Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Senate’

Yes! It is high time! This treaty should have been ratified long ago. If the White House continues on its miserable record of pushing for treaty ratification during this lame duck session, this will never be ratified. Secretary Clinton, Minister Lavrov and their teams worked very hard to arrive at this treaty. It is time!

Mme. Secretary may be on the other side of the globe at the moment, but if you thought she was “removed” from the political tsunami we all knew was coming, guess again!  Her beautiful hands with the perfect nail beds have a far reach.  Do not misread what follows.  It is an order!

The New START Treaty: It’s Time for the Senate to Vote

Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Fact Sheet
November 3, 2010

 

Treaty Makes America More Secure, Has Broad Support, and Is Urgently Needed

The New START Treaty Makes America More Secure. Significantly reducing – by nearly
700 – the limit on the number of strategic nuclear weapons that Russia can deploy;
allowing us to keep a close eye on the remaining ones; building stability, predictability,
and transparency for the two countries with 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons;
and strengthening America’s fight against nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
terrorists and rogue states.

Urgently Needed. Secretary of Defense Gates has said, “Since the expiration of the old
START Treaty in December 2009, the U.S. has had none of these [verification]
safeguards,” including no U.S. inspectors on the ground in Russia keeping a watchful
eye on Russia’s weapons. General Chilton, Commander of STRATCOM, stressed to
Congress, “Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian strategic
nuclear force developments and activities.”

Key Questions Have Been Answered.

.. Preserves America’s Triad of land-based and sea-based missiles and bombers
and the military’s flexibility to take on any future new threats

.. No constraints on deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor on
developing and deploying conventional prompt global strike capabilities

.. Effective verification and inspection systems leaving Russia unable to achieve
militarily significant cheating or breakout

.. More than $80 billion over the next ten years – including $10 billion in new money
– to modernize our nuclear weapons complex

Wide Bipartisan Support. America’s most respected national security leaders, including
secretaries of defense and state, and national security advisers for Presidents Reagan,
George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, support ratification – including George
Shultz, James Baker, Sam Nunn, James Schlesinger, Bill Perry, Chuck Hagel, Henry
Kissinger, Colin Powell, Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton, Harold Brown, Madeleine Albright,
Howard Baker, Frank Carlucci, Kenneth Duberstein, Brent Scowcroft, and Stephen
Hadley.

Unanimous Support by Military Leadership. All senior Defense Department officials
testified that they support ratification of New START. Secretary Gates stressed: “The
New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America’s military leadership – to
include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the
commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our
strategic nuclear deterrent”. Seven former commanders of Strategic Command
support the Treaty, assessing it “will enhance American national security in several
important ways.”

Prepared and Ready. The Senate has been provided extensive information – 18
hearings, dozens of briefings and meetings, answers to over 900 questions for the
record, and hundreds of pages of reports, analysis and testimony.

Read Full Post »

Two press releases from the Secretary of State yesterday are indicative of her persistent dedication to her signature issue, which, judging from statements from the White House recently, she seems to have managed to wrestle into a major commitment from the administration at large.   At UNGA, President Obama stated that the plight of women and girls is central to the concerns of this administration and to stability and development in the world.  Now where I have heard that before?  Earlier this past week, sharing a stage with Secretaries Clinton and Gates, Secretary Geithner expressed  the same focus and rationale.  I take these remarks as evidence of the impact Hillary Clinton has had on this administration, the influence and the mark she is leaving on it.

These two press releases, expressing appreciation to the Senate and to the U.N. for efforts that will have a positive impact on women, girls, and therefore on families, are emblematic of the Secretary’s close watch on the female front.

New UN Human Rights Council Mechanism to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 1, 2010

Today, the United States joined with the international community to send a clear message: discrimination against women is a violation of human rights. I applaud the UN Human Rights Council for adopting an historic resolution to create a new mechanism that will promote the elimination of laws that discriminate against women. Establishing this mechanism by consensus at the UN Human Rights Council reinforces once again that women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.

Equality for women is not only a matter of justice — it is a political, economic, and strategic imperative. The world cannot make progress if women are denied the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential. The United States will continue its commitment to advance the human rights of women and girls around the world.

Senate Approval of the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 1, 2010

On Wednesday, September 29, the U.S. Senate approved the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The United States has been active in the Convention’s development since negotiations began in 2003, and we were the first country to sign the Convention in 2007. This week, we have taken another step toward ratification, again reaffirming our commitment to protecting the welfare of children around the world.

Protecting our most vulnerable citizens, especially children, is one of the primary duties of any government. When a child and one parent are in one country while the other parent is in different country, recovering child support can be difficult and often impossible. The United States has a comprehensive system in place to establish, recognize, and enforce domestic and international child support obligations. The Convention requires that all treaty partners develop similar systems to facilitate the recovery of funds between nations. This will help more children around the world receive the support they need more expeditiously than ever before.

The Department of State will continue to work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services as we continue toward ratification by the full Senate and the United States becoming a party to the Convention.

We look forward to working with the Hague Conference and other countries to implement this important Convention worldwide.

Read Full Post »

Well at the end of one of those weeks when the Secretary of State worked largely behind closed doors,   we have no public remarks or statements directly from Madame Secretary today.  She did begin today with a very early morning phone conversation with UK Foreign Minister William Hague.  In today’s press briefing,  P.J. Crowley highlighted the topics discussed. (I put Madame Secretary’s picture here instead of P.J.’s because she’s prettier.  I am sure P.J. would agree,)

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 16, 2010
…  this morning, the Secretary had a conversation with Foreign Secretary Hague. The primary purpose of the call was to compare notes prior to Prime Minister Cameron’s visit to Washington next week. But she also used the opportunity of the call to thank the United Kingdom for its support of the new U.S.-EU agreement regarding the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. And the two agreed on the importance of continuing our efforts to prevent terrorists from using our financial systems to launch attacks.They also talked about the situation with respect to Mr. Megrahi. Both the Secretary and the foreign minister agreed that in our mutual views, the release of Mr. Megrahi last year was a mistake. The Secretary just signaled to the foreign secretary ongoing congressional interest in this matter. And I think we’ll have more conversations with the British Government on this as we – as Congress continues to focus on the issue.

QUESTION: Where is the foreign minister right now? I don’t think he’s in London. He’s traveling, I believe. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there if you don’t know. Did they talk about the Iroquois case at all?

MR. CROWLEY: They did not.

QUESTION: So basically, that’s a dead letter as far as you’re concerned?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, from our standpoint, we’ve done what we can do. And it would appear to us at this point that the UK has made their final determination.

QUESTION: Okay. And on the BP thing, have you been invited – has anyone from State been invited to the hearings that Senator Kerry is going to be holding and —

MR. CROWLEY: At this point, no.

QUESTION: Do you expect to have someone at the hearings?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, that’s up to the chairman to decide who he wants to attend them – Kerry.

QUESTION: And what would – when you say that more conversations with the British are likely on this subject, what – why would more conversations be necessary after —

MR. CROWLEY: Well, obviously, the Secretary’s mindful that she has a request by the – a handful of senators to look into this matter if we haven’t decided what steps we will take. But clearly, the information that would need to be revealed by any follow-up action is resident within the UK Government and the Scottish Government. So, in anything that we do, we would need their cooperation. So she mentioned the issue, mentioned its importance not only to the Congress, to our government, but most importantly, to the families of the 103 victims. And I think we will be – continue to work with them to see how we can answer the questions that have been raised in recent days.

QUESTION: Did she specifically ask for cooperation from the British Government?

MR. CROWLEY: At this point, we have not made a specific ask of the British Government. The purpose of the —

QUESTION: Well, in general?

MR. CROWLEY: Right, but this was to alert the foreign secretary of the importance of the issue, and in fact, obviously, I think that’s already recognized within the UK. BP has put out statements in the last couple of days. So has the new government in the UK. Again, in the conversation, they agreed that in our joint view, this was a mistake. But we’re still evaluating how we can best work through the requests that the senators have made of us.

QUESTION: Did they indicate that the British Government might be amenable to cooperating if such an investigation is launched? And did the Secretary say that this was likely to come up when the prime minister visits next week?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, the Secretary indicated that it might be appropriate for the British Government to communicate with Congress as well to make sure that they fully understand what transpired a year ago. That was something mentioned. Again, I’ll defer to the British Government to decide exactly what precise action they’ll take.

QUESTION: And how about the meeting next week? Is it likely – did she say that this might be on the agenda when the prime minister visits?

MR. CROWLEY: It was not that specific. I mean, the Secretary and the foreign secretary will also see each other in Kabul.

QUESTION: About how long was the call and how much of it was devoted to this —

MR. CROWLEY: It was 12 minutes. And the bulk of the call was devoted to specific issues related to the prime minister’s visit next week.

QUESTION: Which did not include the BP, so how much of a – what percentage of those 12 minutes were devoted to the BP issue?

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) I can’t tell you. Seven minutes and 43 seconds. I can’t go —

QUESTION: Oh, so then most of it then.

MR. CROWLEY: I don’t know. I don’t know. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: P.J., what exactly does Congress want the Secretary to do, to find out?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I don’t have the letter in front of me from the four senators. I think they want us to look into circumstances surrounding the decision by Scottish authorities a year ago. Obviously, there have been more than one correspondence. There are questions regarding the medical advice – who gave it, how was it considered, how did the Scottish authorities reach a judgment that on humanitarian grounds, based on an understanding that Mr. Megrahi had a relatively short time to live, that they would make this decision to release him on humanitarian grounds. That’s one area. And clearly, some questions have been raised about the fidelity of the medical information that entered into the Scottish authorities’ thinking.

On the other hand, there are questions about BP and its contacts with the UK Government in a kind of – in an earlier timeframe regarding the negotiation of a prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya. And I think the UK has been clear that these two issues were worked on separate tracks.

So, we are – the purpose of her mentioning it today was simply to highlight for the foreign secretary this is a very important issue to the American people and it is going to be something that we will be addressing for a period of time. As we have pledged, we will respond to the four senators, and like I say, we’re working through how – what is the best way to provide the perspective to the Senate that they’ve requested.

QUESTION: Can we change the subject?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one more on that? Is there any attempt or is the State Department looking into any type of pressure that it could put on Libya to reverse Libya’s original decision? Or actually, I should say to reverse the return of Mr. Megrahi to Libya. Is there anything that the U.S. could do – some are asking?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, again, this – I mean, in terms of pressure, obviously, we continue to express our concern and to state categorically that every day that Mr. Megrahi spends as a free man in Libya is an affront to the families and victims of Pan Am 103. That is how we believe and that’s – I think that’s a firmly held belief by the American people.

From a legal standpoint, this – his sentence was – the case was carried out and the sentence applied under a special Scottish tribunal. We respect the fact that this was a decision that the Scottish authorities had the authority to make. We regret that decision. As to whether we have any legal recourse, these are the kinds of things we’re looking into. It’s unclear that we do.

Personally, I think this call was much more about that letter from the senators and BP’s alleged involvement in the release of Al Megrahi.  We know Secretary Clinton is a woman of her word.  We LOVE that about her!  If she says she will do something, she will.  On the other hand sometimes she says she will not do something and then later she changes her mind.  We love that, too.

If she told the senators she would look into this matter, that was probably the central reason for this phone call.  She was not happy with that release last year and made it very clear to then FM David Miliband. I think she wanted to warn Hague that this is a BIG ISSUE here where BP has already earned demerits. If the Prime Minister and a delegation are visiting DC next week, Americans are sure to expect this issue addressed. Any press availability during this visit will be vulnerable to this topic. I think Secretary Clinton wanted him to know he had better come armed for this. Anyway, that is my two cents.

Read Full Post »

New START and implications for National Security Programs

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Opening Statement Before the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on the New START
Washington, DC
June 17, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, members of the committee. It’s a great pleasure for me to return to testify before a committee that I was very honored to serve on. And we are here, today, Secretary Gates, Secretary Chu, and Admiral Mullen, and myself, because we share a strong belief that the new START treaty will make our country more secure and we urge the Senate to ratify it expeditiously.

Now, I know that some argue we don’t need a new START treaty. But let’s be clear about the choice before us. It is between this treaty and no obligation for Russia to keep its strategic nuclear forces below an agreed level, and between this treaty and no on-the-ground verification of Russia’s strategic forces. As Secretary Gates, and then as you, Chairman Levin have pointed out, every previous president of both parties who faced this choice has concluded that the United States is better off with a treaty than without one. And the United States Senate has always agreed.

More than two years ago, President Bush began this process that led to this treaty that we are discussing today. And the new START treaty has already received broad bipartisan endorsement. As James Schlesinger, the Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford, and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter, declared recently in his Congressional testimony, “It is obligatory for the United States to ratify.”

Now, why do so many people who have studied this issue over so many years coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum agree so strongly? Well, today, I’d like to discuss briefly what the new START treaty is and also what it is not. This is a treaty that, if ratified, will provide stability, transparency, and predictability for the two countries with more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. It is a treaty that will reduce the permissible number of Russian and U.S. deployed strategic warheads to 1,550, a level not seen since the 1950s.

In addition, each country will be limited to 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic missile launchers and heavy bombers. These limits will help the United States and Russia bring our deployed strategic arsenals, which were sized for the Cold War, to levels that are more appropriate for today’s threats.

This is a treaty that will help us track remaining weapons with an extensive verification regime. Now, this regime draws upon our experience over the last 15 years in implementing the original START treaty. The verification provisions reflect today’s realities, including the much smaller number of facilities in Russia compared with the former Soviet Union. And for the first time, we will be monitoring the actual numbers of warheads on deployed strategic missiles.

So by bringing the new START treaty into force, we will strengthen our national security more broadly, including by creating greater leverage to tackle a core national security challenge – nuclear proliferation.

This will also demonstrate our leadership and strengthen our hand as we work with others to hold irresponsible governments accountable, whether in further isolating Iran and enforcing the rules against violators or in persuading other countries to implement better controls on their own nuclear materials.

And it makes clear that we are committed to real reductions and to upholding our end of the bargain under the Nonproliferation Treaty, which has already brought about important benefits in my discussions with foreign leaders about strengthening the nonproliferation regime and a range of other topics.

But I want to be also very clear that there are numerous things this treaty will not do. As Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen will discuss more fully, the new START treaty does not compromise the nuclear force levels we need to protect ourselves and our allies. It does not infringe upon the flexibility we need to maintain our forces, including bombers, submarines, and missiles in the way that best serves our own national security interests. This treaty does not constrain our missile defense efforts. And I want to underscore this because I know there have been a lot of concerns about it and I anticipate a lot of questions. But this is something this committee recently reiterated in the FY11 national defense authorization bill. Section 231 reads and I quote, “It is the sense of Congress that there are no constraints contained in the new START treaty on the development or deployment by the United States of effective missile defenses, including all phases of the phased adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe and further enhancements to the ground-based mid-course defense, as well as future missile defenses.”

Now, I worked with some of you on this committee when I had the honor of serving in the Senate on behalf of a very strong missile defense system, so I want to make this point very clearly. Now, Russia has, as the Chairman said, issued a unilateral statement expressing its view. But that is not an agreed-upon view. That is not in the treaty. It’s the equivalent of a press release. And we are not in any way bound by it. In fact, we’ve issued our own statement, which is now part of the record, making clear that the United States intends and, in fact, is continuing to improve and deploy effective missile defense systems. The treaty’s preamble does include language acknowledging the relationship between strategic offensive and defensive forces, but that’s simply a statement of fact. It, too, does not in any way constrain our missile defense programs.

Now, the treaty also includes language – and I think this is Senator McCain’s reference to Article 5 – prohibiting the conversion or use of offensive missile launchers for missile defense interceptors, and vice versa. But in fact, we had no intention of doing that anyway. And as General O’Reilly, our missile defense director, has made clear in testimony, we reached the conclusion it is actually cheaper to build smaller, tailor-made missile defense silos than to convert offensive launchers. I mean, we could have had a long list – we’re not going to launch from any moving vehicle like a car or a truck or a cow. I mean, we could have said a lot of things that we’re not going to do. But the fact is we weren’t going to do them and we weren’t going to do this either. And the treaty does not restrict us in any way from building new missile defense launchers, 14 of which are currently being constructed in Alaska. So I think the very facts on the ground undermine and refute any argument to the contrary.

Now, the Obama Administration has requested $9.9 billion for missile defense in FY11. That is almost $700 million more than Congress provided in FY10.

And finally, the new START treaty does not restrict our ability to modernize our nuclear weapons complex to maintain a safe, secure, and effective deterrent. As Secretary Chu will discuss, this Administration has called for a 10 percent increase in FY11 for overall weapons and infrastructure activities in a time of very serious budget constraints. And we’ve called for a 25 percent increase in direct stockpile work. During the next 10 years, this Administration proposes investing $80 billion in our nuclear weapons complex.

So let me just conclude by taking a step back and putting the new START treaty into a larger context. This treaty is one part of a broader effort to reduce the threat posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known, especially the potential intersection of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation. We have several coordinated efforts that have been briefed to this committee, including the Nuclear Posture Review, the recently concluded Nuclear Security Summit, and the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, as well as extensive bilateral engagements.

So while a ratified new START treaty stands on its own terms, and when you look at the very real benefits it provides to our national security, it is part of a broader strategy. So Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of the committee, we stand ready to work with you as you undertake your constitutional responsibilities with respect to this treaty, and we are ready to answer any and all questions. And we hope that at the end of your deliberations, you will come to the same conclusion that we and many others have reached, including many others who have sat in these chairs and voted in the Senate chamber, that this treaty makes our country more secure and merits the Senate’s consent to ratification.

Thank you.

# # #

Read Full Post »

Earlier, in fact while the hearings were still in session, I posted a few photos that came up fast from the hearing room.  I am somewhat amazed at the alacrity with which the photos came up as well as with how quickly the State Department managed to get the video and her remarks posted.  I am accustomed to waiting impatiently.   The video is in a prior post and well worth watching.

Well, the rest of today’s pictures are here.  She looked like a Spring flower among the suits, and they all looked delighted to be with her, and most importantly, very appreciative of her hard work in getting this treaty written.  Her defense, explanations, and presentation were clear as crystal, as usual.  In short, she was awesome while looking absolutely beautiful, which is nothing new for Hillary Clinton.  Enjoy the show!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Read Full Post »

Here are Secretary Clinton’s opening remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning. This treaty represents a huge effort on the parts of Secretary Clinton, Minister Lavrov and their teams. I hope this treaty is easily ratified.

The New START Treaty

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Opening Remarks Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
May 18, 2010

Well, Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar and members of the committee, thank you for calling several hearings on the new START treaty and for this invitation to appear before you. We deeply appreciate your commitment to this critical issue. And I think both the Chairman and the Ranking Member’s opening statements made very clear what is at stake and how we must proceed in the consideration of this treaty in an expeditious manner.
It is a pleasure to testify along with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, because we share a strong belief that the new START treaty will make our country more secure. This treaty also reflects our growing cooperation with Russia on matters of mutual interest and it will aid us in advancing our broader nonproliferation agenda. To that end, we have been working closely with our P-5+1 partners for several weeks on the draft of a new sanctions resolution on Iran. And today, I am pleased to announce to this committee we have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China. We plan to circulate that draft resolution to the entire Security Council today.
And let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I think this announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide. There are a number of unanswered questions regarding the announcement coming from Tehran, and although we acknowledge the sincere efforts of both Turkey and Brazil to find a solution regarding Iran’s standoff with the international community over its nuclear program, the P-5+1, which consists, of course, of Russia, China, the United States, the UK, France, and Germany, along with the High Representative of the EU, are proceeding to rally the international community on behalf of a strong sanctions resolution that will, in our view, send an unmistakable message about what is expected from Iran.
We can certainly go into more detail about that during the Q&A. But let me turn to the matter at hand, because I think as convincingly as I can make the case for the many reasons why this new START treaty is in the interest of the national security of the United States of America, the relationship with Russia is a key part of that kind of security. And as Senator Lugar said in his opening remarks, during all the ups and downs, during the heights and the depths of the Cold War, one constant was our continuing efforts to work toward the elimination of and the curtailment of strategic arms in a way that built confidence and avoided miscalculation.
Now, some may argue that we don’t need the new START treaty. But the choice before us is between this treaty and no treaty governing our nuclear security relationship with Russia, between this treaty and no agreed verification mechanisms on Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, between this treaty and no legal obligation for Russia to maintain its strategic nuclear forces below an agreed level. And as Secretary Gates has pointed out, every previous president who faced this choice has found that the United States is better off with a treaty than without one, and the United States Senate has always agreed. The 2002 Moscow Treaty was approved by a vote of 95 to nothing. The 1991 START treaty was approved by 93 to 6.
More than two years ago, President Bush began the process that has led to the new START treaty that we are discussing today. Now, it, too, has already received bipartisan support in testimony before this committee. And as the Chairman and the Ranking Member acknowledged, former Secretary James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford, Secretary of Energy for President Carter, declared that it is obligatory for the United States to ratify it.
Today, I’d like to discuss what the new START treaty is and what it isn’t. It is a treaty that, if ratified, will provide stability, transparency, and predictability for the two countries with more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. It is a treaty that will reduce the permissible number of Russian and U.S.-deployed strategic warheads to 1,550. This is a level we have not reached since the 1950s. In addition, each country will be limited to 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic missile launchers and heavy bombers. These targets will help the United States and Russia bring our deployed strategic arsenals, which were sized for the Cold War, to levels that are appropriate for today’s threats.
This is a treaty that will help us track remaining weapons with an extensive verification regime. This regime draws upon our experience over the last 15 years in implementing the original START treaty which expired in December. The verification measures reflect today’s realities, including the fewer number of facilities in Russia compared with the former Soviet Union. And for the first time ever, we will be monitoring the actual numbers of warheads on deployed strategic missiles. Moreover, by bringing the new START treaty into force, we will strengthen our national security more broadly, including by creating greater leverage to tackle a core national security challenge – nuclear proliferation.
Now, I am not suggesting that this treaty alone will convince Iran or North Korea to change their behavior. But it does demonstrate our leadership and strengthens our hand as we seek to hold these and other governments accountable, whether that means further isolating Iran and enforcing the rules against violators or convincing other countries to get a better handle on their own nuclear materials. And it conveys to other nations that we are committed to real reductions and to holding up our end of the bargain under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
In my discussions with many foreign leaders, including earlier this month in New York at the
beginning of the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, I have already seen how this new START treaty and the fact that the United States and Russia could agree has made it more difficult for other countries to shift the conversation back to the United States. We are seeing an increasing willingness both to be held accountable and to hold others accountable.
A ratified new START treaty would also continue our progress toward broader U.S.-Russia cooperation. We believe this is critical to other foreign policy priorities, including dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, cooperating on Afghanistan, and pursuing trade and investment. Already the negotiations over this treaty have advanced our efforts to reset the U.S.-Russian relationship. There is renewed vigor in our discussion on every level, including those between our presidents, our military leaders, and between me and my counterpart, Foreign Minister Lavrov. Now, our approach to this relationship is pragmatic and clear-eyed. And our efforts, including this treaty, are producing tangible benefits for U.S. national security.
At the same time, we are deepening and broadening our partnerships with allies. In my recent meetings in Tallinn, Estonia, with our other NATO allies, they expressed an overwhelmingly positive and supportive view of the new START treaty.
Now, there are also things that this new treaty will not do. As both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen will discuss more fully, the new START treaty does not compromise the nuclear force levels we need to protect ourselves and our allies. The treaty does not infringe upon the flexibility we need to maintain our forces, including the bombers, submarines, and missiles, in a way that best serve our national security interest. The treaty does not constrain our plans for missile defense efforts.
Those of you who worked with me in the Senate know I take a backseat to no one in my strong support of missile defense, so I want to make this point very clearly: Nothing in the new START treaty constrains our missile defense efforts. Russia has issued a unilateral statement on missile defense expressing its views. We have not agreed to this view, and we are not bound by this unilateral statement. In fact, we’ve issued our own unilateral statement making it clear that the United States intends to continue improving and deploying our missile defense systems, and nothing in this treaty prevents us from doing so.
The treaty’s preamble does include language acknowledging the relationship between strategic offensive and defensive forces, but this is simply a statement of fact. It does not constrain our missile defense programs in any way. In fact, a similar provision was part of the original START treaty and did not prevent us from developing our missile defenses. The treaty does contain language prohibiting the conversion or use of offensive missile launchers for missile defense interceptors and vice versa, but we never planned to do that anyway. As General O’Reillly, our missile defense director, has said, it is actually cheaper to build smaller, tailor-made missile defense silos than to convert offensive launchers. And the treaty does not restrict us from building new missile defense launchers, 14 of which we are currently constructing in Alaska.
This Administration has requested 9.9 billion for missile defense in FY 2011, almost 700 million more than Congress provided in FY 2010. This request reflects our commitment to missile defense and our conviction that we have done nothing and there is no interpretation to the contrary that in any way undermines that commitment.
Finally, the new START treaty does not restrict our ability to modernize our nuclear weapons complex to sustain a safe, secure, and affective deterrent. This Administration has called for a 10 percent increase in the FY 2011 budget for overall weapons and infrastructure activities and a 25 percent increase in direct stockpile work. This was not in previous budgets. And during the next 10 years, this Administration proposes investing $80 billion into our nuclear weapons complex.
So let’s take a step back and put the new START treaty into a larger context. This treaty is only one part of our country’s broader efforts to reduce the threat posed by the deadliest weapons the world has ever known. And we owe special gratitude to Senator Lugar for his leadership and commitment through all the years on this issue. This Administration is facing head-on the problems of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. We have several coordinated efforts, including the Nuclear Posture Review, the recently concluded Nuclear Security Summit, and the ongoing Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. While a ratified new START treaty stands on its own terms in the reflection of the benefits in national security for our country, it is also a part of our broader efforts.
So Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of this committee, thank you for having us here and for all of your past and future attention to this new START treaty. We stand ready to work with you as you undertake your constitutional responsibilities and to answer all your questions today and in the coming weeks. And we are confident that at the end of this process you will come to the conclusion that so many of your predecessors have shared over so many years on both sides of the aisle that this treaty makes our country more secure and merits the Senate’s advice and consent to ratification.

Read Full Post »

Very odd.  I just watched this video, and now it has been removed.

Opening Remarks Before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 25, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Vice Chairman Cochran and members of the committee. It’s very good seeing you all and especially in this historic room to have this hearing. I thank you for the opportunity to testify alongside Secretary Gates, because we are very much committed together on behalf of our civilian and military efforts in the front-line states. We don’t think that they can be separated because the challenges we face demand that we draw on all of the tools of American leadership and American power, and the strategies we now have in place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq do exactly that.

This whole-of-government approach has shown results and it has also enabled us to more clearly understand the challenges we face. That’s why we’re coming to you today with a $4.5 billion supplemental request. Without this new funding in 2010, we will fall short in all three of the front-line states. I am well aware of the economic strain we all face here at home, and I believe, along with each of you, that every dollar must deliver clear results. Our request addresses urgent demands that will advance our efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan and ensure a smooth transition to a civilian-led effort in Iraq.

First, with respect to Afghanistan, we are implementing the strategy President Obama announced in December. Success requires a fully integrated civilian and military effort, one in which security gains are followed immediately by economic and political gains. As new troops arrive, our civilian surge has already tripled the number of civilians on the ground, and it is these civilian-led efforts that will translate the bravery of our troops into stability for Afghanistan and security for Americans. The challenges are still great. The enemy is still determined. But we are recapturing the momentum in Afghanistan. New funds in 2010 will give us the capacity to move forward at a time when every day is crucial.

Let me briefly describe what we are currently doing in Marjah and the surrounding areas – for Marjah is a proving ground for our strategy and the story thus far is an encouraging one. Our civilians were on the ground within hours and days of the military operation. They quickly stood up a district support team that has helped already to open two schools and a prosecutor’s office. They’ve registered more than 7,000 farmers to begin receiving supplies for licit crops. They’ve employed more than a thousand residents a day through cash-for-work projects. A nearby USAID-built airstrip has allowed the Ministry of Agriculture officials to reach Marjah’s farmers, and a USAID contract is paying a woman-owned Afghan firm to rebuild the highway.

The military offensive rightly may get the headlines, but what happens behind the scenes is equally important. As our military leaders put it, after clearing, we must hold, build, and transition. And Marjah’s residents have made it clear they will judge the Afghan Government and us on our ability to help build enduring security and credible governance. Our $2 billion request for Afghanistan supports efforts like those in Marjah which we are ramping up quickly and which need additional assistance and operational funding in 2010. New assistance will help Afghans provide for their families and revitalize the agricultural sector, which is crucial to reducing poppy cultivation and drawing insurgents back into society.

We also have funding for governance and rule-of-law programs as well as the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which helps build capable institutions. These will work in conjunction with U.S. support for the Afghan National Security Forces, which I also would urge you to fully fund. And through all of this, we have maintained our focus on expanding women’s opportunities, one of our best tools for combating extremism and spurring progress.

In Pakistan, our efforts are vital to success in Afghanistan, but also to our own American security. We’ve made it a strategic priority to strengthen our partnership with the Pakistani people. And I’m under no illusion that success in this arena will come quickly or easily. But think about where we were a year ago. The extremists were 100 miles from Islamabad. They met little resistance in launching attacks on American troops from border areas. Since then, the Pakistani Government has launched important offenses in Swat, South Waziristan, and throughout the country.

We’re moving in the right direction, and the progress that we’ve made is possible because we have demonstrated a clear commitment to work with the people and the Government of Pakistan. Yesterday at the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, we worked very hard – in fact, late into the night – to advance the resolve that we have begun building with the Pakistani leadership. The $370 million we’re requesting for assistance and operations in this supplemental will allow us to expand civilian cooperation at a critical moment.

The military offensives have created new humanitarian needs that, if not addressed immediately, could make these areas ripe for extremism. And in much of the country, water, energy, and economic problems create new challenges. So our success depends on rapidly and sustainably scaling up our efforts, especially in high-impact projects that visibly demonstrate our long-term commitment on helping the Pakistanis build capacity while ensuring accountability.

In Iraq, we have different challenges. But in the wake of this election, we’re at a moment of great opportunity to consolidate stability and forge an enduring partnership sustained by a strong diplomatic presence. Our $2.1 billion supplemental request should be seen in light of the more than $15 billion decrease in Defense funding. As we prepare to move from a Defense-led to a State-led mission in Iraq at the end of August, new funding will allow us to make sure our civilians can work safely in still-dangerous places. It will allow us to move from an intensive, Defense-led police training program to a smaller, State-administered program for police leadership. And our support of Iraqi civilian law enforcement, like support for the Iraqi security forces, is critical to the success of their new democracy.

Now, in putting this supplemental together, I’ve had to make some tough calls and had to have some tough conversations about priorities. And the decisions reflect that. The result is a request that addresses only urgent needs directly related to our security interests. And I want to emphasize all of these programs have been designed with careful attention to accountability and a determination to learn from past mistakes. Waste and corruption are fundamental threats to our success, and we’re serious about combating them.

So we have more funds for strengthened oversight by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and takes into account the problems highlighted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. We’ll also be working with the Congress on updated benchmarks.

Just a brief word on Haiti, Mr. Chairman: Despite the work the United States has done to respond to the disaster, there is still too much suffering. And our rebuilding, along with the international community, is an important commitment to the people of Haiti and to our hemisphere. Of our 1.6 billion Haiti supplemental request, about 500 million will reimburse relief efforts by State and USAID. The rest will go to strategic investments coordinated with our international partners.

I thank the Congress for the ongoing bipartisan support of these efforts. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this committee’s continuing work on behalf of the missions and the priorities of our country.

Read Full Post »

For some mysterious reason the State Department has this dated February 25 when we all know that yesterday HRC wore a black suit,  a pale green shirt, and a jade and pearl necklace and bracelet (and looked very color-coordinated with a green carpet behind her when she spoke to the Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday).

This event was not on her Daily Appointments Schedule, but she spent Wednesday on the Hill speaking in the Senate, and that was the day we saw this tweed suit.

SO! I guess the State Department likes to provide puzzles for us to figure out! Clearly this event took place some time on Wednesday February 24, when she was wearing this tweed suit that looks beautiful on her and was involved with the U.S. Senate, regardless of the date they put on it. I think she looks adorable in this picture – shallow comment over!

February 25, 2010 Secretary Clinton at Ribbon Cutting Ceremony to Unveil Department’s Senate Liaison Office State Department Photo by Michael Gross.



Read Full Post »

Opening Remarks Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
February 24, 2010

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee. It’s a real pleasure to be back here in the Senate to be with all of you and participate in this important hearing. When I was last here to discuss our budget, I emphasized my commitment to elevating diplomacy and development as core pillars of American power. And since then, I have been heartened by the bipartisan support of this committee and the rest of Congress. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member and all of the members for your bipartisan support in moving State Department nominees; 114 were confirmed in 2009. We are now looking to get up and get nominated for your consideration the leadership team at AID and we are very grateful for the expeditious support and we hope they can move quickly when they hit the floor. But I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me also take this opportunity to express appreciation on behalf of the men and women who work every day at the State Department, at USAID, here in our country and around the world, to put our foreign policy into action.

The budget we are presenting today is designed to protect America and Americans and to advance our interests and values. Our fiscal year 2011 request for the State Department and USAID totals $52.8 billion. That is a $4.9 billion increase over 2010. But as the Chairman has pointed out, of that increase, $3.6 billion will go to supporting efforts in “frontline states” – Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Other funding will grow by $1.3 billion, which is a 2.7 percent increase that will help address global challenges, strengthen partnerships, and ensure that the State Department and USAID are equipped with the right people and resources.

Over the past six weeks in Haiti, we have been reminded yet again of the importance of American leadership. I’m very proud of what our country has done, and we will continue to work with our Haitian and international partners to address ongoing suffering and transition from relief to recovery.

But I am also acutely aware that this is a time of great economic strain for many of our fellow Americans. As a former senator, I know what this means for the people you represent every single day. So for every dollar we spend, as Senator Lugar said, we have to show results. That is why this budget must support programs vital to our national security, our national interests, and our leadership in the world, while guarding against waste, duplication, irrelevancy. And I believe that we have achieved those objectives in this budget.

Now, these figures are more than numbers on a page. They tell the story of challenges we face and the resources needed to overcome them.

We are fighting two wars that call on the skill and sacrifice of our civilians as well as our troops. We have pursued a dual-track approach to Iran that has exposed its refusal to live up to its responsibilities and helped us achieve a new unity with our international partners. Iran has left the international community with little choice but to impose greater costs for its provocative steps. And we are now working actively with our partners to prepare and implement new measures to pressure Iran to change its course.

We have also achieved unprecedented unity in our response to North Korea’s provocative actions, even as we leave the door open for a restart of the Six-Party Talks. And we are moving closer by the day to a fresh nuclear agreement with Russia – one that advances our security while furthering President Obama’s long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons.

With China, we seek areas of common purpose while standing firm where we differ. We are making concrete our new beginning with the Muslim world. We are strengthening partnerships with allies in Europe and Asia, with friends in our hemisphere, and with countries around the world, from India to Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, and Turkey. And we are working under the leadership of former Senator George Mitchell to end the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians.

At the same time, we are developing a new architecture of cooperation to meet transnational global challenges like climate change and the use of our planet’s oceans. With regard to the latter, I want to reiterate my support for U.S. accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our country stands to gain immensely from this treaty. Everything we know from what we are picking up with respect to other countries’ use of the tools under the Law of the Sea demonstrates that we will lose out, in economic and resource rights, in terms of environmental interests, and national security.

In so many instances, our national interest and the common interest converge. We are promoting human rights, from Africa to Asia to the Middle East; the rule of law, democracy, internet freedom. We are fighting poverty, hunger, and disease; and we are working to ensure that economic growth is broadly shared, principally by addressing the role of girls and women. And I want to applaud the Chairman and the subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer for putting this issue on the map of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Now, our agenda is ambitious because our times demand it. America is called to lead – I think we all believe that – and therefore we need the tools and the resources in the 21st century to exercise that leadership wisely and effectively. We can bury our heads in the sand and pay the consequences later, or we can make hard-nosed, targeted investments now.

Let me just highlight three areas where we are making significant new investments.

First, the security of frontline states.

In Afghanistan, we have tripled the number of civilians on the ground. Civilians are embedded with our troops in Marjah in the combat operations going on. As soon as an area is cleared, they are part of the American team, along with our international allies, who go in to hold and build. Our diplomats and development experts are helping to build institutions, expand economic opportunities, and provide meaningful alternatives for insurgents ready to renounce violence and join their fellow Afghans in the pursuit of peace.

In Pakistan, our request includes $3.2 billion to combat extremism, promote economic development, strengthen democratic institutions, and build a long-term relationship with the Pakistani people. That is the vision of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman initiative, and this includes funding for that. And I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Senator Lugar, for your leadership. Our request also includes a 59 percent increase in funding for Yemen, Senator Feingold, to help counter the extremist threat and build institutions and economic opportunity.

In Iraq, we are winding down our military presence and establishing a more normal civilian mission. Our civilian efforts will not and cannot mirror the scale of our military presence, but rather they must provide assistance consistent with the priorities of the Iraqi Government. So our request includes $2.6 billion for Iraq. These are resources that will allow us to support the democratic process and ensure a smooth transition to civilian-led security training and operational support. As these funds allow civilians to take full responsibility for programs, the Defense budget for Iraq will be decreasing by about $16 billion. That is a powerful illustration of the return on civilian investment and illustrates the point that the Chairman was making that this is really part of the security budget for the United States and should be seen as part of that whole.

We are blessed with the best troops in the world, as we have seen time and time again. But we also need to give our civilian experts the resources to do the civilian jobs. And this budget takes a step in that direction. It includes $100 million for a State Department complex crisis fund – replacing the 1207 fund through which the Defense Department directed money toward crisis response. And it includes support for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which previously fell under the Defense Department as well. Secretary Gates and I are working literally hand-in-hand and are committed to having a seamless relationship between the Defense Department and the State Department and USAID to further American security.

The second major area is investing in development. And this budget makes targeted investments in fragile societies – which, in our interconnected world, bear heavily on our own security and prosperity. These investments are a key part of our effort to get ahead of crisis rather than just responding to it, positioning us to deal effectively with threats and challenges that lie ahead.

The first of these is in health. Building on our success in treating HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, our Global Health Initiative will invest $63 billion over six years, starting with $8.5 billion in FY11, to help our partners address specific diseases and, equally importantly, build strong, sustainable health systems as they do.

The Administration has also pledged to invest at least $3.5 billion in food security over three years, and this year’s request includes $1.6 billion, of which $1.2 billion is funded through the State Department. And I greatly appreciate the work that Senator Lugar and Senator Casey have done to help target the United States effort when it comes to global hunger and food security. So this funding will focus on countries that have developed effective, comprehensive strategies, where agriculture is central to prosperity and hunger remains widespread.

On climate change, we could not agree with the Chairman more. Therefore, we have requested $646 million to promote the United States as a leader in green technology and to leverage other leaders’ cooperation – including through the Copenhagen Accord, which for the first time, to underscore the Chairman’s point, brings developing and developed countries together. This is such an important initiative. We need leadership from the rest of the world. This is an opportunity for us to push this initiative and to ensure that we have support to give to core climate change activities and to spread the burden among other countries so that they share part of the responsibility in meeting this global challenge.

The budget also includes $4.2 billion for humanitarian assistance programs. Our efforts in Haiti have made clear that State and USAID must be able to respond quickly and effectively.

All of these initiatives are designed to enhance American security, help people in need, and give the American people a strong return on their investments. Our aim is not to create dependency. We don’t want to just pass out fish; we want to teach people to fish. And we want to help our partners devise solutions they can sustain over the long term. And essential to this is a focus on advancing equality and opportunity for women and girls. They are the key drivers for economic and social progress.

And that brings me to our third area that I want to highlight. None of this can happen if we do not recruit, train, and empower the right people for the job.

The State Department and USAID are full of talented, committed public servants, but unfortunately, we have too often failed to give them the tools they need to carry out their missions on the ground. Rather than building their expertise, we have too often relied on contractors, sometimes with little oversight and often with greater cost to the American taxpayer.

This budget will allow us to expand the Foreign Service by over 600 positions, including an additional 410 positions for the State Department and 200 for USAID. It will also allow us to staff the standby element of the Civilian Reserve Corps, a critical tool for responding to crises.

Now, while deploying these personnel generates new expenses in some accounts, it does reduce expenses in others by changing the way we do business. We are ending an over-reliance on contractors and finding opportunities to save money by bringing these functions into government and improving oversight.

So Mr. Chairman, one thing should be very clear from this budget: The State Department and USAID are taking a lead in carrying out the United States foreign policy and national security agenda. As we finish the first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, and as the White House finishes the coordination of the Presidential Directive, we have a unique opportunity to define the capabilities we need and then to match resources with priorities.

The QDDR will help ensure that we are more effective and accountable. And I want to thank all of you for your individual contributions on so many of these issues that are important not only to your constituents but to our country and the world. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work closely with this committee and I would be pleased to take your questions.

Read Full Post »

Afghanistan: Assessing The Road Ahead

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Opening Remarks Before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
December 3, 2009

(9:30 a.m. EST)

Thank you very much, Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Lugar, and to all the members of this Committee. It is an honor for me to be here to testify before you, and also to continue the dialogue. Both the Chairman and the Ranking Member’s statements, as would be expected, were extraordinarily thoughtful, raised a lot of the hard questions that we’re grappling with, and posed the challenges that we have to meet, both the Administration and the Congress together. And I want to thank the Committee for the constructive role that it has played in helping us to address the difficult issues raised in the region of the world that we are focused on today.

When President Obama addressed the cadets at West Point, he set forth both the rationale and the difficult choices that his policy represents. At the end of a very long and thoughtful process that consisted of 10 meetings with the President and his national security team and probably three times that many among the rest of us without the President, the President concluded that among a range of very difficult decisions, this is the best way to protect our nation now and in the future.

The extremists who have taken root in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan have attacked us before, they’ve attacked our allies, they are now attempting to destabilize, if not overthrow the Pakistani Government and take back enough control, if not the entire country of Afghanistan. We believe that if we allow Afghanistan to become a failed state, if we allow the extremists to have the same safe havens that they used before 2001, they will have a greater capacity to regroup and attack again, and also to continue to provide the leadership, the operational and logistical support that they currently provide to global extremism. We believe they could drag an entire region into chaos, and we know that based on the reports from our military and civilian leadership, the situation in Afghanistan is serious and worsening.

Now, I know we don’t want to go back in history and anchor our decision totally on what happened on September 11th, 2001. But I think it does have to be part of the national debate. The damage done with those attacks against our economic and military power centers was also an attack on my constituents, because at that time, I had the honor of serving as senator from New York. I witnessed the tragic consequences to the lives of thousands of innocent families, the damage done to the economy, and the damage to our sense of security. So I feel a personal responsibility to help protect our nation from such violence, and I entered into the very intense consultations we’ve been engaged in with that as my overriding goal, but without any preconceived notion of exactly the best way to meet that goal.

The case for action against al-Qaida and its allies has always been clear. But the United States’ course of action over the last eight years has not. The fog of another war obscured our focus. And while our attention was focused elsewhere, the Taliban regained momentum in Afghanistan and the extremist threat grew in Pakistan – a country, as you know well, with 175 million people, a nuclear arsenal, and more than its share of challenges. So it was against this backdrop that the President called for this careful, thorough review of our strategy.

Our objectives are clear. We will work with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to eliminate safe havens for those plotting against us, our allies, and our interests. We will work to find reliable partners in the region to help us stabilize it, which we think is fundamental to our national security. We will develop a long-term, sustainable relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, primarily our abandonment of that region. The duration of our military presence will be limited, but our civilian commitment must continue even as our troops begin coming home.

Now, accomplishing this mission and ensuring the safety of the American people is not easy. It does mean sending more civilians, troops, and assistance to Afghanistan and significantly expanding our civilian efforts in Pakistan, which we have begun to do under the leadership of the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and this Committee. We will be asking the young men and women who not only serve in the military, but are part of our civilian service team, to be taking great risks and facing extraordinary sacrifices. I want to assure the Committee that we will do everything we can to ensure that their sacrifices make our nation safer.

Now, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is serious, but it is not, in my view, as negative as frequently portrayed in public. The beginning of President Karzai’s second term has opened a new window of opportunity. We obviously have real concerns about the influence of corrupt officials in the Afghan Government, and we will redouble our efforts to pursue them. But in his inauguration speech last month, I witnessed President Karzai call for a new compact with the Afghan people and the international community. He pledged to combat corruption, improve governance, and deliver. His words were long in coming, but they were certainly welcome. They now must be matched with action.

The Afghan people, the United States, and the international community must hold the Afghan Government accountable. We will help by working with our Afghan partners to strengthen institutions at every level. The President has outlined a timeframe for transition to Afghan responsibility. As he said in his speech, the additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate our handing over of responsibility to Afghan forces as we begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. This is not a cliff; this is a transition. The timeframe for the transition provides a sense of urgency in working with the Afghan Government. But it should be clear to everyone that unlike the past, the United States and our allies will have an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. Our resolve in this fight is reflected in the commitment of troops since the President took office, and in the significant civilian commitment that will continue long after our combat forces begin to leave.

Our civilian effort is already bearing fruit. Civilian experts and advisors are helping to craft policy inside government ministries. We are engaged in a process of certifying those ministries that we feel confident in providing funding for, and we will not provide it if we cannot certify them. When our Marines went into Nawa this July, we had civilians on the ground with them to coordinate assistance the very next day. As our operations progress, our civ-mil coordination is growing even stronger. We are on the track to triple the number of civilian positions in Afghanistan to 974 by early next year. When we started, there were about 320. They had six-month rotations. Our checking of their duty roster showed that a lot of them didn’t spend more than 30 to 60 days inside of Afghanistan even though they had been assigned there. We have totally revamped how we are providing civilian assistance. And we believe that we are beginning to make a difference.

Each of these civilians leverage not only, on average, 10 partners from locally employed staff to experts with U.S.-funded NGOs, but what we’re finding most interestingly is they leverage expertise within the United States military. When you put an agricultural expert in – embedded in a battalion, and along with the commanding officer of that battalion, they go looking for soldiers with ranching and farming experience, we have a real force multiplier.

And when I was Kabul two weeks ago meeting with our civ-mil teams, those are exactly the kind of stories that I was told. And the military who are responsible for the clearing phase of our military operations told me repeatedly how important the civilian presence was. As one said to me, I’m happy to supply whatever support these valuable civilians need, and we need more of them. This strategy will make that possible.

Not only do we believe we have the right people to achieve our objectives, we believe we have a sound strategy. We’ll be delivering high-impact economic assistance and bolstering Afghanistan’s agricultural sector, the traditional core of the Afghan economy. A number of my former colleagues have talked with me in the last months about the importance of agriculture and how they tried for eight years to help create jobs, reduce the funding that the Taliban receives from poppy cultivation; in effect, draw insurgents off the battlefield by moving them from poppies to pomegranates. Well, we have taken that advice seriously.

We also will support an Afghan-led effort to open the door to those Taliban who are willing to renounce al-Qaida, abandon violence, and wish to reintegrate into Afghan society. We understand that some of those who fight with the insurgency do not do so out of ideology, theology or conviction, but frankly, due to coercion and money. The average Taliban fighter is – our information – receives two to three times the monthly salary than the average Afghan soldier or police officer.

Our regional diplomacy complements this political approach by seeking to mitigate external interference in Afghanistan and working to shift the calculus of neighboring countries, and that, of course, leads me to Pakistan. A strong, stable, democratic Pakistan must be a key partner for the United States and an ally in the fight against violent extremism. We’ve seen progress over this past year as people in Pakistan increasingly come to the view that we do share a common enemy. I heard that repeatedly during my recent visit. But we have a long way to go. We will significantly expand support intended to help develop the potential of Pakistan and its people, demonstrating a long-term commitment.

I spent three days in Pakistan last month and most commonly I heard over and over again, you left us before, will you do it again? You walked away. You left us holding the problem that you helped to create. We want to send a clear message, as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation does, that we intend to be committed over the long term.

We will not be facing these challenges alone. We have 42 other troop contributing countries. Our NATO-ISAF allies have already made significant contributions. After this hearing, I will leave for Brussels to begin the process of securing additional Afghan commitments. Ambassador Holbrooke is already there consulting with our allies. We’ve had a very encouraging response in the conversations we’ve had thus far. And we’re looking beyond NATO to build the strongest, broadest possible global coalition. Japan just announced a $5 billion commitment to Afghanistan. We think other governments are beginning to recognize that this is a common fight against a common enemy.

So let me conclude where I began: We face a range of difficult choices, but the President’s plan represents the best way we know to protect our nation today and in the future. The task we face is as complex as any national security challenge in our lifetimes. We will not succeed if people view this effort as the responsibility of a single party, a single agency within our government, or a single country. We owe it to our troops and our civilians who will face these dangers to come together as Americans and come together with our allies and the international partners to help accomplish this mission.

I look forward, as always, to continuing to work with you to achieve that goal. Thank you.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: