Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2010

Different sources have it at different durations, but by any measure, this was a whopper of a “crunch meeting.”  They began the day looking fresh and beaming.

Mme. Secretary joked about the “million pictures of us doing the handshake.”   One wonders how they appeared emerging after the second marathon to be run in NYC inside of a single week.  How many water bottles?

The Jerusalem Post has it at seven plus hours.

Netanyahu, Clinton meeting ends after 7 hours

By HILARY KRIEGER, TOVAH LAZAROFF JORDANA HORN 11/12/2010 01:08

Marathon bid held to find path to new peace talks; US Secretary of State calls the prime minister a “peacemaker”; Israeli officials call meetings “very serious,” say “everything is on the table.”

//

NEW YORK – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu held talks that were “friendly and productive” and stressed the importance of continuing direct negotiations in pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord, according to a joint statement put out by the two governments Thursday evening.

Read the article>>>>


Laura Rozen at Politico has it a little shorter.

Clinton-Bibi hold marathon six hour meeting

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met for almost six hours with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Regency Hotel in New York today.

Following their marathon meeting, the Prime Minister’s Office and State Department sent out a joint statement, describing “good discussions” that involved “a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides.”

Read the article>>>>

 

Here is the joint statement as released moments ago by the State Department.

Joint Statement of the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel and The Office of the Secretary of State of The United States

Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
November 11, 2010

 


 

Begin Text

‪‪Prime Minister Netanyahu and Secretary Clinton had a good discussion today, with a friendly and productive exchange of views on both sides. Secretary Clinton reiterated the United States’ unshakable commitment to Israel’s security and to peace in the region.

‪‪The Prime Minister and the Secretary agreed on the importance of continuing direct negotiations to achieve our goals. The Secretary reiterated that “the United States believes that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state, based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.” Those requirements will be fully taken into account in any future peace agreement.

‪‪‪The discussions between the Prime Minister and the Secretary focused on creating the conditions for the resumption of direct negotiations aimed at producing a two-state solution. Their teams will work closely together in the coming days toward that end.

 

Well, that does not tell us anything that we have not seen before.  One thing we can surmise is that this was a tough meeting and all the issues were on the table.  Beyond that, we cannot really guess.  Given Mme. Secretary’s meeting yesterday with Egyptian FM Gheit and her teleconference with Palestinian PM Fayyad, points of view from those parties were surely represented.  We can only hope that reason will prevail in the best interests of everyone involved.

Read Full Post »

Video Remarks for International Education Week

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 10, 2010

The Department of State is proud to join the Department of Education to celebrate the 11th annual International Education Week. I’ve always believed that diplomacy does not just happen between government officials. It also happens between individuals through people to people connections. And student exchanges are some of the most important people to people connections we can have. For hundreds of thousands of students each year, exchanges promote mutual understanding and bring people of different nations together to share ideas and compare values. They also nurture leadership skills that prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century.

The Department of State remains committed to these exchanges and we strongly support expanding study abroad opportunities to a diverse range of communities so that talented students around the world can tap into the power and possibility of international exchanges.

I encourage schools, non-profits, community organizations, and businesses around the world to promote these educational exchanges, and to help us raise awareness during International Education Week. Please log on to iew.state.gov to learn more about how you can become involved. Thank you very much.

Read Full Post »

Well, the State Department is not issuing a public schedule, evidently, but despite the holiday, as the Army anthem goes, affairs of State and the duties of the Secretary of State keep rolling along without respite. As readers here are aware, Mme. Secretary spent the morning in what is being reported as a “crunch meeting” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Clinton, Israeli PM to meet amid settlement row

by Ron Bousso Ron Bousso Thu Nov 11, 7:46 am ET 

NEW YORK (AFP) – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday as new strains between the two allies over Jewish settlements cloud hopes for further peace talks.

Ahead of the meeting, President Barack Obama and Clinton led global criticism of Israel’s latest plans to build 1,300 houses in occupied east Jerusalem, where the Palestinian wish to form the capital of their future state.

Read the article>>>>>

In that the State Department communications nerve center never shuts down and routinely issues communiques over weekends, I would expect that the holiday should not prevent a press release about the results of this meeting in a timely fashion. Should that be the case, the information will be posted on this blog.

Meanwhile, all we have are these images to fathom the tenor of this meeting as it got off to its start this morning. From the looks of things, Mme. Secretary was mounting another of her often successful “charm offensives.” She looks so optimistic and cheerful. Behind closed doors, however, my guess is that, while probably never turning off the 1000 watt smile, she added a layer of toughness. Her statement in her teleconference with Palestinian PM Fayyad yesterday was our stance in a nutshell. Big bright smile notwithstanding… here is what she said.

Before I address the subject of my announcement today, I want to also address what I know is on the minds of many of you. The United States was deeply disappointed by the announcement of advanced planning for new housing units in sensitive areas of East Jerusalem. This announcement was counterproductive to our efforts to resume negotiations between the parties.

**UPDATE** The State Department did issue their remarks.  See below the slideshow.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Remarks With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Before Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Regency Hotel
New York City
November 11, 2010

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, can I ask you a small question (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: A small question? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: A little one.

SECRETARY CLINTON: A little one.

QUESTION: Why would you – why do you think the building in Jerusalem is counterproductive if it has been going on for more than 40 years now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re going to be talking about everything and I will save my comments beyond what I’ve already said to talk to the prime minister. I’m very pleased to be here and to have this opportunity to discuss with him how we’re going to move forward in the process.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Well, I’m very happy that we have the opportunity to actually meet. We’ve been talking on the phone quite intensively over the last few weeks. The last time we met was in Cairo and Jerusalem – in Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem in the (inaudible) of direct negotiations. We’ve been talking and will talk today about how to resume them to continue this process to get the historic agreement with peace and security between us and the Palestinians. I would like to add that we also hope to broaden it to many other Arab countries. So this is our common goal. We’re quite serious about doing it and we want to get on with it, so you’ll have to stop asking questions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the resumption of the peace talks soon?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s what we’re going to be discussing. We’re both very committed to it. I know and I’ve said repeatedly that the prime minister and President Abbas are both very committed to the two-state solution and we’re going to find a way forward.

QUESTION: Is there a formula? Is there a formula (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You must have a million pictures of us doing the handshake. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is there a formula that (inaudible)?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

Read Full Post »

This one is especially for Lilly! Her Prime Minister received the Glamour Award as Hillary did last year. Congratulations to PM Radicova!
 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Read Full Post »

Remarks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 10, 2010

 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. I am delighted, once again, to welcome the foreign minister and his distinguished delegation, including General Sulayman back to Washington. The foreign minister and I have developed a close and productive working relationship, and I always look forward to our discussions. 

The partnership between the United States and Egypt is a cornerstone of stability and security in the Middle East and beyond, and we look to Egypt for regional and global leadership on a wide range of issues. This is a relationship rooted in mutual respect and common interests and a history of cooperation and a shared vision for the future.

At the top of our list is a shared commitment to the goal of a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians and a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. I greatly appreciate Egypt’s leadership in this effort, and in particular, I wish to commend the personal commitment of President Mubarak. We spoke about this issue at length, and I had the opportunity earlier today to speak with Prime Minister Fayyad when I announced an additional contribution of $150 million to the Palestinian Authority. So let me again thank Egypt for your many efforts toward peace and your constant support and advice.

We also discussed our shared hope that Iraqis will soon form an inclusive government that reflects the interests and the needs of the entire Iraqi population and shares power fairly and legitimately. Both the United States and Egypt are committed to the future of the Iraqi people and their efforts to build a stable, sovereign and self-reliant nation. We will continue working closely together to achieve that goal.

The foreign minister and I also agreed on the importance of a peaceful outcome for Sudan, a peaceful outcome between the North and the South, the need for the parties to make progress in their talks on outstanding issues, especially agreeing on a way forward for the Abyei region.

And on Lebanon, we reconfirmed our support for the work of the special tribunal and our shared commitment to strong, independent and stable Lebanon. And I want to emphasize that the foreign minister and I are absolutely clear that we are critical of and condemning of any efforts to discredit, hinder, or delay the tribunal’s work. That cannot be tolerated. The people of Lebanon, indeed the world, expect and deserve the highest standards of judicial independence and integrity, and I am pleased that the United States recently pledged additional funding to support the tribunal’s work.

The minister and I discussed many issues, and we have a very good and open basis for our conversation. It is important that we do everything we can at a particularly sensitive time in the region, to try to redouble our efforts to achieve a two-state solution, to help stabilize the situation in Sudan, and to work to ensure that the people of Lebanon can have accountability in the search for justice.

So Foreign Minister, I thank you for your partnership and look forward to continuing to work together.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: Thank you. Thank you very much, Secretary. I feel that you didn’t leave me anything to say —

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s a first. (Laughter.)

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: — after you covered everything. But I wish to say that President Mubarak asked General Sulayman and myself to come to Washington, and we maintain that kind of frequent visits coming to the American capital, as well as American officials, they keep coming to Egypt for that process – strategic process of consultations between Egypt and the United States, because both countries are working for the stability and the prevalent of peace in that part of – in that tormented part of the world, because I have to admit it is a tormented part of the world.

Today we engaged in a discussion on the American effort to bring both parties, the Palestinians and the Israelis, to come back to negotiations and we feel a certain satisfaction of – on the effort that America is doing and conducting. We gave them our point of view and we discussed with them at length the way we look at things, and I think they listened and they listened attentively.

At the same time, we discussed a range of other issues. We discussed Lebanon, the need for the stability of Lebanon, the need for the tribunal to continue its legal work. The tribunal has been established by the Security Council of the United Nations. Then it is a body that no one can disband or disregard. We also discussed the situation in Sudan, the Egyptian ideas, the American ideas, how to ensure that Sudan reaches the point of conducting a proper transparent referendum without violence and that there should not be violence after the results of the referendum has been revealed or established.

We also had our discussions on Iraq and the need to see, hopefully soon, an Iraqi Government whereby all Iraqi factions and all Iraqi (inaudible) would be participants to such a government in order to ensure stability and peace in that brotherly country. I think it was amongst the best discussions we had over a long period of time. And I think such discussions would reveal a prosperous future soon hopefully.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll begin with Mark Landler of The New York Times.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. A question for you: Israel’s announcement on new housing in East Jerusalem prompted the Palestinians to declare again that they may contemplate the idea of declaring statehood unilaterally. Are you concerned that with this continuing impasse on the issue of settlements that there is a danger that that could indeed happen? And what message would you give them in light of the lack of progress on the talks?

And if I could just tack one on on Iran, the Iranians have talked about a meeting in Turkey to discuss a number of issues. Given the U.S.’s declared preference for the P-5+1 structure, how would you react to the prospect of a meeting in Turkey that could include the Turks and perhaps even the Brazilians as participants?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Mark, as to the first question, we have always said and I continue to say that negotiations between the parties is the only means by which all of the outstanding claims arising out of the conflict can be resolved. There is no doubt in my mind that in order to conclude an agreement, the parties must discuss the final status issues. And we would urge both parties to commence, once again, such a discussion. Each party has a very strong set of opinions about the way forward. There can be no progress until they actually come together and explore where areas of agreement are and how to narrow areas of disagreement. So we do not support unilateral steps by either party that could prejudge the outcome of such negotiations.

It remains my belief, and I said it again this morning, that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas want to see a conclusion of negotiations that leads to a two-state solution, Israel living in security, the Palestinians living within their own state. The only way to get there is to have these negotiations, and the United States stands ready to do everything we can to support that.

With respect to Iran, I spoke yesterday with the European Union High Representative Cathy Ashton. She is the person who will determine on behalf of the P-5+1 when and where we would meet with the Iranians. And that is the first meeting that must occur. It is a P-5+1 meeting with the Iranians. And the location has been discussed, and I believe that High Representative Ashton will be responding to the Iranians about where that should be and on what date. But at this moment, the offer of discussions with the Iranians is in that forum and that is the appropriate venue for any discussion on any issue to occur.

MR. CROWLEY: Ezzat Ibrahim from Al-Ahram

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, what about the policy shift of the United States toward the case of Abyei region in Sudan, that in the last couple of days we are witnessing a lot of changes in the U.S. position.

And my question to Minister Aboul Gheit about the – what did you raise today about the Egyptian ideas concerning the relaunching of negotiation between Israel and Palestinians? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I will start. And the United States has not changed our position about the fundamental core issue, which is that the North and South have to make an agreement to move forward. And not only do they have to make an agreement about how they will proceed in what form they will move into the future, but all the issues that have to be resolved going forward. So I know that there is an upcoming referendum. No matter what happens in that referendum, it is our view that the parties still have a lot of issues to work out together.

And what we have been trying to do, what the Egyptians have been trying to do, what the African Union has been trying to do, and so many others, is to bring the parties together to carefully think through all of the issues that they have to work out together. I think the best description is that either they’re going to stay married and get along better or they’re going to get divorced and it needs to be a peaceful, civil divorce. And in any event, there has to be a lot of careful thought about how they’re going to live together, because just – it’s simple to say the land is not going to break apart. They’re going to still be connected, and they have to work out all of the issues between the two of them.

And as to Abyei, what we have said is we want to see the issues resolved. And perhaps the issues can be resolved before the referendum, because if they have a referendum then they’re going to have to resolve the issues after the referendum. So there’s an enormous amount of work going on and a lot of pressure from all the neighbors and many others who are trying to bring the two parties to sit down and negotiate through all the various issues that they must decide in order to have a peaceful outcome.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: Yes, you do not expect me to reveal to you what we brought to the United States in discussions with the Americans on the peace effort, or else we would be advising them or consulting with them in public and that should not be the case. However, yes, I cannot reveal to you what we discussed. However, I have to tell you that we are concerned. We are concerned because we feel that Israel is not doing what is required on the Israeli side to do. That is one aspect.

Second, we feel that the Americans are doing a real effort, and that effort should be enhanced and buttressed by countries like Egypt.

Then, thirdly, we discussed with them the issue of the Arab League and the future activities of the Arab Peace Committee and when to meet and how to handle the situation.

Fourth, and that is most important, what are the possibilities for renewing negotiations and how would we ensure that such negotiations, when resumed, they do not be interrupted the way they have been interrupted three weeks after the meetings in Washington on the 2nd of September.

That is, in general, what we discussed.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER GHEIT: Thank you very much.

Read Full Post »

Mme. Secretary is back on her high wire this week. Tomorrow she meets with Netanyahu in NYC. It would be really nice if, after that, she were just to go home for the weekend, but the last time she was in NYC on a Thursday, she went back to DC for a full Friday. I cannot win! She pays no attention to what I wish!

Announcement of the Transfer of Budget Assistance Funds to the Palestinian Authority

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad
Via Satellite
Washington, DC
November 10, 2010

 


 

MR. CROWLEY: Good morning and welcome to the Department of State. We have a global traveler back with us after 30,000 air miles in the Asia region. But clearly, what the Secretary will talk about today underscores our ongoing, significant commitment to the Palestinian Authority and to helping build the institutions of the Palestinian Authority as we continue to press the parties for direct negotiations.

But without further ado, Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, P.J., and good morning, everybody. Now, are we going to have the prime minister on the screen?

STAFF: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: There he is. (Laughter.) Hello. Well, I am delighted to see Prime Minister Fayyad, and this link-up is the next best thing to being together in person. And I welcome our guests here in Washington and say hello to everyone in Ramallah.

Before I address the subject of my announcement today, I want to also address what I know is on the minds of many of you. The United States was deeply disappointed by the announcement of advanced planning for new housing units in sensitive areas of East Jerusalem. This announcement was counterproductive to our efforts to resume negotiations between the parties. We have long urged both parties to avoid actions which could undermine trust, including in Jerusalem. We will continue to work to resume negotiations to address this and other final status issues.

We, along with many others, are working every day, indeed every hour, to help create the conditions for negotiations to succeed. We still believe that a positive outcome is both possible and necessary. I will be seeing Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow in New York and consultations continue on all sides and we will persevere.

Now, as Prime Minister Fayyad understands so well, we have to move forward together simultaneously, and mutually reinforcing on two tracks – the hard work of negotiations and the hard work of building institutions and capacities. We need to work with the Palestinian Authority to support their efforts to build toward a future Palestinian state that is able to govern itself, uphold its responsibilities to provide for its own people, and ensure security. Progress on this second track gives confidence to negotiators, removes excuses for delay, and underscores that the Palestinian Authority has become a credible partner for peace.

Now, earlier this fall, I was able to visit Ramallah and see firsthand the continuing progress that the Palestinian Authority is making under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Thanks to their hard work, the Palestinian Authority is reversing a history of corruption and producing results that actually matter and improve the lives of Palestinians. As a result, new businesses are opening, taxes are being collected, services are being delivered, security is much improved and the economy is growing.

When you look around Ramallah and other Palestinian communities today, you see new buildings going up, professional police officers on the streets, and a sense of opportunity and purpose. In fact, the World Bank recently concluded that if the Palestinian Authority maintains its momentum in building institutions and delivering public services, it is, and I quote, “well positioned for the establishment of a state at any point in the near future.” So I want to congratulate President Abbas and you, Prime Minister, on everything that your government has accomplished. It is a testament to your leadership and skill as well as to the talents and determination of the Palestinian people themselves.

Now, of course, the prime minister would be the first to say that all this progress remains tenuous and there is much more work to be done, and he would be right. Unemployment remains high, especially among young people. Smaller communities have yet to see the benefits of greater prosperity despite the increase in new businesses, the rise in tax receipts, and the generous contributions from the international community. The Palestinian Authority still faces a serious budget shortfall.

But the United States and our international partners are committed to supporting the Palestinian Authority as it works to overcome these challenges. So today, I am pleased to announce that the United States has transferred an additional $150 million in direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority. This brings our direct budget assistance to a total of $225 million for the year and our overall support and investment to nearly $600 million this year. This figure underscores the strong determination of the American people and this Administration to stand with our Palestinian friends even during difficult economic times, as we have here at home.

This new funding will help the Palestinian Authority pay down its debt, continue to deliver services and security to its people, and keep the progress going. It will support our work together to expand Palestinians’ access to schools, clinics, and clean drinking water in both the West Bank and Gaza. And it will allow Prime Minister Fayyad’s government to build and modernize courthouses and police stations, train judges and prosecutors, and launch new economic development initiatives.

Strict safeguards are in place to ensure the money will be used responsibly. The United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund all carefully monitor the use of donor funds and we have great confidence in Prime Minister Fayyad and his ability to provide accountability and transparency.

I am pleased that a number of our other partners have stepped forward recently and also increased their support for the Palestinian Authority. Saudi Arabia recently transferred an additional $100 million. The United Arab Emirates provided a funding infusion in September and the European Union also announced major new funding.

On my recent trip to Asia, I was encouraged to hear widespread support for the Palestinian Authority’s state building efforts underscoring, again, the global resonance of this issue. The United States will step up our work with partners like Japan, Malaysia, Australia, and others to find new ways to increase financial support for the Palestinian Authority. Now, unfortunately the Palestinian people still have some friends who prefer to support their aspirations with words rather than deeds. But that won’t put food on the table, create jobs, build credible institutions, or help speed the creation of a new state. Palestinians need results, not rhetoric. And they need partners willing to invest in their future. And that is exactly what the United States is doing. And together we are moving forward despite the challenges, and there are many.

We take confidence from the steady leadership and bold vision of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. So let me thank the prime minister for his tireless efforts to realize the dreams of the Palestinian people and for being a consistent voice for progress and common sense. So now, Mr. Prime Minister, it’s your turn to say a few words. And we hope that our connection works better than it did the last time we tried this.

PRIME MINISTER FAYYAD: I sure hope so. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Very good.

PRIME MINISTER FAYYAD: We tested it. Let me first introduce my party here I have with me. First, Consul General of the United States Daniel Rubinstein, Head of – Director of USAID Mission, here Mr. Michael Harvey. I have also with me my colleague in government, Dr. Ali Jarbawi, our Minister of Planning. Documentation that pertains to the transfer has just been signed and concluded. So let me now begin, Madam Secretary, by once again thanking you for taking the time to be with us this morning your time, evening ours, to announce the transfer that you just announced of $150 million in support of the Palestinian Authority budget.

We really appreciate this assistance because it is highly responsive to our needs in two ways. First, in terms of the type of assistance, it being of the form of budget support is the kind of assistance that we need the most, as it helps us deal with the needs that we have to deal with and actually meet the duties, obligations, the responsibilities that we have to discharge in the course of doing the best we can in the interest of bringing about better life for our people. It also is highly responsive to our needs in the sense of its timeliness. As you well know, Madam Secretary, and we have talked about this a number of times, we have faced quite serious financial difficulty for the past few months that made our life extremely difficult in terms of meeting those obligations that we have in a timely fashion.

So the money and the substantial amount it is, the transfer, that is, of $150 million and the timeliness of it, could not really be better. We thank you very much for the responsiveness and also for splendid staff work on your part both in Washington as well as here to make this happen (inaudible) actually happen. It’s an opportunity for me to once again reiterate the Palestinian Authority’s deep appreciation for the longstanding support of the United States of our common development and adjustment and reform efforts. As a matter of fact, over a period – since the inception of Palestinian Authority, the United States has actually extended assistance in the total amount of about $3.5 billion over the period 1994 through 2010. About half of this money actually was made available over the past three years plus a few months. Half of that is in the form of budget support. And to be exact, $800 million of this total assistance has been over the past three years in the form of direct budgetary support. And this brings me to the second point.

Apart from the volume, the magnitude of this generous transfer, the form in which it was delivered, the modality of its delivery, meaning directly to our budget, underscores the confidence which once again the United States Government Congress also have in the integrity of our public finance system. We Palestinians take this as a matter of pride, immense pride, in fact. And in fact, it reflects the kind of progress that we have been able to make over the past few years in trying to get our institutions in the state of being – in the shape of being state ready.

Readiness for statehood is, in fact, the key objective of the program that we launched, Madame Secretary, in August of 2009 with the aim of completing the task of capacity building and also amass a critical mass of positive change on the ground in the form of maturing governance processes but also infrastructure of state. We are well on our way, also judging by that statement which you were kind to, as a matter of fact, read out today again by the World Bank about the expectation of us being ready for statehood at any point in the near future on the strength of what we have been able to accomplish over the first half of this three-year program. So we are well on track. We are determined to stay the course despite the difficulties and obstacles that we continue to have to contend with every day. Nevertheless, we, as I said, remain hopeful that we are actually going to be state ready come summer of 2011. It’s a goal that we are doing our (inaudible) best, in fact, to meet.

I said what I said about the U.S. assistance that has been made available in support of our budget, the direct budgetary assistance, but that is in addition, of course, to other forms of assistance that you have mentioned, Madam Secretary, that went a long way toward supporting the Palestinian Authority in various spheres of government and also infrastructure. I can tell you for sure without much difficulty that there is hardly any sign of visible progress on the ground in Palestine today that does not have the caring fingerprints of USAID on it.

I’m talking to you, Madam Secretary, and to your colleagues in Washington about, for example, physical infrastructure, including water, electricity, road networks. I’m talking to you also about social services, importantly, education, health, social assistance. I’m talking to you also about the assistance that you have so generously provided to help us with capacity building in all spheres of government, including security. I can go on, but as I said, there’s hardly a sign of visible progress that does not have a contribution of the United States Government associated with it.

We thank you very much. That has helped our effort, as a matter of fact. And over the past nearly three years now, just under three years, we’ve been able to implement some 1,700 small community development programs that have contributed remarkably to bringing about better living conditions for our people in spite of the occupation and its adversity.

As you mentioned, unemployment remains high. It has trended downward over this time period. It is lower than it was a couple of years ago, but it still remains high. It’s a challenge and we’re working very hard to reduce it further.

Poverty has declined by nearly one-third over the period 2007-2009, so there are, as a matter of fact, signs of progress, signs that are strongly suggestive of this effort being on track. And if, in fact, we were to continue with it, as we fully intend to do, we believe that we are actually going to see the tangible results that our people started to feel throughout the country. I’m talking about not only dwellers of urban areas, but I’m talking especially about people in rural areas, refugee camps throughout, areas that have been long marginalized and areas that have been so adversely affected by the construction of the separation wall as well as settlement activity.

So we appreciate the assistance. We appreciate the vote of confidence that comes with that. Let me also add, Madam Secretary, that we are doing this in addition to it being done in the context of this reform effort and adjustment effort and state-building effort, it also is important to happening in a context of declining need for external assistance. This is a key objective of ours and it defines very much the kind of thinking that we have insofar as economic viability is concerned, financial viability is concerned. I can tell you for sure that our need for exceptional financial support has already declined substantially from about $1.8 billion in 2008 to about $1.2 billion this year. That is a decline of about one-third in our reliance on external assistance and aid money. The prospect is for further reduction in 2011. In fact, we look to 2011 as the year in which we expect to make decisive (inaudible) towards attaining financial viability by end 2013, at which point we will no longer, we expect, need any more the kind of assistance that we are getting from you today in the form of direct budgetary assistance, which we hope will also be seen as a sign of maturity, maturing institutions of state, governments (inaudible) the kind of accomplishment and progress that you – and delivery that you expect countries that have been around a long time to be able to do but without considerable difficulty.

So here we are, Madam Secretary. We are well on our way trying to do the best we can in a highly challenging environment. The context is very difficult. I alluded to some of the difficulties that we have. I very much appreciate the statement that you made at the outset in relation to further announcement of yet another expansion of settlement activity in the Jerusalem area this time around, as it happened before. That remains a very serious challenge and a problem for all of us.

So therefore, Madam Secretary, in the period ahead we certainly will continue to look to you for continued strong leadership as you continue to try hard to put together elements that are necessary to have a strong political process, a credible political process, one that is capable of delivering that which we all want to see happen, an end to the Israeli occupation. And of course, the day will come when that state of Palestine will be born so our people can live in freedom and dignity in a country of our own. That’s what this is about, and we look to you again for continued strong leadership as we move forward down this path which has witnessed a great deal of difficulty. Nevertheless, we are determined and we remain hopeful on the strength of what we’ve been able to accomplish here and the hope and expectation that those (inaudible) along the path of state building and getting ready for statehood, on the strength of what that is expected to do by reinforcing the effort on the political process (inaudible).

Once again, Madam Secretary, on behalf of the Palestinian people, on behalf of President Abbas, Palestinian National Authority, my colleagues in government, I thank you personally for the effort that you have made to support us and for your continued and longstanding support, for the efforts of your colleagues. I thank President Obama, U.S. Congress, and of course, the American people for this largesse. Thank you so very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Prime Minister. We greatly appreciate your efforts and your very gracious words about our country and our support for you. Now I think I’m going to take a question here. Is that what’s happening?

MR. CROWLEY: (Inaudible.) You’ve got the meeting with the Vice President coming up.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. Well, I can probably take one question maybe. Okay.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, we’ve seen all the controversy develop this week on settlements between the Israeli Government, the Palestinians, and the Administration. So what do you think you can achieve on that front by talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow? And how do you assess the hope of resuming the peace talks at all?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I believe strongly that negotiations are the only means by which the parties will be able to conclude an agreement that will lead to a Palestinian state and Israel living in security with its neighbors. That is our view. That is our commitment. And I’m going to be speaking with the prime minister tomorrow once again about the way forward. I remain convinced that both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas want to realize the two-state solution. Like any very difficult political challenge, it is often hard to find the path forward. But we are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to assist the parties in doing so.

Thank you all.

MR. CROWLEY: Thank you very much.

Read Full Post »

Public Schedule for November 10, 2010

Washington, DC
November 10, 2010

 


SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 

10:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton announces the transfer of budget assistance funds to the Palestinian Authority, in the Press Briefing Room at the Department of State. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad participates via digital video conference.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)

11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Vice President Biden, at the White House.
(MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

1:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, at the Department of State.
(JOINT PRESS AVAILABILITY FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 2:05 P.M.)

3:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with Slovak Prime Minister Iveta Radicova, at the Department of State.
(CAMERA SPRAY PRECEDING BILATERAL MEETING)

5:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Kamala Persad-Bissessar, at the Department of State.
(MEDIA TO BE DETERMINED)

Read Full Post »

Source: ABC News Nightline

More video, text, and transcripts can be found here>>>>

Transcript released by the State Department.

Interview With Cynthia McFadden of ABC’s Nightline

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Grand Hyatt Hotel
Melbourne, Australia
November 7, 2010

QUESTION: Well, thank you both. I came over on your plane, I’m going home on your plane. His is bigger.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) I’m not surprised.

SECRETARY GATES: Proportionate to the budgets.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t know. He has a plane with no windows. Did you bring the no-window plane?

SECRETARY GATES: Yes.

QUESTION: The Doom’s Day plane. I told –

SECRETARY GATES: It’s like being Fed-Exed around the world.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Did you get scanned and screened?

QUESTION: Well, that’s a good point. Historically, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have not exactly been best buddies. Fair to say?

SECRETARY GATES: More than fair to say.

QUESTION: So I’m interested in the relationship that the two of you have forged over the last couple of years.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we didn’t get the memo about how we were supposed to be diametrically opposite of everything. And, in fact, we’ve had, both us, the experience of former Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of State and former National Security advisors sort of shaking their head in wonder, like, you guys are not in the groove here; you’re supposed to be constantly at each other’s throat.

It’s been, for me, a real please to work with Bob and to find that we have a lot in common. We have different experiences that we bring to the table, but I think we have very – a very common view about some of the National Security challenges we face.

QUESTION: Well, do you share a core – a sort of world view, do you think? Is that the basis of the relationship?

SECRETARY GATES: I think we have a very compatible view of the world, but I would just, in terms of the question that you put to Hillary, I think my approach has been shaped very much by the fact that I spent almost nine years on the National Security Council staff under four different Presidents. And I would see the interagency bicker, and every now and then I’d say at a meeting, “There, for a moment, I thought we all worked for the same government.” And I came out of that experience believing that the President was very badly served by senior members of the government who bicker and quarrel with each other, and particularly in public.

And that – and I think the starting point is the Secretary of Defense acknowledging that the Secretary of State is the principle spokesperson for American foreign policy. And so we have our role, but the Secretary of State has her role. And I think acknowledging that – because a lot of time in the past where I have seen this conflict, and it’s been more characteristic than not going back a long time of conflict, I think it’s because the Secretary of Defense has been unwilling to sort of see this division of labor within the government.

SECRETARY CLINTON: With Bob’s extensive experience in government and different positions – because, obviously, he was in the White House, he was at the CIA, he’s now at the Defense Department – he’s developed this perspective of trying to cut through the shaft. I mean, get to the meat of the matter, figure out what it is we’re trying to accomplish, what our goals are, what’s the best way of getting there. And it’s not that we agree on everything, but we come to our internal debates with a respect for the other person and an understanding of the institutional prerogatives that we both each represent. For me, it’s been a particular pleasure to work him.

QUESTION: So I’m going to go back before you all became so kum-ba-ya with each other. (Laughter.) Like, all right, so you got appointed first. Right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, he was there.

QUESTION: Well, no, but Obama – had the President asked you to stay?

SECRETARY GATES: We were actually all announced the same day.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, in Chicago.

SECRETARY GATES: In Chicago.

QUESTION: And so when you heard she was Secretary of State, you thought – because you didn’t really know each other.

SECRETARY GATES: Yeah.

QUESTION: What did you think? What was the first thing that went through your head?

SECRETARY GATES: I was – I thought it was going to be interesting. That’s – all I knew about Hillary was what I’ve seen on TV and so on.

QUESTION: And what did you think? Tough?

SECRETARY GATES: Yeah.

QUESTION: Smart?

SECRETARY GATES: Yeah. And – but somebody who also was very effective in communicating.

QUESTION: And?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I had been on the Armed Services Committee, so I had the experience sitting on the other side of the table from Bob when he came to testify as Secretary of Defense. And it was such a change from his predecessor, Mr. Rumsfeld, because this Secretary would actually answer questions. He would express his opinion. He was extremely straightforward, and I welcomed that. So – although I didn’t know him personally until we started serving together, I had observed him on several occasions and believed that he was a straightforward Midwesterner who could get to the heart of an issue and stake a claim as to what he thought was the right thing to do, and I admire that.

QUESTION: Because you do understand from a distance, you look at the two of you and just say, “Mm, maybe not so much.” Besides the Midwestern thing, we’ve got a Republican, we’ve got a Democrat, we’ve got a guy who’s married to a woman who can’t stand politics– (laughter) – we‘ve got a woman whose married to a guy who – most days he likes politics.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Yeah, but Cynthia, I mean, part of the experience of working with someone is to get beyond all of that – I mean, the caricatures and the stereotypes, the superficial kinds of characterization. And what I know about Bob Gates is that he’s a real patriot. He loves our country and that’s how I feel about myself. I mean, I took the job I have, in part, because I felt like when your President asks you to serve, you should serve. And this man has spent the better part of his life serving our country. So I am not in any way surprised that we have developed a good working relationship, because despite what are, from my perspective, superficial differences, we both have a highly developed responsibility gene, and we have a long history of service, and we approach this job with a great deal of seriousness.

SECRETARY GATES: I’d make a couple of other points I think. I think we both recognize that many of the challenges we face require what we call a whole-of-government approach. And that means the State Department and the Defense Department above all have to work together, and that signal has to be sent from the top. And if the people who work for us know that we get along and work cooperatively with one another, or even when we’ve come at problems with a different perspective, it radiates through the entire bureaucracy.

So the people who work for every cabinet Secretary who come in every day trying to set their hair on fire, that some other cabinet officer’s done some egregious – committed some egregious sin and therefore we ought to set the whole place on fire, once they realize that’s not career enhancing that, well, that doesn’t sound like what Hillary’s told me. I’ll just pick up the phone and call her. And then all of a sudden they realize – and so that becomes, I think, also very important.

QUESTION: In the new Woodward book, the two of you are referred to as “blocks of granite.”

SECRETARY GATES: I (inaudible) that.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you plead guilty?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have no idea. I don’t know. Is that a compliment? I mean –

(laughter).

QUESTION: I’m asking you. Two of the five blocks of granite in terms of setting Afghanistan policy, and if the book is to believe – be believed, really pushing President Obama toward increasing troop strength in Afghanistan.

SECRETARY GATES: I think that – let me just put it this way, I found the review that we went through a year ago really an important one.

QUESTION: Because?

SECRETARY GATES: Because I learned some things. I adjusted some positions. I changed my views on some things in the course of that four and a half months or so. Well, the July ’11 date to begin withdrawal is one example. I had opposed any kind of dates or deadlines in Iraq, relentless, but –

QUESTION: Because you felt it gave comfort to the enemy?

SECRETARY GATES: Yeah, and denied us flexibility. But the way that it was framed and the President’s decision, and the way we talked about it – about how do you give the Afghan Government a sense of urgency that they have to take ownership of this thing, we’re not going – how do you assure, tell them and the American people we’re not going to be there forever, and you weigh that against – well, does it give some relief to the Taliban? And because of the way we discussed it and the way that the pace of the withdrawals beginning in July ’11 will be based on the conditions on the ground – if the Taliban are telling their supporters and their soldiers today, the Americans are leaving in July of 2011, they’re going to discover very quickly in August and September of 2011, we’re still there and we’re still out there killing. And so weighing those two things, I came to believe that that was the right decision. So – but that was a change of position for me.

QUESTION: What about you, Secretary Clinton?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think Bob has described the process well. It was very thorough. We had many meetings where people freely expressed their views. There was a lot of give-and-take, and I, too, learned different perspectives. There was a lot of drilling down into what was meant by counterinsurgency, what it would take in various districts in Afghanistan to win the trust of the people, what we would have to do to improve governance. It was a complex and serious effort. At the – I did not enter into it with any preconceived opinion. I entered into it with an open mind because it was a very serious undertaking.

QUESTION: Do you feel the two of you entered that pushing the President, or do you feel that he, at the end of the day, felt comfortable?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think the President was committed to the process and was open and very clear that he was going to make this decision, which he did after listening to everyone. I don’t think his conclusions agreed with any one person. I think he drew from many of us to compose what he thought was the best policy.

QUESTION: So defeat al-Qaida and downgrade the Taliban, the goal? Yes? Still the goal?

SECRETARY GATES: Reverse the momentum on the Taliban, deny them control of the populated areas, degrade their capabilities, build the Afghan National Security forces so that between the degrading of the Taliban and the elevating of the Afghan forces, within some period of time, the Afghans will be able to make sure their territory is no longer – can never again be a platform for launching attacks against anybody.

QUESTION: So how are we doing? Because a report that was leaked in October from the White House indicated not so well.

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I – this is – as I reported to the President when I came back from Afghanistan a month or so ago, this is a struggle that unusually, the closer you are to the fight, the better it looks. And –

QUESTION: Why?

SECRETARY GATES: And if you look at the progress that General Petraeus and the Afghan troops and our troops have made in clearing the areas around Kandahar that have been Taliban safe havens for years and years, and you read the intelligence about Taliban leaders going back to Pakistan and so on, the signs are encouraging; it’s early, it’s a tough fight.

QUESTION: And history is against us, isn’t it?

SECRETARY GATES: Actually, history isn’t against us. The people who have failed in Afghanistan have invaded Afghanistan. They’ve tried to impose a foreign system of government on the Afghans. And this is – and they have acted unilaterally.

QUESTION: So when Mr. Gorbachev –

SECRETARY GATES: So we are in Afghanistan, first of all, with the sanction of the United Nations. Second, as part of the NATO alliance. Third, and perhaps most importantly, at the invitation of the Afghan Government. And we are there to help the Afghans. This is why civilian casualties are so important and why sovereignty is so important, and observing their sovereignty, because we are there as their partners in this process, and that’s different from a foreign presence ever before in that country.

QUESTION: There are so many Americans who feel that this is a hopeless cause and that we’re spending our treasure both in terms of the money of this nation, which is one could argue, sorely needed at home right now, and the treasure of our youth – a hopeless proposition.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know that some have that opinion. But, certainly, what we’re seeing on the ground is that progress is being made. Is it as fast as any of us want? Of course not. It’s a very difficult struggle against the Taliban. But we are making progress. And I think that the sacrifice that we’re making is very painful for all of us who are involved in our government. But we know what the down side is of walking away from an area that can once again become a launching pad for attacks against us and our friends and allies around the world.

QUESTION: Isn‘t the real problem Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Pakistan has a major responsibility and they need to be working with us as they are to root out the Taliban and al-Qaida. I think in the last 20 months there has been a considerable change in their strategic calculation about what is in their own best interests.

QUESTION: But when?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know when I became Secretary of State, when I was first testifying, the Government of Pakistan had made a kind of peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in an area called Swat, and they were ceding territory in return for basically an understanding that the Taliban would leave everybody else alone. And of course, they wouldn’t, because they are aggressive in their desire to attack and undermine the Pakistani Government as well as to support the activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That has changed. The Pakistanis have lost far more military men and civilians than any of us have in their fight against the Taliban.

QUESTION: But isn’t it a strange, open, duplicitous, bizarre relationship? You go to Congress and ask for $2 billion for the Pakistanis, and we know that, in part, they’re supporting the – al-Qaida?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they’re not supporting al-Qaida. They are –

QUESTION: They are certainly supporting the Taliban and the Taliban supporting al-Qaida.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they have in the past hedged against both India and an unfriendly regime in Afghanistan by supporting groups that will be their proxies in trying to prevent either India or an unfriendly Afghan Government from undermining their position. That is changing. Now, I cannot sit here and tell you that it has changed, but that is changing. And again –

QUESTION: And if it doesn’t change would you recommend not getting the $2 billion next year?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what we have done is, through intensive consultations with both the civilian, the military, and the intelligence leadership in Pakistan, had very frank conversations about what we expect. But I think it is important to note that as they have made these adjustments in their own assessment of their national interests, they pay – they’re paying a big price for it. And it’s not an easy calculation for them to make. But we are making progress. We have a long way to go and we have to – we can’t be impatient. We can’t say, “Well, the headlines are bad. We’re going home.” We cannot do that. Part of what we are fighting against right now, the United States created. We created the Mujahidin force against the Soviet Union. We trained them, we equipped them, we funded them, including somebody name Usama bin Ladin. And then when we finally saw the end of the Soviet army crossing back out of Afghanistan, we all breathed a sigh of relief and said, “Okay. Fine, we’re out of there,” and it didn’t work out so well for us.

SECRETARY GATES: This is a problem that we have with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. First of all, I’ll just note, Pakistan is now at 140,000 troops on their northwestern border. They’ve withdrawn an equivalent of about six divisions from the Indian border and moved them. And they are attacking the Taliban. They’re attacking the Taliban – the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and – but they are also attacking groups that – and safe havens that are a problem for us. But the other piece of this, just to pile on what Secretary Clinton said, we face in both countries what they call a trust deficit, and it is because they believe we have walked away from them in the past at the toughest moments of their history. You can’t recreate that in a heartbeat. You can’t recreate that in a year or two. They both worry that once we solve the problem in Afghanistan, or if we don’t solve it, that either way, we will leave and leave whatever remains in their hands to deal with.

Now, we’re not leaving. We will draw down our troops over a period of time, but we have every intention of being active and aggressively involved in Afghanistan and also a long-term relationship with Pakistan. But convincing them that we mean that and that we will deliver on that is something we’ve been working at. And I think we’ve made some headway, as Secretary Clinton said, but it’s a work in progress.

QUESTION: So not to in any way underestimate the problem, but the whole problem of al-Qaida is almost like the game of Whack-a-Mole. I mean, yes, great Afghanistan, but when you look at Yemen which has, what, five or six times the number of al-Qaida, why aren’t we in Yemen? Why aren’t we in Somalia?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, first of all, I think – and I think, frankly, Hillary put it best in the hearing we did together. What you have seen develop – first of all, that border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism, because whether you’re in Yemen or in Somalia or in Asia or wherever else, they are getting encouragement, they are taking inspiration, and often they are taking guidance from Usama bin Ladin, Zawahiri, and their minions who are telling these guys what kind of operations to plan, to keep their focus on the U.S., and so on.

Furthermore, they have created what everyone calls a syndicate of terror with – if it’s not just al-Qaida, it’s the Taliban in Pakistan, it’s the Taliban in Afghanistan, it’s the Haqqani Network, it’s the LeT, it’s all these different groups. And a success for one becomes a success for all. So if we don’t deal with that problem, then we are going to have a challenge of our own security and the tentacles spread to a lot of different places – North African, Yemen , and elsewhere.

QUESTION: So what can we do to help the Yemen Government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re actually working with the Government of Yemen, and we’re providing equipment, military advice. It’s their army which conducts the actions against the al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen. But we’re also trying to persuade the Government of Yemen that this is not just about killing bad guys, this is about improving the lives of the people in Yemen. So from my perspective on the diplomacy and development side, we’re trying to assist the Government of Yemen to make it clear that it’s a full, comprehensive effort to try to change direction. You look at what’s happening in Yemen – they’re running out of oil. They may be the first country to run out of water. They have a wealth of problems and there are internal conflicts between tribes in the South with the government, tribe in the North with the government. It’s an incredibly difficult political environment.

So we are working along with a lot of our allies in the Gulf, because it’s not just the United States, it’s Saudi Arabia and others who see terrorism emanating from Yemen. It’s many of our European friends, and as we just saw from the packages that started in Yemen with the Christmas Day bomber who was trained and directed from Yemen, these problems can migrate in many different directions, so we have to work where we are with governments and like-minded friends.

QUESTION: So you tell me you’re not going to stay in office more than another year, Secretary Gates? Any thoughts about who might do a good job at Defense?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We’re hoping that that timeline keeps moving further and further beyond.

SECRETARY GATES: We have –

SECRETARY CLINTON: We came in together, we should go out together. That’s my theory. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY GATES: And what we call the old folks caucus. (Laughter.) The Secretary is so much older than everybody else in the (inaudible). We’re the only ones that had to pick up on our cultural illusions and our jokes and things like that. All these younger people were sitting around going, “What? What was that all about?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: What are they talking about? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could she do your job?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I –

SECRETARY GATES: Sure.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yeah, but –

QUESTION: But what –

SECRETARY GATES: No, no, wait a minute, though. I just –

QUESTION: Just a sec, I asked him.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s not fair. First of all, we want Bob to stay, so I don’t want him on national television talking about somebody else doing his job. I’ve – .

SECRETARY GATES: I will say this: I think that one of the great strengths that Hillary brings to the job as Secretary of State is as spokesperson for the United States around the world. And to go back to the beginning of this conversation, that’s not the role of the Secretary of Defense.

QUESTION: Okay. But you’re interested in shattering those glass ceilings, and with due respect, two other people have been in this job before. There’s never been a woman sitting in the Secretary of Defense position.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and I hope there is –

QUESTION: The budget is 100 times bigger than yours, the staff is –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, not exactly 100. It feels like 100. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: How much is it?

SECRETARY GATES: It’s about 12 times, just give or take.

QUESTION: Well, what’s your budget?

SECRETARY GATES: The base budget is $550 billion.

QUESTION: And what’s your budget?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s about $50 billion, yeah. No, but I do want to see women break every glass ceiling, from Secretary of Defense to President and everything else. But I love the job I’m doing. I love being the Secretary of State. And it doesn’t matter to me that other people like Thomas Jefferson have done it. I’m doing it right now, and it is a great time to be Secretary of State, because we are having to break new ground in explaining what the United States stands for, who we are, our values around the world in ways that we could take for granted in the past that we no longer can.

I look a lot at survey data of young people. And here, in Australia, I just did a Town Hall at one of the universities this morning. Most young people around the world don’t have the same memories that their parents and grandparents had – U.S. troops fighting side by side in World World I, II, Korea, Vietnam, along with Australian soldiers or New Zealand soldiers preventing the march of fascism and communism to save countries from Singapore and Malaysia all the way to South Korea. They don’t – that’s not part of their experience. So they’re not against the United States, they just – they’re not looking and thinking about us as being important to their lives.

So the job of Secretary of State, today, is to make that case about American values and about partnerships and not just government-to-government, but people-to-people. There could not be a more rewarding and challenging effort than what I’m doing right now.

QUESTION: And if they – if the President asked you to serve as Secretary of Defense?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I have made it clear I love the job that I have.

QUESTION: If he asked you whether she could do it? (Laughter.) Hey, you can’t blame a girl for asking. All right, so what – can we go on for just a second? Because – I mean, Secretary Clinton, you just did a very compelling (inaudible) – in light of all the teen gay suicides, it gets better.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, right.

QUESTION: With the two of you sitting here, is it going to get better for gay men and women who serve in the military? Is “don’t ask, don’t tell,” going to be repealed?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I – let me answer first, because Bob, of course, has the responsibility of carrying out the policy that is in existence and any policy that might come into existence, and say that I certainly hope so. And I think again it’s kind of a generational issue on this issue, like so many issues. Young people have different life experiences. But there does have to be a thoughtful process, which is what Bob’s running right now – a process to really survey this, and examine and analyze it, and come to what is the best decision for our military and what they’re expected to do out in very dangerous and difficult situations.

QUESTION: So assuming this –

SECRETARY GATES: I would say that the leaving “don’t ask, don’t tell” behind us is inevitable. The question is whether it is done by legislation that allows us to do it a thoughtful and careful way, or whether it is struck down by the courts, because recent court decisions are certainly pointing in that direction. And we went through a period of two weeks in October where we had four different policy changes in the space of, as I say, two weeks from striking it down totally, to stay, to appeal, and so on. So I think we have the least flexibility. We have the least opportunity to do this intelligently and carefully and with the kind of preparation that’s necessary if the courts take this action as opposed to there being legislation.

QUESTION: And what about the President taking action?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, the problem that the President faces – I mean, his position on this has been clear from the very beginning and certainly from the State of the Union last year. But this is a law. This is not something – this is not a policy.

QUESTION: Right.

SECRETARY GATES: This is the law.

QUESTION: So there can’t be just an executive –

SECRETARY GATES: And so the President – it either has to be changed by the Congress or struck down by the courts. The President cannot do anything unilaterally.

QUESTION: So will the new Congress?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, my hope, frankly, is that if they – if we can make the case that having this struck down by the courts is the worst outcome, because it gives us no flexibility, that people will think (inaudible). I’m called a realist, a pragmatist. I’m looking at this realistically. This thing is going to go one way or the other, and I want to – when I testified last February, I said there’s smart ways to do things and there’s stupid ways to do things, and trying to do this all at once and under some kind of (inaudible), I think is not the way to do it.

QUESTION: All right. There are now seven people (inaudible). Okay. (Laughter.) So all right, when I get all seven. So you’re leaving, she’s staying for five minutes.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay, all right.

QUESTION: All right, great. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Bye, Bob.

 

Read Full Post »

ABC News has released this transcript early. The video is the footage from Good Morning America this morning.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

draft, posted with vodpod

 

Interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

CYNTHIA McFADDEN: I want to ask you, Madame Secretary, about Haiti. Over a billion dollars appropriated to help the Haitians in the wake of the devastation last year, and in fact it’s an appropriate question here because this trip to Australia was originally scheduled to happen a year ago.

HILLARY CLINTON: Mm hm.

McFADDEN: None of that billion dollars has been spent.

CLINTON: Well but, let me . . .

McFADDEN: Why?

CLINTON: Well, let me explain. We had money in the pipeline that was going to and has been delivered to Haiti. We expended an enormous amount of money in the ah immediate relief efforts. So the money that has not yet been released by the congress was money that was future money. It’s now past time when I would like to see it released and utilized, and it will be.

But I think there’s been somewhat of a confusion that no money from the United States government has gone to Haiti. That’s not true. We have spent ah money, our spending money, and ah are doing a lot of good, although the need is overwhelming. And you feel so sorry for Haiti, from you know earthquakes, cholera, hurricanes. These people never catch a break, but we’re deeply involved with um the government of Haiti, with our our great NGOs that are serving in Haiti, and we’re doing a lot as we speak in Haiti.

McFADDEN: Are you confident that congress will indeed release the money?

CLINTON: Oh yes, I mean we, you know, we will be able to expend the money that has been appropriated for Haiti.

McFADDEN: Okay, great, because it sure didn’t read very well when the release was “US government spends zero of billion dollars.”

CLINTON: Yeah, yeah. But that’s part of a bigger story.

McFADDEN: So someone said that the job of diplomacy was getting somebody to do what they don’t want to do without shooting them.

CLINTON: [laughter] That’s a good description!

McFADDEN: Is that what your day is like?

// CLINTON: My day consists of figuring out what people are doing and why, and what they would like to do and why they’re not, and trying to talk with people and make a case for why doing what would be ah from the American perspective a positive is in their interest to do. So I do spend a lot of time talking to governments and to influential people in various countries about how to make tough decisions that are really in their interests. And it is, it is fascinating, endlessly so. But there is, of course, a little bit of frustration from time to time.

McFADDEN: So was it mere coincidence that you were half way around the world during the midterm elections?

CLINTON: Actually it was, and here’s why. I had two dates that bookended that period; one, the East Asia Summit where I had to go and represent President Obama, because he obviously couldn’t leave the country; and the other, the 25th what’s called AUSMIN where Bob Gates and I meet with our counterparts here in Australia. They were a week apart with the election in the middle. So for me it didn’t make sense to go to Vietnam, turn around, go back to the U.S. and then come back again.

And also there were some really important other opportunities to go to Cambodia, which is a country that is coming out of such a a terrible, traumatic experience inflicted by the Khmer Rouge, the United States has supported the trials and we want them to continue doing the trials; to go to Malaysia, a country whose prime minister gave a really important speech at the U.N. about a month and a half ago, calling for moderates to join a movement against extremism; to go to Papua New Guinea, which has found natural gas and a big Exxon Mobil contract. So there were lots of reasons for me to go between Vietnam and Australia.

McFADDEN: So let me tell you, the Democrats . . .

CLINTON: . . . What happened? [laughter]

McFADDEN: The Democrats really took a licking!

Photo: "Nightline" anchor Cynthia McFadden joins Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Melbourne

In their first ever joint television interview while traveling abroad, ABC News “Nightline” anchor… Expand
In their first ever joint television interview while traveling abroad, ABC News “Nightline” anchor Cynthia McFadden joins Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Melbourne, Australia, as they meet with their Australian counterparts. Collapse

(Melinda Arons/ABC News)

CLINTON: Yeah, I’m very, very sorry about that. I think that it’s something that happens in midterm elections as a rule. After the inauguration of a new President the members of Congress of his party lose seats. But I was very, very sad to see a lot of good people turned out of Congress for doing the right thing.

McFADDEN: Well you lived through it.

CLINTON: I did, 1994.

McFADDEN: Lots of headlines about questioning, wondering whether or not President Obama can pivot the way your husband was able to. What do you think? Can Obama pull a Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I think he can, you know, show clearly the leadership that the country expects from him and which he’s providing.

McFADDEN: What do you think it means when they say, can Obama pull a Clinton? What do you think they’re talking about?

CLINTON: Well I think, I think what they’re talking about is when you suffer the losses that both my husband did and that President Obama did in this election, how do you stay your course and your principles and do what you believe is right for the country, but present it and sell it in a way that more people will understand what you’re trying to do?

You know, when Bill made- Bill made a lot of hard decisions for the Congress, you know, raising taxes to go down with the deficit, getting assaults weapons off the streets, and a lot of other things that were very difficult. And people lost their seats in Congress because nobody understood exactly what this would all mean to the average voter.

Similarly, the President inherited a terrible economic situation. I think what he’s done has prevented a depression, even though I’m very worried about the fact that employment is not where it should be and the President is working hard on that. But what he has to do now is figure out ways to advance what he thinks is the right agenda for America, working with a Republican house and a narrower majority of Democrats in the senate. But . . .

McFADDEN: . . . Your husband . . .

CLINTON: . . . I’m absolutely confident he can do that.

McFADDEN: Your husband moved toward the middle.

CLINTON: You know, I I think that is sort of . . .

McFADDEN: . . . Or is that . . .

CLINTON: . . . the conventional wisdom, but I don’t think that Bill changed his principles or changed his objectives or really reversed course in any way. I think what he did was take a very clear-eyed assessment of what was going to be possible with the congress after the election, and moved on every front that he could to get things done. And I think that’s what you’ll see President Obama doing.

McFADDEN: Are you worried about the tea partiers and others who have been elected this time round, um wanting to pull back internationally, wanting to not support an international agenda?

CLINTON: Cynthia, I don’t know, because I don’t know them. I’m going to get to know them. I’m going to work very hard in a bipartisan way to reach out and consult, and I’ve already been calling some of the Republican leaders that I’ll be working with. But I think we will have to wait and see. Now there are some people who campaigned along the lines of what you’re saying, and we can always do a better job at what we’re trying to achieve on behalf of the United States. I’m open to constructive criticism.

But there is no way that the United States can shrink from our leadership responsibilities, give up on promoting our interests and our values around the world, fight against terrorism, stand up for human rights. I mean the agenda that is so important to who we are as a nation I think will continue to be ah supported.

McFADDEN: Have you talked to Mr. Boehner?

CLINTON: I’ve got a call into him. I haven’t talked to him yet.

McFADDEN: You can work with him though?

CLINTON: Absolutely. I, you know, I know him. I was in the senate when he was in the Congress.

McFADDEN: Two years ago you wanted to be president.

CLINTON: Yes, I did.

McFADDEN: Did you end up with the better job, do you think?

CLINTON: [laughter] Well, I ended up with a job that I love. I never would have predicted that I would have this job, but I’m very grateful for the chance to serve in this way. I’ve had a wonderful life in the public arena. It’s been beyond anything I could’ve imagined when I first started all those years ago. And I think that it is clear that at this moment in time the United States has to assert ourselves on the international stage in a way that wins the confidence and the trust of people around the world again. And that’s what I’m trying to do.

McFADDEN: You know, I said to people when I saw you last in Moscow that you seemed much happier in Moscow than you did in Iowa.

CLINTON: [laughter]

McFADDEN: True?

CLINTON: No, I loved my campaign. I, you know, obviously tried very hard to win, and that wasn’t what came out of it. But I loved, I loved getting out and talking to people. And to a certain extent I’m campaigning for America now. I’m doing town halls, I’m meeting people from all walks of life. I’m using my political experience to try to explain America in ways that somebody in a country far from us who’s never been there can understand, and realize we have- we have something in common that we need to be working toward.

McFADDEN: The enormity of the problems facing America . . .

CLINTON: . . . Right . . .

McFADDEN: . . . at this moment.

CLINTON: Right.

McFADDEN: The enormity of the problems that this country faces right now and that most Americans go to bed worrying, not just you know whether they have a job, whether they can afford to send their kids to college, whether or not, you know, a package is going to arrive from Yemen in the mail and blow up the house.

CLINTON: Right.

McFADDEN: I mean, what do you say? How safe are we?

CLINTON: I think that we have the most dedicated, professional, hardworking people in our government, who every single hour of every day are doing all they know to do to keep America safe.

When you think about the interception of those packages, that is the result of years of work, of building relationships with intelligence services in other countries. And we have to be right all the time. The terrorists only have to be right one time, but I’m very proud of the work that is being done in our government. I want Americans not to be governed by fear. Life is uncertain and unpredictable, no matter who you are and where you live.

We don’t know what’s going to happen to any of us tomorrow. You can step off a curb and get hit by a truck. We can’t live like that. We have to keep being willing to face the future with confidence and optimism. I am a huge believer in our country, our resilience. We have to work together. We can’t be shouting insults at each other and get anything done. We may have differences of opinion about the best way forward, but we all love our country.

We want to see the economy moving and growing again, so that people who are willing to work hard and play by the rules have a chance to get a good job and support their family and live the American dream. We want to see America respected and admired around the world. We want to make sure that the dream is there for our children. That’s how we should be looking at the future. Now, part of the problem is we all know too much about what’s going on in the world. I mean there have been bad things happening all over the world ever since, you know, people came out of the caves. That that is just human nature. But now we know within a millisecond about something terrible happening half way around the world.

You know, if there’s a kidnapping in California, people in New York won’t let their children go out and play. I mean we know so much, and at some point you cannot allow your fears to determine how you live, whether you’re a person or you’re a country. So we’re going to do the very best we can to keep our country safe. That is the highest priority of this president, of this administration. But we can’t live every single day looking over our shoulder. We’ve gotta get about the business of reshaping the future. That’s what America’s about. I run around the world talking to people in countries who can’t get over the past. They can’t move on. They are paralyzed. That’s not us, and we need to act like the Americans that are fearless and focused on building a better tomorrow. And we’ll get there.

McFADDEN: You said talk about the future. You said you’re not running for President in 2012 or 2016. What about “2020”?

CLINTON: [laughter] I think I’m gonna be the best Secretary of State I could be, Cynthia. Thank you.

Interview with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

McFADDEN: Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for first of all letting us hitch a ride on your plane.

ROBERT GATES: Absolutely.

McFADDEN: Here we are in Australia. You know, it’s been said that you’re the most powerful Secretary of Defense since McNamara. Do you buy it?

GATES: I think all that stuff comes out in retrospect. The historians have to decide that, and you know, that’s not what I wanted when I took this job. What I wanted was to be effective and make a difference. And we’ll see.

McFADDEN: You’ve had a remarkable run. The first person in the 60 years the job’s existed to be asked by an incoming president to stay on. Were you surprised when you got that first phone call?

GATES: I had gotten a call from a fellow senator of his I guess in mid-summer 2008. And and so I had had feelers from both camps on whether I would stay on. And and basically I said I didn’t want to, but it was a conversation I would be willing to have.

McFADDEN: And now looking back two years, good decision?

GATES: Well I I think so. You know, I’m grateful to President Bush for having given me the opportunity to do this, and I’m grateful to President Obama for giving me the opportunity to do more than I originally anticipated. When I took this job, I said I had one agenda item — Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. And although, you know, we see the problems and putting the government together and so on, I think Iraq’s probably going to turn out okay. So I feel pretty good about that.

And under President Obama, it’s been a chance to try and do something about Afghanistan, but also because I didn’t think I’d have enough time to do it under President Bush. Under President Obama the time to actually take a look at the way the Pentagon gets run and to try and make some changes there as well.

McFADDEN: You’ve had a unique opportunity to serve both Bush and Obama, and I know you don’t like to do comparisons. But I’m just wondering if there’s a way you could point to a similarity between the two men and a way you could point to a difference between them?

GATES: Well, I would point to a similarity that I think has characterized ah all eight presidents that I worked for, and that is I think most Americans don’t appreciate how much they all care about the country . . .

McFADDEN: . . . Regardless of the policy? . . .

GATES: . . . and how often they are willing to put aside what is in their best political interest to do what they think is best for the country. One reviewer of my book almost 15 years ago said he never met a president he didn’t like. I would say that I never met a president I didn’t respect, because they all tried to do what they thought was right. Maybe with the exception of one!

McFADDEN: Now you’ve gotta tell me which one!

GATES: Well, he resigned.

McFADDEN: I guess we know then, President Nixon. You know, in terms of how they’re different though, how their management styles are different, how their visions were different, you have had this incredible opportunity to see both men function up close, both Bush and Obama. What would be the primary difference between the two, would you say?

GATES: Well, like you said at the outset, I don’t talk about that. And I intend to write about it someday.

McFADDEN: We’ll have to pay for that one . . .

GATES: . . . So stay tuned.

McFADDEN: We’re gonna have to pay for that one, huh?

GATES: Yeah, pretty much!

McFADDEN: Okay, fair enough!

[laughter]

McFADDEN: Originally when you agreed to serve under President Obama you said that not to expect that you’d serve out the full first term. Well, we’re now two years in and I’m wondering if you’ve given thought to what point you’d like to step down?

GATES: Well, I’ve made pretty clear that sometime next year it’ll be time.

McFADDEN: Will you stay through July 2011?

GATES: Next year sometime. I think it’s important not to get too wedded to these positions. There is a lure in senior positions in Washington that makes you want to stay. And I think it’s important and empowering ah to be willing to leave.

McFADDEN To not inhale . . .

GATES: . . . Well . . .

McFADDEN: . . . all the power?

GATES: You inhale for a while. You just gotta quit! [laughter]

McFADDEN: On the other hand one could argue that there are very few people who can occupy the chair.

GATES: Well, you know, the old French term — the cemeteries are full of indispensable men.

McFADDEN: I like your other one, the one about today the peacock —

GATES: Tomorrow a feather duster!

McFADDEN: In some ways it looked outside as if you were going to be the fox in the hen house, the Republican in the Democratic Administration. How has it been being a Republican?

GATES: I do the same things. I make the same kind of decisions. I’ve never been a partisan person. I believe totally in bipartisanship in international affairs. My highest priority is not what goes on in Washington; my highest priority is what those kids are doing out there in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that’s what I focus on.

McFADDEN: I was really moved by your speech at Duke and the notion that as the President of Texas A&M, you’ve been seeing kids just like the ones you’re now sending to war, you know, in a very different context. Talk a little about that.

GATES: Well, I’ve talked about the fact that being a university president probably has been harder for me in this job in wartime, because I spent four and a half years seeing kids 18 to 25 walking around campus in T-shirts and shorts and backpacks going to class, mostly. [laughter]

McFADDEN: Or not going to class.

GATES: And having fun and, you know, living out their dream. And in an instant I’m, in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing kids exactly the same age in full body armor and putting their lives on the line for the rest of the country. And so I’ve, I guess I would say I’ve had a very paternalistic view toward these men and women out there. When I’ve talked at the academies and when I’ve talked in other places, I say you know I regard, I feel responsibility for you as if you were my own son or daughter. And I feel that very deeply.

McFadden: That’s a lot of weight to carry, Mr. Secretary.

GATES: Well, that’s my job.

McFADDEN: I’ve been told that you actually write handwritten notes on the condolence letters.

GATES Yeah. I told myself when I took this job I would never allow the fallen heroes to become a statistic for me. And so with every condolence letter I get the hometown newspaper article and a picture, because then I read about what their coaches say about them, what their boy scout leaders say about them, what their ministers say about them, what their friends and family say about them. So I try to know something about every one of these um incredible young people.

McFADDEN: How many have died since you’ve been Secretary of Defense?

GATES: Well, probably about… it’s getting on toward 900 in Afghanistan… Well we’ve lost about 3,500 in Iraq, probably a third of those while I’ve been Secretary.

McFADDEN: It’s a dangerous world, of all the things that keep you up at night, what’s the toughest?

GATES: Well would it be irreverent to say barbecue! [laughter]

McFADDEN: Not the answer I was expecting!

[laughter]

McFADDEN: You are kind of a wit. You know, for a very somber guy, you kind of a crack-up, right?

GATES: Well, no. I just…

McFADDEN: But you know, look, when you were studying Russian history…

GATES: I’ll tell you what keeps me up.

McFADDEN: What keeps you up at night?

GATES: These kids. The casualties.

McFADDEN: Was the world a simpler place when we have the Soviet Union as the evil empire and…

GATES: It was a simpler place. And the danger was cataclysmic, but the probability extremely low. Now the danger of a cataclysm is very low, but the likelihood of attacks is high. And so it’s sort of a flip, in terms of likelihood. But the consequences — I mean we have been both good and lucky since 9/11. The capabilities the government has developed, the intelligence, the military capabilities, the whole works, the law enforcement, is just night and day different than it was on 9/10, 2001. But they keep coming at us. It’s a problem we’re gonna face for I think quite a while.

McFADDEN: If there was one thing you could accomplish, whatever amount of time you have left in this office, what would it be?

GATES: Well, I would hope that it would be that it would, that people would recognize that we’re making progress in Afghanistan, that this is worth doing, and that the sacrifice these young men and women are making is in fact producing success. It’s gonna take a while, but I think it’s headed in that direction.

McFADDEN: Years ago when you were studying Russian history, that was certainly if you wanted to change the world, affect the world, that was certainly the thing to study. What would you advise someone now to study?

GATES: Well one of the programs that that I’ve gotten the help of Congress in getting through is paying ROTC students to study hard languages like Dari and Farsi and various Arabic and so on. I think that the difference that we face now from the world that I grew up in is that the the challenges are so diverse, and we face, I think, a growing split in the world between the developed countries and developing countries, many of whom are failing or are approaching failed state. And so they have deeply unhappy populations.

You have huge youth bulges in many of these societies and no jobs, like in Iran, but in a lot of other societies too. So you know, this is why I make the argument that we can’t afford to reduce the size of the American military at this point. We face a diversity of challenges all over the world, and we are the only power that, in the world, that has global interests, and frankly is a force for stability and I believe, and I’ve believed my whole life, a force for good.

McFADDEN: We ask a much different thing from an American soldier today than we did even 15 or 20 years ago. I mean it seems to me they have to be part social worker, part psychiatrist, part urban planner, as well as combat ready.

GATES: I met a young captain on my first visit to Afghanistan at a forward operating base, Tillman, right on the Pakistani border. And I was walking with him and he was training Afghans, he was building roads, he was meeting with village elders, he was providing basic services, and he was fighting a war. And I turned to him and I said, “be hell of a thing go back trying to sell shoes now, wouldn’t it?” And the complexity of the job that we have given these young people, and the amazing thing is how these young captains and NCOs have risen to the occasion.

This is a war that is being fought at the local level by lower level officers and NCOs and troops. The generals can set the umbrella, can set the stage in terms of the overall strategy. But whether it works or not in a way I think not seen before in war, it really depends on what these younger officers and NCOs and their troops are doing.

McFADDEN: Speaking of commanding officers, I want to ask you just now that the dust is settled, General McChrystal, I know that you suggested his appointment to the President, I know that you believed that he was the right man to lead us in Afghanistan. And my impression is that you were hoping that the President wouldn’t fire him. Now, six months later, was he the right man for Afghanistan?

GATES: I think he was the right man, and the truth of the matter is General Petraeus has, I think, in significant ways continued the campaign plans that General McChrystal put together.

McFADDEN: What went wrong?

GATES: What happened was was an unfortunate thing, a tragedy in many ways.

McFADDEN: Do you understand why it happened?

GATES: No, not really.

McFADDEN: Have you talked to him?

GATES: Ah, not since he retired, no.

McFADDEN: So it’s…

GATES: But but I think we were very fortunate, and I will say, I mean one of my concerns was that losing General McChrystal would be a big setback in our effort in Afghanistan. And again, we have all these tens of thousands of young people out there with their lives on the line. And it was actually the President who suggested to me, well how about sending Petraeus out there? And that, for me, said okay, we will not lose ground in this war if we send Dave Petraeus out there.

McFADDEN: Do you think the President did the right thing in firing McChrystal?

GATES: I think so. The truth of the matter is General McChrystal took responsibility for this on himself. He behaved, I thought, with extraordinary integrity.

McFADDEN: Tough situation.

GATES: Very. Welcome to Washington.

McFADDEN: I mean you always are the Washington outsider, yet you’ve been there 40 years running the joint! How’s that work?

GATES: [laughter] Well I think…

McFADDEN: I mean every speech you start with a little kick in the pants to Washington, right?

GATES: Well that’s because it’s a guaranteed laugh every place in the country.

McFADDEN: Yeah.

GATES: I mean Will Rogers used to say, I don’t make jokes, I just watch — I just watch the government and report the facts! [laughter] And, so you know, I mean they’re cheap laugh lines, but you know my…

McFADDEN: How do you really feel about Washington, Mr. Secretary?

GATES: I have problems with people who are self-serving, with people who are willing to make compromises just so they can stay in the jobs they have, and not just compromise, because Washington works on — Democratic government works on compromises. But I mean doing things that are not necessarily in the best interest of the country. And I’m talking about the whole shooting match.

McFADDEN: Republicans, Democrats?

GATES: Both branches of government. I mean both the Republic — both the Congress and the executive branch. I probably made some of those compromises myself. But I just do feel that the place is a little out of touch. But the other thing is I’ve read a lot of history, and I know that the things that annoy me about Washington have been characteristic of the place since the beginning of the Republic! So that gives me comfort in terms of looking at the future.

GATES: I think we’re gonna be just fine.

McFADDEN: You do?

GATES: I do. I absolutely do.

McFADDEN: Knowing what you know?

GATES: I think, the way I’ve expressed it is that history’s dustbin is littered with countries and powers that have underestimated the United States and our power of recovery. We have been through many tribulations. We are the most self-critical nation in the world, and we are the most quickly self-correcting. And you can see it right now. And and we’re gonna be just fine. I absolutely believe that.

Joint Interview with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates

McFADDEN: Thank you both. I came over on your plane, I’m going home on your plane. His is bigger.

CLINTON: [laughter] I’m not surprised!

GATES: Proportionate to the budget.

CLINTON: I don’t know. He has a plane with no windows. Did you bring the no window plane?

GATES: Yes, yes, yes.

McFADDEN: The Doomsday plane. I told . . .

GATES: . . . It’s like being FedEx’ed around the world.

CLINTON: [laughter] Did you get scanned and screened?

McFADDEN: Well that’s a good point. You know, historically the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have not exactly been best buddies. Fair to say?

GATES: More than fair to say.

McFADDEN: So I’m interested in the relationship that the two of you have forged over the last couple of years.

CLINTON: We didn’t get the memo about how we were supposed to be diametrically opposite on everything. And in fact we’ve had, both of us, the experience of former Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of State and former National Security Advisors sort of shaking their head in wonder, like you guys are not not in the groove here. You’re supposed to be constantly at each other’s throat. It’s been, for me, a real pleasure to work with Bob, and to find that we have a lot in common. We have different ah experiences that we bring to the table. But I think we have a very, a very common view about some of the national security challenges we face.

McFADDEN: Well do you share a sort of world view, do you think? Is that the basis of the relationship?

GATES: I think we have a very compatible view of the world. But I would just in terms of the question that you put to Hillary, I think my my approach has been shaped very much by the fact that I spent almost nine years on the National Security Council staff under four different presidents. And I would see the inter-agency bickering, and every now and then I’d say at a meeting, you know, there for a moment I thought we all worked for the same government. And I came out of that experience believing that a president was very badly served by senior members of the government who bicker and quarrel with each other, and particularly in public. And I think the starting point is the Secretary of Defense acknowledging that the Secretary of State is the principal spokesperson for American foreign policy. And so we have our role, but the Secretary of State has her role. I think acknowledging that, because a lot of the time in the past where I have seen this conflict, and it’s been more characteristic than not, going back a long time of conflict, I think it’s because the Secretary of Defense has been unwilling to sort of see this division of labor within the government.

CLINTON: You know, with Bob’s extensive experience in government and in different positions, because obviously he was in the White House, he was at the CIA, he’s now at the Defense Department, he’s developed this perspective of trying to cut through the shaft, I mean get to the meat of the matter, figure out what it is we’re trying to accomplish, what our goals are, what’s the best way of getting there. And it’s not that we agree on everything, but we come to our internal debate with a respect for the other person and an understanding of the institutional prerogatives that we both each represent. So for me, it’s been a particular particular pleasure to work with him.

McFADDEN: So I want to go back before you all become so kumbaya with each other.

CLINTON: [laughter]

McFADDEN: Like alright, so you got appointed first, right?

CLINTON: No, he was there

McFADDEN: Well but no, but Obama — had the President asked you to stay at the point?

GATES: We were actually all announced the same day.

CLINTON: Yeah, yeah . . .

GATES: . . . In Chicago . . .

McFADDEN: And so when you heard she was Secretary of State, you thought, because you didn’t really know each other…

GATES: No.

McFADDEN: What did you think? What was the first thing that went through your head?

GATES: I thought it was going to be interesting, you know, because all I knew of Hillary was what I’d seen on TV . . .

McFADDEN: . . . And what did you think? . . .

GATES: . . . and so on.

McFADDEN: Tough?

GATES: Yeah.

McFADDEN: Smart?

GATES: Yeah. But somebody who also was very effective at communicating.

McFADDEN: And?

CLINTON: Well, I had been on the Armed Services committee, so I had the experience of sitting on the other side of the table from Bob when he came to testify as Secretary of Defense. And it was such a change from his predecessor . . .

McFADDEN: . . . Mr. Rumsfeld??

CLINTON: Mr. Rumsfeld, because this Secretary would actually answer questions, he would express his opinion. He was extremely straightforward, and I welcomed that. So although I didn’t know him personally until we started serving together, I had observed him on several occasions and believed that he was a straightforward, Midwesterner who could, you know, get to the heart of an issue and stake a claim as to what he thought was the right thing to do. I admire that.

McFADDEN: Because you do understand from a distance, you look at the two of you and you say, maybe not so much. Besides the Midwestern thing, we’ve got a Republican, we’ve got a Democrat, we’ve got a guy who’s married to a woman who can’t stand politics, we’ve got a woman who’s married to a guy who most days likes politics!

[laughter]

CLINTON: Yeah, but Cynthia, part of the experience of working with someone is to get beyond all of that. I mean the caricatures and the stereotypes, the superficial kinds of characterization, and what I know about Bob Gates is that he’s a real patriot. He loves our country and that’s how I feel about myself. I mean I took the job I have in part because I felt like when your president asks you to serve, you should serve. This man has spent the better part of his life serving our country. So I am not in any way surprised that we have developed a good working relationship, because despite what are, from my perspective, superficial differences, we we both have a highly developed responsibility gene! And we have a long history of service, and we approach this job with a great deal of seriousness.

GATES: I’d make a couple of other points. I think we both recognize that many of the challenges we face require what we call a whole of government approach. And that means the State Department and the Defense Department above all have to work together. And that signal has to be sent from the top, and if the people who work for us know that we get along and work cooperatively with one another, even when we come at problems from a different perspective, it radiates through the entire bureaucracy. And so the people who work for every cabinet secretary who come in every day trying to set their hair on fire, there’s some other cabinet officer has just committed some egregious sin and and therefore we ought to, you know, set the whole place on fire. Once they realize that’s not career enhancing, that well that doesn’t sound like Hillary’s told me, I’ll just pick up the phone and call her. And then all of a sudden they realize. And so that that becomes I think also very important.

McFADDEN: In the new Woodward book, the two of you are referred to as ‘blocks of granite’…

CLINTON: I didn’t know that!

GATES: [laughter]

McFADDEN: Do you plead guilty?

CLINTON: I have no idea! I don’t know. Is that a compliment?

McFADDEN: I’m asking you! Two of the five blocks of granite in terms of the setting Afghanistan policy, and if the books is to be believed, really pushing President Obama toward increasing troop strength in Afghanistan.

GATES: Let me just put it this way. I found the review that we went through a year ago really useful and important.

McFADDEN: Because?

GATES: Because I learned some things. I adjusted some positions. I changed my views on some things in the course of that . . .

McFADDEN: . . . What? . . .

GATES: . . . two and a half months or so. Well, the July 11 date to begin withdrawal is one example. I had opposed any kind of dates or deadlines in Iraq relentlessly. But in terms of . . .

McFADDEN: . . . Because you felt it gave comfort to the enemy?

GATES: Yeah. And denied us flexibility. But the way that it was framed and the President’s decision, and the way we talked about it, about how do you- how do you give the Afghan government a sense of urgency that they have to take ownership of this thing? We’re not gonna — How do you assure, tell them and the American people we’re not gonna be there forever? And you weigh that against, well, does it give some relief to the Taliban? And because of the way we discussed it and the way that the pace of the withdrawals beginning in July 11 will be based on the conditions on the ground, you know, if the Taliban are telling their supporters and their soldiers today, the Americans are leaving in July of 2011, they’re going to discover very quickly in August and September of 2011 we’re still there and we’re still out there killing. And so weighing those two things, I came to believe that that was the right decision. So but that was a change of position for me.

McFADDEN: What about you, Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Well I think Bob has described the process well. It was very thorough. We had many meetings where people freely expressed their views. There was a lot of give and take, and I too learned different perspectives. There was a lot of drilling down into what was meant by counterinsurgency, what it would take in, you know, various districts in Afghanistan to win the trust of the people, what we would have to do to improve governance. It was a complex and and serious effort. I did not enter into it with any preconceived opinion. I entered into it with an open mind, because it was a very serious undertaking.

McFADDEN: Do you feel the two of you ended up pushing the President? Or do you feel that he, at the end of the day, felt comfortable?

CLINTON: I think the President was committed to the process and was open and very clear that he was going to make this decision, which he did after listening to everyone. I don’t think his conclusions agreed with any one person. I think he drew from many of us to compose what he thought was the best policy.

McFADDEN: So defeat Al-Qaida and downgrade the Taliban, the goal? Yes? Still the goal?

GATES: Reverse the momentum of the Taliban, deny them control of populated areas, degrade their capabilities, build the Afghan National Security Forces so that between the degrading of the Taliban and the elevating of the Afghan Forces, within some period of time the Afghans will be able to make sure their territory is no longer — can never again be a platform for launching attacks against anybody.

McFADDEN: So how are we doing? Because a report that was leaked in October from the White House indicated not so well.

GATES: Well this is, as I reported to the President when I came back from Afghanistan a month or so ago, this is a struggle that unusually the closer you are to the fight, the better it looks.

McFADDEN: Why?

GATES: And if you look at the progress that that General Petraeus and the Afghan troops and our troops have made in clearing the areas around Kandahar that have been Taliban safe havens for years and years, and you read the intelligence about Taliban leaders going back to Pakistan and so on, the signs are encouraging. It’s early. It’s a tough fight…

McFADDEN: And history’s against us, isn’t it?

GATES: Actually history isn’t against us. The people who have failed in Afghanistan have invaded Afghanistan. They’ve tried to impose a foreign system of government on the Afghans, and they have acted unilaterally, so . . .

McFADDEN: . . . So when Mr. Gorbachev . . .

GATES: . . . So we are in Afghanistan first of all with the sanction of the United Nations, second with as part of the NATO alliance, third and perhaps most importantly at the invitation of the Afghan government, and and we are there to help the Afghans. This is why civilian casualties are so important and why sovereignty is so important ah and observing their sovereignty, because we are there as their partners in this process, and that’s different from foreign presidents ever before in that country.

McFADDEN: There are so many Americans who feel this is a hopeless cause and that we’re spending our treasure both in terms of the money of this nation, which is you know one could argue sorely needed at home right now, and the treasure of our youth . . .

CLINTON: . . . Well to the . . .

McFADDEN: . . . in a hopeless proposition.

CLINTON: Well I know that some have that an opinion, but certainly what we’re seeing on the ground is that progress is being made. Is it as fast as any of us want? Of course not. It’s a very difficult struggle against the Taliban. But we are making progress. And I think that the sacrifice that we’re making this very painful for all of us who are involved in our government. But we know what the downside is of walking away from an area that can once again become a launching pad for attacks against us and our friends and allies around the world.

McFADDEN: So isn’t the real problem Pakistan?

CLINTON: Well Pakistan has a a major responsibility, and they need to be working with us, as they are, to root out the Taliban and Al-Qaida. I think in the last 20 months there has been a considerable change in their strategic calculation about what is in their own best interest.

McFADDEN: In what way?

CLINTON: Well, I know when I became Secretary of State, when I was first testifying, the government of Pakistan had made a kind of peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in an area called Swat. And they were ceding territory in return for basically an understanding that the Taliban would leave everybody else alone. And of course they wouldn’t, because they are aggressive in their desire to attack and undermine the Pakistani government as well as to support the activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That has changed. The Pakistanis have lost far more military um men and civilians than any of us have in their fight against the Taliban.

McFADDEN: But isn’t it a strange, open, duplicitous, bizarre relationship? You go to Congress and ask for $2 billion for the Pakistanis, and we know that in part they’re supporting the Al-Qaida.

CLINTON: Well they’re not support Al-Qaida. They are…

McFADDEN: . . . They are certainly supporting the Taliban, and the Taliban is supporting Al-Qaida.

CLINTON: Well they have in the past hedged against both India and an unfriendly regime in Afghanistan by supporting groups that will be their proxies in trying to prevent either India or an unfriendly Afghan government from undermining their position. That is changing. Now I cannot sit here and tell you that it has changed, but that is changing. And again . . .

McFADDEN: . . . And if it doesn’t change, would you recommend not giving the $2 billion next year?

CLINTON: Well, what we have done is through intensive consultations with both the civilian, the military and the intelligence leadership in Pakistan, you know, had very frank conversations about what we expect. But I think it is important to note that as they have made these adjustments in their own assessment of their national interests, they’re paying a big price for it. It’s not an easy calculation for them to make, but we are making progress.

We have a long way to go, and we have to — we can’t be impatient. We can’t say, well, you know, the headlines are bad, we’re going home. We cannot do that. Part of what we are fighting against, right now, the United States created. We created the Mujahideen force against the Soviet Union. We trained them, we equipped them, we funded them, including somebody named Osama Bin Laden. And then when we finally saw the end of the Soviet Army crossing back out of Afghanistan, we all breathed a sigh of relief and said, okay, fine, we’re out of there. And it didn’t work out so well for us.

GATES: This is a problem that we have with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. First of all I just note, Pakistanis now have 140,000 troops on on their north western border. They’ve withdrawn the equivalent of about six divisions from the Indian border and moved them, and they are attacking ah Taliban. They’re attacking the Taliban, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, and but they are also attacking groups that, in safe havens, that are a problem for us.

But the other piece of this, just to pile onto what Secretary Clinton said, we face in both countries what they call a trust deficit, and it is because they believe we have walked away from them in the past, at the toughest moments of their history. You can’t recreate that in a heartbeat. You can’t recreate that in a year or two. They both worry that once we’ve solved the problem in Afghanistan, or if we don’t solve it, that either way we will leave, and leave whatever remains in their hands to deal with. Now we’re not leaving. We will drawn down our troops over a period of time, but we have every intention of of being active and aggressively involved in Afghanistan and also a long term relationship with Pakistan. But convincing them that we mean that and that we will deliver on that is something we’ve been working at. And I think we’ve made some headway, as Secretary Clinton said, but it’s a work in progress.

McFADDEN: So not not to in any way underestimate the problem, but the whole problem of Al-Qaida is almost like a game of Whack-A-Mole. I mean, yes, great, Afghanistan. But when you look at Yemen which has, what, five or six times the number of Al-Qaida, why aren’t we in Yemen? Why aren’t we in Somalia?

GATES: First of all, I think frankly Hillary put it best in the hearing we did together. What what you have seen develop, first of all that border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan is is the epicenter of terrorism, because whether you’re in Yemen or Somalia or in Asia or wherever else, they are getting encouragement, they are taking inspiration, and often they are taking guidance from Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri and their minions who are telling these guys what kind of operations to plan, to keep their focus on the U.S. and so on.

Furthermore, they have created what Hillary calls the syndicate of terror, with it is not just Al-Qaida, it’s the Taliban in Pakistan, it’s the Taliban in Afghanistan, it’s the Haqqani network, it’s all these different groups. And a success for one becomes a success for all. So if we don’t deal with that problem, then we are going to have a challenge of our own security. And the tentacles spread to a lot of different places, North Africa, Yemen, elsewhere.

McFADDEN: So what can we do to help the Yemen government?

CLINTON: Well we’re actually working with the government of Yemen, and we’re providing equipment, ah military advice. Ah it’s their army which conducts the actions against the Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen. But we’re also trying to persuade the government of Yemen that this is not just about killing bad guys. This is about improving the lives of the people in Yemen.

So from my perspective on the diplomacy and development side, we’re trying to assist the government of Yemen to make it clear that it’s a full comprehensive effort to try to change direction. If you look at what’s happening in Yemen, they’re running out of oil. They may be the first country to run out of water. They have a wealth of problems and their internal conflicts between tribes in the south with the government, tribes in the north with the government, it’s an incredibly difficult political environment.

So we are working, along with a lot of our allies in the Gulf, because it’s not just the United States, it’s Saudi Arabia and others who see terrorism emanating from Yemen. It’s many of our European friends, and as we just saw with the packages that ah started in Yemen, with the Christmas Day bomber who was trained and directed from Yemen, these these problems can migrate in many different directions. So we have to work where we are with governments and like-minded friends.

McFADDEN: So you tell me you’re not going to stay in office more than another year, Secretary Gates? Any thoughts about who might do a good job at Defense?

CLINTON: We’re hoping that that timeline keeps moving further and further ah beyond . . .

GATES: . . . We have, we have . . .

CLINTON: . . . We came in together, we should go out together! That’s my theory!

GATES: We have, we have what we call the Old Folks Caucus.

CLINTON: [laughter]

GATES: Since we’re so much older than everybody else in the government right now! We’re the only ones that kinda pick up on our cultural allusions and our jokes and things like that! All these younger people are sitting around with what — what was that all about? . . .

CLINTON: . . . What are they talking about!

[laughter]

McFADDEN: Could she do your job?

CLINTON: I —

GATES: Sure.

CLINTON: Well yeah, but —

McFADDEN: But what?

CLINTON: No, no, wait a minute!

McFADDEN: I asked — Just a second, I asked him.

CLINTON: It’s not fair, it’s not fair! First of all we want Bob to stay, so I don’t want him — I don’t want him on national television talking about somebody else doing his job! I hope . . .

GATES: . . . But I will say . . .

CLINTON: . . . we could convince him to stay.

GATES: I will say this. I think that one of the great strengths that Hillary brings to the job as Secretary of State is as spokesperson for the United States around the world. And to go back to the beginning of this conversation, that’s not the role of the Secretary of Defense.

McFADDEN: Okay! But you’re interested in shattering those glass ceilings, and with due respect two other people have been in this job before. There’s never been a woman sitting in the Secretary of Defense’s position.

CLINTON: Well and I hope, I hope there is . . .

McFADDEN: . . . The budget’s a hundred times bigger than yours, the staff is . . .

CLINTON: . . . Well not exactly a hundred. It feels like a hundred!

McFADDEN: Isn’t it a hundred? How much is it?

CLINTON: It’s about . . .

GATES: . . . Ten times.

CLINTON: Twelve times, just give or take.

McFADDEN: What’s your budget?

GATES: Ah the base budget?

McFADDEN: Yeah.

GATES: Is $550 billion.

McFADDEN: And what’s your budget?

CLINTON: It’s about $50 billion. Yeah. No, but I do want to see women break every glass ceiling, from Secretary of Defense to President and everything else. But I love the job I’m doing. I love being the Secretary of State. And it doesn’t matter to me that other people like Thomas Jefferson have done it. I’m doing it right now. And it is a great time be Secretary of State, because we are having to break new ground in explaining what the United States stands for, who we are, our values, around the world, in ways that we could take for granted in the past, that we no longer can.

You know, I look a lot at survey data of young people, and here in Australia I just did a town hall at one of the universities this morning. Most young people around the world don’t have the same memories that their parents and grandparents had of US troops fighting side by side in World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam, along with Australian soldiers or New Zealand soldiers, you know, preventing the march of fascism and communism to save countries from Singapore and Malaysia, all the way to South Korea. They don’t — That’s not part of their experience. So they’re not against the United States. They just are are not looking and thinking about us ah as being important to their lives. So the job of Secretary of State today is to make that case about American values and about partnerships, and not just government to government, but people to people. There could not be a more rewarding and challenging ah effort than what I’m doing right now.

McFADDEN: And if they — if the President asked you to serve as Secretary of Defense?

CLINTON: I have made it clear I love the job that I have.

McFADDEN: If he asked you whether she could do it, what would you say?

[laughter]

McFADDEN: Hey you gotta- — You can’t blame a girl for asking… Secretary Clinton, you you just did a very compelling, in light of all the teen gay suicides, about it gets better.

CLINTON: Yes. Right.

McFADDEN: With the two of you sitting here is it going to get better for gay men and women who serve in the military? Is “don’t ask, don’t tell” going to be repealed?

CLINTON: Well I — Let me answer first, because Bob, of course, has the responsibility of carrying out the policy that is in existence and any policy that might come into existence, and say that I certainly hope so. I think again it’s kind of a generational issue, and this issue, like so many issues, you know young people have different life experiences. But there does have to be a thoughtful process, which is what Bob’s running right now, a process to really survey this and examine and analyze it, and come to what is the best decision for our military and what they’re expected to do out in very dangerous and difficult situations.

McFADDEN: So assuming that —

GATES: I would say —

McFADDEN: Yeah.

GATES: I would say that the leaving “don’t ask, don’t tell” behind us is inevitable. The question is whether it is done by legislation that allows us to do it in a thoughtful and careful way, or whether it is struck down by the courts. Because recent court decisions are certainly pointing in that direction. And we went through a period of two weeks in October where we had four different policy changes in the space of, as I say, two weeks, from striking it down totally, to a stay, to appeal, and so on. So I I think we have the least flexibility. We have the least opportunity to do this intelligently and carefully and with the kind of preparation that is necessary, if the courts take this action as opposed to there being legislation.

McFADDEN: And what about the President taking action?

GATES: Well the problem the President faces, I mean his position on this has been clear from the very beginning, and certainly from the state of the union last year. But this is a law. This is not something — This is not a policy.

CLINTON: Right.

GATES: This is law.

CLINTON: Right.

McFADDEN: So there can’t be just an executive . . .

GATES: . . . And so the President either has to be changed by the congress or struck down by the courts. The President cannot do anything unilaterally.

McFADDEN: So will the new congress?

GATES: Well my hope . . .

McFADDEN: . . . Strike this down?

GATES: My hope frankly is that if they — if we can make the case that having this struck down by the courts is the worst outcome, because it gives us no flexibility, that people will think I’m called a realist, a pragmatist, I’m looking at this realistically. This thing is gonna go one way or the other. And I wanted and I — when I testified last February I said, you know, there’s smart ways to do things and there’s stupid ways to do things. And trying to do this all at once and under some kind of fiat, I think is not the way to do it.

Read Full Post »

Secretary Clinton Op-Ed: An End to Human Trafficking

Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
November 9, 2010

 

Secretary Clinton renewed her call to end human trafficking in an op-ed published by newspapers around the world. To learn more about the State Department’s work against Trafficking in Persons, please visit http://www.state.gov/g/tip/index.htm.
The full text of the Secretary’s op-ed follows:
An End to Human Trafficking
By Hillary Rodham Clinton
Elementary students across America are taught that slavery ended in the 19th Century. But, sadly, nearly 150 years later, the fight to end this global scourge is far from over. Today it takes a different form and we call it by a different name — “human trafficking” — but it is still an affront to basic human dignity in the United States and around the world.
The estimates vary widely, but it is likely that somewhere between 12 million and 27 million human beings are suffering in bondage around the world. Men, women and children are trapped in prostitution or labor in fields and factories under brutal bosses who threaten them with violence or jail if they try to escape. Earlier this year, six ”recruiters” were indicted in Hawaii in the largest human trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history. They coerced 400 Thai workers into farm labor by confiscating their passports and threatening to have them deported.
I have seen firsthand the suffering that human trafficking causes. Not only does it result in injury and abuse—it also takes away its victims’ power to control their own destinies. In Thailand I have met teenage girls who had been prostituted as young children and were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe I have met mothers who lost sons and daughters to trafficking and had nowhere to turn for help. This is a violation of our fundamental belief that all people everywhere deserve to live free, work with dignity, and pursue their dreams.
For decades, the problem went largely unnoticed. But 10 years ago this week, President Clinton signed the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act, which gave us more tools to bring traffickers to justice and to provide victims with legal services and other support. Today, police officers, activists, and governments are coordinating their efforts more effectively. Thousands of victims have been liberated around the world and many remain in America with legal status and work permits. Some have even become U.S. citizens and taken up the cause of preventing traffickers from destroying more lives.
This modern anti-trafficking movement is not limited to the United States. Almost 150 countries have joined the United Nations’ Trafficking Protocol to protect victims and promote cooperation among countries. More than 116 countries have outlawed human trafficking, and the number of victims identified and traffickers imprisoned is increasing each year.
But we still have a long way to go. Every year, the State Department produces a report on human trafficking in 177 countries, now including our own. The most recent report found that 19 countries have curtailed their anti-trafficking efforts, and 13 countries fail to meet the minimum standards for eliminating trafficking and are not trying to improve.
It is especially important for governments to protect the most vulnerable – women and children – who are more likely to be victims of trafficking. They are not just the targets of sex traffickers, but also labor traffickers, and they make up a majority of those trapped in forced labor: picking cotton, mining rare earth minerals, dancing in nightclubs. The numbers may keep growing, as the global economic crisis has exposed even more women to unscrupulous recruiters.

We need to redouble our efforts to fight modern slavery. I hope that the countries that have not yet acceded to the U.N. Trafficking Protocol will do so. Many other countries can still do more to strengthen their anti-trafficking laws. And all governments can devote more resources to finding victims and punishing human traffickers.
Citizens can help too, by advocating for laws that ban all forms of exploitation and give victims the support they need to recover. They can also volunteer at a local shelter and encourage companies to root out forced labor throughout their supply chains by visiting www.chainstorereaction.com.
The problem of modern trafficking may be entrenched, but it is solvable. By using every tool at our disposal to put pressure on traffickers, we can set ourselves on a course to eradicate modern slavery.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: