Remarks to the Press on the Release of Confidential Documents
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of StateTreaty RoomWashington, DCNovember 29, 2010Vodpod videos no longer available.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. Do we have enough room in here? I want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from United States Government computers. In my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days, and in my meeting earlier today with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, I have had very productive discussions on this issue.
The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.
So let’s be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.
I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama Administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. The President and I have made these partnerships a priority – and we are proud of the progress that they have helped achieve – and they will remain at the center of our efforts.
I will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen State Department cables. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats’ personal assessments and observations. I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world.
I would also add that to the American people and to our friends and partners, I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. I have directed that specific actions be taken at the State Department, in addition to new security safeguards at the Department of Defense and elsewhere to protect State Department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again.
Relations between governments aren’t the only concern created by the publication of this material. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside of governments who offer their own candid insights. These conversations also depend on trust and confidence. For example, if an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.
So whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.
Now, I am aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight: There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends.
There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases. In contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. They are helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start. They are working hard every day to solve serious practical problems – to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability. This is the role that America plays in the world. This is the role our diplomats play in serving America. And it should make every one of us proud.
The work of our diplomats doesn’t just benefit Americans, but also billions of others around the globe. In addition to endangering particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.
People of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communications, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. Every country, including the United States, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. And every country, including the United States, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. I know that diplomats around the world share this view – but this is not unique to diplomacy. In almost every profession – whether it’s law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business – people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it. And so despite some of the rhetoric we’ve heard these past few days, confidential communications do not run counter to the public interest. They are fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest.
In America, we welcome genuine debates about pressing questions of public policy. We have elections about them. That is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. It is part of who we are and it is a priority for this Administration. But stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good, and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate.
In the past few days, I have spoken with many of my counterparts around the world, and we have all agreed that we will continue to focus on the issues and tasks at hand. In that spirit, President Obama and I remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all.
Thank you, and I’d be glad to take a few questions.
MR. CROWLEY: We’ll begin with Charlie Wolfson of CBS in his last week here covering the State Department.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Where are you going, Charlie?
QUESTION: I’ll (inaudible) into the sunset, but let me get to a question.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, sir. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, are you embarrassed by these leaks personally, professionally? And what harm have the leaks done to the U.S. so far that you can determine from talking to your colleagues?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Charlie, as I said in my statement, and based on the many conversations that I’ve had with my counterparts, I am confident that the partnerships and relationships that we have built in this Administration will withstand this challenge. The President and I have made these partnerships a priority, a real centerpiece of our foreign policy, and we’re proud of the progress that we have made over the last 22 months.
Every single day, U.S. Government representatives from the entire government, not just from the State Department, engage with hundreds if not thousands of government representatives and members of civil society from around the world. They carry out the goals and the interests and the values of the United States. And it is imperative that we have candid reporting from those who are in the field working with their counterparts in order to inform our decision-making back here in Washington.
I can tell you that in my conversations, at least one of my counterparts said to me, “Well, don’t worry about it. You should see what we say about you.” (Laughter.) So I think that this is well understood in the diplomatic community as part of the give-and-take. And I would hope that we will be able to move beyond this and back to the business of working together on behalf of our common goals.
MR. CROWLEY: Kim Ghattas of BBC.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Kim.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I was wondering whether you could tell us what you think your upcoming trip is going to look like. Presumably, a lot of the people who have been mentioned in those alleged cables are going to have conversations with you. Do you think it’s going to cause you discomfort over the coming week as you engage in conversations with those leaders?
And I know you don’t want to comment on the particulars of the cables, but one issue that has been brought up into the daylight is the debate about Iran. What do you think the impact is going to be of those documents on the debate about Iran in the coming weeks and months?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Kim, you’re right. And I don’t know if you’re going on this trip or not, but we will be seeing dozens of my counterparts in Astana, and then as I go on from Kazakhstan to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and then ending up in Bahrain for the Manama dialogue. And I will continue the conversations that I have started with some in person and over the phone over the last days, and I will seek out others because I want personally to impress upon them the importance that I place on the kind of open, productive discussions that we have had to date and my intention to continue working closely with them.
Obviously, this is a matter of great concern, because we don’t want anyone in any of the countries that could be affected by these alleged leaks here to have any doubts about our intentions and our about commitments. That’s why I stressed in my remarks that policy is made in Washington. The President and I have been very clear about our goals and objectives in dealing with the full range of global challenges that we face. And we will continue to be so and we will continue to look for every opportunity to work with our friends and partners and allies around the world and to deal in a very clear-eyed way with those with whom we have differences, which of course brings me to Iran.
I think that it should not be a surprise to anyone that Iran is a source of great concern not only in the United States, that what comes through in every meeting that I have anywhere in the world is a concern about Iranian actions and intentions. So if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that Iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors, and a serious concern far beyond her region.
That is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions against Iran. It did not happen because the United States went out and said, “Please do this for us.” It happened because countries, once they evaluated the evidence concerning Iran’s actions and intentions, reached the same conclusion that the United States reached – that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
So if anyone reading the stories about these alleged cables thinks carefully, what they will conclude is that the concern about Iran is well founded, widely shared, and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with likeminded nations to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
MR. CROWLEY: We’ve got to let the Secretary get to her airplane and get to her trip. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I will leave you in P.J.’s very good hands. Thank you.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, did you talk to anyone in Pakistan or India?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all.
QUESTION: Thank you, Madam. (Inaudible).
MR. CROWLEY: What we’ll do is we’ll take, say, a 30-minute filing break, and then we’ll reconvene in the Briefing Room and continue our discussion
We said how bad this is over and over, but I think the real issue isn’t Assange, it’s Pfc Manning. Why did someone of such low rank have access to just about anything anyone in the DOD or DOS ever to put in an email? Shouldn’t it be harder to make the whole State Department scurry?
LikeLike
Evidently that has been remedied – no single individual can do this anymore. I still have issues with Assange. He needs to take some responsibility.
LikeLike
As you know by now, I have posted something about Manning at DeHoS. Both he and Assange bear different types of responsibility here. It is reckless for Assange to simply upload this much data without any way to know what might be dangerous. Manning and his superiors are ALL responsible. Since when, in a military intel setting, is it OK for a PFC to bring in RW CDs and “listen” to Lady Gaga while at work? Should some superior not at least have pulled out the headphone jack to see what is or is not coming through the speakers?
They should have been watching him at least as regularly as Pine Bluff, Arkansas, United States Headquarters, USAISC watches this blog. (Hi honey. I know you’re there and like to think you come here because you are a big Hillary fan, work a night shift, get bored, and take a break to see what she’s up to.)
LikeLike
LOL! You qualify as internet “chatter”?! It’s funny in a strange way. At the very least, I hope they get a laugh or two.
LikeLike
For all I know, it could be one of our friends who comments here!
LikeLike
The DOD should be shamefaced that department is basically the reason the DOS got ripped off. How nice for President Obama to get to do a presser saying he is gonna freeze wages for federal workers and not take any questions and leave Madam Secretary to bat back the sharks.
LikeLike
What else is new? He spent the weekend taking his kids to a basketball game while the SOS made all the phone calls. He wouldn’t have known what to say. Was it Vcal who said the new Oval Office decor was bland? Fits the personality of the occupant.
LikeLike
She has history with these people that Obama doesn’t, in some cases she’s known them for years. I think it’s better that he lay low and she put this fire out.
LikeLike
He couldn’t read a prepared statement off the teleprompter without stammering. What would happen with a question about this? o-o
LikeLike
If something big comes out, something with huge implications like the release of secret conversations with political dissitants or information on foreign officials actually in bed with their US counterparts (the latter is a joke, of course) I’d rather he stay out of it and let the State Dept. handle things for now. Besides, it shows how leader-like Madame Secretary can be. Maybe there’s a reason somebody wants that on display.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Gosh, I so agree. Hillary is so much better at handling this than any of the rest of them.
LikeLike
The Secretary was on her game today as always. She looked so Presidential. It’s a shame she worked so hard over the weekend, while he played, and played with a cut lip and all. lol Poor boy.
I heard Kerry’s remarks today on the Senate floor for Start Treaty along with Sen. Doran. I still have hopes this will pass before Christmas break and the new congress comes in.
LikeLike
Her presser will be on CSPAN in 10 minutes. 10:10 EST. Hope START is ratified!
LikeLike
I agree. SOS Clinton looks very presidential today.
Likewise PCFS, I hope START passes before Christmas.
LikeLike
[…] November 30, 2010 by still4hill I have been avoiding, and will probably continue to avoid, addressing specific documents in the Wikileaks document-dump. For one thisg, I prefer to read and post Secretary Clinton’s own words on context rather than some news org’s interprertation of them. For another, Mme. Secretary is doing a fine job, diplomat that she is, of addressing the situation on her own, and I have posted her remarks at Still4Hill. […]
LikeLike
I watched Hillary on CNN International. I’m in Manila right now — Filipino leftwing activists want our new president Aquino to demand an explanation from the US since apparently there are cables pertaining to Filipino leaders. Well, no surprise there. Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, after all, were the subject of numerous gossips, speculation etc that are not very far from the “Qaddafi and the voluptuous Ukrainian nurse. . .”, but I digress 🙂
Back to Hillary, I couldn’t help but smile while watching her make her statement. Damn! She was so presidential! And what made it even more so is that she agreed to take questions (even if only two). You know she’s not going to hide, and is not going to back down amid calls from variously motivated quarters that she should resign. But I also like that she’s not going overboard about whether to shut down websites or prosecute just to bully. She emphasizes that the documents are STOLEN, and whether they were classified or unclassified, or lead to deaths or not, I think her approach will make it easier to lay the foundations for a sound legal — and constitutional — case than the more extreme measures suggested especially by Republicans.
Anyway, I find this a fascinating read regarding the spy work at the UN: “US diplomats spied on UN leadership” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un?intcmp=239). The whole thing, to me, reflects the “global war on terror” run amuck, intelligence agencies out of control and cannot be controlled (hence the original leaks), and enhanced US efforts to keep control of friends and foes alike while it is declining in material (economic) power.
Some key excerpts:
LikeLike
I think she hit the proper balance with her remarks, and she was relaxed, but spot-on with her message.
I’m just glad Assange and wikileaks were not around in winter 1943 and spring 1944. Europe should be even more glad than I.
“Beaches: Five
Sword Beach
Juno Beach
Gold Beach
Omaha Beach
Pointe du Hoc
Utah Beach
Airborne and sea landings … late spring… “
LikeLike
I am so glad we have Hillary as SOS and not Kerry or Richardson (barf). I just can’t see either of them handling any of this with quite the aplomb that Hillary is.
LikeLike
I hope no one thinks I’m beating up an old horse on this, but if Hillary is going to be made to take the fall for this, the entire national security apparatus beginning from the occupant of the Oval Office should held to account. In the interest of clarity about exactly what is being talked about, here’s the full cable on spying in the UN; IT IS a continuation of the Bush policy (as if it’s a consolation): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/219058
Opening paragraphs:
Here’s a retired British diplomat’s take on the whole thing: “Wikileaks exposes Clinton’s cyberspy wish-list” (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/29/wikileaks_un_cyber/)
LikeLike
This particular cable, and it was the only one that really worried me, has all the earmarks of a form letter and the SOS signatures (both) the earmarks of a rubber stamp. Standard operating procedure. I am sure other foreign ministries issue the same sort of directives to their officials. Why should the U.S. be any less concerned or interested in knowing if the Brits have a double-agent working in some far-flung embassy? This is the kind of info that uncovers that sort of monkey business.
LikeLike
Aha! Pretty much what I said above. http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/hillary-clinton-didn-t-turn-diplomats-into-spies-20101130
h/t Sanders, who sent it to me.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, this isn’t going to be enough to satisfy people. They’ll argue that since it has her name on it, she has to take responsibility.
But both you and the article make excellent points.
LikeLike
Thanks for that link!
LikeLike
You’re welcome! And H/T to David Gergen! “Julian Assange is not fit to lick Hillary Clinton’s boots.”
LikeLike
I am disappointed in Robert Gates he should be taking the heat for this. His department allowed the leaks.
LikeLike
I’m so glad I stumbled across this site! I’d been trying to find a pro-Hillary place for some time now.
And both the comments made here and at the Department of Homegirl Security are 100% correct.
I don’t think Hillary is going to resign (nor should she), since she’s done nothing wrong. At least she’s got the strength and the determination to get things done (what one of my other favorite Secretaries of State, Madeleine Albright would call “cojones”), unlike her supposed boss over at her old place on Penn. Ave.
LikeLike
Welcome! All Hillary supporters are welcomed with open arms here!
LikeLike
Hillary hasn’t done anything wrong and she’s not a quitter. Unlike some 😉
LikeLike
😀 I’m so glad you’ll be around more.
LikeLike
I don’t think she should either but, now the hacker says she should.
LikeLike
Thanks for the warm welcome! It’s awesome to know that places like this are still out there.
I had been borderline about Assange before, but he’s completely pushed me over the edge. He’s got this messiah complex, and it’s freaking annoying and irresponsible.
I almost threw up when I read the blurb Wikileaks has about the cables. It’s all this airy-fairy, idealistic crap that makes it hard for me to ever take them seriously again.
LikeLike
That was the hacker’s whole reason for doing this. I am very suspicious re: who/what is behind this DOS odc-dump. It’s all couched in some military intel and gossipy stuff, but it’s very interesting that this comes right when the “White House Insider’s” leaks are looking very credible. Investigation of Manning needs to go well beyond his superiors.
LikeLike
Yeah this smells to high heaven
LikeLike
I just got into this yelling match with my dad re: WikiLeaks. I was pointing out, using both Hillary’s comments and this article from the Globe and Mail, that now various governments are going to be able to crack down even harder on these anti-corruption activists and other people. He just went on about how the State Department’s only job is to keep the “American Empire” going, and how we’ve turned our backs on these activists anyway.
I’m not naive; I know that the world is a dangerous place with nasty people and nasty methods. But I also know that the State Department is the best place to start dealing with those nasty people and methods. And, let’s be honest, we’ve got one of the few people as Secretary of State who’s willing and able to take on all comers, and still look damn good doing it.
LikeLike
😀 Yelling matches with dads are not uncommon around here. You’re will find yourself in good company!
Your 2nd paragraph is spot-on. And she is the best SOS I have ever seen!
LikeLike
😀 This place just gets better and better!
And, while I’ve only been alive for 7 Secretaries of State, she definitely tops the list. It’s no wonder, considering how close she and Madeleine are/were.
LikeLike
I’ve been alive for as many as Hillary has – she is the best. (That’s saying something – we were both alive for Marshall – my 8th grade term paper topic.)
LikeLike
That’s awesome!
I was browsing Newsweek for this article they had written on her back in 2009 where they compared her – favorably – to George Marshall, and during my browsing an article appeared that had the title “How Obama Could Actually Broker Mideast Peace” from September of this year.
I snickered a little, and then got quite angry. I don’t exactly see Obama out there busting his ass in foreign policy like Hillary is, or even like George Mitchell, the Mideast Peace Envoy. How’s Obama going to broker peace, by letting both sides have whatever they want?
I mean, at least Jimmy Carter *actually* personally negotiated.
LikeLike
Why whatever could you mean? 😉
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
US has troops in Afganistan and in lots of places, we’re in war against enemies, isn’t HILLARY supposed to gather all the info possible to prevent an attack? A responsible and caring leader would do that! Condi did the same and all the blame is on Hillary? Why? Americans should be thankful for that, but we don’t expect Hillary haters to do that! Thank you Hillary for the genuine love and service to your country!
LikeLike
Yes!
LikeLike
Because Condi isn’t the designated scapegoat to deflect from Obama.
LikeLike
Or a threat to run against him.
OH! *edited to add* THAT’s how to get him to step down. Condi puts up a test balloon for the GOP nod. He would do an LBJ before he could say Condoleeza. Then she would drop out and Hillary would get the Dem nod! This works for me.
LikeLike
Agreed!!!!!!!
LikeLike
[…] overburdened shoulders. Of course this kind of textual cherry-picking is a big reason why the Still4Hill blog * depends upon the Secretary’s own words rather than articles about them, and DeHoS does not […]
LikeLike
[…] Remarks to the Press on the Release of Confidential Documents […]
LikeLike
[…] Clinton is one person on the world stage who most personally felt the impact of wikileaks since she was the one who had to make the “apology tour” in late 2010 […]
LikeLike
[…] Secretary Clinton’s Remarks to the Press on the Release of Confidential Documents […]
LikeLike
[…] Secretary Clinton’s Remarks to the Press on the Release of Confidential Documents […]
LikeLike