idea that government officials will have to register their assets so that any money or other influence can be more easily tracked is a very bold proposal.

So we are heartened by what we see as the agenda for change and reform that was outlined by President Karzai. We think that the issue now is to ensure that it is implemented, that we see results. I had a number of conversations with President Karzai, and I know that he has every intention of moving on these reform measures to stand against corruption and to make the Government of Afghanistan even more effective.

Also, I think what you have seen in the debate in the United States is a very serious effort to try to analyze all the different aspects of the decision that has to be made. And I’m very proud that we have a country and we have a President who really encourages people to express themselves, so that we don’t leave any questions. We try to answer all the questions. And I think when President Obama makes his announcement, he will be very well prepared to express the significance of his decision because he will have asked, and asked many others to contribute to the debate.

I want to make something very clear: Our relationship with Afghanistan is not exclusively military. Obviously, we have troops here along with our allies to try to assist the people of Afghanistan in defeating the terrorist threat. But we also are committed to a long-term relationship with Afghanistan to assist the people of this country in having a better future, having the education and healthcare opportunities, ensuring that the farmers can be productive and have a good income going forward, helping with infrastructure that will enhance the economy of Afghanistan.

So we see our relationship as very broad and deep, and our approach now is to focus on security so that the people of Afghanistan can feel that they are free from intimidation and threats from our common enemy, but it is much more than that as well.

MODERATOR: The next question is Chris Lawrence of CNN.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Iran now says that it will not export its uranium for further processing, and its courts have now decided to give the death sentence to two – or five, I should say – of its election protestors. How do these two developments affect your efforts to engage Iran in the process?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s clear that the President and our Administration have made a good-faith effort to reach out to the Iranian leadership. The effort to engage Iran through the P-5+1 process with the offer (inaudible) to Iran, or to ship out its low-enriched uranium in order for it to be reprocessed outside of Iran, had the unified support of the international community. And according to press reports, Iran may well be prepared to reject that offer at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting next week.

And it is important to remember that our approach to Iran was always a dual-track one. On the one hand, we said we would reach out to see whether or not there could be any common discussions about their nuclear program, other problems that we and many countries in the region have with Iran. But we also said that there was a second track, and that track was to work toward consequences for Iran if engagement did not work. As recently as the United Nations meeting in New York in September, I joined with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, as well as the EU in signing a document which said basically that. So we will proceed accordingly.

But I do think it is a very unfortunate, distressing development to see these sentences handed down in Iran, imposing the death penalty on people who participated in expressing their opposition to the government in demonstrating in the streets, and it underscores the approach that this government in Iran takes for their own people. So we will proceed on our international track and we will continue to stand up for the rights of the people of Iran to speak for themselves, to have their votes counted, to be given the opportunity to have the measure of freedom and rights that any person deserves to have.

MODERATOR: Okay. The next question is BBC (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) My question, please, Secretary Clinton, is that today in the inauguration ceremony, we saw the two warlords standing on each side of President Karzai. So if people like this remain in the future government, what will be the reaction of the United States Government in the future?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we understand the concerns that have been expressed about this. We have certainly conveyed those concerns ourselves. What we are looking for in the second term of President Karzai is an effective government that respects the rights of the people of Afghanistan, delivers services to them, responds in a transparent and accountable way to the concerns of the people. Anyone who’s in the government should agree with that kind approach that President Karzai outlined today.

And we expect that the government he is putting together will abide by the directions that his inaugural speech set. And we want to work with a government that is ready to meet the needs of the people of this country, and that is our priority and that’s what we’re going to expect from the government.

MODERATOR: Final question is to Nick Kralev of Washington Times.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I wanted to ask you about two issues that the president mentioned in his speech. And the first was his goal that in five years Afghan troops will take responsibility for the security of the entire country and the foreign troops out. Is that goal too ambitious? Do you think it’s doable? And what’s the link between that goal and to what might happen to the American troops?

And the second question on corruption. He wasn’t very specific in what he said. He was very general and vague. In your private meetings with him and his ministers, were they any more specific about the measures they have in mind to prove to you that they have really resolved to fight corruption?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as to the first question, I was personally pleased to see the president set an ambitious goal for the training of the Afghan national security forces. It is a goal that he believes can be met. We want to assist him and the military and police leadership in Afghanistan to move as quickly as they can to stand up and deploy a professional, motivated, effective force on behalf of the people of this country.

And I think that both the analysis that General McChrystal has made and the analysis that’s been made within the Afghan Government is that we can do more, we can provide greater support to assist them in doing that. And we intend to follow through. It is clearly one of the highest priorities, both for the government and people of Afghanistan, as well, as for our NATO ISAF leadership here, because the goal is to create conditions of security that will be able to be transferred and maintained by the Afghan security forces. And we are – we’re going to work with the president to try to move toward the goal that he set.

Secondly, I had a somewhat different reaction. I’ve sat through a lot of inaugural speeches, and they often don’t get down to specifics at all. As I recall, the president talked about the registration of assets, which is a very tangible demand that will be placed on government officials, the major crimes tribunal, the end of a culture of impunity. I thought that the commitment that we heard today from President Karzai gives us all a very strong base on which to measure the actions taken by his government. He could have been very vague and talked about how we’re all against it and we all want to end it, but he got much more specific. And we’re going to – along with the people of Afghanistan – watch very carefully as to how that’s implemented.

So thank you all very much. It’s been wonderful being back here, and I really appreciate the chance to participate in this historic day here in Afghanistan. Thank you.

Address to U.S. and International Troops in Afghanistan

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Kabul, Afghanistan

November 19, 2009

Thanks a lot. Thank you. Well, I am delighted to have this chance to come by and thank you in person for what you’re all doing. I’m very grateful to the leadership that both General McChrystal and General Rodriguez are giving to NATO-ISAF and to our American team. But I know that the work that’s done every single day is done by all of you in every aspect of this mission. I know we’ve got some of our allied partners here, and I want to thank all of them for representing their countries and being part of this extraordinary international effort.

I just want to make three quick points. First, we are here for a purpose, and this is a mission that is important to the United States and to those who have joined us in it. It’s a mission that partners with the people and Government of Afghanistan against a common enemy that poses a threat not only to people here, but people back at home, wherever you may be from. And that’s why I really express on behalf of certainly our country – President Obama and our Administration and the American people – our gratitude for your willingness to serve.

Secondly, we have to do everything we can to create the capacity of the Afghan Government and the Afghan people to protect themselves. And I was very pleased to hear today when President Karzai said that he hopes that within three years, the Afghan security forces will have the lead in important areas, and within five years – which is an ambitious goal, but he stated it – the Afghan security forces would have the lead throughout the country.

Now, there would probably be the necessity for continuing partnering, advising, training, but to take the lead and to take the fight to the enemy is what he said he wanted to see happen. And the only way that could happen is by the work that you do – the training, the mentoring, the support that you give to your Afghan counterparts. And we’re going to be giving you the kind of encouragement that you need to be able to help deliver on this goal that President Karzai set for Afghanistan.

Thirdly, I know that serving here is challenging. There are a lot of sacrifices, most particularly not being able to see your family and friends for long periods of time, and that many of you have been here not just once, but twice, three times, and I met somebody today who is on his fourth tour. So I really appreciate your willingness to serve, but I also know that for everybody who serves, there’s a family that serves as well, that’s trying to take care of everything and hold it together back wherever home is. And I hope if you email or you call or you write, you’ll let them know that I’m grateful for their service as well. Because we couldn’t have, in the United States, the superb, all-volunteer service we have if it wasn’t a family commitment. Parents, spouses, kids, everybody knows that when you sign up, there’s no predictability about where you’re going to be and how often they’re going to get to see you. And I guess as a mom, I’d say be sure you write home and email and all of that. (Laughter.)

But finally, especially for our Americans, we have our national holiday coming up next week. I spent Thanksgiving of 2003 in Afghanistan and I’ve never eaten so much in my life. (Laughter.) I had one meal in Kabul and another meal in Bagram and I had a third meal at Kandahar. So I have no worries that you’re not going to be well-fed come next Thursday. But I do know that that is a special time in a lot of people’s lives and particularly in a lot of people’s families, so it kind of maybe exacerbates a little bit the missing of those rituals and that kind of camaraderie and family time, from the football games that you watch on the couch instead of staying up late to see them.

But I want to especially wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. Now there are a lot of things that I’m grateful for and that the American people are grateful for, and at the top of my list is all of you. I’ve had the great privilege of working with, meeting, supporting our troops for a long time. And I served for six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and got a firsthand view of a lot of the challenges, but also the extraordinary sense of meeting and purpose that your service provides.

So let me thank you again and let me wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving, and God bless you and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

# # #

Briefing En Route Kabul, Afghanistan

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

En Route Kabul, Afghanistan

November 18, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: How are you?

QUESTION: Good. How are you? Did you get some rest?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I got a little bit. How about you guys?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Not enough.

QUESTION: Could I start off?

STAFF: Yes.

QUESTION: I guess maybe I’ll ask a general question. What message are you going to bring to President Karzai, both over dinner tonight and in any other meetings? Is there anything specifically the President has asked you to relay to him?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is a specific opportunity for everyone to take stock of where we are and to determine how we’re going forward together. And I will be both talking and listening a lot to President Karzai and others with whom I’ll meet to make sure that they understand our concerns and we understand their concerns.

QUESTION: There’s been quite a bit – obviously, you’ve addressed some of this in the Sunday shows – of concern about the president really tackling corruption and being serious about it. Beyond the general admonition of “We hope you crack down on corruption,” is there anything specifically you’ll ask him to do in terms of benchmarks or things you really want to see in a measurable way?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are asking that they follow through on much of what they have previously said, including putting together a credible anticorruption governmental entity – a commission, an agency, something that truly can deliver on the concerns that we and the people of Afghanistan have about corruption. They’ve done some work on that, but in our view, not nearly enough to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose to tackle corruption. And it is going to be one of the principled requests that we make. But it is reflective of what members of the government and others tell us they want to see happen as well.

QUESTION: But what if it doesn’t happen? Then what?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are concerned about corruption and we obviously think it has an impact on the quality and capacity of governing. So we’re going to be persistent, asking for the kinds of outcomes that we think reflect that they are serious about this. But I can’t predict what will or won’t happen at this point.

QUESTION: But you --

QUESTION: Sorry. He’s appointed already a vice president that has had some allegations of corruption surrounding him. He’s made alliances during the campaign and with General Dostum. That doesn’t bode very well.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it certainly raises questions, and whether those two problems are dealt with directly or whether there are other approaches that create confidence in the government’s commitment to not only fight corruption, because that’s only part of the equation, but to actually deliver results that work to stand up the Afghan national security force, to recognize the necessity for a new compact with the people of Afghanistan, and the recognition of the commitment that the international community is willing to make if we can see clear and effective results. We just have to continue to press for that and to try to achieve it.

But we do need to listen to what’s on their minds. It has to be a better two-way communication in order to be able to produce the kinds of results we’re seeking.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you just --

QUESTION: Hold on for a moment just on that. Can I just follow on that? Beyond – vis-à-vis on the corruption issue, do you think he has the vision for Afghanistan and for governing Afghanistan in a way that is responsible and that not only you, but the international community would approve of?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, I think he has demonstrated vision and commitment. There’s no doubt of his passion and patriotism about what he would like to see happen in Afghanistan. But we also have been operating on a relatively short historical frame.

Eight years is a lot in our minds. It is not a lot in the minds of a lot of other countries and societies and individuals. And I’m always reminded by people who have a broader view that positive changes have happened in the last eight years, and we don’t really talk about those very much. I mean, if you are looking at social indicators, well-being of people, opportunities for women, it’s not all a one-sided negative story. It’s much more balanced than that.

And I think if President Karzai were sitting here, he would say, do you know how hard it’s been to do what I have done over the last eight years? And I think if we don’t recognize the progress that they believe has occurred, then we lose credibility, in their eyes, in understanding the challenges they face in trying to move forward.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you – can I just ask – in your Sunday interviews, you talked about how we don’t have a long-term stake in Afghanistan; we don’t want to stay there. Can you just explain a little bit more? Because that seems to go against this notion of having a counterinsurgency that would protect the people and get all of the things --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I know we’re landing, but – and they want us to sit down – but let me say quickly, we don’t have a long-term military stake. We’re not seeking to occupy Afghanistan for the undetermined future. We don’t want bases in Afghanistan. And I think that’s an important message.

We do want to help the Afghan Government and people build up their own capacity so that they can defend themselves. I mean, the most common statement that we hear all the time from people in the country is, look, we want you to stay, we want your help, you need to give us the tools to be able to defend ourselves, and then we want you to leave. That’s a military context.

Would they want our help going forward on schools and healthcare and agriculture? Of course. But everybody is rightly focused on what is the military commitment and is this some kind of nose in the – camel’s nose in the tent that the United States is engaged in. No, it’s not.

QUESTION: And yet the Karzai government would like that. They have said repeatedly they would like more of these troops.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they – but they would like a security understanding the way we have with many countries, but not necessarily troops stationed in their countries in large numbers.

STAFF: Thank you. See you guys on the ground.

QUESTION: Thank you.

Meet and Greet at Embassy Kabul with Employees and Their Families

Hillary Rodham Clinton
   Secretary of State

Karl W. Eikenberry
   Ambassador to Afghanistan, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs

Embassy Kabul

Kabul, Afghanistan

AMBASSADOR EIKENBERRY: Well, good evening, members of this very great United States civilian and military and Afghan team. We’re deeply honored and very pleased to have with us today the 67^th Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Today, Afghanistan is at the forefront of American diplomatic and national security policy, a welcome and essential change after years during which this mission was under-resourced and unable to fully tackle the many challenges our country and the international community have faced here.

But with the President’s new strategy in March came very distinct emphasis on a joint civilian-military effort, a new clarity about our mission and the resources we have so long needed. And we’re blessed to have a Secretary of State who has provided us with the vision, the funds, the personnel, and the leadership to transform this Embassy into a powerhouse unlike any other embassy in the world today.

She’s given us all in this extraordinary team the tools that we need to be successful. Madame Secretary, it’s a very distinct honor to introduce you to the members of the greatest U.S. mission anywhere in the world. (Laughter.)

Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. It is absolutely wonderful to see you and to have a chance to be here to thank you – thank you for your service, thank you for your dedication, your commitment, your professionalism. I am absolutely delighted and honored to have a chance to greet you on my fourth trip to Afghanistan and to have a briefing and a greater understanding of what challenges you’re facing, what opportunities you are pursuing. So I thank you so very much.

And I have to tell you that most ambassadors say I want to introduce you to the greatest American mission in the world, but I do think that Ambassador Eikenberry did not overstate. And so therefore, thank you so much. (Applause.)

And I want to thank Ambassador Eikenberry, who continues his life of service to this country that he has loved and protected and defended and represented, and I especially want to thank his wife, Ching, for making so many people feel so welcome as they come here and want to know more about what we are doing. We have a plethora of ambassadors here – (laughter) – and I want to thank Frank and his wife, Marie, and Tony and everybody, because we beefed up this Embassy because we knew that we needed to have all hands on deck, that we were going to be asking a lot of you, that we were redefining and deepening our partnership with the people and Government of Afghanistan, so we brought in a lot of extraordinary talent.

We also have an operation in Washington that Ambassador Holbrooke leads as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, because of course, one of the conclusions we reached in the spring with President Obama’s review of the situation that was in place when he became President was the need to integrate our civilian and military strategy, to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan and the entire region as a whole, to understand the courage and the bravery, the commitment, and the hope of the people of Afghanistan. Because after all, this is their country and this is what we hope that they will be able to take leadership over, defend, and protect, now and into the future. So I could not be prouder to be here.

This Embassy, as you know, was protected during the hardest times by locally employed staff. The American flag flew here for 12 years while we were not present. And to me, that says more than any speech could about the true connection between the American people and the people of Afghanistan. So I want to personally thank all of our locally employed staff. Let’s give a round of applause to you. (Applause.)

I bring greetings from President Obama, whom I just left in China. He is deeply grateful, as we all are, for your service. And we know the sacrifices that you and your families have made to be here and to be part of this mission. It is a great tribute to your optimism as well as your expertise that you see what we see; that we can meet these challenges and we can provide the support that the government and the people deserve to have.

We stand at a critical moment on the eve of the inauguration of President Karzai’s second term. There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that we’re going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people who live throughout this magnificent country.

We want to be a strong partner with the government and the people of Afghanistan. And I always say both because it’s not either/or. It has to be both. And I will look forward to the conversations that I will be having with the president and others. We have engaged in a very careful and thoughtful review. When the President asked us to make this review, we wanted to question every assumption, we wanted to look at every possible decision. Because we know that this is a turning point that we all face together.

And I’m very impressed that we’ve had so much assistance from so many of you in providing ideas about the best way forward. Many of you were, as you know, chosen to come here. You were chosen not only by State and USAID, of course, but by Defense, by Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, FBI, DEA, or some other alphabet agency of our government. Because you were thought to have particular skills and savvy to be able to deliver what we need to do together with the government and people of Afghanistan. And we need your help. We need your help to guide our thinking and strategy in Washington. We need your feedback about what works and what doesn't work. We need your honest assessment.

When I became Secretary of State, I said that I wanted us to be using smart power. And that was a combination of what too often has been divided between our incredible military assets, so-called hard power, and our diplomacy and our development, so-called soft power. But in effect, we have done a disservice to both by separating them out and labeling them, instead of looking at what they could represent in the furtherance of our values and our interests around the world.

So smart power requires smart people, and that’s what each and every one of you represent. I think it’s fair to say that nobody knows better than our military commanders that troops alone cannot meet our goals of defeating al-Qaida, of helping the Afghans to get the capacity to defend themselves and provide governance that will result in positive changes for the people of this country.

The military has performed brilliantly time and time again in confronting terrorists and protecting civilians and training security forces and defending borders. But this has got to be a common joint strategy that we have to look at in that way from the beginning, not as an afterthought. And that’s what we are trying to demonstrate, and you are on the front lines of doing that.

We are on track to having close to a thousand American civilians here by the end of the year, tripling the number that we inherited back on January 20^th. Whether you are a civil service officer or a foreign service officer, or a locally engaged staff, or an eligible family member, you are all integral to our strategic efforts here in Afghanistan.

And a lot of the work that we’re asking you to do is work that we think has long-term payoff. It may not be immediately apparent, like those of you working in agriculture to support food security and agribusiness, or those of you who are partnering with local governors to expand opportunities for modern banking and private enterprise, launching a “cash-for-work project” to clean water from the Kabul River, or supporting the first Afghan-led elections after 30 years of war, you are helping to create the conditions that will, we believe, assist in achieving the core objectives, not just by the international community or the Americans, but by the people and Government of Afghanistan.

And I want to note the excellent work of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, all the PRTs who lead our development efforts in some of the most difficult and dangerous regions of the country.

There is one Embassy staff member in particular, a foreign service officer who has gone above and beyond the call of duty that I just wanted to mention, because to a great extent, he represents all of you. Last May, Matt Sherman was on a mission with military colleagues when the lead convoy vehicle struck an IED and flipped. Matt raced from the safety of his vehicle to assist the wounded soldiers. And in recognition of his courageous and selfless actions, the troops of Task Force Spartan, Third Brigade Command Team, 10^th Mountain Division, from upstate New York, nominated him – let’s give a round of applause for Fort Drum, okay?[1](Applause.) The 10^th Mountain Division were the first American soldiers to come to Afghanistan after 9/11. I had the honor, when I was a senator from New York, escorting President Karzai to Fort Drum to thank the 10^th Mountain Division and to recognize their sacrifice.

Well, the Task Force and the Brigade Command Team and the 10^th Mountain Division have nominated Matt Sherman for the Department of State Award for Heroism. And Matt – where’s Matt? Matt, come up here. Matt, please. (Applause.)

Well, Matt, we have approved – big surprise – we have approved – (laughter) – this award in appreciation for your outstanding service. As I said, there are a lot of people who have performed just extraordinary and admirable service on behalf of the United States.

The President and I know this is hard work in a hard place. I’m not coming here to give you happy talk and just say onward and upward. I’m coming to tell you how important what you do is, how absolutely essential your service and commitment has to be to whatever can be achieved here.

We know that the security and logistical challenges you face are considerable. I’m working with Ambassador Eikenberry to improve the quality of life here at post – although I have to tell you, it looks a lot better than it did when I was here in ’03 – to address some of the overcrowding. We are moving forward with efforts to de-mine the multi-acre lot nearby and expand the Embassy compound to provide a more comfortable and safe work environment.

We ask a lot of you, but we do it because we really believe in you, and you believe in our mission. So I want to thank each and every one of you. I’m so grateful for the opportunity to be here with you.

I want to take a few minutes to say hello to you. I know some of the locally engaged staff want to get home, and I appreciate that. So I’ll try to see as many of you, and then please leave so you can get home to your families. But I’m very, very grateful. God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)

# # #

---

[1] Third Brigade Combat Team

Keynote Address at the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) 24th Annual Briefing

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Dean Acheson Auditorium

Washington, DC

November 18, 2009

Via Video Message

I am pleased to address you this morning at the Overseas Security Advisory Council’s 24^th annual briefing.

OSAC plays a major role in protecting the U.S. private sector overseas against terrorism and other threats by sharing information, providing guidance, and promoting best practices. Their worldwide network helps to identify, track, and alert members to critical emerging issues and to provide risk management guidance.

These practices are driven entirely by you, people from the private sector and NGOs. And I urge you to take advantage of all OSAC has to offer, including the conference and events it hosts every year to provide guidance on travel safety and risk assessment, which are essential to keeping our citizens safe abroad.

I am delighted that such a close, flourishing relationship between our nation’s governments and businesses has lasted all these years. And I hope you will join me and OSAC as partners as we work to protect and strengthen America’s public and private sectors in the years to come.

Thank you for all you do and best wishes for a productive briefing.

Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton's Trip to Afghanistan

Ian Kelly
Department Spokesman

Washington, DC

November 18, 2009

Secretary Clinton will travel to Afghanistan to attend President Karzai’s November 19 inauguration ceremony, meet with Afghanistan’s leadership, international partners and allies, US troops, staff in Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and Embassy staff. This is the Secretary's fourth trip to Afghanistan, first as Secretary of State.

Statement on 20th Anniversary of the Velvet Revolution

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

November 17, 2009

Twenty years ago, the people of Czechoslovakia carried forward the wave of freedom that began in the Polish shipyards, surged over the Wall in Berlin, and ultimately liberated millions of people across Europe. Americans prayed for the students in Prague who faced down an oppressive regime and propelled a dissident playwright from prison to the presidency. We cheered for a nation that had grasped for liberty in the spring of 1968 and seen its dreams deferred for decades. And when democracy finally came, we welcomed new partners committed to building a free and unified Europe and a more peaceful and prosperous world.

Today we celebrate the vibrant democracies of the Czech Republic and Slovakia and salute those who worked to bring freedom to their land -- the dissidents and activists who risked all they had to demand a free and better life, the mothers and fathers, workers and students who never lost faith that a system built on tyranny and oppression could and would be overcome. Thanks to their sacrifice, Tomas Masaryk’s vision of a democratic society thrives today in Middle Europe.

On this historic occasion, I congratulate the Czech Republic and Slovakia on twenty years of democracy and reaffirm the commitment of the United States to our strong alliance as we work together to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of the 21^st century.

###

Remarks at USA Pavilion at Shanghai Expo

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Shanghai, China

November 16, 2009

Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, good morning, and let me tell you how pleased I am to be here with all of you in the rain, which means good fortune. (Laughter.) I thank the vice mayor for his very kind words. And to all of our Chinese friends who are here today, we are very grateful for your support of this pavilion.

I want to thank Ken Jarrett and the USA Pavilion Board of Directors. I wish to thank Mr. Yang Xiong, our executive vice mayor. I want to thank Ms. Zhong Yanqun, vice chair. Mr. Hong Hao, director general, Ms. Wu, deputy director general, and our friend who is the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong. Thanks also to U.S. Commissioner General Jose Villarreal, to our Consul General Beatrice Camp, to Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley and Kris Balderston from our Global Partnerships in the State Department, and to Ellen Eliasoph and the U.S. Pavilion team. Thanks to all of you.

And there are a number of corporate representatives here who I would like to acknowledge, because without your financial support, this magnificent USA Pavilion behind me would not be possible. Our global sponsors, PepsiCo, General Electric Corporation, and Chevron; our newest sponsors, Proctor and Gamble, Yum! Brands, Honeywell, Intel, Pfizer, and Qualcomm, and I want to note a special sponsor, Boeing, which has just agreed to double its contribution to $2 million to support this effort. We’re grateful for your generosity and your steadfast belief in the importance of the expo, the American role here, and what this USA Pavilion can do to strengthen cooperation and partnership between the American people and the people of China.

It is very fitting that this expo will be here in Shanghai, one of the most dynamic and cosmopolitan cities in the world. I’m pleased to be here with President Obama and to be back in China after my first trip here as Secretary of State earlier this year. This USA Pavilion will showcase American innovation, it will demonstrate the kind of values that America holds dear – freedom, diversity, teamwork, creativity – and it will be built around the theme “Better Cities and Better Lives.”

I understand there will even be a story told in 4-D. I know there are some in the audience who are still contemplating sponsorship or who may be in negotiations with the USA Pavilion team. Now is the time to join this effort. We want to assemble the strongest team of partners possible. I look forward to returning next summer to see for myself what our pavilion looks like and to tour the magnificent Expo grounds.

There’s a famous American movie called Field of Dreams. And in it, the hero, played by Kevin Costner, builds a baseball field at his remote farm. A lot of people tell him what he’s doing doesn’t make any sense, they think it’s a big risk, but he loves baseball, and he has faith that he can build something that will be meaningful. And during his project which so many people criticize, he keeps hearing “If you build it, they will come.”

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we believe the same. We are building it, and we believe that when the Expo opens in 166 days, 70 million people will come. And with this rain today, maybe 100 million people, with even greater good fortune, will come. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Thank you.

# # #

Interview With David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Singapore

November 15, 2009

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, welcome back to Meet the Press.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s great to talk with you from Singapore, David. Thank you.

QUESTION: Let me begin by something that’s very controversial back home, as you well know, the decision by the Attorney General to transfer some of the high-profile prisoners from Guantanamo Bay from the prison there. The self-proclaimed perpetrators of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and make them stand trial in New York.

As you know, the reaction has been fierce on Capitol Hill among mostly Republicans, but some Democrats too, saying that there’s no reason to give these prisoners the rights of the common criminal. On the other side, you have Mayor Bloomberg of New York saying that it’s the right thing to do, to make them stand trial just a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood.

Where do you stand on this?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, this was a very comprehensively examined decision that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense reached in who would be tried in federal court, who would be in the military commission system that the Obama Administration has revised. And I’m not going to second-guess any decision that the Attorney General made, but I think it’s important that Mayor Bloomberg, that our law enforcement officials in New York, all believe that New York City not only can handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us.

I was a senator from New York, and I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11. And if the Attorney General and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve that outcome, then I think that they should be given the right to move forward as they see appropriate.

QUESTION: Do you agree with those who say that this exposes New York City to unnecessary risks of terrorism?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, and I think Mayor Bloomberg, the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, these are people who put the interests of New York above all else. And they clearly believe that this can be handled in New York. I have the greatest confidence in the law enforcement personnel and leadership in New York City.

Obviously, it’s a very painful experience for families to have to go through. That is something that pains me. But we are a nation of laws, and we have two different venues for holding these people accountable, the military commissions and our federal courts. And the individual decisions that the Justice Department and the Defense Department have made, along with the advice of veteran prosecutors, I think should be respected.

QUESTION: When is a realistic deadline now for Americans to expect the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be shut down?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think as soon as possible. But obviously, there are some challenges. I think that every American should understand that closing Guantanamo was a commitment that President Obama made. It was very well received around the world because Guantanamo had come to represent not the America that we all believe in and that we hold dear – our values and the way we behave. And so closing it is a commitment that the President made that he will follow through on. The timing is kind of dependent upon how we answer all these other issues.

QUESTION: Let me move on to another big issue, and that’s Afghanistan. When are we going to hear the President’s decision about whether to send more troops?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I mean, the President is going to be making that decision when he is ready to announce it. I think he stopped at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska on his way to Asia, and I know that he told the troops there that he’s going to make a decision that will give them the support they need for the mission that he asks them to fulfill, and that he’s also going to make the case to the American public both to support the mission and, as always, to support our troops.

QUESTION: But let me zero in on a key issue here, and that, of course, is the issue of how many troops. We know General McChrystal is requesting 40,000 troops or perhaps more. General Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, weighed in on this topic and it was reported on this week, as you well know. This is what The Washington Post said on Thursday, and I’ll read it for you:

“The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Karzai’s government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban’s rise. The ambassador also has worried that sending tens of thousands of additional American troops would increase the Afghan Government’s dependence on U.S. support at a time when its own security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting.”

QUESTION: It’s been reported that you actually support as many as 30,000 additional troops being sent to Afghanistan. Obviously, Ambassador Eikenberry reports up to you. What is your response to those cables and to that point of view?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, of course, I’m not going to discuss any of the confidential advice that anyone has provided me or the President during this process. But I think what you obviously know is that there are many different views about how best to work with the Afghan Government. And one of the points that we are stressing is that our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida. That’s why we’re in Afghanistan. It’s about our national security. We do want to see the Afghans be able to defend themselves, which means being able to stand up a security force that is capable of fighting the Taliban, which is a part of the syndicate of terror that was basically inspired, funded, and directed by al-Qaida. But we’re going to expect more from the Afghan Government going forward, and we’ve got some very specific asks that we will be making.

QUESTION: Do you believe that President Karzai is an effective partner, a reliable partner, and that sending more U.S. troops would actually be effective?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I believe that he has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. Certainly, there are many improvements in Afghanistan over the last eight years, but there has not been the kind of open, transparent, accountable government that stood against corruption, that delivered services to people, that I think the people of Afghanistan are seeking and that we would all like to see for them. And particularly, we have some work to do to assist and mentor and train an Afghan security force.

What I hear all the time from people in Afghanistan and reports from others who are talking on a regular basis to people across the country is that the basic attitude in Afghanistan is they do not want to see a return of the Taliban. That was a horrible period that they remember all too well. They do want security. They want a government that can protect them and can deliver at least some services, whether it’s from the central government or the local district government. They also want to make sure that we help them create a security force that can then take over.

As one person memorably said, look, we want your help to enable us to defend ourselves, and then we want you to go. Well, that’s a pretty good summary of what want to do. We want to get al-Qaida. We want to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us. And we want to be able to give the Afghans the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves. We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We’re not interested in any long-term presence there. We came to do a job, and unfortunately, it wasn’t done over the last eight years.

QUESTION: Define the exit strategy, if that’s the President’s view.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to define the President’s view and I’m not going to define the exit strategy from a mission that he hasn’t even yet announced to the American public. And I guess I would just put this in a larger context with making these points, David.

Number one, I have traveled consistently for the last nine months. I think I’ve been in more than 40 countries. I’ve met with countless leaders. I’ve done a lot of public diplomacy, getting out there, listening to people. I don’t think I can overstate how damaged our country was in the eyes of people around the world when President Obama took office. And we’ve been working very hard to just get us back to a point where we can have the kind of open, candid conversations that lead to decisions being made that will benefit the United States and move us toward goals like more peaceful, prosperous outcomes for us and – on many parts of the world.

Secondly, I think it’s important to underscore that we see the fight against al-Qaida and the syndicate of terror in the security interests of the United States. I think that kind of got lost the last eight years with a lot of talk about how it wasn’t important to get bin Ladin, that we were there for some other reason. No, it’s critical to get those who attacked us. That is what we are there for. And what we are trying to do is to assess the best way forward so that we can go anywhere in the United States and anywhere in the world and say the same thing: You have to understand that we believe this syndicate of terror is a threat not just to the United States and our friends and allies, but to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others.

QUESTION: Let me turn to the issue of China, where you and the President head next. The lead of a New York Times story out this morning about the President’s visit there says this: “When President Obama visits China for the first time on Sunday, he will in many ways be assuming the role of profligate spender coming to pay his respects to his banker.” With that as the backdrop, with China holding so much U.S. debt, $2 trillion worth, what is your assessment of U.S.-China relations?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that our relations are on a positive, cooperative basis with a comprehensive agenda that we are exploring together. Secretary Geithner and I co-chair the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that we started this year, because we didn’t want to just have an economic dialogue, we wanted to have a much more comprehensive engagement. I think that there is evidence that there are some positive results already. The Chinese have stood with us in the sanctions against North Korea. The Chinese are part of the P-5+1 effort to try to engage Iran on its nuclear program. We are seeing signs of a cooperative relationship.

Now let me go to the premise of your question. When I ran for president, I started saying all the time that, in effect, we were ceding our fiscal sovereignty and that China was our banker. So it’s not news that that’s going to be in the papers on the eve of our visit to China. We have to get back to fiscal responsibility. It breaks my heart, David, that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus, and if we had stayed on that path we were heading toward eliminating our debt. Well, here we are eight years later, thanks to wars that weren’t paid for, thanks to financial collapses and so many other crises that we inherited. But the President understands clearly that we have to get back some control over time of our fiscal sovereignty.

QUESTION: Can I ask you something different about China, which is in light of the fact that China has a robust espionage policy against the United States, that they are cooperating with Iran in international affairs. Are they hurting our national security interests?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, we are well aware of not just one country but many countries that try to gain advantage, not just politically and strategically, but commercially vis-à-vis our own country. And we are also well aware that many countries have relationships with those with whom we do not. But I think it’s more significant that China signed on to our P-5+1 statement in New York, China has been at the table as we have been pushing Iran to fulfill what they agreed to in principle to send out their low-enriched uranium so that it can be reprocessed elsewhere.

So I think it’s a much more complicated and mixed story. But I travel on behalf of our country and I meet with leaders from all over the world every day, and I have no illusions going in to any meeting that anybody stands for America’s interest besides me. The task is to look for where we can find common ground and common interests. It is significant that China signed on to the toughest sanctions ever against North Korea, because we worked very hard to make the case that those sanctions were not just something that America or South Korea or Japan wanted, but they were in the interest of China.

Similarly, in my conversations with Chinese leaders, I make it very clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will destabilizes the region that produces the oil and the gas that China desperately needs and for which they have contracts. So why wouldn't we try to stabilize the region by preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place?

So that’s what diplomacy is about. I mean, you don’t – you start from the premise of what are your security interests, what is it that you wish to present, and how do you make the case that what you’re seeking is also in the interests of your counterpart?

QUESTION: Before I let you go, you know whenever I get a chance to talk to you, I like to ask you about a little bit of politics. And I know you’re over there in Singapore and you may not have heard --

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m out of politics.

QUESTION: You may not have heard, but Sarah Palin has a new book out. And in, it she writes this: “Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail.”

Is this somebody you’d like to sit and have coffee with, and do you plan to read the book?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I absolutely would look forward to having coffee. I’ve never met her, and I think it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her. And I’ve got more than I can say grace over to read. But obviously, in the next week, there’s going to be a lot of attention paid to her book, and I’m sure that I’ll see excerpts printed and snippets of interviews as I channel surf in Singapore and in Shanghai and in Beijing. But I’m ready to have a cup of coffee. Maybe I can make a case on some of the issues that we disagree on. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So maybe there’s a summit meeting here. What do you think her brand of conservatism – how does that impact the Republican party?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I truly am out of commenting on politics. That is something that is not appropriate for the Secretary of State. But I am an active observer. And obviously, these are questions that you and others are going to be asking, and I look forward to hearing what people answer.

QUESTION: It was worth a shot. Secretary Clinton, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Thanks, David. Good to talk to you.

Interview With George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Singapore

November 15, 2009

QUESTION: And we begin today with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thanks for spending time with us this morning.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, it’s a pleasure to talk with you from Singapore, George.

QUESTION: Well, and as you’re in Singapore, you and the President are facing, really, his toughest decision yet on Afghanistan. And on his way over when he stopped at Elmendorf Air Force Base, President Obama made this commitment to the troops and the country. Listen:

“We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We will give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you.”

QUESTION: Now, that is a tough promise to keep. History shows that the public won't support a war for very long, if they're not convinced that the goal is worthy, but also, and probably more important, that the war can be won. How can you convince the country that this war can be won?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the President said it very well, in talking to some of the brave young men and women in uniform when he stopped at Elmendorf. What he's been doing in the last weeks is testing every single assumption, asking for evidence, asking for dissenting opinions. I mean, he has conducted an extraordinary effort to make sure that the decision he makes is rooted in his best judgement, as to what is in the national security interest of the United States. And I believe that is a case that can be made to the American people. I have no doubt about that.

Now, look, I understand that there will be people who are maybe critical or unconvinced or not persuaded. But I think the majority of Americans will know that this President has gone the extra mile -- in fact, more than that -- to make sure that whatever decision he makes is in the best interest of our country, that it is aimed at making our country more secure, and supporting our men and women in uniform, as they fulfill the mission.

QUESTION: Well, one of those dissenting voices right now is reported to be our ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. He is also the former commanding general of U.S. forces there. And he has sent cables to Washington warning that President Karzai is not a worthy partner, and that sending more troops to Afghanistan now could actually make it more difficult for the Afghan Government, President Karzai, the Afghan army, to do what they need to defend their country on their own.

And I know you can't comment on any classified cables, but what do you think of this sentiment that President Karzai has not shown that he is a credible partner yet, and that sending more troops now will actually make the Afghan army too dependent on U.S. forces?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, George, you're right; I can't and wouldn't comment on the confidential advice that anyone has provided to the President during his deliberations. But the argument that you have just described is one that a number of people have made in the press and in arguments that have certainly been made known to me, to the President, and others.

We agree that our goal here is to defeat al-Qaida. That has been a clear goal and a mission from the President ever since he made his commitment of additional troops back in the spring. And we understand that the Afghans themselves need help in order to defend themselves against the Taliban. Those are mutually reinforcing missions.

But our highest obligation is the American people. It is to do everything we can to make sure that America is secure, that our allies, our interests around the world, are protected. And that is what we are focused on.

Now, we believe that President Karzai and his government can do better. We have delivered that message. Now that the election is finally over, we are looking to see tangible evidence that the government, led by the president, but going all the way down to the local level, will be more responsive to the needs of the people, will deliver the services that the people of Afghanistan want – who do not want a return of the Taliban, but they want a government that actually can function on their behalf – and that, together, we and our allies in the international community will help them to build a security force that can take care of their security going forward.

QUESTION: But President Karzai does seem to be ignoring some of our concerns. He is surrounded by a Vice President Marshal Fahim, who’s been accused of corruption. He is allied with General Dostum, a warlord, who has been accused of massacres in the past.

What kind of concrete steps must President Karzai take to prove that sending more troops is not a waste of American lives and American money?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have made it clear that we are not going to be providing any civilian aid to Afghanistan unless we have a certification that, if it goes into the Afghan Government in any form, that we are going to have ministries that we can hold accountable.

We are expecting there to be a major crimes tribunal, an anti-corruption commission established and functioning, because there does have to be action by the Government of Afghanistan against those who have taken advantage of the money that has poured into Afghanistan in the last eight years, so that we can better track it, and we can have actions taken that demonstrate there is no impunity for those who are corrupt.

So, we are going to be doing what we can to create an atmosphere in which the blood and treasure that the United States has committed to Afghanistan can be justified and can produce the kind of results that we're looking for.

But we have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state, and do all these wonderful things. That could happen. But our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America. How do we protect and defend against future attacks? We do not want to see Afghanistan return to being a safe haven and a staging platform for terrorism, as it was before. That is what is driving the President to make the best decision he can make.

QUESTION: The word of the week in Washington appears to be "off-ramps." That's what the President is pushing for, off-ramps out of Afghanistan. What is the off-ramp out of Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we want to get al-Qaida, George, and we're very clear about that. And we see it as part of our integrated strategy, looking at Afghanistan and Pakistan as a theater in which we have to operate.

We have made it clear to the Pakistanis, as well as to the Afghans and others, that we want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida. And when we talk about on-ramps, off-ramps, whatever the terminology of the day might be, that's a kind of shorthand. What we are trying to figure out is what is the best decision the President can make to achieve our primary core objective.

We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear. We came to do a mission. Unfortunately, it was not achieved in the last eight years. In fact, the mission was changed because it could not be achieved or no longer was the primary goal that was expressed in the prior administration.

Well, our goal is very clear. We want to get the people who attacked us. And we want to prevent them and their syndicate of terrorism from posing a threat to us, our allies, and our interests.

QUESTION: While you are there, the Attorney General announced that he was going to be prosecuting al-Qaida members in U.S. criminal courts in Manhattan, in New York City, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged accomplices. And that’s come under some fire, including from the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, who is our next guest. Here is what the mayor had to say about that decision:

“This was an act of war and an act of terror. They should be prosecuted. They should be prosecuted in a military tribunal. We would not have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii for what they did.”

QUESTION: Now it is true that during World War II we tried Nazis who crossed our borders in military courts, in military tribunals. Why is it so important to have these trials in federal criminal courts?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, George, this is a decision that the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense have made after extensive, exhaustive review. Look, I was a senator for eight years. I was a senator on 9/11. My goal is to make sure that the masterminds and the other implementers and designers of this horrific attack on us pay the ultimate penalty for what they did to the United States and to a lot of people who I know and who I had the honor of representing.

The Attorney General is determined, after consulting with veteran prosecutors, that this is a case that appropriately can be brought in our federal courts. Other cases will be brought in the military commissions. I'm not going to second-guess the Attorney General.

QUESTION: The State Department has the job of trying to find homes for the 90 or so prisoners at Guantanamo who have been cleared for release, but there is no country that will take them. How long will it take to find places for those 90 detainees? And will that delay -- how much further will that delay the closing of Guantanamo?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, actually, George, we have been making progress. I think when we started, there were way more than 100. I don't remember the exact number. We have a dedicated group, led by Ambassador Dan Fried, who have literally traveled the world making arrangements for detainees to be transferred to countries willing to accept them. And we are making progress. There is a large group of detainees from Yemen that pose some specific security issues that have to be addressed, but we are making progress.

QUESTION: While you have been gone, Sarah Palin is making quite a splash back here in the United States. Her book, "Going Rogue," is about to be released, but there are already excerpts out. And she has some kind words for you in the book. She says she was wrong to criticize you last year for whining, and now she says that she realized the media was biased when talking about your candidacy.

And she goes on to say this, to write this: "Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we will fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail. A lot of her supporters think she proved what Margaret Thatcher proclaimed, 'If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.'"

It sounds like she's fishing for a coffee date. Is it going to happen?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know, I have never met her. And look, I’d look forward to sit down and talk with her. Obviously, we are going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks, with her book coming out. And I would look forward to having a chance to actually get to meet her.

QUESTION: Was the media fair to her?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, George, I will leave that for my book, if I ever write another one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I only have one final question. As you know, Mayor Giuliani is following you in just a minute. And he's been talking to a lot of people in New York about running for governor next year. And a lot of governors think you are doing exactly the same thing. Are they right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: What, that I am talking about --

QUESTION: Talking to people about running for governor.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- Mayor Giuliani running for governor?

QUESTION: No, talking about running for governor yourself next year.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. That's another one of those stories that never will die, and I hope maybe we can put it to rest today. No, I am committed to the job that I have. It is an extraordinarily important time to be the Secretary of State of my country and to work with President Obama in trying to pursue our interests and advance our values around the world. And that's what I am going to continue doing.

QUESTION: So that rumor is dead. You're not running.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That rumor is dead. And if you could please, you know, like put it in a little box and send it off somewhere, I would appreciate it.

QUESTION: It is done. Madame Secretary, thanks very much for your time today.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, George. Good to talk to you.

Statement On The Passing Of James Lilley

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

November 13, 2009

I was saddened to learn of the passing of Ambassador James Lilley, one of our nation’s finest diplomats. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

For decades, Jim helped shape U.S. relations in East Asia. As the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan in the mid-1980s, Jim contributed to the development of our strong unofficial relations. As Ambassador to the Republic of Korea from 1986 to 1989, he helped strengthen the U.S. voice in favor of human rights and democratization, with dramatic results. And as Ambassador to China from 1989 to 1991, one of the most difficult periods in our bilateral relations, he stood up for human rights and ensured the safety of American citizens and Embassy personnel in the months following the Tiananmen Incident.

As I travel through East Asia this week, I see Jim’s legacy in our strong bilateral and regional partnerships, and in the many talented Foreign Service officers he mentored. Jim inspired generations of China hands, and at a time when many were convinced that there was little place for women diplomats in Confucian societies, he supported and encouraged the aspirations of women officers. His integrity, loyalty, and hard work exemplified the best tradition of American statecraft. He will be missed.

Remarks With Manila Radio Host Mo Twister

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

University of St. Tomas

Manila, Philippines

November 13, 2009

QUESTION: We have a huge election coming up in May, and it’s supposed to be – it’s kind of as exciting for us, as it was for you guys in your last election. We have 47 million registered voters – that’s well over 50 percent, we have 3 million newly registered voters – a lot of that the youth. So can you give us advice on say, some voting tips? Especially for the young people who are going to be voting for the first time, you know, this is kind of like an exciting moment. What key qualities should we be looking for in a president to help us turn this country around from, you know, something that you might be noticing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the importance of the electoral process here in the Philippines cannot be overstated. You have a democracy. It is a democracy that is critical to any progress that you want to make. So the more people who participate, the more likely that the outcome will reflect the needs of the people. And I think young people in particular should be excited about this. This is an opportunity for change. Obviously, President Obama campaigned successfully on a slogan of change, and I think that there’s a tremendous chance now for the people in the Philippines, particularly the young people, to demand the kind of change that you’re looking for. That’s what elections should be about. It shouldn’t just be a ritual. It should be a real contest, a real debate.

And I hope that you use modern technology. I know this is a very texting nation. And you can do a lot with the new technology to get people involved, to have the kind of meetings and events that bring people together, trying to get town halls where you get to question the candidates – everything you can think of that you believe works in other places.

And then finally, I know you’re going to be moving toward automated voting, and people could really use help in learning how to use this new voting form. And young people, particularly at a university like where we are today, can be helping to mentor and guide voters in how to make sure that they understand the new technology.

QUESTION: Now, you brought up that we are at the university. We’re at the University of Santo Tomas, which is considered probably one of the best, or if not the best, medical learning institution in our country. The thing is though, Secretary, many of our graduates in the medical field, they head to the U.S. and other first world nations to practice. Now, you’ve probably seen this in the large population of Filipino nurses in the hospitals. My question is: Do you think the United States and countries alike should be – I don’t know if the right term is obliged, but to give support to our education system, for scholarships, infrastructure, for nursing schools, since it directly benefits the American public?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that’s a really interesting question, Mo. I would like to see Filipino doctors and nurses be able to stay here in the Philippines and contribute to the health and well-being of the people here. There are some ways that we can assist, and we have in the past with the education system with institution building, and I will look into that.

But ultimately, what we should hope for is that you don’t export so many of your people.

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY CLINTON: The biggest export out of the Philippines are the people of the Philippines. And everywhere they go, they are successful. They are not only successful doctors and nurses, but business people and serving in every kind of job in every walk of life. And I think it’s important to look for ways that you can be sure that the people you train and educate here stay here.

QUESTION: Right. What do you think the world would be like if the United States took a less proactive role in world affairs? I mean, if you isolated yourself a little bit, do you think it would be a lot more dangerous out there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do. I do. I think it’s a challenging question because certainly we have a lot of challenges at home that we need to address, particularly the economic ones. But it seems that the United States, if we are not involved, people want us involved; and if we’re involved, they say, oh, well, you shouldn’t be involved, except if we aren’t, then they want us back. So I think there’s an expectation that we will be involved in political activities around the world, and I think we’re going to do our best to try to be helpful.

QUESTION: Do you feel though sometimes you guys are underappreciated for that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re not looking for any pats on the back or appreciation. We like to solve problems. We like to see results. We want to help people help themselves. I do think that oftentimes people are – they view the United States as an easy target. They can criticize us, but then behind the scenes they’re saying but don’t stop your aid, don’t stop your --

QUESTION: Right, right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- military cooperation, don’t stop helping us in natural disasters. But then they go out in public again and criticize us. So I understand how that plays.

QUESTION: I got you. Just one last question here about the job. How difficult is it to concentrate on one world problem to another? I mean, is it like Monday Middle East, Tuesday China, Wednesday North Korea, Thursday Russia, and Friday something else, Africa maybe? That must keep your head spinning.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It is pretty overwhelming. There is – it’s a big world out there. And as you were just talking, there seems to be an expectation that the United States is going to be involved everywhere. And we’re doing the best we can. I think it’s fair to say we inherited a lot of problems that we’re trying to untangle, and the challenge of doing that is a 24/7 job. But it’s exciting and it’s an incredible honor to be representing the United States and the Obama Administration.

QUESTION: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the show here. Mrs. Clinton, even if most of us will never completely understand the ins and outs of your job, we do appreciate the empowerment and the hope that you and President Obama bring to the world. And it’s my personal opinion, but I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that, and thank you for caring beyond your borders. Appreciate it very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, thank you, Mo. And I really wish you well. I mean, you’re a very impressive young man with an excellent interview technique. And I just think that the young people of the Philippines are really the future, and I encourage and urge you to be involved in the political process, to get active in this next election, act as though your future really depended on it, because it does.

QUESTION: Thank you. We appreciate it very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

Townterview with Maria Ressa, Ricky Carandang and Pinky Webb of ABS-CBN

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

University of St. Tomas

Manila, Philippines

MODERATOR: Coming in is U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Everyone, please, let’s give her a round of applause. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Well, you said how exciting. We’re certainly excited to have this chance to talk to you, Secretary Clinton. Welcome to the Philippines and please have a seat.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, it’s wonderful being back at this great university, which I just learned has a total of 44,000 students, the director told me. It’s amazing. So I’m thrilled to be here. Thank you so much for doing this.

MODERATOR: Well, thank you for coming, and I know since we have you for such a short period of time, we’ve got all of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao waiting for your words. So let me just quickly toss the first question at you, which is you – we’ve been talking about you, your – all of the highs and lows of your life, what a fantastic life, jam-packed, full of firsts; the first woman this, first woman partner in your – female partner in your law firm, first woman senator from New York, first woman to run for president, and now perhaps the most powerful and perhaps most popular with – the most popular U.S. diplomat.

So given all of this, for the women here and the young students, what advice would you give women who are moving from how to deal with disappointments, going from the lows to get to those highs?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, Maria. Well, let me say first that I think every person has the opportunity to make the most of their own lives. But what I have learned over time is that talent is universal, but opportunity may not be. And part of what is happening at this university is helping to equip young people – young men and young women – with the tools that you can use for your own lives. But every life faces challenges. There is no life that I know of, having lived as long as I have now, that doesn’t.

But with faith and with perseverance and persistence and a sense of mission and purpose in your life, you can keep going and make a contribution. And service is what has been at the center of my life. I never really thought when I was your age that I would be in politics or that I would ever be the Secretary of State of the United States. But I always wanted to make a contribution, particularly to children, because I think children deserve all of the support that we can give them. Their families deserve support so they can do a better job for their children.

So this has been a remarkable honor for me to have had the chance to serve, and I really hope that there will be a lot of young people here who are students who take advantage of this wonderful education to find ways to serve as well. The Philippines needs you. One of the great exports of this country is your people, and everywhere I go in the world, I meet Filipinos who are doing everything, every kind of job, making every kind of contribution. We’re so proud to have millions of Filipino Americans. But I think this country also needs your educated approach and your commitment.

So that’s what I’ve enjoyed doing and what I feel strongly about, and I’m just happy to be here with all of you.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MODERATOR: All right. (Applause.) Secretary Clinton, you talked about talent. Let me introduce you to one of Ateneo de Manila’s top basketball players.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, good.

MODERATOR: His name is Chris Tiu.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

MODERATOR: He has a question for you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Chris.

QUESTION: Good morning, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.

QUESTION: How are you doing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Very well, thank you. What position do you play?

QUESTION: I play shooting guard.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, good.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: How high is your vertical jump? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, not very high. I can touch the rim, though.

I have two questions for you if you don’t mind. Here’s my first question. My good friend, Ambassador Kristie Kenney, told me that you’re appalled by the poverty situation here in the country. So my question for you is: How do you think the youth can best get engaged in reducing poverty in our country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that the Philippines has been making progress. The income level has risen, which is very significant, but you know, because you live here, that there’s a lot of work still to be done. I think education is one of the most important ways of fighting poverty, I think providing healthcare so that young people are able to take advantage of their hard work and they have a really positive future, I think that having a good partnership between your government and your people to tackle the problems of poverty is absolutely critical.

The United States wants to be a good partner. We are trying to look at ways that we can provide more assistance to the Philippines to tackle poverty. Infrastructure is important, namely roads, and as you saw with these terrible recent storms, trying to fix some of the flooding conditions, some of the sanitation conditions. There’s a lot of work to be done, but I’ve been impressed at how the government has been working on this, but we need to do even more.

And ultimately, people themselves have to take responsibility and organize themselves. There are lots of ways that community groups can be organized to work for better services, to have a voice in the political system, to make sure that the needs of the poor are not marginalized or overlooked. So there’s a lot that can be done, and I really encourage the young people here to think creatively about that. I mean, what could you do as an individual, what could you do as part of a group here at the university that would tackle some of this?

And the final thing I would say is that there are big, big issues that can only be addressed by big solutions. But there’s an individual approach that could always work; mentoring a poor child, making sure that a poor child has somebody to look up to, somebody that you can be there in his or her life to encourage that child to stay in school, to really help that child get over the challenges and the bumps that happen in any life. Those kind of mentoring programs, those Big Brother/Big Sister programs, it’s one life at a time that I think is also an important part of an overall attempt to try to alleviate poverty.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, ma’am. On a lighter note, I’d just like to ask, since most of us Filipinos here are sports fanatics, particularly basketball and boxing, I would like to know if you follow any sport in particular? Do you have a favorite NBA team? And lastly, I’m sure all of us here would like to know what do you think will be the result this Sunday between Manny Pacquiao and Miguel Cotto? (Applause.) Let’s see how much of a diplomat Secretary Clinton is.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have heard that basketball and boxing are pretty big here in the Philippines, right? And so for basketball, I have followed two teams. I’m originally from Chicago. That’s where I was born and raised. And so I followed the Chicago Bulls, particularly when Michael Jordan was there. (Applause.) And then I was a senator from New York, so I have followed the Knicks, but that’s kind of discouraging. (Laughter.)

So I have – I kind of – I follow it, but it’s hard to get as enthusiastic as I would like to. Now, the Knicks are trying maybe to get LeBron James. Now, that would make it very exciting in New York. So I’ll watch that. I’m not sure exactly what will happen. And of course the Pacman’s going to win. I mean, is there any doubt? (Applause.)

QUESTION: All right. One of our questions for today’s forum was sent through the video-sharing website YouTube. Here’s that question, Secretary, from (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, (inaudible) network. Happy – the chance to talk with you, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I just want to clarify some questions regarding your State Department reports on the issues on human rights violations by the Philippine Government and by the armed forces in the Philippines. What is your position regarding these issues? And what are your concrete proposals or concrete actions to end the conflict here in our country? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you, and I’m delighted to know that this forum here at the university is connected up to so many places around the country, and maybe even beyond the country. I think that there are Filipinos who live elsewhere outside of the country who are actually tuned in, so I say hello to everyone.

The United States believes very strongly in the importance of human rights. It is something that is part of our founding document, the Bill of Rights, which you know has had an influence on your own constitution and your own bill of rights. And it is very important that we constantly work toward protecting human rights.

Now, it is difficult even in my own country. We are not perfect. I will be the first to say that. But it is important to keep trying, it’s important to have an independent judiciary that keeps trying, it’s important to have a military and a police force that is sensitive to that. It’s important for the faith community to speak out on behalf of human rights. And I know that there has been some questions here in the Philippines, but I also know that there have also been some very important efforts to try to deal with human rights problems.

So it’s not perfect here, like it’s not perfect anywhere, and it’s up to civil society to constantly be making human rights an issue inside of your own country. The United States will help. We will provide training and support to be sure that the institutions of government are protecting human rights. And I am encouraged by what I hear about the progress in the peace efforts that are going on between the government and MILF, and that is it hopeful that there can be a resolution of the conflict.

I really believe that negotiation to end conflicts and not being discouraged is really important. The MILF is going to continue in the process with the monitoring or the facilitating role that the contact group, and particularly Malaysia, is playing. And I hope it comes to a very positive result, because there’s so much work to be done in the Philippines. To go back to the very first question about poverty, there’s so much work to lift up people and provide more opportunity for people that conflicts need to be resolved so that you can focus on trying to help each individual live up to his or her God-given potential.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? You talked about human rights, and for a while, the State Department had – was critical of the Philippines performance in terms of human rights. How would you gauge it now? Did you talk about it with President Arroyo?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We did. We’ve talked – I talked about it in my official meetings, and the State Department has pointed out areas that we believe could be improved. And I was pleased that the International Labour Organization was recently here in the Philippines to talk about abuses against workers’ rights, because it’s not only human rights in a political conflict context, but it is also what happens when people are trying to organize workers and other kinds of attempts to assert oneself in society.

So we will continue to raise questions, but we’ll also continue, as a friend does, to offer whatever assistance we can.

QUESTION: Well, let – now, Secretary Clinton, let’s go down to Mindanao where we’re joined by our anchor Ces Oreña-Drilon. Ces, what do you have there?

QUESTION: Buenos dias, Maria, and Asalam Alakum to you, Secretary Clinton. That is the greeting from Zamboanga to you this morning. What about you Ateneons? What’s your greeting for Secretary Clinton?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Well, as you know, Secretary Clinton, in contrast to the protests in Manila against the Visiting Forces Agreement, the people here in Mindanao are more accepting and even thankful for the presence of U.S. troops, particularly because they live in the shadow of terrorism and kidnapping for – they have been living in the shadow of kidnapping and terrorism for many years now.

But there are still a lot of burning concerns; for instance, how effective is the U.S. assistance in fighting terrorism, do U.S. troops participate in combat operations? But I’m not asking the questions. And I would like to introduce to you our student here from the Ateneo de Zamboanga University. He is a third-year economic student, Mohamed Zen Nuno Yohan. He – Secretary, he has lived in the – one of the first Muslim communities here in Zamboagna, and he is a (inaudible) by birth and traces his roots to Zulu. And his dreams are really to be able to see a Mindanao where Muslims and Christians can live peacefully together.

Now, Yohan, what is – or, rather, Zen, what is your question for Secretary Clinton?

QUESTION: Before I ask my questions, I’d like to greet Madame Secretary good morning, my warmest greetings from the south, Asalam Alakum. The U.S. – the United States and the Philippines have a long history. What is the direction of the Philippine-U.S. relationship?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Inaudible) so much and greetings to all who are there. And I want to take your question and Ces’s comments and respond in this way. The United States and the Philippines do have a long history of partnership and of friendship, of alliance, and we want to continue to be a good friend and a good partner.

In respect to the conflict in Mindanao, we have provided training and assistance, but not involvement in combat by United States forces. It is a facilitating and supportive role to fight those who would disrupt communities, who would engage in terrorist activities – unfortunately, the kind of horrible acts like beheadings and kidnappings and the things that are so contrary to every religion, contrary to every faith.

So I’m hoping that the conflict will be drawn to a close over the next months. I know that everyone’s working very hard on that. But then there has to be a lot of dialogue between people. There has to be a commitment to build a better future. There are many examples of Christian and Muslim communities living very peacefully and productively, side by side. And what we want for you is that same future so that there will be the opportunity to pursue one’s religious faith, but there will also be the equal opportunity to participate in one’s society and to have one’s opinions heard and respected, and to be a full-functioning citizen.

So we are going to continue to provide support where appropriate, in partnership, and in pursuance of the friendship that we feel for the people of the Philippines.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. You want – I believe you have a second question for the Secretary.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, despite your demanding schedule being the Secretary of the State, how do you find time with the former President Bill Clinton and your beautiful daughter Chelsea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, well, we try to schedule ourselves so that we have time together, which is the most important thing to us. And when – my husband travels nearly as much as I do, sometimes it’s even more, depending upon the time of year and what his obligations are. He’ll be going to the Middle East today on a long-scheduled trip.

But then we will come back home together in the weekend and just do what people like to do. We like to take long walks, we like to go to movies, we like to go out to dinner, we like to catch up on our sleep, the kinds of respite from our busy lives. And I’m lucky that my daughter lives in New York. In fact, just last weekend, my husband and I were at her apartment visiting with her and catching up on her life. So we stay in touch through telephoning, and I was just actually talking to my husband as I turned in to the university and saw all the students out there, and I told him I had to hang up because I was going to the university and to this forum.

So it’s pretty ordinary and normal, which is what I really like. I like just being at home and having a chance to decompress, and that’s what we look forward to.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you very much, Yohan, for your questions, and thank you to you, Secretary Clinton, from here in Zamboanga.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks to everyone.

(Commercial Break.)

MODERATOR: Secretary, I have to ask this question because it was brought up. You’re in politics, your husband is in politics. Is Chelsea going to go into politics? Is that inevitable?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think so. I think that she has really carved out her own life and her own privacy and her own group of friends and social circle which she finds very rewarding. And she – I think she respects and appreciates the political world, but has no plans for being part of it at this time in her life.

MODERATOR: Well, we’ve got a long time. We’ll see. Anyway, let’s go to Dumaguete. We’re joined by our other anchor, Tony Velasquez. He’s down there right now. Tony?

QUESTION: All right. Thank you very much and good morning to all of you there in UST, good morning to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Well, as you know, Dumaguete City has been called the city of gentle people, and you’ll probably find out why when we talk to Anna Espino. She’s a third-year economics and political science double major here at the Silliman University. Also a champion debater, Ana has come out in one of our ANC programs, Square Off, several times --

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: -- leading her team to several victories over the other universities. So a gentle question, perhaps, from Anna for Secretary of State Clinton.

QUESTION: Good morning, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning, Anna.

QUESTION: I’m an economics student. I’m an economics student, so I would like to know, will the effort of your government to reverse the recession affect your adherence to free trade principles?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Anna, thank you and congratulations on being a champion debater. That’s quite an accomplishment.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that we are reversing the affects of the global recession, not only in the United States, but we’re beginning to see some positive signs elsewhere. And I really want to commend the Philippines. Until the recession, I think you had 34 or 35 straight quarters of positive growth, which is really the best way to end poverty, is to grow out of it.

But what we are seeing is a slow move back to economic stability. In the United States, we are committed to free trade, but we also would like to see trade agreements recognize the rights of workers to benefit from free trade, because if the free trade benefits only go to the top of society, that doesn’t change the economic well-being of the larger society, which we would like to see free trade do.

And we also think that we have to take into account the environment in trade agreements. We now know that climate change – and you’ve suffered through these horrible storms over the last months – is having a very tangible effect on how people are living because of droughts, because of increasing storm activity. There are all kinds of problems, and we have to tackle that.

So we don’t want free trade to encourage climate change; we want it to help discourage climate change. So we’re going to continue to promote trade and economic activity, but we would like to see it have a positive impact on workers and the environment.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madame.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Say hello to all the gentle people. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: All right. Thank you very much, Anna, for that question. I hope Secretary Clinton was able to give you a proper response --

QUESTION: Yes, definitely.

QUESTION: -- something that you can write about in your term paper, I suppose.

QUESTION: Exactly, exactly.

QUESTION: All right. Back to you there in UST.

MODERATOR: Thanks very much, Tony. Secretary Clinton, you’ve been talking – your career has been – has – you’ve spent a lot of focus on human rights, and I know that the Obama Administration’s policy now is constructive engagement. And it’s being applied with Burma; you had a high-level visit there. And you’re going to Singapore and you’re going to meet with the Burmese again.

Can we expect, as a result of the recent new strategy, that something significant will be announced in Burma in – by Burma in Singapore with regard to loosening restrictions, say, on Aung San Suu Kyi?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Ricky, I doubt it. I think this is a long-term effort that requires a lot of patience. And it is important to commend the Philippines. This government and your country have been some of the strongest voices on behalf of Aung San Suu Kyi and I thank you for that. I think that her courage in standing up for human rights and for political rights and democracy is really extraordinary because she’s paid a big price for it, having been unable to be with her husband as he was dying; she hasn’t seen her children in years.

So I’m hoping that we’re able to influence the leadership in Burma to begin an internal dialogue inside their own country, bringing the opposition parties, bringing the ethnic minorities who have been so oppressed, beginning a conversation that could create the conditions for free, fair and credible elections, which they are planning to have next year.

There is no doubt in my mind that the leadership in Burma is on the wrong side of history. It’s just a question of how long they stay there and whether they can be nudged and encouraged to move toward more freedom and opportunity for their own people. Some of you probably remember the oppression of the Buddhist monks who were demonstrating for human rights, the problems of getting aid into the country after the horrible hurricane that struck Burma.

So there’s a lot to be done, but we’ve been in office, what, eight, nine months now. And I think that we’ve tried to reverse some of the policies that were not very productive that were really putting our country in a wrong light. But things don’t happen overnight; it takes a while. But I’m a very patient person and I think we have to be willing to just keep working and support the Burmese people in their aspirations.

MODERATOR: Some people have said that ASEAN’s decades-long strategy of what they call also constructive engagement has not succeeded. I’m wondering – you’re following a constructive engagement strategy now – what does the U.S. bring to the table that perhaps ASEAN has not been able to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we want to be in partnership with ASEAN. One of the first things I did as Secretary of State was to work toward the United States signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation so that we could be fully integrated into ASEAN. We’re very supportive of ASEAN. And I think that we’ve also made clear we’re not taking off our sanctions. We want to engage, but we want to send a clear message that until there are changes inside Burma, we’re not going to be able to help or support Burmese society and provide the kind of benefits that the United States can provide – investment, trade, as Anna mentioned earlier. There is so much that we could be doing which we will not do because we don’t want to support the current government.

But if we have a strong, cooperative approach by both ASEAN countries like Philippines, which is our partner – our dialogue partner – in ASEAN, and we send a message to China and India that have a lot of influence inside Burma that they should help us support the kind of changes toward democracy that would benefit the Burmese people, I think we can slowly but surely make progress. I’m not going to predict it’ll happen in a year or a couple of years, but I think if you look back on history, the engagement over time, and the openness to listen and support those inside a society who are trying to change make a big difference.

I just – before I came to Asia, I was in Berlin for the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. That did not happen overnight. That took many years. There were a lot of very brave people who stood up for human rights, who stood against the oppression of communism, and it built. And Pope John Paul had a huge role in giving voice to human rights against communism. So it started in the shipyards of Gdansk in Poland in 1980, it grew across Eastern Europe, and slowly but surely brought a wall down.

So I think you have to be committed. You can’t blow hot and cold. We can’t be involved one day and then withdraw the next day. You have to stay committed and you have to stay connected to the people who bravely fight for human rights and democracy, and that’s what we intend to do.

QUESTION: But the world today is a very, very different world from when you were First Lady. So all of these things have changed. The U.S. is involved in conflicts that are very difficult, including in the southern Philippines, where counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations – in the Philippines, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Just in Afghanistan, ma’am, we’ve had a worsening situation there, the UN pulling out.

I guess what lessons has the U.S. learned in terms of dealing with situations where terrorists are operating inside insurgency situations?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think there are many lessons, but one of the most important is that the people themselves have to be willing to stand up against terrorism. I mean, what we just heard from the young man who was speaking earlier, that conflict has – cannot be permitted to intimidate people, as hard as that is.

There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that in Afghanistan, the people there do not want to see the return of the Taliban. They know that what happened to them in the past – young girls being taken out of school, women unable to go for medical assistance, being essentially imprisoned in their homes, denied their human rights, the kind of arbitrariness that occurred on a regular basis with stonings and beheadings and all kinds of terrible abuses – nobody wants to go back to that.

But people have to be given support to stand against it, and that’s really what counterinsurgency and counterterrorism is about. We’re not interested, in the United States, of staying in Afghanistan. It’s a country that we want to see defend itself. So the most common comment that we hear from around the country is from people who say “We want your help to enable us to defend ourselves, and then once we can, we want you to leave.”

Well, that’s exactly what we want. Whether it’s in the Philippines or Afghanistan or anywhere that terrorism is trying to intimidate people. It’s a small group of people who try to impose their will on the great majority of people through the kind of brutal behavior and intimidation, and people need to stand up against that. People of faith, people in governments, people in business, in civil society – people need to say, no, there is no justification in any faith for this kind of action, and we will not permit you to determine our future. So the United States wants to be a partner for those who are willing and able to stand up for themselves and that’s what we see happening in the Philippines. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, it’s my turn. My name is Pinky Webb. Mine is a very simple question. Americans have long enjoyed equal opportunity, equal rights. When do you think the United States will have its first female president?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Well, I’m probably the last person you should ask – (laughter) – because I certainly tried. (Laughter.) I hope that – (applause) – I hope that that happens for a lot of reasons. It was very significant historically. When our presidential nominating campaign was between a woman and an African American. I mean, that was such a great symbol of our country. And I was very proud to see Barack Obama inaugurated as our President, and very honored to work with him in his Administration.

But the Philippines is ahead of us. You’ve had two woman presidents. So I really should ask you what’s the secret here, because it’s quite a tribute to your society that you are choosing people on the merits in a democratic process. And I think that that will come to pass in our own country. Really, the equality between men and women is one of the most important unfinished challenges in the 21^st century, because women and men together have to be committed to a future of opportunity and prosperity and peace and progress. And in countries that do not provide support for women to be empowered to make their own decisions, to have an education, they do not succeed in today’s world. They can be a negative force, but it’s very hard for them to be a positive force. And therefore, I think that it’s not only electing a woman president, but it’s making sure that every child, boy and girl, have a chance to fulfill their own aspirations, and that’s what I think you are trying to do here and that is certainly what we are committed to doing in the United States.

QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary. (Applause.) And we will again take a question from one of the students here in UST. Her name is Jackie Chan. (Laughter.) And I’m serious.

QUESTION: No relation to the actor.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I was gonna say, yeah, that’s quite a name.

QUESTION: Good morning, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.

QUESTION: I would like to ask what is a major – do we have any – or you can say the major changes we can expect for the foreign policy agenda of the U.S. under the President Obama Administration?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there have been a lot of changes in our approach and our openness and our willingness to reach out to people with whom we do not agree. Certainly the President on the very first day signed an order to close Guantanamo, which was a very strong action that symbolized a change from the prior administration of our outreach to Russia, to China, to other countries that we think we have to be working with, not against for the good of the world.

We’re trying to find positive cooperation, not competition in the political arena. There’ll be plenty of competition in the economic arena that we’re going to be pursuing, but we want to find areas of common agreement where we can work together. We have made it clear that human rights and democracy are very important. We define it broadly. We happen to think that looking at climate change is not only an environmental issue, but a human rights issue, because certainly, if we don’t protect our planet, we will undermine the lives and the livelihood and the rights of many people living with us together on this wonderful earth. We are very committed to women’s rights as human rights, because we think that that is a clear challenge that we should be helping to address.

We are working on food security. We’re having a very intensive approach toward trying to help countries improve their own agriculture. I had a fascinating conversation last night at dinner with the President about how here in the Philippines, you’re working on hybrid rice that can withstand typhoons and withstand excessive water. We’re also working with people in Africa on hybrid rice and other seeds that can withstand drought. So we need to bring research and science to agriculture. I mean, all of these are important priorities of the Administration. And we want to see governments held more accountable to their own people.

We want to see efforts against corruption and more transparency and more accountability. And I think that the new technology provides a tool for that. And of course, the President’s campaign was all about new technology, and we’re carrying that into our Administration, so that for example, we’re encouraging young people to use social networking to report corruption, to organize, to achieve goals in your society. We’ve seen examples of that. In Colombia, for example, a young person put together a huge demonstration against the insurgents. In Iran after the elections, young people were twittering to say where they were going to be to demonstrate. So I think that we’re trying to take the tools of the 21^st century and apply them to 21^st century diplomacy. And we want to emphasize development on a par with diplomacy and defense. So those are some of our approaches.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Hope to see you soon.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Secretary, you were talking a little bit about corruption. And let me just follow it up, because corruption is an issue in Afghanistan, it’s an issue in Pakistan, and, as you know, it’s an issue here in the Philippines. What can the United States do or can the United States do more to nudge friendly, but corrupt countries, to be more accountable and less corrupt?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are trying to do that. One of the programs that we have, the Millennium Challenge Account, requires that countries meet a certain level of anticorruption standards, and we are trying to promote that. We are looking for ways to link more of our aid to demonstrations that the aid gets to where it’s intended and that it doesn’t get siphoned off, as too often has been the case. But the biggest tool against corruption in any society is public exposure and citizens standing up and saying that they’re not going to accept it, for it to be an issue in the political system, especially of a democracy. And the United States wants to encourage that, to provide tools, again, go back to technology. I think that there’s an enormous amount of potential. And I know this is one of the most texting nations in the world. And so I think that there is a way of communicating and exposing and holding up to the bright light of public exposure any kind of corruption at any time. And I would really urge countries to do that, citizens to do that, and we’ll do our part to try to push as well.

QUESTION: Can I toss to you, ma’am, a question from online? This is actually something that made us all laugh. But one of the people – a young girl asked if you had a crush, aside from Bill Clinton, who would it be? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you mean, when I was a lot younger? (Laughter.) Yes. (Laughter.) But I don’t think I should go any further. (Laughter.) I – well, like all young girls, I had lots and lots of crushes, both on boys I knew and people in the media, entertainment stars. Many, many, many, many years ago, when I was young, there was a singer in the United States whose name was Fabian. Some of you who are my age remember – (laughter) – and I was president of the Fabian fan club (laughter) – and there were, like, three of us in it – (laughter) – but we took it very seriously. And then, of course, I was a huge Beatles fan. And I later in life got to meet Paul McCartney, which you know was an exciting opportunity for me.

Now, my 90-year-old mother, who lives with us, has always had sort of a crush on Mick Jagger. (Laughter.) Don’t ask me why. I like him a lot, but my mother really, really likes him. And she’s gone to two of his concerts. And one of the best things I ever did for my mother was introduce her to Mick Jagger. (Laughter.) So I think it doesn’t matter what age you are, sometimes you can have little bits of pieces of crushes. But that’s all part of having fun in life and enjoying yourself. And I think that in this country, there are a lot of basketball players who are the object of crushes, I’m told. And I totally get that, except, you have to realize if you meet them in person, it hurts your neck after a while. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Mrs. Clinton, let’s go back to (inaudible) where Sess wants to throw a question at you. Sess, what do you have?

QUESTION: Secretary, on a more serious note, peace has been so illusive here in Mindanao. And just yesterday, another kidnap victim, Irish missionary, Father Michael Sinnott was released through the help of the MILF. The U.S. has watched the peace talks between the government – the Philippine Government and the MILF closely. And I’d like to ask what kind of assistance can your government give to see finally a fruitful conclusion to the peace process?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Sess. And we share your hope that there is a final and soon resolution to the peace process. The Government of the Philippines is responsible for this process. It is something that we support, but we’re not involved in. There’s an international contact group of countries that are being supportive, and certainly Malaysia which is playing an active role.

But we believe strongly that when it’s possible to create the conditions for peace, as it seems to be with the MILF, it’s very important to move to try to realize that, because that helps to bring local people back into society and have them be speaking out for what they want inside the political system, not outside the political system. And that further isolates the hardcore terrorists who have no interest in participating in democracy, have no interest in the political process. They want to impose their will, their version of reality on everybody else. So I think working for peace in Mindanao is really important, not only for the people of the Philippines, but for people everywhere who can see that, yes, there may be disagreements, but we can come to some resolution. And then, to set forth a development strategy that will really reward the people of Mindanao with a better future that everyone can invest in.

QUESTION: But, ma’am, largely, the U.S. has pursued a socioeconomic approach in terms of helping in Mindanao. Has – it hasn’t actually been successful. The closest we’ve come to a peace agreement was just thrown out the window because it offered a political solution. Do you think that a political solution is necessary for this, or can a socioeconomic approach, both in the Philippines and perhaps in Afghanistan, can it work?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think it has to go hand in hand. I don’t think it can be one or the other. I think there has to be a socioeconomic approach, because you want people to see the results of their participation in society, that there will be more schools built, there will be more health clinics delivered. There will be more assistance on economic development. But there ultimately has to be a political framework within which that socioeconomic activity takes place. So I see it as a joint strategy. And certainly, the United States has provided a lot of aid in Mindanao, working with different groups, trying to create more economic prosperity. But the political negotiations are proceeding on a very important track. And ultimately, will make the difference as to whether or not peace will come to Mindanao.

The only other point I would make is that it is, as I understand it, important that whatever agreement is reached be reached within the constitution and the laws of the Philippines. You can’t have a peace agreement that gives one group of people more rights than other groups of people within your country. That would be creating more problems. So whatever is worked out within the political framework has to be respectful of the constitutional and legal requirements of the nation, and I think everybody understands that. Because you’re right, one of the attempts was thrown out because it didn’t correspond with existing laws and constitutional requirements. But I think that everybody is now working toward an agreement that will do that.

QUESTION: Would you characterize it as one step forward, two steps back – where we are today?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no. I think from what I hear in the briefings that I received yesterday, it is really a fresh approach to try to make sure that the agreement can be realized. And there is an impetus because, of course, the President’s term will expire, and I think everyone believes that it would be important to get this done because you don’t want to start over again. I remember very well, when my husband got so close to Middle East peace back in 2000, there were those who thought, well, he’s getting toward the end of his term, maybe we could get a better deal with a new administration. And in fact, nothing was done. So for eight years, all the progress – and we got so close – and if it had been just pushed over the line, maybe would have gotten somewhere. But after my husband left office, then President Yassir Arafat said, “Well, now, we’ll take that deal.” Well, he wasn’t president anymore.

So strike while the iron is hot is an old saying. When people are in the mood and willing to make peace, do not sleep, do not rest until you finally get there. Because as the bible tells us, blessed are the peacemakers. I mean, we need to be focused on bringing peace wherever we can so that people will have more stability in their lives. They can plan on a better future. But we can also isolate those who are not interested in peace at all. They’re only interested in conflict and terrorism.

MODERATOR: Well, you know, Secretary Clinton, it’s a little past 9 o’clock, and I’d like to thank you for spending a little bit more time with us. I understand you’ve agreed to spend a few more minutes. So I’m going to give a chance to Tony Velasquez, who’s been down in Dumaguete. He’s been dying to ask you at least one question. So let’s throw it down to Tony so he can get in there.

Tony.

MR. VELASQUEZ: Well, thank you very much, Ricky. And good morning, again, to you, Secretary Clinton. You know, the people here at Silliman University cannot offer you an honorary doctorate position, just like President Arroyo did in Malakanyang, but they would like to offer you their very own “i-heart” Silliman University pin right here. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Tony, and thank you, all the students.

QUESTION: And if you can’t get it right now from us, they’ll send it to you by FedEx. All right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good.

MR. VELASQUEZ: Well, as a follow-up just to the questions that were already posed by Maria and also by Ricky there, we’ve heard about these series of meetings with U.S. diplomats, with high officials of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. I wonder if you could be at liberty to share with us perhaps what kind of advice or consultation that these officials had with the MILF hierarchy that could perhaps lead to a softening possibly of positions both on the MILF side and maybe on the government side?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Tony, the United States wants to help facilitate peace. I mean, that is one of our goals. And if we can be helpful in talking with the government or talking with the leadership of the MILF, we stand ready to do so. But ultimately, the decision must be made between the government and the MILF itself. Malaysia is trying to be helpful and other countries are trying to be helpful. We all want to see an end to this conflict. But we cannot substitute our judgment for those who are at the table, actually making the peace. But certainly, as we’ve heard this morning, this is on the minds of the people of the Philippines.

All of the questions that we’ve had from remote locations as well as here, really suggest to me that the people of this country want to see an end to this conflict. And that is what I hope will happen. And we are going to do whatever is appropriate, to offer advice or suggestions. But we want to support the process that the government is running with the MILF. There’s going to be, I think, a resumption of meetings in Kuala Lumpur starting next week. So that’s what we want to focus on – that everyone should be doing whatever we can. And I have to just say that, to me, the conditions for peace are ripe. People really want to see it. And I hope that no one misses this opportunity because it will make a very big difference in the lives of the people of Mindanao and of the entire country.

QUESTION: But Mrs. Clinton, a lot of analysts are pointing out that this Administration may have neither the popularity nor the political will to actually strike an agreement before the end of – before May 2010. From your chats, your dealings with President Arroyo, what insight can you offer us?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think President Arroyo is very committed. And I think that lots of times making difficult decisions by nature cannot be popular. You have to do what you think is right, and you have to make a tough decision. I think she is fully prepared to do that.

You may not know this, but your president actually went to college with my husband. And I’ve seen pictures of them both when they were freshmen at Georgetown and looking very young, but very enthusiastic. And I think that the president is committed. She wants to see this done. And in fact, what I’ve often found is that it is easier to make these difficult decisions when you’re on the way out of office, because you know what’s at stake and you are willing to brave the political fires. And I think the president and her team is very committed to doing this.

QUESTION: You’re very optimistic. I – Pinky, you want to throw – I would like to ask you, we’ve got elections coming up in May 2010. Our state of democracy, we’ve come from people power in 1986, largely a promise that was unfulfilled. We seem to be in the same place where we were now. How would you gauge where we are as a democracy, and then what do you see moving forward?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there is always a difficulty in fulfilling the promise of democracy. But you’ve just – there is no better system. As hard as democracy is, as frustrating, as disappointing as it can be, it is by far the best system that human beings have ever devised. And I know that you’re going to be moving toward automated elections, which I think is a very positive step forward.

QUESTION: It’s the first time ever, though, that a country anywhere around the world is going to go from fully manual to fully automated without a dress rehearsal.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know it’s challenging. But I would just hold up the example of India, the world’s largest democracy. India adopted automated computerized voting several elections ago. We think about India with more than a billion people, something like a half a billion, 600 million vote, illiterate people vote by looking at the pictures on the punch card at the – both the faces and the symbols of parties.

And what I was so impressed by is that the way India has set this up – and I do not know how the Philippines has actually set it up – they took it out of politics. It is run by a board of civil servants so that the politicians of any party are not involved in it. And it is so highly effective that nobody questions the results of the elections. Well, that is what I hope for you.

But based on our own experience, there will be some bumps in the road. When we moved toward automation, we had some problems, but you just keep working on it and keep perfecting it. And there could be some dry runs, not of a full election, but trying out the technology, making sure you know how it works, educating voters about it. But in many places, it’s proven to be quite successful, and I hope the same for you.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’ll throw to you an online question, a question that’s come in. The United States doesn’t seem to walk the talk in terms of its climate change policy. I guess, just to elaborate, some of that – the U.S. – your husband failed to sign the Kyoto agreement, and now we’re going towards Copenhagen. The U.S. is perceived as protecting big business interests at the expense of the environment. How would you answer this?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, back when my husband and Al Gore were in the White House, there was so much less understanding in the United States of climate change. And we were very active in negotiating Kyoto. Of course, Al Gore was instrumental in it. But our Congress rejected it overwhelmingly, and then for eight years, we had a president whose administration denied climate change.

But I want you to just think about what we’ve done in the last nine months, is we’ve passed a big stimulus bill with $89 billion for clean energy technology, which we are now rolling out. We have, through regulation, increased the emissions standards on cars and on utility plants. So we’re not waiting for congressional action; we are moving ahead in the Obama Administration, and we passed a very aggressive bill out of the House. So we’ve passed it in one House; we’re working in the Senate.

But we’re going to go to Copenhagen 100 percent committed to creating a framework agreement. We probably – we doubt that we can get to the legally binding agreement that everybody wants, because too many countries have too many questions. But we do think that we can come up with a very strong framework agreement, and we encourage countries like the Philippines to be prepared to take advantage of the financing that the developed countries will put forward for adaptation. And that’s how we see the potential progress coming out of Copenhagen.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MODERATOR: Do we still have time for questions?

MODERATOR: Yeah. We still have her here. Keep asking.

MODERATOR: Okay, all right. I’m curious, Secretary Clinton, to find out about your talks with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Did she say if she was stepping down in 2010, or if she’s planning to run for congress?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we didn’t get into that. We talked about climate change, we talked about Burma, we talked about all of the regional and global issues; certainly, the economic recovery, the national disasters that you have been coping with, and what more we can do to help. We had a really very comprehensive discussion about issues.

But I think that what we see as our partnership and our friendship with the Philippines goes from administration to administration to administration. We are committed to the people of the Philippines. We are committed to the democracy of the Philippines. We have many Filipino Americans who are in constant contact with friends and relatives here. And the president was very, very focused on looking at what kind of progress we could make in the remaining months of her term as president.

MODERATOR: All right. Secretary, you know, we’ve got so many people online who were trying to get a little bit of their questions in. Let’s see what we’re seeing online through ABS-CBNNews.com. So far, there are 1,800 online viewers in our chat room. Karl gets straight to the point: Would you like GMA to extend her term after nine years in office? I think you already answered that to some extent with Pinky’s question.

And finally, R82 has a question that concerns a lot of Filipinos: When will the U.S. change its immigration policies? Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain have been employing thousands of Filipinos through skilled migration by a point system. Any plans for the U.S. to do something like that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re hoping that we can achieve comprehensive immigration reform, which is something that I feel very strongly about. I championed it as a senator from New York. I championed it in my presidential campaign. We have so many priorities. I mean, I can’t even adequately describe what it was like coming into office eight years after the prior administration when problems had been stacked up. It felt like there were thousands of planes circling in the air that we had to bring safely to a landing, and immigration reform is one of those.

The President’s focus has been so directed toward healthcare reform, which is something that is long overdue, something that my husband and I worked on. So we hope to get to comprehensive immigration reform and then this issue will be part of the legislation that we introduce.

QUESTION: Well, Mrs. Clinton, I want to bring it back a little bit to you. You talked about your life in politics and how it’s affected your family. It has had an effect on your family. If you go back and look over decisions you and your husband have made, is there anything you would change?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, of course, of course. There are many things. I mean, I mentioned one of them, healthcare. I wish that we had taken a different approach or been more successful back in 1993 and 1994. I think that any time you’re in politics as long as Bill and I have been, and you are involved in making so many decisions, hindsight is 20/20. It’s like being the coach on the couch watching a basketball game and you’re thinking you should have done that and you should have done this. Well, we can look back and say there are many areas where we would have liked to have pursued it differently or made a different call at the time.

But overall, I’m very, very proud and grateful for the service that we’ve had. I think that my husband’s two terms in office, the work that I did in the Senate, now the work I’m privileged to do with President Obama, is aimed at very clear efforts to improve the lives of people and to give people who are willing to be responsible the tools to improve their own lives.

I don’t believe government is the answer to everything. I do not believe that. I think that any society rests on a strong leg – it’s like a three-legged stool – a strong leg of a functioning government that responds to the will of the people, a functioning market economy that creates opportunities for people, and then civil society which includes faith communities and organizations that create all of the positive energy that often is most meaningful in a person’s life.

So you have to look and say, well, are you furthering the goals of your society? And I feel very positive about what we’ve tried to do.

QUESTION: But what about the personal impact of having this power on your family?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that it is a choice that people make. No one says you must go into politics, you must stay in politics. But it’s the kind of service that Bill and I have been called to do, and we’re very grateful that we’ve had a chance to do that.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Do you have any message to the Filipino people, Secretary Clinton, please?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is such an honor. This is my third trip to the Philippines and it is such an honor to be back. And I look forward to returning in the future, because our friendship and our partnership is one that I highly value and that President Obama wants to broaden and deepen, that together we can make a difference for the people of the Philippines and improve the future for our world.

I think also we are enriched in the United States by the many contributions of Filipino Americans. I count many among my friends, and I have learned a great deal from them and I am so grateful for their contributions, both in the United States and back home here in the Philippines.

So I wish all of you well. And we will continue to work with you, to support you, to provide assistance as we’ve done on many occasions, most recently in the wake of the terrible natural disasters, because we want to see the Philippines continue to grow and prosper. That is our only interest in being your friend and being your partner, and I look forward to working with you.

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Thank you.

Remarks With Philippines Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Goldenberg Mansion

Manila, Philippines

November 12, 2009

FOREIGN SECRETARY ROMULO: Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. It is my privilege to welcome Secretary Hillary Clinton to Manila. She was here as First Lady with President Bill Clinton during our hosting of APEC in 1996, and this time she is here as the U.S. Secretary of State. In the issue that just came out, Time calls the Secretary the most powerful U.S. public diplomat in quite some time; let me add, also the most popular foreign secretary the world over, and in no country more so than here in the Philippines.

Welcome, Madame Secretary. Our long history as friends and allies is deeply rooted in our commitment to freedom and democracy. We fought and shed blood together in the foxholes of Bataan and Corregidor 67 years ago. And we are determined to deepen and broaden our partnership, and to work together in facing today’s challenges. When Typhoon Ketsana in Burma battered our cities and towns, among the first to come to our assistance was the United States – in personnel, in resources, in equipment, in helicopters, in soldier boats, bulldozers, you name it, forklifts.

In my area where I live, the first to rescue survivors were the U.S. Navy in the soldier boat. We are therefore honored to have the opportunity to personally express our deep gratitude to Secretary Clinton for the timely and substantial assistance given by the U.S. Government during our recent natural disasters. As Secretary Clinton has just said, she is now visiting us to show solidarity with our friends in the Philippines who have been battered and have suffered so much. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

I’ll now ask the Secretary to (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Secretary Romulo. I’m so pleased to be here, and I thank you for your warm welcome and the productive discussion that we had today with a number of the leaders of this government. It is always a pleasure for me to be part of something that is so positive as the reaffirmation of our broad and deep relationship, going back so many years together. And certainly, on a personal note, I am delighted to be back in the Philippines. I have very fond memories of my previous visits, and the warmth and generosity of the Filipino people is something that I am deeply grateful for.

I was saddened, as so many were in my country, over the loss of life in the recent storms and the flooding, and I want again to convey the sympathies of President Obama, of the Obama Administration and of the United States to the people of the Philippines. You have shown great resolve and resilience in the face of these calamities. I am proud that the United States has been your partner.

As the Secretary said, we were very pleased that we could respond quickly with our military assets. Filipino and American doctors worked side by side to help thousands of flood victims. We saw our military forces working together to airlift thousands of tons of food, equipment, and other vital cargo. Later today, I will visit a school that was damaged by the flooding, and I look forward to talking with the teachers and the students about what more the United States can do to help.

This cooperation is yet more evidence of the long friendship and broad partnership between the United States and the Philippines. As treaty allies, we are working to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of the 21^st century. And I want to commend the Government of the Philippines, which is taking on an increasingly important leadership role in ASEAN, in APEC, across the Pacific region, and globally on issues such as nonproliferation, where the Philippines will be the chair of the Nonproliferation Treaty conference that will be held next year.

And we particularly are grateful for the Philippines’ work as our ASEAN dialogue partner. From a global recession and climate change, to the threats of violent extremism, our nations face shared challenges that demand shared solutions. We have a common commitment to advancing democratic values and human rights in the region, including in Burma. Today, the foreign secretary and I discussed how we can move forward on this comprehensive agenda together.

Of course, our two nations are linked by more than treaty. We have bonds of culture and commerce, we have shared histories and common hopes. The cemeteries here are filled with those who paid the ultimate sacrifice from both of our nations, who fought for freedom in the Pacific. Their memories continue to inspire our alliance, as do the values that they gave their lives to defend. And I am personally very pleased that an injustice has finally been corrected with the passage of the assistance for Filipino veterans who served side by side with our United States military forces.

I am also very proud that we have such a large, vibrant, active Filipino American community in the United States, and we want to do even more to demonstrate the connections between Filipino Americans and those here in the Philippines. Organizations such as Feed The Hungry have sent money and food to those most in need, and we look to making sure that those connections are even stronger.

So, sir, we talked about a lot today. We have a great opportunity to continue our work together, and I am confident that we can make the future even better than the present or the past. Thank you very much.

FOREIGN SECRETARY ROMULO: Of course.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Secretary Romulo. The first question will be raised by a member of the DFA press corps, Mr. (inaudible).

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Secretary Clinton. Welcome to the Philippines. This is our question: Will the U.S. forces continue helping Philippine troops in pursuing the Abu Sayyaf militants, considering that the Philippine Government is (inaudible) over the VFA? And what specific role does Washington want to play in the Mindanao peace process?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say that the United States is committed to a strong partnership and alliance with the Philippines, and I am here today to reaffirm that commitment. The Visiting Forces Agreement is an important expression of our partnership. It is based on mutual respect and mutual interest. And our service members, as we have seen in these last natural disasters, are ready to provide assistance where it is asked for, and to work side by side with the military of the Philippines. I am proud of what our service members have done in helping to respond to the devastating storms and the floods.

With respect to the peace process, the United States supports the ongoing efforts of the Government of the Philippines to bring a comprehensive peace. People have been seeking such a peace, and I want the Philippines to know that the international community, including the United States, stands ready to assist. But this is ultimately up to the people of the Philippines and to your government leadership. We’re encouraged by the ceasefire, and the report that I received today about the negotiating efforts is very promising.

So we will wish the very best to those who are attempting to bring an end to the conflict and will support you in any way that is appropriate.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, ma’am. The second question will be asked by a member of the U.S. (inaudible) media.

QUESTION: Secretary Romulo, Secretary Clinton, (inaudible) for both of you. What can you tell us about the future of the U.S. advisory force in southern Philippines? Is it time to begin reducing its numbers so that the troops can be deployed in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say that I don’t discuss military decisions. That is more appropriately worked out between our governments and our militaries. But I will just reiterate that the United States stands ready to assist our friends in the Philippines who are seeking to counter terrorism and the threat of extremism, and we will be willing to support them in any way that is appropriate that they request. But the relationship between our countries and between our militaries is very strong and cooperative, and we look forward to continuing that.

FOREIGN SECRETARY ROMULO: Let me state that under the VFA, the United States forces are here to assist, advise, and train. It’s limited to that. As far as combat matters are concerned, that’s purely Filipino.

But on the other hand, in addition to the assisting, training, and advising, there is also the social-civic, as well as the humanitarian aspect of the undertaking. And the humanitarian aspect came out into the fore in the recent Ketsana, in part, where U.S. personnel were able to deploy not only personnel – I think there were about 2,600 – but also equipment, helicopters, soldier boats, forklift, bulldozers, and other things, and immediately assist our people.

And let me say that in my particular city, the one who left with the first search and rescue were U.S. Navy personnel with a soldier boat. So this is the other aspect. So between the two – the socioeconomic and the humanitarian, as well as the supporting, advising, and training – I think it has worked very well for us.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. The third question will be asked by Mr. Howie Severino of GMA-7.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, good afternoon. Welcome to the Philippines.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: Ma’am, you were quoted at the Planned Parenthood national conference several months ago that, quote, “Reproductive rights will be a key to the foreign policy of the Obama Administration.” How will this principle be applied in the Philippines, especially considering the widely known opposition to artificial contraceptives here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, as with any policy, we work with our partners and our allies, and it is up to the people and the Government of the Philippines to accept any assistance that we might be willing to offer. So I know that this is a matter of concern in society here in the Philippines, and I respect that, and we certainly do not have any intention or plan to preempt or otherwise go beyond or around what the attitudes of society are.

On a personal note, I would only add that I believe strongly that family planning is an important aspect of development. And I’ve seen this around the world, and I think empowering women to be able to make choices that are in the best interests of the children they already have and the family size that they desire increases educational outcomes, it increases income generations, it provides a much stronger basis for human development.

And so the reason I said what I said, which you quoted from, is we have a lot of experience now that trying to empower and educate women so that they are able to make these decisions and they have access to family planning is not only a positive for the woman and her family, but for the larger society. And I think that is the other point that I would make, but again, I would reiterate all of these decisions are certainly up to the people and the Government of the Philippines.

MODERATOR: The fourth question will come from Mr. Matt Lee of the Associated Press.

QUESTION: My apologies, Mr. Secretary. As so often happens on these trips, there are developments from outside of the host country that the traveling press’s wires are asking a question on. (Laughter.) So with that –

SECRETARY CLINTON: They never apologize to me, sir. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: With that, Madame Secretary --

SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re having a very good influence on our American press.

QUESTION: As you know, Madame Secretary, Ambassador Eikenberry has expressed some deep concerns and reservations about a buildup – a large buildup of troops in Afghanistan, given the concerns about corruption in President Karzai’s government. I know that the President has not yet made his decision on how to go forward and that you are loathe to offer your advice to us before you give it to him, but I’m wondering if you could talk: one, about those concerns about corruption more broadly; and two, about whether those concerns should play a role in the determination of exactly how the U.S. goes forward in Afghanistan. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Matt, let me make very clear that I continue to be loathe to share any of the advice that the President has received in the course of his review. I think it has been an extremely thorough and thoughtful process, and I will continue to honor the right of the President to hear from any of his government members or those outside of government, and to then add that to the process of his decision making.

But on the separate question with respect to corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance, absence of the rule of law, the concerns that have been expressed not only by the United States but by others, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and many of our allies, are ones that I share. The Government of Afghanistan has to accept greater responsibility for its own defense by participating in the training and deployment of an effective, professional security force. It has to do more to respond to the legitimate needs of the people of Afghanistan to deliver services – not just security, but education and health, the kinds of services that the people of any country should expect from their government.

And we’re looking to President Karzai, as he forms a new government, to take action that will demonstrate, not to the international community, but first and foremost to his own people, that his second term will respond to the needs that are so manifest. And I think that the corruption issue really goes to the heart of whether the people of Afghanistan feel that the government is on their side, is working for them. Corruption is corrosive in any society. When leaders enrich themselves at the expense of their people, when they put their own fortunes ahead of the fortune of their people, it has a very unfortunate impact: People don’t trust the government, they don’t rely on the government, they can’t imagine a better life for themselves, because they don’t think their leaders are working to obtain that for them.

And so we are concerned and we have expressed those concerns, and we’re looking for measures of accountability and transparency that will demonstrate a clear commitment to the kind of governance and outcomes that the people of Afghanistan deserve to see from their government, and that the international community should be able to look to as we move forward in our efforts to try to rid Afghanistan of the terrorists that not only affect their lives, but pose a threat to us and to people around the world.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, take it out of the review because, again, I don’t want to get into the review. That’s the President’s prerogative. But of course, we’re looking at it. We look at it every day in the State Department. If we’re going to be providing development assistance, we want to be sure it gets to where it’s intended. I have, as you probably know, required that we look at every single contract that goes into Afghanistan, that we do an in-depth review to try to determine is it producing the results that we expect, is the money actually improving the lives of the people of Afghanistan or not. So even before the review, we were taking a hard look at how business is conducted inside Afghanistan.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, ma’am. And for our last question – and I’m sure a lot of you have questions to ask – we have Ms. Dana Batnag of Jiji press.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, ma’am. There is a scheduled meeting on Saturday in Singapore between the U.S. and Burma. Will you be the one leading the U.S. delegation? What is the U.S. strategic interests in Myanmar? And is the participation of Aung San Suu Kyi in the election next year necessary to make it credible?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, there is not a meeting. There may very well be the opportunity for our leaders, including myself, including the President, to meet the leaders of Burma – something that we have not done before. But we just recently concluded a very successful visit by Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel, who is with me, to Burma, where they met at length with not only government officials, but more importantly, in an unmonitored setting with Aung San Suu Kyi, with members of her party, with others who represent opposition voices and concerns, with representatives of ethnic minorities that are worried about their treatment at the hands of the current government.

And we have made it very clear we are not lifting sanctions on Burma, but we are trying to encourage Burma to conduct the kind of internal dialogue with all of the stakeholders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, that could lead to there being fair, free, and credible elections next year. We think that is an essential first step. We are continuing to call for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi. We believe that her detention over so many years is baseless and not founded on any concern other than that she is a leader of the political opposition.

So I don’t want to prejudge what the Burmese people themselves, if given the chance, might decide for themselves. But I will underscore our skepticism about an election that does not include all of the people or their representatives who are in opposition. It’s up to the individuals to decide who runs and who doesn’t run, but there should be no doubt that the United States wants to see an open, free, credible election process. And that’s what we’re calling on from the leadership of Burma, but we don’t believe that we can cause that to happen from the outside.

What we want to do, along with friends like the Philippines and other ASEAN members, is to encourage, urge, persuade the leadership of Burma to enter into this dialogue with their own people, to create the conditions for legitimacy that should be apparent when you have an election. And that’s what we’re looking to achieve.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, ma’am.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I was just wondering if there is a plan to release Suu Kyi so she would be able to participate or prepare for the coming – for next year’s election. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if we were in charge of the plan, that would be the plan, because we think she should be released. We don’t think she should be in detention. We believe that she has every right, as any person should have, and certainly that she has demonstrated over the years a commitment to democracy, to participate in the active democratic life of her country as she chooses, not as the United States chooses and not as the Burmese leadership chooses, but as she chooses.

So we’re going to continue to call for her unconditional release, and we want to see this kind of dialogue among all of the various parties within the country, and then they should determine how to go forward. It shouldn’t be up to us to determine that. So we want to create the process that would result in a free, fair, and credible election, so that whoever wished to participate or chose to participate would be able to do so, the results would be legitimate in the eyes of the world. That is what we are hoping for the Burmese people.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much. May we request, Secretary Romulo, for a final few words, if he so wishes?

FOREIGN SECRETARY ROMULO: Well, I’d like to thank, first of all, the Secretary of State for being with us today. We have had a very fruitful and productive meeting. And I’d like to thank the members of the press, both the foreign press and the local press, for the questions, which I think brought forth productive answers. And I hope that the Secretary will have a pleasant stay here in the Philippines, because as I said, the Filipinos love her. I told her that there are Hillary fans and fanatics here, and therefore we are most happy that she is here with us. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Secretary Romulo. Thank you very much, Secretary Clinton. That concludes our press conference.

Briefing on Relief Efforts and Touring of Book Fair

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Malanday High School, Marikina Flood Relief Site

Manila, Philippines

November 12, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are very proud to have so many Filipino Americans. And I’m very proud that our militaries work together, the American military and the military of the Philippines, saving lives and rescuing people, and I am very pleased that we could donate so many supplies.

Today, I am pleased to announce that there will be more than $5 million in new relief funds for the Philippines. (Applause.) This new support will help rebuild schools like this one, construct new classrooms, and provide 300,000 books and desks for 15,000 students. It will also help to repair damaged water and sanitation systems to prevent the spread of disease, and it will help to refurbish clinics to provide medical supplies and assistance.

So it is a great pleasure to be here at your school and to see all of you back in school. I know that if I had come here a week or two ago, it would not have looked like this. And so I thank everyone who worked hard to put this school back in such good shape. I also want to encourage all of the students to take advantage of your education, to study hard, to learn as much as you can learn so that you can help contribute to the future of your country.

So I learned a phrase as I was coming through, and what is that phrase? He’s trying to teach me this phrase.

PARTICIPANT: Mabuhay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mabuhay. (Applause.) And now we have officially opened the book fair so all of the teachers can start to get new books for their classrooms and for their students. I thank you for letting me come to your school. I congratulate you on recovering from the flood. And I promise you that the United States of America will always be a friend to the people of the Philippines. (Applause.) God bless you all. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Remarks at APEC Singapore Conference

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Suntec Conference Center

Singapore

November 11, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon. Before I get started on my comments concerning the important meetings being held here at the APEC ministerial, I want to take a moment to recognize the fact that today is Veteran’s Day in the United States, and I want to acknowledge the veterans and our men and women in uniform and their families, many of whom are deployed in very difficult places around the world. I cannot emphasize enough our appreciation for their dedication and sacrifice.

Here in Singapore, we’ve had a productive day of discussion, covering the full range of regional and global issues confronting our nations. I have stressed the Obama Administration’s commitment to substantive cooperation. That is a commitment that I have felt very strongly about and made clear on my first trip as Secretary of State to Asia earlier this year. And when President Obama arrives here later this week, he will underscore our view that APEC is an essential forum for engagement and for common action.

I very much appreciate the hard work that Singapore has put in to making this meeting a success, and I thanked the two co-chairs of the ministerial, Minister Yoh, and Minister Lim, for their leadership. During this morning’s APEC foreign ministers breakfast, we covered major regional security issues. North Korea’s nuclear program is of foremost concern, and the United States is committed to making progress on this issue.

Our Special Representative for North Korea Policy, Ambassador Stephen Bosworth, will visit Pyongyang in the near future. The decision to send him was reached after extensive consultation with our partners in the Six-Party process. They share our view that Ambassador Bosworth can use this opportunity to press the basic principles of the September 2005 joint statement, including full, peaceful, verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and work toward the resumption of the Six-Party Talks.

We have made the purpose and parameters of this visit clear to the North Koreans. This is not a negotiation; it is an effort to pave the way toward North Korea’s return to the Six-Party process. Let me emphasize that our expectations of Pyongyang have not changed and will not change, nor has our commitment to the Six-Party process. We will use diplomacy and we will work closely with our partners to find a peaceful path to our shared objective on the Korean Peninsula.

We also discussed the United States approach to Burma. We have begun engaging the Burmese authorities in high-level dialogue to advance our goals of democratic reforms and human rights. Burma’s neighbors and members of ASEAN have an especially important role to play in encouraging the Burmese Government to move forward on reform, to start a meaningful internal dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, political parties, and ethnic minorities; and to hold credible, fair elections in 2010. I reiterated that U.S. sanctions will remain in place until we see meaningful progress in key areas.

In the ministerial meetings and over lunch through the rest of the day, we discussed a wide range of economic and foreign policy issues, especially expanding trade and ensuring sustainable and inclusive growth. I talked about American efforts to advance development and spread opportunity through increased funding and new initiatives.

And I want to say a few words about the pressing global challenge that will be a focus of attention in the coming weeks as we move toward the meeting in Copenhagen. We’ve had fruitful discussions today on climate change. The United States has taken dramatic steps in the past year to change the way we use energy at home, and we have taken our seat at the table in international climate negotiations. We believe all nations have a responsibility to address this urgent global challenge, and we are prepared to assume our share of responsibility.

Going forward, we are committed to reaching the goal of a global, legally binding climate agreement. And we will continue working vigorously with the international community toward that end. If we all exert maximum effort and embrace the right blend of pragmatism and principle, I believe we can secure a strong outcome at Copenhagen, and that would be a stepping stone toward full legal agreement. We cannot let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of progress, but there are clear metrics by which we will judge the result at Copenhagen.

First, any agreement must involve immediate global action in which all nations do their fair share. We cannot afford further delay. Second, any agreement should cover all of the major issues, including adaptation, financing, technology cooperation, dissemination of technology, forest preservation, and others. It should include a commitment to strong mitigation actions like national reduction targets for developed countries and actions by major developing countries that will reduce their emissions significantly compared to business as usual.

Third, any agreement must include a commitment to a system that will ensure transparency and accountability with regard to the implementation of domestic actions. Fourth, any agreement must endorse funding facilities to assist developing countries. We are prepared to support a global climate fund that will support adaptation and mitigation efforts and a matching entity to help developing countries match needs with available resources. Funding through the new global climate fund and a technology mechanism will help developing countries identify what they need, where to get it, and how to finance, operate, and maintain it.

These are the yardsticks we will use to measure the outcome. But under any circumstance, Copenhagen is not the end of the process. It is part of our larger collective commitment to hold ourselves and others accountable, to speed the transition to a low-carbon global economy, and to leave a cleaner, greener planet for our children and grandchildren. So as we emerge from Copenhagen, we have to continue on this course with urgency and resolve.

Again, I thank our hosts here in Singapore for their excellent hospitality and planning of these meetings, and I would be happy to take some of your questions.

MODERATOR: We have time for a few questions. Are there questions? Dave Gollust from Voice of America.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, here comes a microphone, Dave.

QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay. Do you have any indication from Kurt Campbell’s initial soundings with the Burmese that they really will be amenable to changing the political setup that they have for next year? And would the return of Aung San Suu Kyi herself to political life in Burma be a condition for a more normal United States relationship with Burma?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Dave, as you know, we had two very high American diplomats, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel, go to Burma last week and spend a considerable amount of time meeting with not only government officials, but also in a private meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, members of political opposition and ethnic groups. It was a very thorough and constructive set of visits, and the United States is committed to a process to try to encourage and support Burma’s path to democracy.

There is a lot of work to do. We have no illusions that any of this will be easy or quick. But we have consulted broadly with our allies and partners in this region, particularly within ASEAN, and we have a lot of solidarity as we move forward with what is a more calibrated approach. We’re seeking to see a process inside Burma that would inspire and permit dialogue among all of the stakeholders so that there could be a growing consensus within Burma itself about the way forward.

This is a very challenging situation, as many of the countries represented here at this meeting can attest, but the United States is committed to moving forward and staying in close consultation with the parties inside Burma as well as other countries that share our goal for a more peaceful, stable, democratic Burma.

We think this has to be resolved within the Burmese people themselves, so we are not setting or dictating any conditions. We want to help facilitate the space and opportunity for the Burmese people to try to work out the challenges they face in having free and credible elections and setting forth a plan for a more prosperous and peaceful future.

MODERATOR: Next question, Sondang Sirait from SCTV Indonesia.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we know that you held a meeting with the Indonesian foreign minister this morning. If you could tell us about what you talked about in the meeting? And also about the upcoming meeting between President Obama and President SBY this weekend?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we had an excellent meeting with the foreign minister today. We covered a broad range of issues, some affecting our bilateral relationship, some affecting regional and other global issues. And I think it would be fair to say that it was such a comprehensive discussion that we ran out of time before we each had to get back to our respective responsibilities. But I am very impressed by the foreign minister. His grasp of the issues that – not only his country, but to – all of us now face. His principled and pragmatic approach toward working through those issues was extremely impressive, and I look forward to working with him.

We will be establishing our strategic dialogue between our two countries, and we also anticipate seeing Indonesia play a larger and larger role in the region and on the global stage, as it is doing, for example, in the G-20. In particular, the experience that Indonesia has over the last 10 years of transitioning to a vibrant democracy, we believe, is very relevant in Asia, and in particular, in Burma. And we have learned a lot from our conversations with our Indonesian counterparts.

We really congratulated the minister, and of course, President SBY for a very impressive win and an electoral victory. There will be a great deal for our presidents to discuss when they see each other here over the weekend. I know that President Obama has a very special place in his heart for Indonesia and is looking forward to visiting soon. There is just a very positive relationship between our two countries, and we want to broaden and deepen that and take it to a new level.

MODERATOR: Next question, Lachlan Carmichael from AFP.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, three questions on North Korea: Do you support, does the United States support the South Korean version of events that the North Korean boat crossed in – crossed the border? And with whom did you discuss this today? And finally, do you have any second thoughts about sending Ambassador Bosworth to North Korea in light of these events? I think the goal was to send him there by the end of the year.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Lachlan, as you know, there have been flare-ups of the sort we have seen over the last day between North and South Korea over a number of years. There is a set of issues around territorial waters that often serve as a backdrop to this kind of confrontation. I have no reason to question the accounts that we are receiving. We are obviously hoping that the situation does not escalate, and we’re encouraged by the calm reaction that has been present up until now.

I’ve spoken, obviously, with my team back in Washington and with Kurt Campbell and the others who have responsibility for this region while we’ve been here. But this does not in any way affect our decision to send Ambassador Bosworth. We think that is an important step that stands on its own. It is connected to our efforts, along with our Six-Party partners, to move toward resumption of the Six-Party process. We think that is critically important.

So we are certainly counseling calm and caution when it comes to any kind of dispute, especially one that can cause repercussions and damage that could be quite difficult to contend with. But at the same time, we’re moving ahead with our planned visit for Ambassador Bosworth.

MODERATOR: The last question will go to Channel News Asia, Augustine Anthuvan.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I’d just like to revisit the question my colleague asked earlier about Myanmar. It’s significant for ASEAN, and of course, there is a substantial Burmese community here in Singapore. Secretary Campbell, when he spoke before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, he emphasized, underscored to senior Chinese Government officials the need for Beijing to play a positive role in promoting reform in Burma. I’d like to hear your thoughts, ma’am, on expanding on what exactly you would like to see from China.

And a related question, of course, is that you said it’s very much left to the people of Myanmar to see how things unfold in 2010 for the elections. But what sort of role can ASEAN play in terms of on-the-ground, independent observers during the elections? Thank you very much, ma’am.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and I think those are important questions because we need a broad response by the nations in the region. Certainly, China has the opportunity to play a very positive role, as does Thailand, India, and other ASEAN countries. We would like to see countries individually and through ASEAN reach out to the Burmese leadership, persuade them that it is time to start planning for free, fair and credible elections in 2010 – 2010 is nearly here – that it would be useful to have validation of those elections. And again, countries in the region and certainly, institutionally, ASEAN can offer support to ensure that the elections are viewed as credible.

But I think it’s also important to recognize that left alone, the internal problems within Burma are not confined within Burma’s borders. We’ve seen refugee flows out of Burma, people taking to boats, ending up in Malaysia, ending up in Indonesia, ending up in Australia, crossing the border into Thailand. That instability is not good for anyone. Any country that does business in Burma wants to be sure that their investments and their business are safe. And the best way to ensure that is to move toward democracy and the kind of stability that democracy creates, the kind of investment climate that will attract even more businesses.

So we look to all the countries in the region to play a role, and we particularly anticipate ASEAN playing a significant role. I mean, if we’re able to encourage the Burmese leadership to meet in dialogue with representatives of various aspects of Burmese society, we hope that that can be encouraged by other nations and by ASEAN, maybe facilitated by ASEAN, because planning for these elections must be a priority, and how it is monitored is something to be discussed and analyzed.

But what’s important is getting some confidence that these will be free, fair, and credible elections. Otherwise, the Burmese leadership and the results of the election will not have international legitimacy. And since the Burmese leadership has said they want to have such elections, we hope that they will work with us to try to make sure that those elections gain credibility and that their results are respected globally.

Thank you very much.

Nomination of Dr. Rajiv Shah as USAID Administrator

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

November 10, 2009

Dr. Raj Shah is a leader in the development community, an innovative and results-oriented manager, and someone who understands the importance of providing people around the world with the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty and chart their own destinies. By nominating Raj to lead the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), President Obama has reaffirmed that development must be a core pillar of American foreign policy.

A trained medical doctor and health economist, Raj has the skills and experience to lead a reinvigorated USAID in the 21st century. He has a record of delivering results in both the private and public sectors, forging partnerships around the world, especially in Africa and Asia, and developing innovative solutions in global health, agriculture, and financial services for the poor. He has led and worked with many of the initiatives that are defining best practice in the field of development, including the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria, the Alliance for a Green Revolution for Africa, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. His tireless efforts to immunize children around the world have helped save countless lives.

As Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Raj currently manages more than 10,000 federal employees and a budget of more than $2.6 billion, and works closely with Congress, the State Department, the White House, and the international development community on issues ranging from health and nutrition to bioenergy and climate change.

If confirmed, Raj will bring an impressive record of accomplishment and a deep understanding of what works in development to his role as USAID Administrator. I look forward to working closely with him to advance the President’s agenda and to elevate and integrate development in our foreign policy.

I want to take this opportunity to also commend Acting USAID Administrator Alonzo L. Fulgham for his service. Under his steady leadership, we have launched a number of ambitious development initiatives, including on global health and food security, in the first months of this administration that will improve lives around the world. I also want to thank the thousands of career professionals who work tirelessly every day to fulfill USAID’s important mission.

Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate Celebration

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Brandenburg Gate

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

Good evening, Berlin. (Applause.) It is indeed an honor and a great personal privilege to be here on behalf of President Obama and the United States of America – (applause) – to commemorate with you that night 20 years ago when history broke through concrete and barbed wire and signaled a new dawn, not just for the people of Berlin, not just for the people of Germany, but for the entire world. And that night, that night was built by the efforts, the prayers, and the work of so many.

We remember the allies who conducted the largest humanitarian airlift in history, completing more than a quarter million flights to sustain the people of West Berlin. We remember the Poles – (applause) – who waged a campaign for liberty that began with a strike in the shipyards of Gdansk and ended by shattering a system of tyranny. We remember a Polish Pope who spoke out for the aspirations of people across Europe and the world. (Applause.) We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their lands and helped to break the chains that held their nations captive. We remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency of a free republic.

And tonight, we remember the Germans on both sides of the wall, but particularly the Germans in the East who stood up and finally were able to say, “No more. Freedom is our birthright and we will take it by our own hands.” (Applause.) We know that millions of hearts, of minds, and hands were behind those who literally tore down the wall. But history did not end the night the wall came down; it began anew. We could not know what the people of Berlin nor the people of Germany and Europe would do with this moment. But together, we saw you transform the landscape of this continent and change the course of world events. So Berlin came to stand at the center of a free, peaceful, prosperous, reunified Germany and a free, peaceful, prosperous, unified Europe.

Two decades later, we remember. But it is also a call to action. There are still millions across our world who are separated – maybe not by walls, maybe not by barbed wire, although that still exists – but who are separated from loved ones, who are kept down and behind, unable to fulfill their own destinies. So as beneficiaries of this great bequest we inherited in 1989, those of us gathered here tonight, leaders and citizens alike, we must pledge ourselves to work together to advance freedom beyond its current frontiers so that people everywhere are afforded the opportunities to pursue their dreams and live up to their God-given potential.

I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls – of walls of discrimination, of stereotype, of character, the walls that too often are inside minds and hearts. Let me introduce a message from President Barack Obama.

Interview With Dr. Sebastian Hesse-Kastein of MDR Radio

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, do you still remember when you heard for the first time that the wall had come down?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do. I was living in Arkansas with my husband and my daughter. He was the governor of Arkansas at the time. And it seems like a very long time ago, because televisions were much smaller, they were in boxes, not in flat screens hung on walls. And we were just captivated because both Bill and I had been interested in international relations, and of course, as children of the Cold War we had followed the history of the Berlin airlift and President Kennedy’s visit and so many of the events, including the building of that wall. So it was an extraordinary moment. And Tom Brokaw, who was a famous TV anchor, was in Berlin and reporting, and memorably said, “The war is over, the wall is down.” It was an extraordinary moment, and we were just glued to our television sets.

QUESTION: Did you think back then this is the beginning of a new era?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to be honest; back then I didn’t know what it meant. I thought it meant the unraveling of the Soviet Union. But would there be rearguard actions? Would people break up? Would East – the Eastern part of Germany become their own state? I didn’t know any of that. But the exhilaration of the freedom and the people, particularly the young people who were literally tearing down the wall with picks and hammers and bare hands, said so much about the yearning that people have to be free and to make their own decisions. And I was very pleased to watch the smart leadership that Germany had during that time.

And then when Bill became president, I got to know Chancellor Helmut Kohl. We talked often about his commitment to reunifying Germany. And yet I still don’t think I could have predicted you’d have a reunified Germany in a unified Europe, with not only a unified Germany but the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe being part of the EU and part of NATO. It’s remarkable what has happened in a short period of time.

QUESTION: In what way has the world changed since then? Is it a safer place now or a better place?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in many ways it’s better. It is certainly better in Europe. The peace in Europe, the social contract that has been developed, is a model. The fact that countries that warred against each other twice in the last century are now working together, partners and allies, is a great accomplishment. It was a bipolar world. The Cold War seemed very simple in retrospect. You had the Soviet Union and the West that were, in a sense, facing off right here in Berlin and elsewhere in the world.

So there is not that sense of certainty and clear rivalry now. It’s much more diffuse. It is non-state actors like the terrorists as well as rogue states. So the complexity is greater, the danger a different kind of danger. We don’t face the threat of nuclear annihilation as we did then, but we have to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons so we never face that again.

QUESTION: As you probably know, a vast majority in this country is for pulling out the troops out of Afghanistan, the German troops, as soon as possible. This year the mandate has to be renewed in the German Bundestag. What is your message to the decision makers why should the German army stay?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, this is a decision for the German Government and the German people, and I respect that. So let me talk about America. The President has had us going through a very thoughtful, deliberative process, asking all the hard questions. We didn’t want to accept any assumptions. We don’t believe that enough progress was made in the last eight years under the prior administration. But at the same time, we do think that we have to prevent Afghanistan from becoming, once again, a haven for terrorists who will use it to attack the United States, Germany, other friends and allies and interests around the world.

How do we best approach that? That’s what we are studying and working on now. We would hope to have Germany as an active partner, because we really do believe it goes right to our security interests. This is not about whether Afghanistan makes economic or social progress. We think that would be important. We would like to see it happen. But that’s not why American troops are there. American troops are there because we face a threat, and the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the syndicate of terrorists headed by al-Qaida, including elements of the Taliban, are plotting against us all the time. They are opportunistic. They will seek the opportunity to do harm to the German people, the American people, the British, the French, those who represent the kind of modernity and values that they stand against.

So I hope that whatever President Obama ends up deciding, that we can make a case to the American people, and to Europe and others, that we’ve got to continue to stand with each other.

QUESTION: Is there any idea out there what the new strategy is going to be like?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re getting close. I obviously can’t preempt the President to talk about his decision. But it will be based on a very careful assessment of what is in the security interests of the United States and our allies around the world.

QUESTION: What can Germany contribute?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Germany has already contributed. Germany has contributed not only troops and had losses and sacrifices among those troops, Germany has contributed civilian assistance and financial assistance. We have a big task to accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces. Germany has expertise and experience doing that. So there will be a number of ways that Germany can participate. But of course, ultimately, it is up to the German people.

QUESTION: Our new Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has announced in D.C. last week that he wants to support President Obama’s disarmament initiative, not only by words but by acting as well. How could help – what kind of help would you need or would you like Germany to add?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there is a great commitment by President Obama to try to stem nuclear proliferation. And we can certainly use Germany’s help in preventing nuclear materials around the world from falling into the wrong hands. The United States is negotiating a reduction in its nuclear arsenal with Russia. We want to have NATO carefully study all the different aspects of the nuclear posture that we have through NATO. I think we want to demonstrate good faith, but we also have to be careful and thoughtful about how we proceed. And that’s something we’ll be discussing not only with Germany, but with other of our partners in NATO.

QUESTION: I wonder if the disarmament ideas our new government has is disarming another country as well, like getting rid of nuclear weapons. Can you tell us when the U.S. might pull out its nuclear bombs out of Germany?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that has to be considered in the context of NATO strategy. But I also think we have to be very careful about how we evaluate the different threats, the need for deterrents. So it’s a complicated issue. And I think NATO is the appropriate forum to consider all of the ramifications, because we have obligations to states further east. We have obligations to states in the Balkans and further south. So we have to bring everyone’s opinion to the table as we consider what to do.

QUESTION: Let’s talk about climate change.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: What will the U.S. bring to Copenhagen to the UN summit there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the United States will bring a climate change bill based on a cap-and-trade model that was passed by our House of Representatives, a very vigorous effort going on in our Senate that we think will bear some fruit. But more importantly and more immediately, the Obama Administration has taken a number of steps through regulation to limit car emissions, utility plant emissions. We put $89 billion into clean energy technology. So we are doing a lot, in just eight months after the prior administration denied the problem for eight years.

But I think it’s very important for us to rise to the challenge, and that developed countries like Germany and the United States have responsibilities, but so do the developing countries like China and India. And we have to expect more from all of us.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much for this interview.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed being with you.

Interview With Marietta Slomka of ZDF Television

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, do you remember where you were on that very special day in Berlin 20 years ago and how you got the news?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I was in Arkansas, and I was just talking to Tom Brokaw, who was one of our major TV anchors in 1989 in the United States, and the word came and I turned on the TV, and my husband and I were just glued, as we say, to the TV. And it was so exciting to see history unfolding before your very eyes. It wasn’t something that happened off-screen that you later heard about and was reconstructed. It was there. And Tom Brokaw famously said, “The war is over, the wall is down.” It was an exciting moment.

And as someone who grew up in the Cold War and had a lot of teachers who cared deeply about what happened and parents who were committed to freedom for people, it was a wonderful moment.

QUESTION: Now that you mention the war is over, the international system has changed. If you look at really for Germany from a foreign policy point of view, what does our – what is the German role on global stage nowadays?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think in the last 20 years Germany has assumed not just a role in Europe but a role in the world. A reunified Germany in a unified Europe is really the heart of Europe. And I think the German leadership that you’ve had over these last 20 years has understood that while the challenges of reunification were difficult and there was a need to continue to work to integrate East and West, that Germany would be called upon to exercise more responsibility outside of its borders. And that’s what I see Chancellor Merkel doing. She came to the United States, delivered a very important speech to our Congress, was very well received. I had breakfast with her this morning.

And of course, we talked about Germany and Europe, but we talked about Afghanistan and Iran and climate change and so many other important global issues.

QUESTION: As you just mentioned, the heart of Europe, your predecessors in the State Department considered Germany as Old Europe. (Laughter.) But that perception has changed, I assume.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, that has more than changed. That was one of the strangest comments. But no, for me personally and for the Obama Administration, I think it was telling that during his campaign President Obama came to Germany, that I am here today because we care deeply about celebrating this historic moment with the German people and people everywhere who are freedom loving. But it is important to look at Europe now and see Germany as one of the real decision makers, not only in a regional way but globally as well. And that’s what I see happening.

QUESTION: You mentioned more responsibilities. Are there hopes and – or even expectations from your side towards Germany and the policies of Germany?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but of course, that’s up to the German Government and the German people. But I know how significant a role Germany played in the G-20 efforts on recovering from the global recession. Germany has taken a leading role on climate change. We stand shoulder to shoulder in Afghanistan under very difficult circumstances with your soldiers and our soldiers. We see Germany’s very strong position with us vis-à-vis Iran and their nuclear program, and Germany, of course, is very committed to a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. So on many of the most difficult issues of the day, Germany is playing a very important role.

QUESTION: And on the key issue, Afghanistan, is there expectations about – in terms of more support, more military engagement?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is, of course, up to Germany itself. But we believe that during the consultations that the President and I and our Defense Secretary and others have carried out, it’s been a very useful discussion with our German counterparts. And we, of course, would hope for continuing support. We would hope that Germany would be not only a partner but part of the group that would really explain why this is important to the United States, to Germany. I think that we are fighting a common enemy. The United States doesn't go to Afghanistan because we hope for just a better circumstance in the future for that country, although that would be very welcome, but because we think our security is affected and we think the security and the values of our friends and our allies like Germany are also impacted.

QUESTION: Could Germany do more?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s going to be up to Germany. And we – when we are at the point where the President has made a decision, we will, of course, consult with the German Government and see what their reaction is.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s a pleasure.

QUESTION: And have a nice day in Berlin.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s always nice to be in Berlin. Thank you.

Interview With Mathias Müller von Blumencron and Dr. Erich Follath of Der Spiegel

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

QUESTION: So you’re just about to send more troops into Afghanistan. Why? For what? Is it to establish democracy, the western civil society, or is it just to prevent the establishment of new bases of terrorism?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, President Obama has not made any final decision. He has conducted a very deliberative process which has explored every assumption underlying every action, and I think it has been quite productive. But I think it’s fair to say that in the course of our examination, our goal is to defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and that is a very clear goal. We’re hopeful for the future of the people of Afghanistan to have a better life, to have political, social, economic development.

But we are in Afghanistan because we believe that we cannot permit the return of a safe haven or a staging platform for terrorists. We think that al-Qaida and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaida still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper, director of a lot of what goes on. In the last two months, we have arrested a gentleman who was plotting, it’s alleged, against the subway system in New York who went to an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan. The porous nature of that border is one that we consider to be very dangerous. The government and military of Pakistan are now moving against some of these extremist allies. But we think that we have to prevent the return of a – I think an extremist state in Afghanistan in order to be able to control this threat.

QUESTION: Our soldiers are dying, almost daily. On the other hand, the Afghan Government, in specifically the last election, were clearly based on fraud. How can we justify towards our people here in the West that we still send troops and have people there dying for a corrupt government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but I don’t think they are fighting and sacrificing for the Afghan Government. They’re there, in the case of American troops, for the American people and the American Government. We recognize, however, that our chances of success in this struggle are enhanced by a government in Afghanistan that can be a partner, that can help to train and deploy a bigger and more effective security force. The soldiers who are in the Afghan army are also sacrificing. They are willing to fight. They are often dying alongside our soldiers.

And so the expectations that we have for President Karzai and his new government are very clear and high, that in order to accomplish the goal we set of having a country that is able to stand up and defend itself, there has to be an effort against corruption; more accountability, the rule of law, the kind of basic expectations that a government should produce. It’s very clear that the people of Afghanistan do not want the Taliban back. In every single survey that we’ve ever seen, they reject the extremism that they lived with from the Taliban.

But they also want a government that gives them some security, that doesn’t leave them at the mercy of the Taliban. So we’re going to try to better organize our efforts and try to demand more from the Afghan Government itself.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t you demand a government of unity, including Abdullah Abdullah, after these elections?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that what we’re interested in is an effective government that can deliver for the people. And we believe that there do have to be a number of people in the government. Who the personalities are is not as big a concern as having competent, effective, honest members of the government.

But we’re not only looking at the government in Kabul. We’re also looking at the government throughout the country. Because very often, it is local governance, as it has historically been in Afghanistan, that delivers services, that provides security. So we think more has to be done with the local governance structures, not just keeping all the attention on Kabul.

QUESTION: Would that mean that America would get much more involved with the local governments and also with the appointments of the local governments? Does it mean you put more pressure on the central government to point the right people in the local areas?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that a number of us – not just the United States, but a number of NATO members as well as allies in the international forces – agree with what Prime Minister Brown said last week, that there has to be more accountability. I mean, we do see this as in our national security interest, but part of being successful and protecting our interest is having a better partner in Afghanistan.

And we will be making our views known. We will have certain measurements of accountability that we expect. And we don’t think that’s interference. We don’t think that is out of bounds since we are committed to helping the people of Afghanistan themselves be able to withstand the threat from the Taliban. The most common kind of formulation that I and others have heard from the Afghans themselves is we need your help to get us in a position where we can defend ourselves against these threats, and then we need you to go.

Well, that pretty much summarizes what we want to do as well. (Laughter.) So we want to be more effective, but we have no intention of staying or holding territory or occupying. That is not any objective of ours. We want to leave a stable enough situation behind that the Afghans themselves can be the front lines against the Taliban and the al-Qaida extremists.

QUESTION: For these purposes, do you have to support President Karzai?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he is the elected president, and I think once he decided to stand for the second round, he legitimized the outcome of the election. Dr. Abdullah decided not to pursue, which has happened in other places. It’s happened in my own country, when somebody looks at a runoff election and doesn’t think they have much of a chance and don’t feel like it’s worth going through it.

So there’s no doubt that he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan. But it shouldn’t be that he just holds the title in name only. He has to perform for his people. And he has to demonstrate a commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Afghanistan. I’m not underestimating the dangers he faces and the threats, as we saw with the terrible attack on the UN headquarters. This is a very difficult situation. But he has to show the leadership that we should expect from him.

QUESTION: You’re clearly unhappy with his efforts to fight corruption. How do you want to put more pressure on that, and how do you want to force him to be more tough on this? He probably has to fight against his own brother?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there are several aspects to this. One, we need a formalized mechanism to be investigating corruption inside Afghanistan that is an independent entity that is independent of the existing power structure. We also have to be more careful about what we – namely the West, NATO, other donors – do, because a lot of the corruption is fueled by the amount of money we put in and don’t have appropriate measures of accountability ourselves. And we have to be tougher.

But at the end of the day, what we need to do is measure results on the ground. We need to set some standards about where money should be going and what the results should be, and monitor those and hold the people in government accountable.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, your real concern – the real concern for Western security is not Afghanistan alone anymore, but a nuclear-armed Pakistan, as you very well know. And you yourself recently voiced doubts. You said you – in your recent in Pakistan, it’s hard to believe, and I quote you, that members of the Pakistani Government did not know the hiding places of al-Qaida and could not get at them if they really wanted to. What did you mean by that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are two issues here. On the one hand, the nuclear arsenal that Pakistan has, I believe is secure. I think that the government and the military have taken adequate steps to protect that. On the other hand, the safe haven that al-Qaida has found in Pakistan is very troubling. They are still actively engaged with the elements of the Pakistani Taliban that are threatening the state of Pakistan.

And it was only recently that Pakistan, through its civilian leadership and its military leadership, actually made the decision that this was a threat to them. We had been saying it was. Others had been telling them the same. But they are now committed to going after those who have attacked their army headquarters, intelligence, the Islamic University in Islamabad, so many targets that really exemplify the authority of the state and the culture of society.

So I think that my point really was to say, look, you have concerns about what we do – we, the United States, and the West. Well, we have concerns about what you do. And it is a very high priority for my government to capture or kill the al-Qaida leadership, and we need more help from you in order to be able to achieve that.

QUESTION: You’re referring to the intelligence people in Pakistan when you make this claim that they should know when everybody knows that in Qatar, Mullah Omar is having his headquarters, or at least there are some people around him who – was that – are you still – do you still fear that intelligence services in Pakistan are not reliable?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Not at the highest levels. I am convinced that at the highest levels, we have a good working relationship. But we have tens of thousands of people in our government in sensitive positions. Every so often, we uncover somebody who’s a traitor. We uncover somebody who is selling classified information or giving it to an agency of another country. So I know how governments work, and I know that it takes constant vigilance to try to root out those who might not share the values or the program of the government. And there are thousands of people in that government, and I would like to see a real effort made on the part of the top leadership to make sure that no one down the ranks is doing anything to give any kind of support or cover-up to the al-Qaida leadership.

QUESTION: Tehran is obviously not willing to accept the newest proposals. How long, how – when is your patience ending for (inaudible) Iran?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we don’t have a formal response from Iran yet. Our --

QUESTION: They’re trying to renegotiate again, again.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we – yeah, we don’t intend to do that. I mean, we’ve been willing to give them more time to work through their internal political debate, because we know there is a lot of turmoil in the Iranian political system coming after the election. But our patience is not unlimited. We continue to urge them to show good faith, as they had said they would adopt this agreement in principle. It would provide an opening for us to discuss not just the nuclear program, but other matters as well, and we still are hopeful that they will decide to accept it.

QUESTION: Why don’t you take the military option off the table? Nobody is believing in it anymore anyway.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Because we don’t take any options off the table. I don’t think that strategically, it is smart to begin cutting your options when the other side doesn’t move at all. Let’s see some good faith from Iran, let’s see some action on their part. President Obama has reached out to them, both publicly and privately. We have tried to change the discussion so that they could participate with us, we could have a diplomatic engagement. But that’s not a one-way street, and we have to see some reciprocity coming back from Iran.

QUESTION: Israel, one question I have to ask about Israel: Are you capitulating in front of the hardliners? Some people said Obama, your president, was asking for a total freeze. When you were in Israel, you were praising the Netanyahu government for much less.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it has to be seen in context. There’s never been a settlement freeze prior to any negotiations conducted by anyone – any Israeli government, any Palestinian government, facilitated by any American government. In negotiations, you often ask for a maximalist position, which is what we would prefer. We are very much in favor of ending settlement activity of all kinds.

The Israeli Government made a fair point, which is that in their legal system, they’ve already permitted the start of construction on certain units, but they were willing to do something no Israeli government had ever done, which was to say no new settlement activity, period. Now, ultimately, this can all be taken care of once a state’s borders are determined. Then Israel does whatever it wants to do on its side of the border, and the Palestinians do whatever they want to do. But it was a positive step, and I have praised the Palestinians for positive steps they’ve taken on security, which the Israelis did not think was enough.

So in a situation like this, I think it’s important to make clear your position. Our position is settlement activity is not legitimate. But to go ahead and say it’s a positive step to end new settlement activity, something that has never been done, and to then get into negotiations so that we can discuss what the borders of a new state would be – and that would moot all of this discussion of settlements.

QUESTION: So this was not a change in policy, but in tone?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It was absolutely not a change in policy. There was no change in policy at all. And it is something, of course, that is disappointing to the Arabs and the Palestinians because they would like to see a total end. But it would be very difficult to go and use the Israeli army, or the legal process of Israel, to go around to people who have already been given this permit, short of a final settlement on borders, and tell them to stop construction.

So from the Israeli perspective, they thought it was a big concession. From the Palestinian perspective, it was not enough. We don’t think it’s enough. It doesn’t correspond with what we want to see eventually. But I think it’s only fair to say that it went further than anyone has before.

QUESTION: Thank you. It’s enough for starting negotiations?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we think it is, but we’re the facilitator. The parties have to get into the negotiation. And I was very pleased when I was in Egypt last week that the Egyptians said they would be more than happy to host the Israelis and the Palestinians. But of course now, there are a lot of other issues that are at work. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes. Perfect, perfect.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

Interview on the Charlie Rose Show

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you for joining us.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Charlie.

QUESTION: It is a historic time in this historic city. Where were you when you heard the news that the Berlin Wall had come down?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I was in Arkansas, and Bill and I were living in the Governor’s Mansion in Arkansas. And I remember watching the news coverage, which at that time was pretty – much more limited than it is today, over and over again, in talking with not only my husband, but lots of friends, about what this meant, because I’m a child of the Cold War. I remember those duck-and-cover drills that we did in school to protect ourselves against the communist threat. I studied international relations in college. I had a big interest in it in law school. And the Cold War was the defining structure of how we saw ourselves and how we managed our affairs. It was an amazing moment. But that whole year was like that. I mean, the activities that swept the world, not just in Europe, but predominantly in Europe, that led to that moment, that iconic moment when the wall was literally ripped apart by people, was so moving to me.

QUESTION: What’s the significance, and what are the lessons we need to appreciate?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think there are so many. But among them is that freedom can never been denied as long as free people elsewhere continue to speak up and speak out about the right of all people to be free, as long as the Transatlantic Alliance that was forged after World War II that ran the Berlin airlift that kept this city and its people fed and warm, as long as free people are willing to invest in defense and to take measures that are necessary in a still dangerous world, but that ultimately, freedom resides in the hearts of people.

And what we saw in Bratislava and Bucharest and Budapest and then sweeping across started in the Gdansk shipyards. It was fueled by ship workers who had had enough. They were tired of being denied their rights as workers and as human beings. It was encouraged by a pope who came from Poland and who knew the importance of human dignity and the freedom that people should be able to exercise.

And so on that night in November, 20 years ago, it was a swelling up that had taken years. It was like a tsunami. The earthquake had happened and the ripple effects were occurring and then it just washed over. And the wall came down, and there was this great sense of relief and gratitude at the sacrifice of so many who had come before, and of the leadership that stayed the course, that didn’t go too far and provoke a military conflict, but who made it very clear by resolve and commitment on a bipartisan basis, starting with Harry Truman, all the way through George H.W. Bush, that we stood with the people of Berlin, of Germany, and of Europe.

QUESTION: What are the walls that we have to tear down today?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have new walls, the walls of the 21^st century. They may not be the visible of the concrete and the barbed wire, as we saw here in Berlin, but they are equally confining and defining. They are walls of ignorance and extremism. They’re walls of oppression and impoverishment. They are not necessarily walls constructed by ideology, but they are walls that exist in the mindsets of those who would try to turn the clock back on human progress, deny women their rights, use tools like suicide bombing and terrorism to try to assert themselves.

And we have to, in the West, along with our friends and allies throughout the rest of the world, understand that this is our challenge of the 21^st century. We can’t walk away from it. We have to be smart about how we address it. But it is what calls us to action today.

QUESTION: All right. Let me talk about two examples. You met with Chancellor Merkel.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Is Germany on board with respect to Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think Germany is committed to the effort in Afghanistan. They’re waiting, like the rest of the world is, the United States, and through President Obama, to announce our intentions and our way forward. But they have a deep understanding of why this is important for NATO, why this is important for the larger international community. And I think that given the right measures of accountability that we need to be seeking from President Karzai and his government, we’re going to see a commitment not just from Germany, but from many of our NATO allies.

QUESTION: Might they make up whatever the gap is between what General McChrystal is seeking and what the United States is prepared to provide in terms of troops?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we have to wait for the President’s announcement, but we will be, as we have been, consulting very deeply with our allies and talking about what we want to see from them in order to have this integrated military and civilian strategy. Because remember, it’s not just about troops on the ground; it’s about making sure that the people in Afghanistan see the results of this effort, that they have more faith in their own government as an entity that can deliver for them. And so there needs to be a lot more civilian and financial support as well as military and troop support. But in my conversations with a lot of our allies, not only in NATO, but beyond, there is an openness and a readiness to participate.

QUESTION: To look at it in a new direction?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.

QUESTION: When you look at that question of Afghanistan, and those who say, can we win, can we stop the Taliban, is your answer yes?

SECRETARY CLINTON: My answer is yes. But right now, we’ve been somewhat in a holding pattern because of the Afghan elections. It’s hard to make a new policy until we know who is in the new government and until we have some very clear discussions about what is expected from them. This is not just a one-sided contract here.

But I also think that the momentum as described by General McChrystal and others that the Taliban seems to have acquired can definitely be broken. There is no evidence whatsoever that the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan want to see a return to the Taliban. In poll after poll, in anecdotal evidence as well, they remember of the brutality and oppressiveness, the perversion of religion that was used as a basis for the grabbing and holding of power that they experienced under the Taliban.

QUESTION: Beyond that, is a Taliban in control in Afghanistan a threat to the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I believe it is. I believe it is a threat, because I believe that it once again provides a safe haven. Because what we have seen is that al-Qaida is now part of a syndicate of terror. It inspires, it directs, it trains, equips, funds other groups within this syndicate.

QUESTION: From Asia to Africa?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. And to many of us, the principal objective is still to defeat, capture, kill the al-Qaida leadership. We do think that is important. It’s not a marginal issue; it’s a core issue for us. But we also realize that there are many aspects to this threat from extremism that have to be addressed. It is imperative that there not be safe haven for al-Qaida and its syndicate, its allies in Afghan –

QUESTION: And that’s what the Taliban would deliver, if they were in control?

SECRETARY CLINTON: They would. In parts of Afghanistan, it’s not – if they couldn’t take over the entire country because of resistance from the Afghans themselves and allies like us, they would certainly establish a beachhead and would have a broader area of operation.

QUESTION: So what do you say to mothers and fathers – as you know, the question – who are saying, are you asking me to send my son or my daughter to Afghanistan where I am essentially fighting for a corrupt or a fraudulent government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but you’re not. You’re fighting for the United States. You are fighting to protect our homeland and our people. We often don’t get to choose the battlefield that we’re on. We have to adjust to whatever the circumstances are that we find. And much of what President Obama and the rest of us in this Administration have been working on for the last eight months is that given the failures of the last eight years to capture and kill the al-Qaida leadership, to try to stabilize Afghanistan, we have to recommit ourselves, because we do think it’s in our interest, we do think it’s in our security interest. And I feel very strongly that the young men and women who are stationed in Afghanistan are really doing what has to be done on the front lines of the war against terrorism.

QUESTION: And they understand and believe in the mission?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. And – well, and it’s important that the entire American public understand and believe in the mission, because in a democracy we have to support those that we send to the battlefield.

QUESTION: Do you believe at this point that the American public understands the mission, or are they waiting for the President now to redefine the mission --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that --

QUESTION: -- and the strategy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, and I think that they are waiting for the results of this review. Back in March when the President made his speech about what we were going to do going forward, he ordered new troops into Afghanistan, he saw a change of commander, which is unusual, in order to better fulfill our mission. And he said we will be revisiting this after the Afghan elections. It’s just taken longer to get the elections over than we had thought. So he will be clearly defining the purpose of our mission, how it’s going to be reconstituted.

QUESTION: What’s taking so long, and what’s the debate inside?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have to say that I think we went through eight years where, at least it appeared on the outside, that there wasn’t enough time taken, there wasn’t enough thought given as to what we were trying to achieve and how we would achieve it. There were a lot of midcourse corrections. Witness the surge in Iraq. And part of what the President is trying to do with his national security team is to go and seek out information that is of direct relevance, evaluate that information, make sure that we are putting forth the best thought in order to fulfill the mission that he’s going to set.

I think it’s unfortunate, Charlie, that we live in a time when people expect instantaneous reaction: Oh, huge crisis, get out in front of the cameras and talk about it even when you don’t have all the facts because the facts are hard to gather. And I think that what the President is determined to do is to feel as positively focused and comfortable as possible.

QUESTION: Fair enough. But is he – are you looking for the answer to some question? And if so, what is that question and what is the debate about that question?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the question really is how best to define the mission so that we and our allies, our publics, and the world understand what we’re trying to achieve. The mission was, frankly, confused. There was a lot of talk during the prior administration that came pretty close to nation building, transforming Afghanistan. There was a lot of confusion about what that meant and how to do it.

We wanted to be sure that we strip down and focus on what is most important. I mean, we fight wars to protect America, our values, our interests, our allies. We fight wars so that we can achieve an endpoint that we think is in furtherance of that. So if we’re going to fight this war, then everybody better be very clear what it is that we’re trying to do. Would we like to see education levels in Afghanistan improve? Absolutely. Is that directly in our national security interest? Probably not.

So we want to help, but we want to keep focused on what is clearly in our national security interest – to dismantle, disrupt, and defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies. Well, then let’s define those extremist allies more carefully. Let’s not just paint with a broad brush. Is some poor young man who has no economic prospects who is basically volunteered to the Taliban by his village so that the village is not attacked by the Taliban, is he our extremist foe, or is he someone who can be persuaded to leave the Taliban and once again reenter society?

These are questions that go to the operational aspects. I mean, it’s easy to paint the big picture – we’re there and good for us. How does that translate into what we do on the ground? How does that actually affect troop decisions and deployment decisions and expenditures of civilian dollars? So I think that this review, which has been more thorough and more debated than what we’re told ever happened previously, gives us a platform on which the President can stand.

QUESTION: But it has to be a certain element of government, because if the strategy is within 10 areas, say, to take and hold and build, which is the operative idea, is it not? So to give protection to the civilians, that’s the only way you’ll have an effective counterinsurgency strategy.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right, but let’s think about counterinsurgency. Counterinsurgency is protecting population centers.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: So --

QUESTION: And they have to be a part of that themselves.

SECRETARY CLINTON: They have to be a part of that themselves, but it may mean that you don’t deploy in some areas where there is not very much in population to speak of, but instead you only do counterterrorism in those areas. So you try to concentrate your troops where we can give the maximum stability.

And when we talk about governing, it’s not just what happens in Kabul. It’s what happens on the ground in local districts. If you look at a map of Afghanistan and you really evaluate, well, which districts are under government control, meaning the central government in Kabul, what are under local government control, what are contested, what are under Taliban control – I mean, there is a varied picture here. And part of what we want to do is to convince the people of Afghanistan that it’s not just clear, hold, and build; it’s also transition. We don’t want to stay a day longer than we must in order to transition over to forces and security that is in the hands of the Afghans themselves.

QUESTION: More and more of the evidence you see indicates that that is possible, because you’re sitting in these national security meetings – there have been some 20 of them with national security leaders – that it’s possible to achieve these objectives, that the Afghans themselves have the capacity to do that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they have some of the capacity. And part of our challenge will be to provide as much of the rest of capacity. We know they are fiercely loyal to their family, village, area. We know that they are not afraid to fight. We know that there is a great appetite for better governance and for some services that can improve their living standards. So we know that the people of Afghanistan are seeking something more, but what they seek may not be what we would ideally want.

And part of our discussion has been to really sort this out. What is it we can do in a period of time that is reasonable that will give the people of Afghanistan the capacity to defend themselves? I mean, the most common refrain we hear as people go around and visit in various parts of Afghanistan, particularly in the south where the Pashtun population is, is we want your help, we want you to protect us and give us the security we need until we can do it ourselves, as soon as possible, and then we want you to leave. That’s a pretty good summary of what we want too.

QUESTION: Yeah, and you have to convince them this is not an occupation.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, we have no interest in their territory, we have no interest in staying there. But we do have an interest in making sure that it doesn’t become a breeding ground or a staging ground for terrorism.

QUESTION: You were recently in Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: You are convinced the Pakistans now understand that the Taliban is their enemy as much as their long-held opposition to India, and they’re prepared to do something?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they’re certainly evidencing that. This very forceful response, first in Swat, now in South Waziristan, illustrates a commitment to take on the Pakistani Taliban. I think in my conversations with both the civilian government leaders as well as the military intelligence leaders, there is an awareness that the Taliban is not just about somebody else’s fight, it is a direct attack on the authority of the Pakistani Government.

When you have extremists attacking your general army headquarters, your intelligence offices, who go right at the Islamic University in Islamabad, this is not some foreign plot. These are people, homegrown, who want to overthrow various aspects of the Pakistani Government and control territory within the boundaries of Pakistan. So there’s no doubt in my mind that they see this as a direct threat.

QUESTION: And they’re prepared to go even as far as North Waziristan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to speak for themselves; they’ve got their hands full right now in South Waziristan. But they understand too that you can’t just play Whack-A-Mole. You can’t just knock down the Taliban somewhere and expect you’re done, because they have unfortunately created this syndicate, this network of interconnected terrorist groups. And so the Pakistanis have to be vigilant. But the people of Pakistan are much more in favor of what the army is doing than at any point in the past.

QUESTION: You raised the question at the press conference about Usama bin Ladin. Did you get any information as to where he is and why they have not been able to reach him?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I did raise that question because I was very willing to hear all the questions and the concerns from the people and the Government of Pakistan. And there are reasons for their concerns. I mean, we haven’t always been the most consistent or understanding partner and ally over the course of our relationship. And we do bear some of the responsibility, frankly, for helping to create the very terrorists that we’re now all threatened by.

So after listening and responding and doing what I could to dispel some of the myths and the stereotyping that goes on, I said, but Americans have questions too. We find it hard to believe that nobody knows where the al-Qaida leadership is. And I think that there is no evidence that anybody in the government at the top levels knows. But what we’re trying to encourage is their awareness and acceptance of the fact that the al-Qaida leadership is arrayed against them as well and still poses a direct threat to us. I mean, we have had the arrest just recently of Zazi, someone who trained in an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan.

So we’re going to keep pressing. This is the highest priority to us, and we are encouraged and supportive of what Pakistan is doing against their enemies. We want more help against our common enemy.

QUESTION: And they’ve been successful against some of the Pakistani Taliban leaders.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Let me move to Iran for a second – or for longer than a second. (Laughter.)
Where does that stand now? Because I interviewed Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday, and he said that the Iranians are reluctant to take the deal because they’re reluctant to give up their nuclear material. And he suggested that perhaps Turkey might be a more amenable repository for that rather than Russia. Are you involved in this idea or not?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. Well, we’re very involved in it, and let me just put it in context. When this idea was first jointly proposed, it was in response to the Iranians’ request to the International Atomic Energy Agency for assistance in refueling their Tehran research reactor, which, so far as we know, is not at all connected to their other enrichment program or any program that would lead to weaponization.

QUESTION: In fact, medical purposes, they say.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Medical isotopes. And we happen to believe that’s true. So when the Iranians made that request, the United States and Russia together made a joint response. And we said that we would be willing to take out the 1,200 or so kilograms of known low-enriched uranium, have it reprocessed, and then have it returned to fuel the research reactor. The Iranians accepted that in principle and continued to be very favorably disposed toward it at the first meeting on October 1^st.

QUESTION: And of course, not only of their representative, but also the president, Ahmadinejad?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: The president specifically.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right. And so it appeared as though there would be a meeting of the minds which would be immensely reassuring to the world that if Iran were willing to do this, it would demonstrate good faith on their part, it would open the door to further talks about their nuclear program. And then I think we have seen a lot of confusion and debate within the Iranian leadership, in some measure fueled by their internal discussions arising out of the election from the opposition they faced, some of it is personality driven. We understand all of that.

QUESTION: But it’s coming from all sides. I mean, it’s coming from the Ayatollah on one side and also Larijani on another side, and then even from people who are part of the reform movement.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we also believe a lot of it is jockeying, and some of it has got more to do with Ahmadinejad than it does with us or with this proposal. Nevertheless, it is our very firm conviction – and there has been absolute unity among the so-called P-5+1, which, of course, includes both Russia and China, that we expect a favorable response from Iran.

QUESTION: Soon.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Soon, yes. I mean, we understand the internal political dynamics, and we’ve been, I think, patient in helping them to see that we’re serious. There are certain safeguards that could be agreed to that they would get their uranium back once it had been enriched. But they have to take this step as a confidence-building measure with the international community, and I hope that they will do so.

QUESTION: And if they don’t?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ll cross that bridge when we actually come to it.

QUESTION: Well, and the first action is you go to the United Nations for sanctions. Has anything changed that will make the Russians, at that point, more amenable to supporting sanctions? Because many argue that if the Russians support sanctions, so will the Chinese.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ve been encouraged by the comments from President Medvedev just recently again over the weekend in an interview with Der Spiegel here in Germany, where he has talked about perhaps there will be a need for sanctions. And I hope that if it comes to that, which we still would like to avoid by this cooperative arrangement, that we will have everyone on board. And there has already been an agreement entered into by the P-5+1, including Russia and China, that we were on a dual track: We were on one track which was negotiations, diplomacy, agreements like that affecting the Tehran research reactor; but in the absence of progress there, we were on a second track which would look to assert more pressure and impose more sanctions. Whether that’s going to be necessary or what the content would be and where they would be sought – there is not anything magical about the UN, there can be other ways of imposing sanctions. So we are in the process of exploring that with others.

QUESTION: Is the Atlantic alliance going to help?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Are they going to be prepared to enforce?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve seen an increase in actions by many of the nations of Europe, because they understand that this is a threat to them. When the President made his decision about changing the missile defense architecture, it was in response to a better understanding that our technical and defense experts had that Iran was further advanced in short- and medium-range missiles or long-term missiles. Those short- and medium-range missiles can hit every part of Europe. So I think the Europeans understand that this is a very important step for them to try to help us and others to assert pressure against Iran.

QUESTION: Secretary Gates has said that a military option probably would only delay for a year or two.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no one wants to go to that. I mean, we’ve always said that every option is on the table. Our goal is to prevent or dissuade Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. And we’ve made it clear that they have a right to nuclear power that is civil and peacefully used.

QUESTION: Mohamed ElBaradei said that they don’t trust us, that the level of trust there – and we obviously have reason not to trust them – you assume, I assume, that there are other facilities that also we may not have discovered so far or they have not acknowledged so far.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we don’t have any evidence of that, but obviously we’re always vigilant and looking for anything that might suggest another concealed, undisclosed facility. I’m not in any way downplaying the lack of trust. I mean, we have 30 years of mistrust, misunderstanding, and misaligned objectives. I mean, the Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear program, they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hezbollah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors, trying to destabilize Gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region.

So Iran has given us many reasons to worry about their motivation and their action. But I think what President Obama has tried to do since becoming President is to create a new dynamic where – look, we don’t have to trust or love each other to understand that it is in our interest to try to stabilize the world. It is not in Iran’s interest to have a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran’s interest, to the Iranian people’s interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions.

So the President has reached out and has really gone the extra mile to try to engage with the Iranians. If they cannot overcome their mistrust and their internal political dynamics, then we have to do what we think is in our best interests.

QUESTION: They’ll have to deal with the consequences?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yeah, of course. I mean, that’s the way the world works.

QUESTION: Is there anything that we can do to say to them, “We understand your fear. We understand your paranoia. We’ve asked you what is your – what can we do to convince you that nuclear weapons are not in your interest?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, those are certainly the messages that the President has publicly stated. As you know, he’s had private messages sent to the supreme leader. He has charged the rest of the Administration to convey that message. And I think it was significant when this Administration said we accept your right under appropriate safeguards to have civil nuclear power. We are not going to be demonizing you and calling you names. We’d much rather have a civil diplomatic relationship that could lead to negotiations that would lower the temperature and try to diminish the mistrust. But it takes two to do that. And certainly, the way the Iranian Government handled the elections, the response to legitimate opposition, has been very disconcerting because it demonstrates they don’t trust their own people. It’s not only that they trust us, they don’t trust many Iranians.

So when you get to that level --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s right. And so you get to that level of mistrust all the way around you. How do you break through that is what we’re looking for. But it may or may not be possible. That’s pretty much up to the Iranians.

QUESTION: Someone wrote about this particular place that we are sitting, that there was a moment in history in which it split the right way --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- as to whether at that moment in Iran after that election, when there are more than a million people on the street --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: -- it went the other way.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: That that was not something --

SECRETARY CLINTON: But I don’t think that’s the end of the story, Charlie. I don’t think that’s the end of the story at all. I think that that’s part of what we see going on. If this were a confident leadership, they would accept the Tehran research reactor deal.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: They would not be worried about it. This is not a confident leadership because of the pressures that are coming from within Iran as well as from outside.

QUESTION: So whatever happened in that election and the aftermath has not been capped and will continue to --

SECRETARY CLINTON: There’s – I don’t think we’re, by any means, at the end of that story.

QUESTION: All right. China. You leave here, you go to Singapore.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: Then you go with the President. You go to the Philippines and then you go with the --

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) That’s right.

QUESTION: When will you be back in the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good question. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And how much packing do you have to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s unbelievable.

QUESTION: It’s some kind of a trip. And how do you survive all that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, goodness. Well --

QUESTION: And yet some of that is First Lady. But I mean, this is --

SECRETARY CLINTON: This is pretty intense.

QUESTION: Exactly.

SECRETARY CLINTON: This is by far the most demanding schedule, both of travel and intense work at home that one can imagine. And part of it was we felt like we had a lot of fence mending and important diplomatic engagements to do around the world, coming as we did after the last administration.

QUESTION: Okay. But let me say – and that’s a good point before we go to China. So what’s the message of the Obama Administration and from the Secretary of State about the United States and its foreign policy intentions today?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That we are back engaging --

QUESTION: Back as?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Back as fully engaged. We’re not leaving any part of the world unattended to, because that was one of the most common complaints I heard. When I chose to go to Asia for my first trip, it was because there was this sense that the United States was departing from the Pacific, a place that we had been intimately involved in for much of the 20^th century, and at a time when there’s a lot of questions about how the Pacific Asian region will be organized and what role the United States will play.

So first and foremost, that we are engaged; we’re not just focused on the one or two most pressing trouble spots that we have to deal with; that we are working to bring people together to create more partnerships. We went from a bipolar world that ended when the wall came down here in Berlin, and we want a multi-partner world where we can make common cause on transnational challenges like climate change or H1N1 influenza, and where we can bring partners to the table on some of the difficult security challenges.

Look at what we achieved with North Korea. We got China and Russia, along with Japan and South Korea, working with us to impose the toughest sanctions ever. Now, why then is North Korea beginning to say they want to talk, they want to talk, is because they see a united front against them.

So we really believe that engagement is not an end in itself, but it’s the door you walk through to get to the table, to get into the negotiations that can possibly lead to improving conditions regionally and globally. And I’m very committed to doing that, but it is an intensely personal relationship-building endeavor.

QUESTION: You’ve also, as a hallmark, said we want to listen --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and so has the President, but you have in your political career.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: So what are you hearing? What is the role they see, whether it’s Europe --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: -- or whether it’s China --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- or whether it’s the Middle East? Because some people say there will be no peace in the Middle East without the United States there doing something. But on the other hand, you’ve got to have people who are willing --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: -- to accept that role.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you ask a complex question that raises a lot of interconnected issues. First, when I’m listening, what I’m hearing is that people know the United States cannot solve all the problems of the world. But they know that without the United States, the chances of solving any of the problems are pretty remote. So they want us to be engaged, to be leading, both by example and through engagement. They also believe that the United States cannot leave the field on any of these problems. And as complicated and as difficult as they might be, we have to be there, we have to be working.

Now, we may be more engaged or less engaged depending upon our assessment. We may leave the parties to themselves for periods of time and stand on the sidelines, or we may be intensely working with them. That’s a calibration. But the overall fact is the United States must be present. And you would think in a world that has moved toward virtual reality that that might mean something other than what it meant two centuries ago, but in fact, it means we have to be there, that we have to show up.

When I went to the ASEAN meeting with our --

QUESTION: In Washington?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, in Thailand.

QUESTION: In Thailand.

SECRETARY CLINTON: In the Southeast Asian region. It meant so much to them that I sat there and we talked about everything from the environmental conditions in the lower Mekong Delta to what we were going to do about Burma. And we are rebuilding that, which I think is essential. But equally important is to set out our own objectives and the strategies designed to achieve those objectives.

Now, a lot of that takes patience. And part of what we’re facing, Charlie, is the United States, unfortunately, has lost leverage in the world because of the global economic crisis and because of the steps that this Administration had to take to try to prevent, frankly, a worldwide depression, which means increasing our debt, going into the biggest deficits we’ve seen since World War II. That undermines some of the capacity we need to have to influence events.

QUESTION: Explain that to me, because I was going to ask you about that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah.

QUESTION: What’s been the impact of the global economic crisis? You were suggesting that our leverage is less?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, I am suggesting that.

QUESTION: Because our economic power is less, or because they look at us as creating a crisis that had great detriment to them?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think both. I think both. I mean, what we have done by moving from the creditor nation that my husband’s policies helped to create to the debtor nation that we inherited from the Bush Administration, made even worse by the lapses in regulation and the failure of oversight that led to the global economic recession, has raised questions in people’s minds. Because one thing the world believed about the United States is that we knew how to run an economy, we knew how to produce wealth, we knew how to create economic opportunity and consumption that was unmatched in the history of the world.

QUESTION: And they had bought into the idea of markets and capitalism and all of that behavior.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right. And I give the President and his economic team a lot of credit for navigating us through the worst of this crisis and beginning not only the recovery economically, but the recovery of confidence. But the fact is when we do have that recovery and we can all look at it, touch it, and feel it and feel better about ourselves and the world, we’re going to be hugely in debt. And we’re going to have deficits that will impinge upon our ability to make decisions and will also affect our capacity to deal with other countries because we are in debt to them.

QUESTION: So (inaudible) may very well say that this is not the best place for us to buy debt?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there’s all kinds of countries that have that kind of potential. So we’re operating on multiple levels at once. We have to rebuild our own economy. We have to – once we get through this crisis – begin to restore fiscal responsibility and sovereignty. At the same time, we have to engage the rest of the world. We have to buy time with the rest of the world. And I think we’re managing that about as well as we could, given the hand that we’re playing.

QUESTION: Do you think we have the political will to deal with the deficit?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are going to have to. I don’t think it’s going to be a question. But what the President’s trying to do is to tee up some changes that will be to the benefit of us economically over the long term. Dealing with healthcare costs is part of dealing with the deficit and dealing with increasing competitiveness around the world, for example.

QUESTION: So you go to China and you sit down with – you and the President sit down with Hu Jintao, the president of China, and he says to you, “Madame Secretary, how do you see us? How do you see China over the next 50 years, and how do you see this relationship? And you were the dominant country, but we feel pretty good about where our economy is going and we want to play a role.”

SECRETARY CLINTON: And well they should. I think that there’s no doubt, at least in my mind, that China has earned the right to play a role, and the rise of China is inevitable. The Chinese are focused on improving the standard of living of their people, on playing a leadership role, not only regionally but globally. And we are working to make sure that there’s a peaceful rise, that there is a good understanding between the United States and China. What we’ve called for was a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship.

Secretary Geithner and I, on our side, chair our Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which met for the first time at the end of July, where we’re talking about a broad array of economic and strategic issues, because we want to have an in-depth relationship with China.

QUESTION: What’s an example of it? I know with the climate change the deal we want to make with respect to climate change and emission standards and all of that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right, right..

QUESTION: And they are really moving forward, clearly, on some areas of that. What’s the strategic possibility – strategic in terms of the United States and China?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: What can they do together?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we can do a lot together. If the United States and China work together as we have in the G-20 process, we can help to stabilize the economic situation in the world and begin a recovery and a return to growth. It would not be possible if there were just one or the other; it had to be in tandem and then to work with the other members of the G-20.

When it comes to climate change and clean energy, China’s making a big bet on clean energy technology. That’s important bet for them to make.

QUESTION: A bigger bet than we are so far?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’d like to see us begin to do more on that.

QUESTION: Solar?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, but you can’t fault China for seeing a market opportunity, as well as an environmental necessity, so that they are moving.

And I think they’re moving, in large measure, because they see that this is beneficial to them, but also because they want to be part of the world leadership in dealing with these transnational problems. They know that they will have on their doorstep the effects of erratic climate developments --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- that they will have to deal with. They know that they can’t just turn a blind eye to North Korea’s provocative behavior, that it’s very destabilizing, and it isn’t to be left to others. So they’ve been playing a much more involved role in trying to corral the North Koreans.

QUESTION: Doing everything you wanted them to do with respect to North Korea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: They have been extremely helpful with respect to North Korea.

QUESTION: Africa, especially Darfur; are they doing everything you want them to do there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: They are more understanding of the long-term consequences to their position in Sudan than they were before. What I mean by that is the Chinese have natural resource interest in Sudan. Darfur is destabilizing. The North-South situation could become violent and lead to conflict again. That would put at risk Chinese investments.

So I think that they are looking in a broader way than they perhaps have about their responsibility. It’s not just we’ve got to find resources to --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- feed the engine of the economy to produce 8 percent growth, because we have so many hundreds of millions of people still living below poverty.

QUESTION: Yes, right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s okay, we do have to do that, but we have to be conscious and aware of the larger strategic interests that we have to be part of.

QUESTION: How about Iran, though? Where are they in helping?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Because they have an energy contract with Iran.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, they do. Well, they signed on to the agreement that I and the other foreign ministers signed in New York during the United Nations General Assembly about the two-track approach to Iran. The foreign minister with whom I work closely, Minister Yang --

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- was at the table. So they know that this is complicated. What would be the worst nightmare for Chinese energy needs? If war broke out in --

QUESTION: Sure.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- the larger Gulf or the Middle East. That would be devastating to them. So, they know they have --

QUESTION: Supply go down, price go up.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. And whether the supply, which was more limited, could even get delivered would be a question.

So, I think that they are, as they play a larger role in the world, seeing the complexities that we all are facing, and being much more open to listening.

QUESTION: A Chinese official said to me, “If the United States would find a source of oil for us outside of Iran, we may very well be more amenable.”

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. Well, look, energy fuels all of us. And we don’t happen to get any oil from Iran, but if we were dependent upon Iran, we’d have to be scrambling to figure out what we were going to do in order to enforce the international community’s expectations on Iran.

So, we know that China has to be aware of their own energy needs, which is why their move toward clean energy and alternative forms of energy is so important over the long --

QUESTION: What do you say to them when they say, “Madame Secretary, I’m worried about protectionist sentiment in your Congress. I’ve seen examples of it, and a trade war would be terrible?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: We agree that a trade war would be terrible. But this is not just a one-way street. We have concerns about some of the actions that the Chinese Government --

QUESTION: And are they responsive and understanding?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, everybody works from their own --

QUESTION: Special interest.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- national interest and their own economic interest. And that’s – I mean, who would expect anything different?

But I think the conversation is much more candid and open and very clear on our part as to how we don’t want to see walls of protection. But we also need more guarantees for intellectual property in China. We watch some of the problems with exporting natural resources out of China, which they don’t permit. So there is a lot to be discussed on both sides.

QUESTION: Let me move to this job that you hold, as we have a few more minutes left here.

Number one, how does what you have done before – you know, Churchill is famous for saying, “Everything I have done has prepared me for this moment,” when he went to 10 Downing during World War II. How does being First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, a senator from New York, and a presidential candidate --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: -- with substantial political support influence, make you a Secretary of State, for better?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that a lot of my experience, which was rooted in not only travel, but working on international issues, being involved with many of the leaders, some of whom are still there, others of whom are still influential --

QUESTION: And that makes a difference in what way?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it makes a difference, because I come as a known commodity. I think it accelerates the relationship to a point where we can move into the business side of what we are trying to do together.

I also know a lot of the players. I understand what their needs are. It is not take it or leave it. It’s like, okay, how can we work toward as much of a win-win as possible? I don’t think we’re in a zero-sum game. I believe that’s kind of ancient history, given how the world works today.

It has also been quite helpful for me to have been in political life, because even in societies that we view as lacking in democratic politics, there is always politics. Maybe it’s small-P politics. Maybe you have to rise through the party. Maybe you have to fend off opposition from those who don’t agree with your policies. You have to be at least aware of public opinion, because even in closed societies, public opinion can rise up and cause demands on you that you have to manage.

So, I understand that. I mean, I know what it’s like to have to either put together a coalition or deal with the consequences of the public either being for you or against you. And I’ve said on numerous occasions, “Look, I come to this job not as a diplomat or as an academic, but as a political person. And that’s why I know why this is difficult for you.”

And I have been really impressed by how quickly that creates a bond with some of the leaders. In some of the countries that I have visited, where we’re asking the leadership to make some very hard choices that we think are in their interests, but certainly in our interest, being able to talk about our political background – I mean it’s well known that Senator Kerry and I kind of were tag-teamed in dealing with President Karzai --

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- in the lead up to his decision to accept a second round. And I was talking about --

QUESTION: Well, tell me what you mean by “tag team.” I mean, you realized he was there.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.

QUESTION: You realized that he had some problems with certain people. And you realized it was better to deal with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in Pakistan at the time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: In Afghanistan, I’m sorry.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right, right.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it was – first of all, the fact that John was there was so fortuitous.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: We couldn’t have ever scripted it. But he was there at exactly the right time. And he and I talked about – he got fully briefed by Ambassador Holbrooke about sort of the state of play. And he and I talked about how we made a political argument to Karzai.

You can come in and say, “Look, it’s the right thing to do. The international community expects you to do it. You must respond.”

QUESTION: Yes, yes. But --

SECRETARY CLINTON: But --

QUESTION: But.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- if you come in and you say, “Look, I’ve won and lost elections. I know what this feels like.”

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: “I understand how upset you are that you feel like you won and all the votes, regardless of whether they were specifically fraudulent or not, based on the sampling that the UN committee did, are going to be thrown out, and how that makes you feel,” and all the rest of it.

And so John could walk through the garden with him, and talk about how he felt when he felt bad about the outcome in Ohio. And I talked to him about what happened in 2000, and I talked to him about the experiences that I had had in politics.

QUESTION: 2008, yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, exactly. So it helped. It really did help, Charlie.

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Because it was a visceral connection. And it wasn’t something abstract. It was, “We know. We know how it feels. We know what you’re going through inside, and how unfair you think it is. But there comes a time when a leader of a democracy must support the institution. This is an institution that you must respect.” Just like in 2000, the Supreme Court made a decision I would not have made in the Gore v. Bush case.

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: But you accept that and you go on. And you therefore strengthen democracy, and frankly, you strengthen your hand politically.

QUESTION: Is part of this, or what you just said to me, part of the way you thought about losing the presidency, about losing the nomination and moving on?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Is that the way you had to deal with it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Of course. I am a true believer in the American political system. And I think that it’s rooted in who I am and how I was raised and my sense of patriotism and all these wonderful, old-fashioned, but very important values that I hold.

So, I did the best I could. I fought as hard as I could. I made my share of mistakes. I did better in some areas than I thought I would. I was very gratified by the support that I had. But it came to an end. And I wanted to support, at that time, Senator Obama, because he and I were much more in line on our world view and what we wanted to see happen domestically than the other party was. And so I threw myself in to helping his elect him.

And nobody was more surprised than I, when after the election, he called and asked me to consider taking this position.

QUESTION: Is that the first time he mentioned it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely.

QUESTION: He had never thought about it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he --

QUESTION: I know he thought – because he now says that he had been thinking about it for a while.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yes, yes.

QUESTION: He saw in you qualities that he wanted as the Secretary of State. And he looked at all the other possibilities, and he said --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, it --

QUESTION: But he didn’t bring it up to you until after the election?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Not at all. And when I --

QUESTION: Not the nomination, but the election.

SECRETARY CLINTON: The election, absolutely. I mean, first of all, it wouldn’t have been appropriate, and I would have been incredulous.

QUESTION: Well, there are some people who thought he promised it to him, (inaudible) --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s -- I don’t know anything about that. But what I do know is that after the election, when stories started coming out, I thought that it was absurd, unbelievable.

QUESTION: Why? Why?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, for a million reasons. But I also --

QUESTION: Just give me one.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well --

QUESTION: Why was it absurd? Because, I mean, he had read Team Of Rivals.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes, yes.

QUESTION: He believed in this idea --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. Well I --

QUESTION: -- that may have been overblown.

SECRETARY CLINTON: But I think I was very much happy about going back to representing New York.

QUESTION: And playing a part in healthcare reform, the passion of your life.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely, the passion of my life. And I am thrilled by what happened in the House and --

QUESTION: And you think it will pass in the Senate? And the President will sign it before 2010, do you think?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let’s hope. And we’re going to work for it.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I call – as soon as the vote was final in the House, I called the President and I called the Speaker. I mean, I was thrilled at what has been such a long journey. And now the attention turns to the Senate.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. So now you’re Secretary today, and I’ll ask you --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Why did – you decided to accept it because?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Because when your President asks you to serve your country, I think you should say yes, if you can. And I also thought that my --

QUESTION: But you had moments in which you said, “I’m not sure this is my best interest,” or --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well --

QUESTION: -- “B, I’m the best person,” whatever you might have thought.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I said all of that.

QUESTION: (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) No perks. I kept saying, “Well, how about so-and-so? Don’t you think so-and-so -- ”

QUESTION: Did you? Yeah, exactly, and I have a great life, Mister, and I’m going to be the -- ”

SECRETARY CLINTON: Absolutely. And I --

QUESTION: -- “become the Senate majority leader, perhaps?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: “I want to return to the Senate, and I want to catch up on my sleep.”

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY CLINTON: All of those things, but I also thought --

QUESTION: Well, you were wrong about that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I was very wrong about that, that – if the shoe had been on the other foot, and I had been asking him, I would have hoped that he would have said yes.

And so, how could I be standoffish and say, “Well, I would rather be a senator,” and, “I want my life back,” and all these things that were certainly going through my mind?

QUESTION: Someone watching the campaign, the Democratic campaign, might have said there was some space between how you view the world and he views the world, you being more hawkish, more something.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Well, look. I am very pleased at the relationship that the President and I have.

QUESTION: What are you pleased about?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That it is very – it’s very collegial. It is personally very positive. We see each other all the time and we work very well together. And I think that we probably have people in both of our camps who were surprised by that and somewhat skeptical. But both of us understood what it is we had to do and do together, given the array of problems we face.

So, I am – look, I’m very, very committed to doing everything I can on behalf of my country, and the President, and the agenda we set forth.

QUESTION: There’s no sharp disagreements between the way you two see the world?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if there are, I wouldn’t tell you. (Laughter.) No, but we have – no, (inaudible).

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) There are some, but in the end, it’s his --

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s – look, he’s the President. But what I really appreciate --

QUESTION: It’s his call.

SECRETARY CLINTON: -- is we have a very robust process, where everybody is heard, and there is quite a good back-and-forth testing assumptions, coming up with ideas, and on a couple of occasions, I was kind of in a somewhat solitary position vis-à-vis rest of the NSC.

QUESTION: Well, just give me one example of that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I can’t. But --

QUESTION: Oh, just one.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Someday, Charlie. Someday. In about 10 years, we’ll do this interview. But I went to the President and said, “This is really what I would like you to think about, and here are the reasons for it.” And on one very important matter, he agreed with me.

And so it’s not just that you have discussions between the two of us, which we do, where we look at things from different angles, where we try to come up with an approach. But it’s the larger team. Sometimes both the President and I are pushing the people on our teams to think differently and more creatively.

QUESTION: All right. You have said you’ll never run for president again.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, I said that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Any other things you’ve said you will never do again?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Oh, well, I – yes, I’m sure there are, but at the moment I can’t think of them.

QUESTION: Thank you for this time.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: It’s a pleasure to have this opportunity to talk to you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good to see you. Thanks, Charlie.

QUESTION: From Berlin, Germany, a conversation with the Secretary of State. This is, as we record this, November 9, 20 years after the wall came tearing down with momentous consequences, as the Secretary said, for Europe, for Russia, for the United States, and for the world.

Thank you for joining us. See you next time. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: It’s always a joy.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) It’s always fun.

Secretary Clinton Meets with Embassy Personnel and Their Families

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

U.S. Embassy

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Interview With Tom Brokaw of NBC

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Hotel Adlon

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, Tom.

# # #

Remarks At the Commissioning of the USS New York

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

New York City

November 7, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Secretary Mabus. The Navy has always been at home in New York and I am very proud that New York is once again at home in the Navy. It is a pleasure to be here with so many distinguished leaders – Governor Patterson, Mayor Bloomberg, all of the leaders of the United States Navy and the Marine Corps, and so many others who gather here for this exciting and meaningful commissioning.

I also want to recognize and thank Commander Curt Jones, a native New Yorker who will steer this ship wherever there are adversaries to confront or friends in need. He is an accomplished and decorated officer and all New Yorkers can be proud that he is at the helm of this ship and its crew.

To the crew of the USS New York, the men and women who will keep her running fast and true, we salute your service to our nation. There are many New Yorkers on board, and by now, I am sure that the rest of your shipmates are sick of your bragging about the Yankees. (Laughter.) So just remember people from Philadelphia and Boston make good sailors too.

Our thoughts and our prayers will be with you when you sail out of this harbor and turn into the open ocean. This ship is the heir to a long and proud tradition, the first New York, small and outgunned, fought courageously on Lake Champlain to fend off invasion during the American Revolution. The battleship New York served in both World Wars and fought at Iwo Jima. It survived torpedo and kamikaze attacks and earned three battle stars. When our nation was attacked and our freedom threatened, the New York was there.

Today, our security is once again at risk. And once again, the USS New York is sailing in the service of our country. A rivet from its predecessor and sand from Iwo Jima are welded to its mast. And in its bow are those 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from Ground Zero. As we have heard so eloquently expressed, this ship carries with it the searing memories of September 11^th – lives cut short, families ripped apart, a nation attacked. And in that steel, burned but unbroken, lives the spirit we saw on 9/11 and the days that followed – the bravery of the rescuers, the resolve of the survivors, the compassion of this city, and the patriotism of this great country.

None of us will ever forget the image of twisted girders and shattered beams looming above the smoldering pile, a lone steel column, the Last Column, covered in tributes to the fallen, standing tall amid the ruins. Today, the steel that once held up two of the world’s great buildings serves as memorials in town squares, police stations and firehouses across America. Pieces will be housed here in New York at the National September 11^th Memorial and Museum. In these warped relics, we see the strength that came through the fire, through smoke and ash and senseless violence. That is the strength we see in New York and in the ship that now proudly bears its name.

The motto of the USS New York is “Strength Forged through Sacrifice – Never Forget.” By commissioning this ship today, we reaffirm the best and the worst of humanity that we have seen from September 11^th to Fort Hood. Many people here with us today need no reminder. For the families who lost loved ones, for the first responders who lost comrades and partners, for all those who were injured on 9/11 or who have suffered the health effects in the years since, the memory is undimmed.

I have been very honored to stand with many of you these last eight years, and I have watched you rebuild your lives, your families, your communities out of the wreckage of that terrible day. There are some wounds that never fully heal that we carry around with us for the rest of our lives. But sometimes, we truly are stronger in the broken parts. Sometimes, our pain can lead us to new purpose.

And you have shown us that. You have shown us the strength borne out of suffering and the service out of sacrifice. You fought for better equipment for our first responders, more sensible protections for our country, healthcare for those who grew sick breathing the toxic air. You collected funds for the children who lost fathers and mothers. And you started service programs that encourage volunteerism and work to improve people’s lives.

Well, the USS New York is now part of that legacy. The brave men and women who serve on the New York have left their homes and their families to defend our nation. They will join the fight against terrorism and violent extremism that threatens free people across the globe. They will sail on missions of mercy, providing vital humanitarian assistance in the wake of disasters like the Asian tsunami or the earthquake in Pakistan. And they will not only support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but carry forward those marines who will be part of the fight. They will go wherever their country needs them, wherever they can save lives, and wherever they can stop the spread of terrorism. And on every ocean and in every port, they will carry that refashioned steel, a symbol of our unshakable resolve.

Like the USS New York, this is a city built of steel, from the crown of the Chrysler Building to the pylons of the GW Bridge, from the shipyards of Brooklyn to the stadium in the Bronx. But the strongest steel in New York has always been in the spines of its people. Unmatched in ambition, talent and energy, New Yorkers are strivers and seekers, immigrants from every country, speakers of every language, firefighters who rush into the burning building to rescue people they’ve never met, families who honor the memories of their loved ones by working to prevent the perversions and the evil that they experienced from ever striking anyone else.

And they are indeed the young men and women who enlist in the service of a nation we love. That is, New York. That is the spirit that this ship carries. And that is the spirit in the hearts of its crew. We wish you Godspeed, and we wish blessings on this ship and on the nation and people it serves. God bless you all. (Applause.)

# # #

Remarks With German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Berlin, Germany

November 9, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Sorry about that.

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

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

FOREIGN MINISTER WESTERWELLE: Nice to meet you.

QUESTION: Very nice to meet you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Keynote Address at the Atlantic Council Gala Dinner

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Adlon Hotel

Berlin, Germany

November 8, 2009

(Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I like Henry, too.

(Laughter.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Laughter.)

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

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

(Applause.)

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

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

(Applause.)