When foreign policy comes up at the debates this cycle, on one side we hear one thing: ISIS ISIS ISIS. On the other side the refrain begins with the dreaded, notorious, and monotonous Iraq War Vote, and then Bernie Sanders wanders over the rainbow to a land where Saudi Arabia and Iran team up like munchkins and flying monkeys to assure the defeat of terrorism in that region by throwing a bucket of water on ISIS.
Ted Cruz has raised this issue, but somehow it never quite makes it into the meat of the debate. Donald Trump, of course, intends to crush China by any means necessary.
The truth is, there is a means to combat this aggression right at our fingertips and nothing is being done to implement it. Here is the issue:
Beijing’s provocative move to put sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles on little Woody Island breaks previous promises and invites retaliation.
China deployed its advanced HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the South China Sea sometime in the first half of this month, Pentagon officials have revealed. Images of the missiles were released yesterday by various news organizations, and Taiwan’s defense ministry confirmed the reports.
The Chinese deployment breaks a series of pledges Beijing made to the United States and the international community, one as recently as last month by Foreign Minister Wang Yi to Secretary of State John Kerry during Kerry’s trip to Beijing.
The missile deployments will destabilize the already troubled South China Sea, and the situation there could deteriorate fast as various nations, including the United States, introduce military assets in response to Beijing’s rapid build-up.
Long ago, back in 2008 before the election, those who were laying the groundwork for the emergence of the Tea Party spoke in hushed, dire tones about the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST) as if it were some alien conspiracy to divest the United States of certain powers and options. The opposite was and is true.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton foresaw some probabilities on the foreign stage. One was the Arab Spring. She warned the Arab elders at Forum for the Future two years in a row that alienation from participation and unemployment were severe problems boiling beneath the surface among their populations. Hillary did not cause the Arab Spring. She predicted trouble if inclusion and jobs were not prioritized by leadership. She listened to their civil societies, perceived the growing unrest, and warned.
Hillary also knew that ratification of LOST was important and urgent. Here is how she introduced a plea for ratification.
I am well aware that this treaty does have determined opposition, limited but nevertheless quite vociferous. And it’s unfortunate because it’s opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty. So I think you’ll hear, from both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey as well as myself, further statements and information that really reinforces the very strong points that both of you have made.We believe that it is imperative to act now. No country is better served by this convention than the United States. As the world’s foremost maritime power, we benefit from the convention’s favorable freedom of navigation provisions. As the country with the world’s second longest coastline, we benefit from its provisions on offshore natural resources. As a country with an exceptionally large area of seafloor, we benefit from the ability to extend our continental shelf, and the oil and gas rights on that shelf. As a global trading power, we benefit from the mobility that the convention accords to all commercial ships. And as the only country under this treaty that was given a permanent seat on the group that will make decisions about deep seabed mining, we will be in a unique position to promote our interests.
(The “opposition based in ideology and mythology” Hillary referred to was, in fact GOP and specifically Tea Party opposition, making it odd that it is Ted Cruz alone who occasionally brings the South China Sea to the table.)
And there was this.
Now as a non-party to the convention, we rely – we have to rely – on what is called customary international law as a legal basis for invoking and enforcing these norms. But in no other situation at which – in which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the operation of the United States military. So far we’ve been fortunate, but our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries’ behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the South China Sea.
I’m sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the South China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests, particularly freedom of navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention’s rules and a greater ability to enforce them.
Most will not remember that later in 2012, as Dems were gathering to renominate Barack Obama in Charlotte, Hillary was on her way to an ASEAN Summit where issues in the South China Sea would be at the forefront.
BRISBANE, Australia — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling for Southeast Asian states to present a united front to the Chinese in dealing with territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
SNIP
She wants “to strengthen ASEAN unity going forward,” a senior U.S. official told reporters on board Clinton’s plane as she flew from the Cook Islands to Australia for a brief refueling stop en route to Indonesia.
Issues in the South China Sea would be far more easily settled if the United States were to assume its leadership position at the table as the world’s leading maritime power. This is an issue Hillary carries in her back pocket, and it has yet to arise in any question at a town hall or debate. Here is what happened the last time LOST came up for a vote.
Readers here know, it’s right there in the sidebar, the importance Hillary Clinton invested in ratification of the Law of the Sea Treat (LOST). She testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 23 of this year calling ratification “urgent” if the U.S. is to have equal footing on a level playing field in conflicts arising over jurisdictions with regard to offshore drilling and mining. Ratification would permit us to extend our own continental shelf 200 miles – we have four of them! But Rachel Maddow last hour reported, as her blog explains, that the GOP has likely killed the ratification that would have boosted our economy and strengthened our position both in the global economy and militarily on the high seas. According to the blog post, the last two “nails in the coffin” were Senators Rob Portman and Kelly Ayotte – names in the news as possible Veep choices for Mitt Romney. Goes to show you, the Republicans can be transparent … it is possible. Stunning considering the long list of Republicans who supported ratification. Ambition, apparently knows no party loyalty – or common sense!
If President Obama looked a little haggard when he spoke to the press today, it was not all about Congress stonewalling a SCOTUS nomination. Guess where he was! And guess what they were talking about!
President Barack Obama, center, speaks at the plenary session meeting of ASEAN, the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, at the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, Calif., for Monday, Feb. 15, 2016. Sitting with Obama are Laos’ president, Choummaly Sayasone, left, and Brunei’s sultan, Hassanal Bolkiah, right. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
A fair town hall or debate question at any and all events this week should address foreign policy on a broader scale than the Middle East. The South China Sea may be on the other side of the globe, but what happens there affects us all. Only one candidate knows what needs to be done.
According to the Special Review of the Accountability Review Board Process (ISP-I-13-44A), the Permanent Coordinating Committee (PCC) is the body within the State Department that must convene ASAP after a serious security incident at a U.S. mission abroad and determine whether or not to recommend that the secretary of state convene an Accountability Board Review (ARB).
P 7 ¶ 1 Permanent Coordinating Committee
“The Committee will, as quickly as possible after an incident occurs, review the available facts and recommend to the Secretary to convene or not convene a Board. (Due to the 1999 revision of the law requiring the Secretary to convene a Board not later than 60 days after the occurrence of an incident, except that such period may be extended for one additional 60-day the Committee will meet within 30 days of the incident, if enough information is available.) In addition, the Committee will meet yearly to review the ARB process, existing policies and procedures, and ensure that any necessary changes are effected.” – 12 Foreign
Affairs Manual 032.1
On October 7, 2012 Hillary Clinton announced that not only had the recommendation been made but also that the ARB had been formed and would commence meeting that very week – well within the timeline stated in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). Many of you will remember that the Tea Party was already stridently calling for this review, however it is clear from the FAM directive that this process went a good deal more quickly than was required.
P 16 ¶ 8 Secretary’s Report to Congress
“Report to Congress: the Secretary will, no later than 90 days after the receipt of a
Board’s program recommendations, submit a report to the Congress on each such
recommendation and the action taken or intended to be taken with respect to that
recommendation.” – 12 Foreign Affairs Manual 036.3a.
The delivery of the completed reportalong with a cover letter dated December 18, 2012 delineating in detail many steps Hillary had already taken to address weaknesses in security at U.S. missions worldwide also came in well before the deadlines outlined in the FAM. The cover letter is a brilliant analysis and well worth the read. If you happen to find yourself in a discussion on the subject of Benghazi, the events surrounding this attack, and State Department responses to it, you will find valuable points therein. The letter and reports were addressed and delivered to the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
P 19 ¶ 1 “All of us—from senior Department leadership setting strategic priorities to supervisors evaluating the needs of individual posts to congressional committees appropriating funds and providing oversight—have a responsibility to provide the men and women who serve this country with the best possible security and support. Most of all, it is my responsibility as Secretary of State.” – Secretary Hillary Clinton
One wonders how many times Hillary Clinton needs, orally and in writing, to take responsibility for Benghazi for the Tea Party to stop accusing her of dodging that responsibility. Breaking news the night before a presidential debate, on October 17, 2012 was that while traveling in Peru Hillary had stated in an interview that the responsibility was hers. Her signature is, in perpetuity, on that letter where she assumed responsibility. Must she wander the streets with a bell like a town crier declaring, “The buck stops with me?”
P 25 ¶ 1 Regional Bureau Shared Responsibility
ARB Recommendation 3: “As the President’s personal representative, the Chief of Mission bears ‘direct and full responsibility for the security of [his or her] mission and all the personnel for whom [he or she is] responsible,’ and thus for risk management in the country to which he or she is accredited. In Washington, each regional Assistant Secretary has a corresponding responsibility to support the Chief of Mission in executing this duty. Regional bureaus should have augmented support within the bureau on security matters, to include a senior DS officer to
report to the regional Assistant Secretary.”
Not to blame the victim, but security at Tripoli and Benghazi was a shared responsibility and some of that responsibility fell on Ambassador Stevens. Of all the players in this tragedy, he, from all indications, was most familiar with the culture of the country and the population in Benghazi in particular. In his absence, Gregory Hicks shared that responsibility at Embassy Tripoli of which he had been left in charge.
Fortunately, Embassy Tripoli was not subject to an attack, however, the reckless irresponsibility of Hicks’s decision to send the remaining two security officers from Tripoli to Benghazi is undeniable.
Col. George Bristol, who commanded an Africa-based task force at the time of the terrorist attack, told the House Armed Services Committee that he gave Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, who led the site security team in Tripoli, initial freedom of action to respond to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi.
Bristol corroborated testimony Gibson provided the committee last month that no “stand down” order was given — contradicting accusations made by critics of the Obama administration’s response to the attack — according to a description of Wednesday’s classified, members-only briefing of the Armed Services Oversight and Investigations subcommittee.
Gibson had testified last month that he was told not to send his team to Benghazi because they needed to remain in Tripoli to defend the U.S. Embassy there in case of additional attacks.
Among the Benghazi recommendations is this one regarding funding.
P ¶ 5 29 Funding
ARB Recommendation 10: “Recalling the recommendations of the Nairobi/Dar es Salaam Accountability Review Boards, the State Department must work with Congress to restore the Capital Security Cost Sharing Program at its full capacity as originally envisioned, adjusted for inflation, of approximately $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2015, including an up to 10-year program addressing that need, prioritized for construction of new facilities in high-risk and high-threat areas. It should also work with Congress to expand utilization of Overseas Contingency Operations funding to respond to emerging security threats and vulnerabilities and operational requirements in high-risk and high-threat posts like Benghazi and Tripoli.”
We do well to remember who stripped the DS funds two years in a row. There is plenty of responsibility to go around including upon those who clog Hillary Clinton’s Twitterfeed with cries of “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!” ignoring the role played by tight-fisted Tea Party House members who swear they will recall Hillary Clinton. If they do, we are certain that she will cooperate and be, as always, eminently well-prepared.
P 31 ¶ 2 Personnel Recommendations
No ARB has ever found “reasonable cause to believe” that a Federal employee or contractor has “breached a duty of that individual” as defined by the Act.
We have yet to hear any mea culpas emanating from Capitol Hill.
Remarks Introducing Nominee for Secretary of State, Senator John Kerry at His Senate Foreign Relations Committee Confirmation Hearing
Testimony
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Hart Office Building
Washington, DC
January 24, 2013
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s very good to be back and to have this opportunity to join with Senator Warren and Senator McCain in introducing President Obama’s nominee to be the next Secretary of State. I was very honored when John asked me to take part in this because John is the right choice to carry forward the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, and I urge his speedy confirmation.As we’ve heard from both the Chairman and the Ranking Member and just now Senator Warren, he will bring a record of leadership and service that is exemplary. He has a view of the world that he has acted on, first as that young returning veteran from Vietnam who appeared before this committee, through the time that he served with such distinction as its chairman. He’s been a valued partner to this Administration and to me personally. He has fought for our diplomats and development experts. He understands the value of investing in America’s global leadership. And as we work to implement the Accountability Review Board’s recommendations, he is committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent another attack and protect our people and posts around the world.
Now, working together, we’ve achieved a great deal. But the State Department and USAID have a lot of unfinished business, from Afghanistan to nonproliferation to climate change to so much. We need to sustain our renewed engagement in the Asia Pacific, continue ramping up economics as a tool for advancing American interests and jobs, pressing forward with unleashing the potential of the world’s women and girls, keep championing the kind of smart power that looks to innovation and partnerships with governments and people alike to promote peace and stability.
John has built strong relationships with leaders in governments here and around the world, and he has experience in representing our country in fragile and unpredictable circumstances. He was in Pakistan and Afghanistan a few years ago, and we were consulting over the phone. He played an instrumental role in working with President Karzai at that time to accept the results of the election and to move forward. I had to call Harry Reid and ask Harry not to schedule any votes so that John could continue to stay there to see that mission through. But that’s what he does. He is a determined and effective representative of the United States, has been as a senator, will be as Secretary.
Let me close by saying that leading our diplomats and development experts is a great honor. And every day, as I testified yesterday, I’ve seen firsthand their skill, their bravery, their unwavering commitment to our country. I’ve been proud to call them colleagues and to serve as Secretary of State. And I’m very pleased that John will be given the chance, subject to confirmation, to continue the work of a lifetime on behalf of our country.
10:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton introduces nominee for Secretary of State, Senator John Kerry, at his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, on Capitol Hill. (MEDIA DETERMINED BY SFRC)
2:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts the launch of the 100,000 Strong Foundation, at the Department of State. Please click here for more information. (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
3:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House. (MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)
4:35 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House. (MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)
Opening Remarks Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
January 23, 2013
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, both older and new. I’m very grateful for this opportunity and I thank you very much for your patience to give me the chance to come and address these issues with you.
As both the Chairman and the Ranking Member have said, the terrorist attacks in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 that claimed the lives of four brave Americans – Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty – are part of a broader strategic challenge to the United States and our partners in North Africa. Today, I want briefly to offer some context for this challenge, share what we’ve learned, how we are protecting our people, and where we can work together to not only honor our fallen colleagues, but continue to champion America’s interests and values.
Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact: Since 1988, there have been 19 Accountability Review Boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities. Benghazi joins a long list of tragedies for our Department, for other agencies, and for America: hostages taken in Tehran in 1979, our Embassy and Marine barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in East Africa in 1998, consulate staff murdered in Jeddah in 2004, the Khost attack in 2009, and too many others. Since 1977, 65 American diplomatic personnel have been killed by terrorists.
Now of course, the list of attacks foiled, crises averted, and lives saved is even longer. We should never forget that our security professionals get it right more than 99 percent of the time, against difficult odds all over the world. That’s why, like my predecessors, I literally trust them with my life.
Let’s also remember that administrations of both parties, in partnership with Congress, have made concerted and good faith efforts to learn from these attacks and deaths to implement recommendations from the review boards, to seek the necessary resources, and to do better in protecting our people from what has become constantly evolving threats. That is the least that the men and women who serve our country deserve. It’s what, again, we are doing now with your help. As Secretary, I have no higher priority and no greater responsibility.
As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.
Now, taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but also to further protect our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. It meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. And it meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and figure out effective ways to support the emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond.
Let me share some of the lessons we’ve learned, the steps we’ve taken, and the work we continue to do.
First, let’s start on the night of September 11th itself and those difficult early days. I directed our response from the State Department, stayed in close contact with officials from across our government and the Libyan Government. So I saw firsthand what Ambassador Pickering and former Chairman Mike Mullen called timely and exceptional coordination; no delays in decision making, no denials of support from Washington or from our military. And I want to echo the Review Board’s praise for the valor and courage of our people on the ground, especially the security professionals in Benghazi and Tripoli. The board said the response saved American lives in real time, and it did.
The very next morning, I told the American people that heavily armed militants assaulted our compound, and I vowed to bring them to justice. And I stood with President Obama in the Rose Garden as he spoke of an act of terror.
It’s also important to recall that in that same period, we were seeing violent attacks on our embassies in Cairo, Sana’a, Tunis, Khartoum, as well as large protests outside many other posts where thousands of our diplomats serve. So I immediately ordered a review of our security posture around the world, with particular scrutiny for high-threat posts. I asked the Department of Defense to join Interagency Security Assessment Teams and to dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards. I named the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for High Threat Posts so missions in dangerous places get the attention they need. And we reached out to Congress to help address physical vulnerabilities, including risk from fire, and to hire additional Diplomatic Security personnel.
Second, even as we took these steps, I hurried to appoint the Accountability Review Board led by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen so we could more fully understand from objective, independent examination what went wrong and how to fix it.
I have accepted every one of their recommendations. I asked the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources to lead a task force to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely, as well as pursuing additional steps above and beyond the recommendations.
I also pledged in my letter to you last month that implementation would begin, and it has. Our task force started by translating the recommendations into 64 specific action items. They were assigned to bureaus and offices with clear timelines for completion. Eighty-five percent are now on track to be completed by the end of March; a number are already completed. And we will use this opportunity to take a top-to-bottom look and rethink how we make decisions on where, when and whether people operate in high-threat areas, and then how we respond to threats and crises.
We are initiating an annual High Threat Post Review chaired by the Secretary of State, and ongoing reviews by the Deputy Secretaries, to ensure that pivotal questions about security do reach the highest levels. We will regularize protocols for sharing information with Congress. These are designed to increase the safety of our diplomats and development experts and reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.
We’ve also been moving forward on a third front: addressing the broader strategic challenge in North Africa and the wider region, because, after all, Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. The Arab revolutions have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. Instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria.
And let me offer our deepest condolences to the families of the Americans and all the people from many nations who were killed and injured in that recent hostage crisis. We are in close touch with the Government of Algeria. We stand ready to provide assistance. We are seeking to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so we can work together with Algerians and others to prevent such terrorist attacks in the future.
Concerns about terrorism and instability in North Africa are of course not new. They have been a top priority for the entire Administration’s national security team. But we have been facing a rapidly changing threat environment, and we have had to keep working at ways to increase pressure on al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and the other terrorist groups in the region.
In the first hours and days, I conferred with leaders – the President of Libya, Foreign Ministers of Tunisia and Morocco – and then I had a series of meetings at the United Nations General Assembly where there was a special meeting focused on Mali and the Sahel. In October, I flew to Algeria to discuss the fight against AQIM. In November, I sent Deputy Secretary Bill Burns to follow up in Algiers. And then in December, in my stead, he co-chaired an organization we started to respond to some of these threats: the Global Counterterrorism Forum, which was meeting in Abu Dhabi, as well as a meeting in Tunis of leaders working to build new democracies and reform security services.
We have focused on targeting al-Qaida’s syndicate of terror – closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering extremist ideology, slowing the flow of new recruits. And we continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice. We are using our diplomatic and economic tools to support these emerging democracies and to strengthen security forces and help provide a path away from extremism.
But let me underscore the importance of the United States continuing to lead in the Middle East, in North Africa, and around the world. We’ve come a long way in the past four years, and we cannot afford to retreat now. When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root; our interests suffer; our security at home is threatened.
That’s why I sent Chris Stevens to Benghazi in the first place. Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution, then during the transition. A weak Libyan Government, marauding militias, terrorist groups; a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel, but he did not waver. Because he understood it was critical for America to be represented there at that time.
Our men and women who serve overseas understand that we accept a level of risk to protect the country we love. And they represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation. They cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs. So it is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need, and to do everything we can to reduce the risks.
For me, this is not just a matter of policy. It’s personal. I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children.
It has been one of the great honors of my life to lead the men and women of the State Department and USAID. Nearly 70,000 serving here in Washington; more than 270 posts around the world. They get up and go to work every day, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances, because they believe, as we believe, the United States is the most extraordinary force for peace and progress the world has ever known.
And when we suffer tragedies overseas, as we have, the number of Americans applying to the Foreign Service actually increases. That tells us everything we need to know about what kind of patriots I’m talking about. They do ask what they can do for their country, and America is stronger for it.
So today, after four years in this job, traveling nearly a million miles, visiting 112 countries, my faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words “United States of America” touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world’s indispensible nation. And I am confident that, with your help, we will keep the United States safe, strong, and exceptional.
So I want to thank this committee for your partnership and your support of diplomats and development experts. You know the importance of the work they do day in and day out. You know that America’s values and vital national security interests are at stake. And I appreciate what Ranking Member Corker just said: It is absolutely critical that this committee and the State Department, with your new Secretary and former Chairman, work together to really understand and address the resources, support, and changes that are needed to face what are increasingly complex threats.
I know you share my sense of responsibility and urgency, and while we all may not agree on everything, let’s stay focused on what really matters: protecting our people and the country we love. And thank you for the support you personally have given to me over the last four years.
On her journeys around the globe, Mme. Secretary always makes sure she meets with civil society which translates to business leaders, opposition party members, students, and those providing various services – in short, regular folks. Uganda was no exception. Today she stopped by the Reach Out Mbuya Health Center, in Kampala, Uganda. They provide care for those infected with AIDS and HIV. These pictures tell a powerful story of how she was received there.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to Reach Out Mbuya, a health clinic that has HIV/AIDS outreach, Friday, Aug. 3, 2012, in Kampala, Uganda. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, Pool)
Young dancers cheer for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she visits “Reach Out Mbuya”, a health clinic that does HIV/AIDS community outreach, in Kampala, Uganda August 3, 2012.
Holding her son Ignatius, 3, Sarah Nassolo, 29, kneels in thanks in front of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (C) at “Reach Out Mbuya”, a health clinic that does HIV/AIDS community outreach, in Kampala, Uganda August 3, 2012. Nassolo and her husband Charles Byamukama (L) with son Isaac, 6, are both HIV positive. Their sons are both HIV negative thanks to a clinic program which works to limit mother-to-child infection. REUTERS/Jacquelyn Martin/Pool (UGANDA – Tags: POLITICS HEALTH)
People raise their hands in a prayer for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, at the end of her visit to Reach Out Mbuya, a health clinic that does HIV/AIDS community outreach, in Kampala, Uganda, Friday, Aug. 3, 2012.
They prayed for her. How beautiful! It touched my heart. Thank you, Uganda, for loving our Secretary of State and for praying for her. Here are her remarks.
Remarks at Reach Out Mbuya Health Center
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Kampala, Uganda
August 3, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good evening.
AUDIENCE: Good evening.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And Minister, thank you very much for those remarks. I am honored to be here. I am delighted to be back in Uganda and to be part of this exciting effort, the partnership between our two countries. I want to thank Dr. Ondoa for her hard work and for all that she is doing.
And Dr. Talisuna, thank you so much for your work. (Applause.)
So we have two women doctors who are leading the way on health in Uganda, and I am excited about being here, because I have heard for a long time about the work that Reach Out does. (Applause.) And Reach Out is well named, because what you have done is to be sure that people in the area have a place to come to be given support, to be given treatment, to be given dignity in order to achieve their own personal goals of being healthy and productive citizens.
Today, more than 300,000 Ugandans are receiving treatment through PEPFAR. PEPFAR is the program that the United States started under President George W. Bush. And I will be looking forward to be meeting with John Robert Engole who eight years ago was near death. He was the first person in the world to receive life-saving medication through PEPFAR. And now there are 300,000 Ugandans receiving medication through PEPFAR. And I want to do more to make sure that every person has the opportunity to become healthy.
And we have seen here at Reach Out and in other places across your country how this can be done. In the 1990s, thanks to your government, thanks to your officials, thanks to the citizens, we had the best program in the world right here in Uganda. (Applause.) And we saw how the prevalence of this disease could drop dramatically from nearly 20 percent to below 7 percent.
However, I am here because I am worried. In recent years, the focus on prevention has faded, and new infections are on the rise again. I had the opportunity to discuss this with the President and with the Minister. Uganda is now the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa where the rate of HIV is going up instead of going down. Now, I know that Ugandans, when you put your mind to something, can really get it done. So I’m hoping that together we can work on making prevention the focus again and making sure that rate of infection goes down, down, down.
So we’re going to work with you. I’ve made that pledge to the President and to the health minister. We’re going to review our strategy with the Ministry, with civil society groups, and other partners, because we want to emphasize what we think will work. And one area that I particularly care about as a mother is to eliminate mother-to-child transmissions of the virus. And we can do that, and our Government in the United States recently committed an additional $25 million. I hope I will come back in a few years, and there will be no babies in Uganda being born with the HIV Virus. (Applause.)
We are very proud, Minister, to be partnering with you and with the Ministry of Health. Experts from our Centers for Disease Control recently arrived in Uganda, because we not only work with you on HIV/AIDS; we’re also working with you now on the outbreak of the Ebola Virus. We want to work with you on maternal and child health. There is so much that we believe is possible here in Uganda.
Now, clinics like this, this wonderful program in this beautiful place needs resources, and all of us must keep up our funding commitments – the Government of Uganda, other donors like the United States, and I am looking forward to being able to work with you to do that. This clinic is a model not only for Uganda, but for all of Africa, indeed for the world. And I can see it has a lot of citizen and community support. And that’s what makes it work, and that’s what’s made Uganda unique in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
I want Uganda, once again, to be the model for the world, and I know Uganda can be. When I first came to Uganda in the mid-1990s when my husband was President, I came because there wasn’t anywhere else I could have gone in the world that was doing a better job. When I came back with my husband on his trip as President – and I don’t know if you remember, but when he was – as President in those years when he traveled across Africa and he came to Uganda, he met a little boy who had just been born, and they named him Bill Clinton. And so my husband was just back in Uganda a week ago, and he met Bill Clinton, who’s now about 12 years old. And he’s healthy, and he’s handsome, and he’s doing well in school. That’s what we want for every boy and girl in Uganda. We want a good future.
So let me close by saying that the American people are deeply proud to be your partners and your friends, and we’re going to keep working together on the economy, on better opportunities for people, as President Museveni said, on electricity, on infrastructure, on security, education, and health. And we have so much confidence that Uganda will, once again, be a model in HIV/AIDS, continue to develop, and make a difference for the people of this great and beautiful country. Thank you all, and God bless you. (Applause.)
Readers here know, it’s right there in the sidebar, the importance Hillary Clinton invested in ratification of the Law of the Sea Treat (LOST). She testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 23 of this year calling ratification “urgent” if the U.S. is to have equal footing on a level playing field in conflicts arising over jurisdictions with regard to offshore drilling and mining. Ratification would permit us to extend our own continental shelf 200 miles – we have four of them! But Rachel Maddow last hour reported, as her blog explains, that the GOP has likely killed the ratification that would have boosted our economy and strengthened our position both in the global economy and militarily on the high seas. According to the blog post, the last two “nails in the coffin” were Senators Rob Portman and Kelly Ayotte – names in the news as possible Veep choices for Mitt Romney. Goes to show you, the Republicans can be transparent … it is possible. Stunning considering the long list of Republicans who supported ratification. Ambition, apparently knows no party loyalty – or common sense!
It’s become extremely difficult — far more difficult than any point in American history — for Congress to pass legislation. But treaties are even harder, since they require 67 votes for passage. Even if every member of the Democratic caucus backs a treaty, it would need 14 Republicans to go along, and in this Congress, that’s an implausibly high number.
This is particularly relevant this week because of the Law of the Sea Treaty, negotiated 18 years ago, and ratified by 161 countries around the globe. Here in the U.S., it’s been endorsed by the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, business leaders, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and specifically U.S. Navy leaders who, as Josh Rogin explained, see the measure as necessary “to allow the United States to fully participate in the growing multinational system that governs the open seas.”
The Law of the Sea Convention (Treaty Doc. 103-39): The U.S. National Security and Strategic Imperatives for Ratification
Testimony
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
May 23, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar. After both of your opening comments, I think you’ve made the case both eloquently and persuasively for anyone who is willing to look at the facts. I am well aware that this treaty does have determined opposition, limited but nevertheless quite vociferous. And it’s unfortunate because it’s opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty. So I think you’ll hear, from both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey as well as myself, further statements and information that really reinforces the very strong points that both of you have made.We believe that it is imperative to act now. No country is better served by this convention than the United States. As the world’s foremost maritime power, we benefit from the convention’s favorable freedom of navigation provisions. As the country with the world’s second longest coastline, we benefit from its provisions on offshore natural resources. As a country with an exceptionally large area of seafloor, we benefit from the ability to extend our continental shelf, and the oil and gas rights on that shelf. As a global trading power, we benefit from the mobility that the convention accords to all commercial ships. And as the only country under this treaty that was given a permanent seat on the group that will make decisions about deep seabed mining, we will be in a unique position to promote our interests.
Now, the many benefits of this convention have attracted a wide-ranging coalition of supporters. Obviously, as we heard from both Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, Republican and Democratic presidents have supported U.S. accession; military leaders who see the benefits for our national security; American businesses, including, strongly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, see the economic benefits. It has the support of every affected industry, including shipping, fisheries, telecommunications and energy, environmental groups as well. We have a coalition of environmental, conservation, business, industry, and security groups all in support of this convention.
And I would ask that my longer written statement along with the letters that I have received in support of the treaty be entered into the record.
CHAIRMAN KERRY: Without objection.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, one could argue, that 20 years ago, 10 years ago, maybe even five years ago, joining the convention was important but not urgent. That is no longer the case today. Four new developments make our participation a matter of utmost security and economic urgency.
First, for years, American oil and gas companies were not technologically ready to take advantage of the convention’s provisions regarding the extended U.S. continental shelf. Now they are. The convention allows countries to claim sovereignty over their continental shelf far out into the ocean, beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. The relevant area for the United States is probably more than 1.5 times the size of Texas. In fact, we believe it could be considerably larger.
U.S. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing, and able to explore this area. But they have made it clear to us that they need the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could make the substantial investments, and, we believe, create many jobs in doing so needed to extract these far-offshore resources. If we were a party to the convention, we would gain international recognition of our sovereign rights, including by using the convention’s procedures, and therefore be able to give our oil and gas companies this legal certainty. Staying outside the convention, we simply cannot.
The second development concerns deep seabed mining, which takes place in that part of the ocean floor that is beyond any country’s jurisdiction. Now for years, technological challenges meant that deep seabed mining was only theoretical; today’s advances make it very real. But it’s also very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine site, it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals that it will recover. The convention offers the only effective mechanism for gaining this title. But only a party to the convention can use this mechanism on behalf of its companies.
So as long as the United States is outside the convention, our companies are left with two bad choices – either take their deep sea mining business to another country or give up on the idea. Meanwhile, as you heard from Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, China, Russia, and many other countries are already securing their licenses under the convention to begin mining for valuable metals and rare earth elements. And as you know, rare earth elements are essential for manufacturing high-tech products like cell phones and flat screen televisions. They are currently in tight supply and produced almost exclusively by China. So while we are challenging China’s export restrictions on these critical materials, we also need American companies to develop other sources. But as it stands today, they will only do that if they have the secure rights that can only be provided under this convention. If we expect to be able to manage our own energy future and our need for rare earth minerals, we must be a party to the Law of the Sea Convention.
The third development that is now urgent is the emerging opportunities in the Arctic. As the area gets warmer, it is opening up to new activities such as fishing, oil and gas exploration, shipping, and tourism. This convention provides the international framework to deal with these new opportunities. We are the only Arctic nation outside the convention. Russia and the other Arctic states are advancing their continental shelf claims in the Arctic while we are on the outside looking in. As a party to the convention, we would have a much stronger basis to assert our interests throughout the entire Arctic region.
The fourth development is that the convention’s bodies are now up and running. The body that makes recommendations regarding countries’ continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles is actively considering submissions from over 40 countries without the participation of a U.S. commissioner. The body addressing deep seabed mining is now drawing up the rules to govern the extraction of minerals of great interest to the United States and American industry. It simply should not be acceptable to us that the United States will be absent from either of those discussions.
Our negotiators obtained a permanent U.S. seat on the key decision-making body for deep seabed mining. I know of no other international body that accords one country and one country alone – us – a permanent seat on its decision making body. But until we join, that reserved seat remains empty.
So those are the stakes for our economy. And you will hear from Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey that our security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. We have much more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world’s oceans than any other country. U.S. Armed Forces rely on the navigational rights and freedoms reflected in the convention for worldwide access to get to combat areas, sustain our forces during conflict, and return home safely all without permission from other countries.
Now as a non-party to the convention, we rely – we have to rely – on what is called customary international law as a legal basis for invoking and enforcing these norms. But in no other situation at which – in which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the operation of the United States military. So far we’ve been fortunate, but our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries’ behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the South China Sea.
I’m sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the South China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests, particularly freedom of navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention’s rules and a greater ability to enforce them.
Now, I know a number of you have heard arguments opposing the convention. And let me just address those head-on. Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But in fact, it’s exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources, including our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and vast continental shelf areas extending off our coasts and at least 600 miles off Alaska. I know that some are concerned that the treaty’s provisions for binding dispute settlement would impinge on our sovereignty. We are no stranger to similar provisions, including in the World Trade Organization which has allowed us to bring trade cases; many of them currently pending against abusers around the world. As with the WTO, the U.S. has much more to gain than lose from this proposition by being able to hold others accountable under clear and transparent rules.
Some critics invoke the concern we would be submitting to mandatory technology transfer and cite President Reagan’s other initial objections to the treaty. Those concerns might have been relevant decades ago, but today they are not. In 1994, negotiators made modifications specifically to address each of President Reagan’s objections, including mandatory technology transfer, which is why President Reagan’s own Secretary of State, George Shultz, has since written we should join the convention in light of those modifications having been made.
Now some continue to assert we do not need to join the convention for U.S. companies to drill beyond 200 miles or to engage in deep seabed mining. That’s not what the companies say. So I find it quite ironic, in fact somewhat bewildering that a group, an organization, an individual would make a claim that is refuted by every major company in every major sector of the economy who stands to benefit from this treaty. Under current circumstances, they are very clear. They will not take on the cost and risk these activities under uncertain legal frameworks. They need the indisputable, internationally recognized rights available under the treaty. So please, listen to these companies, not to those who have other reasons or claims that are not based on the facts. These companies are refuting the critics who say, “Go ahead, you’ll be fine.” But they’re not the ones – the critics – being asked to invest tens of millions of dollars without the legal certainty that comes with joining the convention.
Now some mischaracterize the payments for the benefit of resource rights beyond 200 miles as quote “a UN tax” – and this is my personal favorite of the arguments against the treaty – that will be used to support state sponsors of terrorism. Honestly, I don’t know where these people make these things up, but anyway the convention does not contain or authorize any such taxes. Any royalty fee does not go to the United Nations; it goes into a fund for distribution to parties of the convention. And we, were we actually in the convention, would have a permanent veto power over how the funds are distributed. And we could prevent them from going anywhere we did not want them to go. I just want to underscore – this is simple arithmetic. If we don’t join the convention, our companies will miss out on opportunities to explore vast areas of continental shelf and deep seabed. If we do join the convention, we unlock economic opportunities worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars, for a small percentage royalty a few years down the line.
I’ve also heard we should not join this convention because quote “it’s a UN treaty.” And of course that means the black helicopters are on their way. Well, the fact that a treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, which is after all a convenient gathering place for the countries of the world, has not stopped us from joining agreements that are in our interests. We are a party to dozens of agreements negotiated under the UN auspices on everything from counter-terrorism and law enforcement to health, commerce, and aviation. And we often pay fees under those treaties recognizing the benefits we get dwarf those minimal fees.
And on the national security front, some argue we would be handing power over the U.S. Navy to an international body. Patently untrue, obviously absolutely contrary to any history or law governing our navy. None of us would be sitting here if there were even a chance that you could make the most absurd argument that could possibly lead to that conclusion. Disputes concerning U.S. military activities are clearly excluded from dispute settlement under the convention.
And neither is it true that the convention would prohibit intelligence activities. The intelligence community has once again in 2012, as it did in 2007, as it did in 2003, confirmed that is absolutely not true.
So whatever arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no longer exist and truly cannot be even taken with a straight face. The benefits of joining have always been significant, but today the costs of not joining are increasing. So much is at stake, and I therefore urge the Committee to listen to the experts, listen to our businesses, listen to the Chamber of Commerce, listen to our military, and please give advice and consent to this treaty before the end of this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Having proven himself the Super-Ambassador, traveling to Homs and other hot-beds of Syrian conflict, Ambassador Robert S. Ford is maintaining his contact with the Syrian people via Facebook even though our physical Embassy Damascus is closed and American personnel have been recalled. In today’s press briefing, Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland stated the following.
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
February 10, 2012
“… for those of you who are fans of our Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s Facebook site, just because he’s left the country doesn’t mean he’s not up and running still, talking to the Syrian people. I commend to you his post of yesterday which included some declassified U.S. national imagery of destruction of Homs – very gruesome pictures showing lines of tanks, showing fire, showing the kind of thing that you really only see if you have a major military attacking in a civilian area.”
When President Obama appointed Ambassador Ford during the December 2010 recess, bypassing both Secretary Clinton and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, many were skeptical of the appointment. I was a member of that throng. But Ambassador Ford has proven himself to be the closest thing to a super hero that an Ambassador can be. He is dedicated and courageous in his mission to represent us and to support the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people who have suffered so greatly and well deserve their voices to be heard.
And here is the link to Embassy Damascus on Facebookwhere Ambassador Ford is continuing to post every valuable piece of information he can get a link to.
Lately, the lovely Secretary of State has been rocking some serious ruffles in chiffon. I love this light, spring-into-summer look on her. It is breezy, feminine, a little whimsical, and very flirty. It stands as a sweet alternative to the rather plain and uniform shells she has worn under her jackets as a rule. Very pretty look, Mme. Secretary! Keep the ruffles coming!
This private blog is about Hillary Clinton's work. It is intended to support, promote, and appreciate Hillary Clinton's efforts and initiatives, all of them – past, current, and future. Onward together! “Resist, insist, persist, enlist.” - Hillary Rodham Clinton
Search this blog
The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Welcome to the Office of
Hillary Rodham Clinton
*Read about Hillary's life
*See Hillary's current projects
*Learn about Hillary's vision for America
*Send Hillary a note
Onward Together
“Resist, insist, persist, enlist.” Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Clinton on Facebook
Hillary Clinton on Facebook
@HillaryClinton on Twitter
Follow Hillary on Twitter!
What Happened
Hillary Clinton's 2016 election memoir
Too Small to Fail
“One of the best investments we can make is to give our kids the ingredients they need to develop in the first five years of life.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Clinton Foundation on Facebook
Like the Clinton Foundation on Facebook!
Flint Child Health & Development Fund
"If you can, please chip in to support the Flint Child Health & Development Fund, which is working to provide health care and educational support to families in Flint affected by this crisis." - Hillary Clinton
Thank you for everything, Mme. Secretary!!!!
Thank you for all of your dedicated service and brilliant leadership!
Hillary Clinton’s Cover Letter to Congress on the ARB Report
Hillary because…
She would NEVER have allowed social safety nets to be "on the table."
Read the unclassified ARB Report on Benghazi here.
@U.S. Senate: Time to ratify LOST!
"... ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, which has provided the international framework for exploring these new opportunities in the Arctic. We abide by the international law that undergirds the convention, but we think the United States should be a member, because the convention sets down the rules of the road that protect freedom of navigation, provide maritime security, serve the interests of every nation that relies on sea lanes for commerce and trade, and also sets the framework for exploration for the natural resources that may be present in the Arctic." -HRC, 06-03-12, Tromso Norway
"I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake." - HRC 01-26-10
Good Advice!
“You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.” HRC
Hillary! Leadership we need!
Politics & Foreign Policy
"What I have always found is that when it comes to foreign policy, it is important to remember that politics stops at the water's edge." -HRC 11-04-10
What a difference one woman can make!
"...whether it’s here, in the absolute best embassy in the world, or whether it’s in Washington, or whether it’s elsewhere, what a difference one woman can make. And that woman is right here, the woman who needs no introduction, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton." 07.05.10 - Unidentified speaker, Embassy Yerevan
Most Respected
"So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you your Secretary of State, and perhaps the most respected person on the world stage today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." - Jon Huntsman 05-23-2010
Hillary Clinton Express Facebook Group
Your one stop spot for Hillary Clinton News!
Supporters of “The People’s President,” Hillary Rodham Clinton
Together 4 us! Facebook Page
Uppity Woman
The place to go if you feel like you're the only woman who wants to punch her own TV set.
Jenny’s Jumbo Jargon
Elephant Watch
Favorite Quote
“When people attack you, you always have to remember that a lot of what others say about you has a lot more to do about them than you.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton
Still4Hill 