Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, August 5, 2009Footnote 1
Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by NBC in Nairobi, Kenya
Q. You have three Americans, including journalists, now in Iran, with the possibility of very serious charges there, and it's not (inaudible) coming from the Iranian regime. Is there a possibility of a high-level envoy, even possibly Bill Clinton, to try to get them out?
Secretary Clinton. Well, that's premature. Remember that the message from the young women to their families and Vice President Gore and then to my husband and to the White House and me was a request, in effect. Right, now, we're just trying to find out the status of our three missing Americans.
Q. What do you mean—?
Secretary Clinton. Well, we don't know much. We didn't even know until recently that they were in official custody. I had called for the Iranians to let us know. I mean, young people being held by some nongovernmental or disaffected or totally unrelated group or the government. And now we know that they're in the custody of the Iranian Government.
So we are looking to our friends, the Swiss, to try to find out for us. I think I also want to thank the Swedish ambassador and his team in Pyongyang. They were our contacts. They were the ones that got to see Laura and Euna. But I also want to emphasize, Andrea, please, please don't go near borders of hostile countries. This is something that countries are looking for. And you don't have to get very far away from some of these borders to be picked up by their border patrols and their security forces. It's regrettable that this has happened again, and I really want—I mean, go hiking, have a great time, do journalism, but stay away from those borders. Do not put yourself in these positions where you can end up in prison in a country like Iran or North Korea.
Q. President Ahmadinejad has taken office today, with very hostile remarks for the West, people (inaudible) crackdown (inaudible). (Inaudible) work with now? Does the United States have to deal with Ahmadinejad? He is the leader. And despite the protests (inaudible) the regime, (inaudible) the only (inaudible) town, he and the clerical supporters that he still has?
Secretary Clinton. Well, there's no doubt that he took office today and was inaugurated again as president. But there's also no doubt that there continues to be a lot of foment and ferment within Iran itself, many people who are very bravely pursuing a reform agenda. We want to make it clear that the Iranians who are seeking their rights deserve to be heard and responded to by their government.
There are certain issues, however, as you well know where the United States and other countries have to deal with the government that is there. So it certainly is unfortunate that there was such a crackdown on legitimate protest and questions about the irregularity of the election. But now we do find ourselves having to deal with the government that has taken office.
Q. But there are time limits, and we need a response from Iran by September, October, by this fall, or else will lead to sanctions as tough as sanctions on gasoline and refined products that they really desperately need?
Secretary Clinton. The President has said that we want some sign by the fall, September, as to whether or not there is going to be any bilateral engagement between us and Iran, and that we would not have an open-ended opportunity awaiting the Iranian Government. They would have to decide whether they want to pursue the possibility, and they'd have to be willing to do it on an expedited basis. Simultaneously, we have begun exploring with our allies what kind of additional action, including tougher sanctions, would be available. Because it would be better if we're going to try to send a message to Iran that the actions be as broad as possible, as they now are with North Korea., but I'm not going to preview or comment on anything that might be in such a sanctions package.
But also remember, too, that there are incentives for Iran. Iran deciding that it will abide by obligations they've already agreed to, that it will not pursue a nuclear weapons program, that it will agree to international safeguards and inspections concerning a peaceful civil nuclear program, carries with it some benefits. So it's not just the sanctions side. I want to make it clear that we are prepared, if we are entering into a serious negotiation with the Iranians, talk about what's in it for them. Obviously, we care deeply about the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran poses, not only to the region but beyond, and an arms race that it would definitely trigger, but it is also in Iran's interest to (inaudible) closer (inaudible) to international acceptability.
Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, August 6, 2009Footnote 2
Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by CNN in Nairobi, Kenya
Q. On Iran, there are a number of people, as you know, who argue that the President and you were too slow to condemn what seems to have been fraud in the elections, too slow to offer support to people on the ground because you wanted to preserve the option of negotiating with Iran. Can you really negotiate with Iran at this point?
I understand, in general, one negotiates with all kinds of regimes. But practically speaking, right now, with Ahmadinejad having been inaugurated in a very disputed atmosphere, won't you be legitimizing him if you negotiate with him?
Secretary Clinton. Let me start with the first part about our reaction. There was another very important aspect. We did not want to get between the legitimate protests and demonstrations of the Iranian people and the leadership. And we knew that if we stepped in too soon, too hard, the attention might very well shift and the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protestors. That was a—it was a hard judgment call, but I think we, in retrospect, handled it pretty well. Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot. As you know, the young—one of our young people at the State Department got Twittered, “Keep going,” despite the fact that they had planned for a technical shutdown. So we were doing a lot to really empower the protestors without getting in the way. And we're continuing to speak out and support the opposition.
On the question of engagement, that has been the President's policy. We have made it clear. We have communicated in a number of ways to the Iranian leadership. But we are under no illusions; we were under no illusions before their elections that we can get the kind of engagement we are seeking. The President has also said, look, we need to take stock of this in September. If there is a response, it needs to be on a fast track. We're not going to keep the window open forever.
But we're not just sitting here waiting for somebody in Iran to say, “Let's talk.” We are working with our allies to make the case that we need to have prepared a very robust set of sanctions that we can get the international community to sign off on the way we did with North Korea. We are also, though, looking at an incentive package. We've got to be able to say to the Iranians, “Well, here's what's in it for you if you get back into the good graces of the international community on your nuclear program—you foreswear nuclear weapons, you take appropriate safeguards regarding any kind of civil nuclear program.”
Q. You've talked about that, the importance of making clear to the Iranians that they do have a right for a civilian nuclear program, but not for nuclear weapons.
Secretary Clinton. Mm-hmm.
Q. One potential solution, that in the past the Iranians have suggested they might be open to, is to have an Iranian enrichment capacity in Iran, but under permanent international supervision. Do you think that is a potential way out of this dilemma?
Secretary Clinton. Well, that would not be our first choice. We would rather that the Iranians not have control and authority over the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle, that it be under the supervision of the IAEA, but in another country, Russia being the example that has often been discussed.
But these are the kinds of issues that would be part of the negotiations. There are certain safeguards that might be acceptable, but others that would, we know, be merely shammed. So trying to get to the full panoply of what could be available is part of what we're teeing up in the event there is such a negotiation.
Q. I have to ask you a question that is of personal interest. Newsweek reporter Maziar Bahari—
Secretary Clinton. Right.
Q.—has been arrested and is now going through what can only be called a kind of Stalinist show trial. What is your reaction to that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I am just appalled at the treatment that Mr. Bahari and others are receiving. It is a show trial, there is no doubt about it, and it has caught up journalists and clerics and former elected officials and even people in the current what was the government before the elections. And it is a sign of weakness. It demonstrates, I think, better than any of us could ever say that this Iranian leadership is afraid of their own people and afraid of the truth and the facts coming out.
We've expressed our concern about Mr. Bahari's confinement and now the trial. As you know, he's a Canadian, and we have certainly told the Government of Canada that we would be willing to do whatever is appropriate. They have thanked us for that, thanked us for our concern. They believe that they should take the lead on that and we're supporting them.
Q. But the relationship with Israel has been prickly. I'll give you one example: You extended a kind a nuclear umbrella, the prospect of a nuclear umbrella, to Israel and potentially other countries in the Gulf. And we're talking about the Iranian nuclear program. The response from the Israeli Government was to criticize you, was to say that you were giving in to, you know, accepting an Iranian nuclear program. Were you surprised by their response?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think they misunderstood what I was saying. I said defense umbrella. I didn't specify what kind of defensive measures might be available to those in the region. But I clearly was sending a message to Iran, and we've obviously explained that to our friends in Israel.
But the message was to make clear to whoever is making decisions in Iran these days, particularly about something as important as their nuclear weapons potential, that if they believed that this would give them a more secure position, a greater capacity to influence events, to intimidate their neighbors, to expand the reach of their ideology, they were mistaken, that there was no chance in the world that even if they were to obtain that—and it was obviously prefaced and meant in that way because our position remains the same—we do not intend to accept nuclear weapons by Iran. We think that is unacceptable.
But for the sake of argument and for the sake of their calculus, if that is among their objectives, they need to think again, because they will render their position less secure, they will trigger an arms race in the region, and they will certainly put greater pressure on the United States to extend a defense umbrella in order to hem in and contain them. So I just wanted to be sure that they were thinking like we were thinking, and I think the Israeli response only looked at the fact that, “Oh my gosh, well, does that mean you're changing your policy, that now, somehow it's acceptable?” No, of course not; we think this influences the thinking inside Iran.
Q. If you had to choose, which is worse: a Iranian nuclear weapons program or an American attack on Iran?
Secretary Clinton. Well, we have no intention to pursue the latter. This is something that is a very delicate and difficult issue to even contemplate. And yet at the same time, we are very concerned about Iran being a nuclear weapons state. And it's not going to surprise anyone that Israel views that as an existential threat, that many in the United States see that also as a direct threat to American interests.
But force should never even be contemplated except as a very last resort. We are still focused on our engagement. We're still focused on bringing international pressure. We're still focused on trying to effect the calculations of the Iranian Government. And we'll see where that leads us.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, August 15, 2009Footnote 3
The United States is deeply concerned about the welfare of our American citizens who have been detained or are missing in Iran. We once again urge Iran's leadership to quickly resolve all outstanding American citizen cases.
This includes the case of the American scholar, Kian Tajbakhsh, who has spent his career working to enhance mutual understanding between Iran and the United States. The government of Iran should immediately release Mr. Tajbakhsh from detention and allow him to depart Iran to continue his academic pursuits.
Regarding the three American hikers, Joshua Fattal, Shane Bauer, and Sarah Shourd, who were detained by Iranian authorities on July 31, we once again call on the Iranian government to live up to its obligations under the Vienna Convention by granting consular access and releasing these three young Americans without further delay.
We also remain concerned about the case of Robert Levinson, who has been missing in Iran since March 9, 2007. We call on the Government of Iran to assist in providing any information on his whereabouts and in ensuring his prompt return to the United States.
Our goal is to ensure the safe return of all our missing or unjustly detained American citizens to the United States as quickly as possible so that they can be reunited with their families.
Remarks by President Obama, September 17, 2009Footnote 4
President Barack Obama delivered these remarks in Washington, DC
President Obama. Good morning. As Commander-in-Chief, I'm committed to doing everything in my power to advance our national security. And that includes strengthening our defenses against any and all threats to our people, our troops, and our friends and allies around the world.
One of those threats is the danger posed by ballistic missiles. As I said during the campaign, President Bush was right that Iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat. And that's why I'm committed to deploying strong missile defense systems which are adaptable to the threats of the 21st century.
The best way to responsibly advance our security and the security of our allies is to deploy a missile defense system that best responds to the threats that we face and that utilizes technology that is both proven and cost-effective.
In keeping with that commitment, and a congressionally mandated review, I ordered a comprehensive assessment of our missile defense program in Europe. And after an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my Secretary of Defense and my Joint Chiefs of Staff to strengthen America's defenses against ballistic missile attack.
This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems, and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.
This decision was guided by two principal factors. First, we have updated our intelligence assessment of Iran's missile programs, which emphasizes the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, which are capable of reaching Europe. There's no substitute for Iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program, and we, along with our allies and partners, will continue to pursue strong diplomacy to ensure that Iran lives up to these international obligations. But this new ballistic missile defense program will best address the threat posed by Iran's ongoing ballistic missile defense program.
Second, we have made specific and proven advances in our missile defense technology, particularly with regard to land- and sea-based interceptors and the sensors that support them. Our new approach will, therefore, deploy technologies that are proven and cost-effective and that counter the current threat, and do so sooner than the previous program. Because our approach will be phased and adaptive, we will retain the flexibility to adjust and enhance our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve.
To put it simply, our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies. It is more comprehensive than the previous program; it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost-effective; and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland against longrange ballistic missile threats; and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our NATO allies.
This approach is also consistent with NATO missile—NATO's missile defense efforts and provides opportunities for enhanced international collaboration going forward. We will continue to work cooperatively with our close friends and allies, the Czech Republic and Poland, who had agreed to host elements of the previous program. I've spoken to the Prime Ministers of both the Czech Republic and Poland about this decision and reaffirmed our deep and close ties. Together we are committed to a broad range of cooperative efforts to strengthen our collective defense, and we are bound by the solemn commitment of NATO's Article V that an attack on one is an attack on all.
We've also repeatedly made clear to Russia that its concerns about our previous missile defense programs were entirely unfounded. Our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missile program, and that continues to be our focus and the basis of the program that we're announcing today.
In confronting that threat, we welcome Russians' cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests, even as we continue to—we continue our shared efforts to end Iran's illicit nuclear program.
Going forward, my administration will continue to consult closely with Congress and with our allies as we deploy this system, and we will rigorously evaluate both the threat posed by ballistic missiles and the technology that we are developing to counter it.
I'm confident that with the steps we've taken today, we have strengthened America's national security and enhanced our capacity to confront 21st century threats.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, September 18, 2009Footnote 5
Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Clinton. Let me begin, though, by echoing the President's statement yesterday concerning his approval of the recommendations not only of the Pentagon, but of his entire national security team to deploy a stronger and more comprehensive missile defense system in Europe. This decision came after a lengthy and in-depth review of our assessment of the threats posed, particularly the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missile program, and the technology that we have today, and what might be available in the future to confront it. We believe this is a decision that will leave America stronger, and more capable of defending our troops, our interests, and our allies.
Let me be clear about what this new system will do relative to the previous program, which was many years from being deployed. With the President's decision, we will deploy missile defense sooner than the previous program. We will be able to swiftly counter the threat posed by Iran's short and medium-range ballistic missiles. We will deploy missile defense that is more comprehensive than the previous program with more interceptors in more places and with a better capacity to protect all of our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money. And we will preserve the flexibility to adjust our approach to the threat as the threat evolves.
So make no mistake—if you support missile defense, which I did as a senator for eight years, then this is a stronger and smarter approach than the previous program. It does what missile defense is actually supposed to do. It defends America and our allies. Now I know we've heard criticism of this plan from some quarters. But much of that criticism is not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote, “shelving” missile defense. We are deploying missile defense sooner than the Bush Administration planned to do so. And we are deploying a more comprehensive system.
We are not reducing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies from Iran. By contrast, we are increasing that capacity and focusing it on our best understanding of Iran's current capabilities. And most of all, we would never, never walk away from our allies. We have recommitted ourselves to our Article 5 obligations under NATO. We have sent that message in bilateral and multilateral settings from the President's and my trips to every other encounter and venue that we have been in over the last many months. We are deploying a system that enhances the security of our NATO allies. It actually advances our cooperation with NATO. And it actually places more resources in more countries.
Two of our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic, were very willing to host parts of the previous planned system, and we deeply appreciate that. We will continue to cooperate closely with both nations, for instance, through rotation of a Patriot battery in Poland and close missile defense research and development with Czech companies. As we explore land-based interceptors going forward, we have made it clear that those two countries will be at the top of the list. And let me underscore that we are bound together by our common commitment as NATO allies and also by deep historical, economic and cultural ties that will never be broken.
Finally, let me reiterate what the President said yesterday. This decision was not about Russia. It was about Iran and the threat that its ballistic missile program poses. And because of this position, we believe we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat, and to do so with technology that works and a higher degree of confidence that what we pledge to do, we can actually deliver.
Now my main reason for being here today is to give you a brief review of our agenda next week in New York. But before I get into specifics, I saw a cartoon from The New Yorker. It showed a delegate in his seat at the United Nations passing a note to the delegate next to him. And the caption read, “Shh, it's a birthday card for Liechtenstein. Sign it and pass it on.” Well, comic relief is necessary in our work, especially now.
But as with most humor, this cartoon is also commentary. It represents one view of the United Nations, a caricature of what multinational, multilateral organizations spend their time doing. As President Obama leads our U.S. delegation at this year's General Assembly, I hope we can demonstrate that the United Nations does not have to be just a diplomatic talk shop on First Avenue. At its best, it can be an institution that brings the world's nations together to solve global problems through adherence to rules and principles set forth in the UN charter. And it is the responsibility of the 192 member nations during the General Assembly and beyond to capitalize on the opportunity for global cooperation and progress that the United Nations affords to each of us.
I outlined earlier this summer at the Council on Foreign Relations the Obama Administration's efforts to advance our interests and solve today's problems through a global architecture of cooperation and partnership. And we must begin by taking responsibility ourselves, something that, under President Obama, we have already begun to do on issues from climate change to nonproliferation. And we have called on others to do the same. By building and strengthening partnerships, institutions, and international regimes, we can forge a global consensus and use that leverage to offer clear incentives to all nations to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities. And we can also devise strong disincentives for those who would act in isolation or provoke conflict.
The United Nations and this month's General Assembly offer us a venue and a forum for nations to work together to live up to that founding charter and abide by and enforce international rules in service of global peace and security.
I have in my office in the State Department a picture of Eleanor Roosevelt, one of my particular heroines, and she is sitting at a desk working on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I've said this before, but I think that channeling Eleanor Roosevelt is not a bad idea. It reminds us of what is at stake as we move forward with our responsibilities, as does Strobe Talbott's recent book, The Great Experiment. We have to have effective global institutions. That is not a choice. That is an imperative. It is up to us to determine how to make them effective. The United Nations is a building. It is not able to act in the absence of the decisions made by those member-nations. We, in my view, ignore it and walk away from it at our peril, especially in the 21st century, where interconnectiveness gives voice and prominence to views that could have easily been either ignored or marginalized in the past.
Few issues reflect the need for a global architecture of cooperation more than nuclear nonproliferation. No issue poses a more serious threat to our security or the world's, and it will be a main topic of discussion next week and beyond.
Now, the President outlined a robust and ambitious arms control and nonproliferation agenda in Prague earlier this year, and we believe that it sets the template for what we should aspire to—moving toward a world of zero nuclear weapons.
We understand that that won't be easy. We understand that it is a generational commitment. It might not happen in our lifetimes. But as long as nuclear weapons exist in the world, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective deterrent capability. But we want to both be on record and to use our best efforts to move toward more effective nonproliferation and more effective cooperation toward, hopefully, arriving someday at that future goal.
Next week, the President will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council on nonproliferation and disarmament. He will emphasize the importance of strengthening the international nuclear nonproliferation regime—and the critical role that the Security Council must play in enforcing compliance with nonproliferation obligations.
The President has asked me to lead the U.S. delegation to a conference on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This will be the first time a Secretary of State has attended. It will give me the opportunity to underscore the importance of the CTBT to the global nonproliferation effort and to broaden U.S. security interests.
Strengthening the nonproliferation regime means working to bring other nations into compliance. And this, of course, includes North Korea and Iran. And let me take a moment to say a few words about Iran, which will be another key topic on the President's and my agenda next week.
To begin, it is important to recall what's really at issue, and what's really at stake. Iran has refused for years to address the international community's deep concerns about its nuclear program. Those concerns have been underscored repeatedly by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council.
Iran's continued failure to live up to its obligations carries profound consequences—for the security of the United States and our allies; for progress on global nonproliferation and progress toward disarmament; for the credibility of the IAEA and the Security Council and the Nonproliferation Treaty; and of course, for stability in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, and beyond.
Our concern is not Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, but its responsibility to demonstrate that its program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes. This is not hard to do. Iran's continued refusal to cooperate has damaged the credibility of its claim that it does not seek a nuclear weapon.
So Iran faces a choice. The international community has made abundantly clear what is possible for all Iranians if Iran lives up to its responsibilities on the nuclear issue—the benefits of economic connections to the rest of the world, cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy, and partnership in education and science.
But there will be accompanying costs for Iran's continued defiance—more isolation and economic pressure, less possibility of progress for the people of Iran.
The Obama Administration has clearly conveyed our readiness to engage directly with Iran. We know that dialogue alone doesn't guarantee any outcome, let alone success. But we also know that our past refusal to engage yielded no progress on the nuclear issue, nor did it stem Iran's support for terrorist groups.
Over the past eight months, the President has reached out both to the Iranian Government and people. We have made clear our desire to resolve issues with Iran diplomatically. Iran must now decide whether to join us in this effort.
Yet, since June, we have seen the Iranian Government engaged in a campaign of politically motivated arrests, show trials, and suppression of free speech. The Iranian Government seeks a sense of justice in the world, but stands in the way of the justice it seeks.
Nonetheless, we remain ready to engage with Iran—not as an end in itself, but as a means of addressing the growing concerns that we and our international partners have about Iran's actions, especially on the nuclear issue. In New York next week, I will be meeting with my counterparts from the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany in the P-5+1 context to discuss the way forward and prepare for talks that Javier Solana is arranging at the beginning of October.
Our message will be clear: We are serious. And we will soon see if the Iranians are serious. This is not about process for the sake of process. In New York, we will work with our partners to put Iran's choice into focus and to stress that engagement must produce real results and that we have no appetite for talks without action.
Let me highlight a few other issues that the President and I will be addressing at the General Assembly and in the months ahead: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; development; and women.
Iraq has made important strides with the support of the United States and the international community to build a more secure and hopeful future for its people. We look forward to the parliamentary election next January as an important milestone in this journey, and we pledge to work with Iraqis and the international community, including the invaluable UN Mission to Iraq, to make these elections a success.
As a result of our common efforts, our relationship with Iraq can now enter into a period of transition as our military draws down and the role of civilian agencies increases to better meet the needs of the future and ensure a stable, sovereign, and independent Iraq that contributes to peace and security in the Middle East. This reflects no lessening of our commitment—on the contrary, it demonstrates that we have entered a new, sustained, and more mature partnership that will serve both of our countries far into the future. I am pleased that Vice President Biden, accompanied by Deputy Jim Steinberg, recently returned to Iraq to continue our robust engagement with Iraq's leaders.
That partnership between our countries will, of course, continue to build security cooperation while strengthening diplomatic relations, but also it will help to build stronger ties in commerce, the rule of law, good governance, education, science, culture, and healthcare, through our Strategic Framework Agreement. I chair a coordinating committee along with Prime Minister Maliki. We had our first full meeting in July, and we will continue to be engaged in working on this broader agenda.
Also on the docket for the General Assembly will be meetings related to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama has stated our core goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country. This is a goal we share with Afghanistan, with Pakistan, and with the international community. In fact, pursuing al-Qaida and the Taliban was the basis of the original UN resolutions that authorized U.S. military action after the September 11th attacks and created ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force of 42 nations helping Afghans secure their own country.
Our long-term security, and that of our friends around the world, is connected to the security and well-being of the people of these two countries. To effectively squeeze the extremists fighting to destabilize both countries, the Afghan and Pakistani governments must be better able to secure their territory from these extremists and meet the basic needs of their populations.
The recent Afghan elections at once illustrate the promise and the challenges of Afghanistan. Alongside our partners and the United Nations, we will continue to encourage all parties to respect the international and Afghan electoral institutions charged with determining the final outcome of the election process. When the next president is inaugurated, we will work to step up the level of international engagement and expectation with that new government in a strong partnership to strengthen governance at all levels.
As we address these urgent challenges, we will also work on other issues that have implications for American security and interests. Following up on my trip to Africa last month, and the President's visit to Ghana earlier in the year, he will host a lunch for leaders of Sub-Saharan Africa during the General Assembly. I will meet with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to continue our joint efforts to resolve the crisis in Honduras and help that country restore democratic constitutional order. I will also be meeting with donors and other stakeholders committed to helping Haiti respond to the economic dislocation caused by the global economic crisis, four hurricanes, and a history of challenges. And I will continue discussions with our allies and other partners in Asia about the situation in Burma.
Now, if the global architecture of cooperation demands responsibility of us and our partners, it also offers opportunities. Just as we are focusing intensively on urgent challenges like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, so too are we pursuing a positive agenda devoted to expanding opportunity so more people in more places can fulfill their dreams and live up to their God-given potential. And I will focus considerable attention on two areas of opportunity—development and women. They go hand-in-hand, but we are talking about each of them, because each, in and of itself, is critically important to the point that Strobe made—that human security, national security, international security ultimately rests on development and the role and rights of women.
Now, many of you have heard me describe our plans to integrate diplomacy and development as two of the three pillars in our foreign policy, along with defense. I've talked in different venues about the Obama Administration's commitment to leading with diplomacy and engaging other nations. Next week, I will outline how we will approach development in tandem with our diplomacy—to be effective and efficient and enable the State Department, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation to pursue and execute 21st century foreign policy goals.
The foundation for our approach will be principles that will move us away from top-down assistance that too often fails to meet the needs of those we are attempting to help, or has only short-term effects. To solve the complex problems of poverty, hunger, health, climate change, where they intersect, we want to focus on those root causes, and look for approaches that really change, transform the environment in which people are making these decisions and in which governments are held accountable to a higher degree of performance and transparency. We will be looking for ways to not only explain our approach, but to highlight issues. I will be, for example, participating in an event with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, hosted by the UN and the United States Government, on food security.
We have launched a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review—and unfortunately, that adds another acronym to the State lexicon, the QDDR—led by Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, and co-chaired by Ann-Marie Slaughter, and the Deputy—the Acting Administrator at USAID, Alonzo Fulgham. This is a broad examination of our structure, policies, and budget, and it'll lead to better accountability and measurable results.
Finally, our delegation, and I personally, will work to advance international efforts to recognize women as key drivers of economic progress and social stability, as well, to address impediments to women's empowerment and advancement, particularly sexual and gender-based violence. I will chair a session of the Security Council and will speak on behalf of the adoption of a resolution on “women, peace and security” which will endorse concrete measures to implement Security Council Resolution 1820 and address sexual and gender-based violence as a tactic of war.
I saw the scale of misery caused by this violence on my recent trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo, having met, in many different settings around the world over many years, with women who are the victims of the worst that humanity offers, but also with women who are the strongest exemplars of the best of what humanity offers. I saw that very vividly on this most recent trip.
Next week, I will be speaking with other foreign ministers and heads of state about strategies to end this violence and to ensure that those who commit atrocities are prosecuted and not treated with impunity. I will work with women leaders, heads of state, foreign ministers at the General Assembly to highlight the importance of raising the status of girls and women and investing in their potential through education, economic development, and healthcare. If women are free from violence and accorded their rights, they can contribute to local economies and become change agents for greater prosperity and stability.
Our agenda is ambitious. It is full, from Northeast Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe and the Americas, and we will remain vigilant and proactive about all of them. At this time of year as we contemplate UNGA next week, it seems only fitting that it occurs at the time that we are celebrating the end of Ramadan and the beginning of the Jewish high holy days. We will also, obviously, be focusing on the dream of a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Palestinians, resulting in assurance of the security of Israel and a state for the Palestinian people. This is a time of reflection and renewal for hundreds of millions of our fellow citizens around the globe. It's a time when we can take stock and reassess and hopefully recommit ourselves to the values and ideals that move us forward. And it is in that spirit that I am approaching not only next week's General Assembly, but the weeks, months, and years ahead. And I very much appreciate the excellent work and contributions of many of you in this audience in the capacities in which you too serve and wrestle with these difficult problems that confront us.
And I hope that we will not only continue to have a partnership that enables us to speak of our hopes and aspirations, but together, produce solutions to the problems that we confront. Thank you all very much.
Editorial by Secretary of State Clinton, September 20, 2009Footnote 6
The new system offers a real missile defence
Published in the Financial Times of London
Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama approved the recommendations of his entire national security team to deploy a stronger and more comprehensive missile defence system in Europe. This decision came after a lengthy and in-depth review of our assessment of the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missile programme, and the technology that we have to confront it. And it is a decision that will leave America stronger, and more capable of defending our troops, our interests, and our allies.
With the president's decision, we will deploy missile defence sooner than the previous programme, so that we will be able swiftly to counter the threat posed by Iran's short and medium-range ballistic missiles.
We will deploy missile defence that is more comprehensive than the previous programme, with more interceptors in more places, and a better capacity to protect all of our friends and allies in the region. We will deploy technology that is actually proven so that we do not waste time or taxpayer money, and we will preserve the flexibility to adjust our approach to the threat as it evolves.
This is a stronger and smarter approach than the previous programme. It does what missile defence is actually supposed to do—it defends America and our allies.
We are not “shelving” missile defence. We are enhancing our capacity to protect our interests and our allies. We are not walking away from our allies but are deploying a system that enhances allied security, advances our cooperation with Nato, and actually places more resources in more countries.
Two of those allies are Poland and the Czech Republic, and we deeply appreciate their willingness to host parts of the previously planned system. We will continue to cooperate closely with both nations and both will have the opportunity to be closely involved with missile defence. I want to underscore that we are bound together by our common commitment as Nato allies, and also by deep historical, economic, and cultural ties that will never be broken.
For 60 years, the Nato alliance has been a force for peace, prosperity and security in Europe and around the world because of the commitment to collective security embodied in Article V of its charter: an attack on one ally is an attack on all. An attack on London or Warsaw is an attack on New York or Washington. Nato demonstrated this commitment after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when for the first time, the alliance invoked Article V and Nato sent assets to the US to help protect us from additional terrorist attacks.
Finally, let me reiterate what the president said last Wednesday: this decision was not about Russia; it was about Iran and the threat that its ballistic missile programmes continue to pose. And because of this decision, we will be in a far stronger position to deal with that threat, and to do so with technology that works.
While we pursue this new path, we will make clear our readiness to engage Iran and focus its leaders on a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.
But the security of our allies and our forces cannot wait. That is why we are moving ahead with a new approach for missile defence.
Remarks by President Obama, French President Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Brown, September 25, 2009Footnote 7
President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered these statements in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
President Obama. Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.
Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran's continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements. We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information, and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.
Now, Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime. These rules are clear: All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them. That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure. And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.
This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities. As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program. Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people. But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow—endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.
It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations. We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5-plus-1 negotiations. Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.
And that's why there's a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on October 1st between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany. At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.
To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.
I should point out that although the United Kingdom, France, and the United States made the presentation to Vienna, that Germany, a member of the P5-plus-1, and Chancellor Merkel in particular, who could not be here this morning, wished to associate herself with these remarks. I would now like to turn to President Sarkozy of France for a brief statement.
President Sarkozy. Ladies and gentlemen, we have met yesterday for a meeting—a summit meeting of the Security Council on disarmament and nuclear disarmament. I repeated my conviction that Iran was taking the international community on a dangerous path. I have recalled all the attempts that we have made to offer a negotiated solution to the Iranian leaders without any success, which what has been revealed today is exceptional. Following the enriching plant of Natanz in 2002, it is now the Qom one which is revealed. It was designed and built over the past several years in direct violation of resolutions from the Security Council and from the IAEA. I am expecting from the IAEA an exhaustive, strict, and rigorous investigation, as President Obama just said.
We were already in a very severe confidence crisis. We are now faced with a challenge, a challenge made to the entire international communities. The six will meet with the Iranian representatives in Geneva. Everything—everything must be put on the table now.
We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken. This is for the peace and stability. Thank you.
Prime Minister Brown. America, the United Kingdom, and France are at one. Iran's nuclear program is the most urgent proliferation challenge that the world faces today.
As President Obama and President Sarkozy have just said, the level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.
Confronted by the serial deception of many years, the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand. On October the 1st, Iran must now engage with the international community and join the international community as a partner. If it does not do so, it will be further isolated.
And I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not let this matter rest. And we are prepared to implement further and more stringent sanctions.
Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear: that Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program. Thank you.
Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, September 25, 2009Footnote 8
Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Harry Smith of Face the Nation in New York, NY
Q. Madame Secretary, thank you so much.
Secretary Clinton. Thanks, Harry.
Q. The President said, about this secret facility that's been uncovered in Iran, that it is inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear program. What does the United States think this secret facility is for?
Secretary Clinton. Well, we believe that it is a covert facility designed for the Iranian enrichment. It has not been disclosed, and therefore, it raises additional suspicions about the Iranian intent regarding their nuclear program and this week we had several very important developments. First, we had, in this room, a bilateral meeting with President Medvedev and President Obama. And in a very small setting where—I was there—the President talked with great specificity with President Medvedev about the dual track that we are on regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and the upcoming meeting on October 1st and opened the discussion about the information that we had concerning this facility.
Q. So he told President Medvedev?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, yes. And what we—also saw happen later that day was an agreement by all the members of the so-called P5 + 1: the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China, all in agreement, saying that we expected answers from Iran in the October 1st meeting, and that we are working on what's called a dual track.
We are pursuing the answers. We have made it clear to Iran that they have a right to peaceful nuclear energy for civilian purposes under appropriate safeguards and monitoring, but not to a nuclear weapons program. And if we don't get the answers that we are expecting, and the changes in behavior that we are looking for, then we will work with our partners to move for sanctions.
Q. You talked this summer about if— if diplomacy failed, you called the sanctions “crippling sanctions” would be in order. What would those be?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Harry, we're exploring how you broaden and deepen sanctions. Now, sanctions are already in place. But, like many sanction regimes, they're leaky. But in the last eight months since we've been dealing with North Korea on a similar set of issues, we have forged an international consensus around very tough sanctions and that's given us some additional information about how to proceed on the Iranian front.
But this is a very serious matter. The Russians have come out with a strong statement, saying that the burden has now shifted. It has shifted to Iran. They have to come to this meeting on October 1st and present convincing evidence as to the purpose of their nuclear program. We don't believe that they can present convincing evidence that it's only for peaceful purposes. But we are going to put them to the test on October 1st.
Q. They have managed to hide a nuclear weapons development system for almost 20 years. Do you suspect that this is for other peaceful purposes because they have insisted for the last half dozen years or so that the only reason that they are interested in enriching uranium is for nuclear power, for electricity?
Secretary Clinton. Well, it certainly is hard to accept that at face value. This latest incident concerning the facility at Qum, it would have been disclosed were it for peaceful purposes. There would have already been IAEA inspections.
We have been following this for several years, in cooperation with some of our international partners, watching and assessing what the Iranians were doing. And then, when this became known— actually, through the Iranians, beginning to provide some information about it—we disclosed the fact and gave the information we had to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
So, I guess one has to ask, if it's for peaceful purposes, why was it not public? Why was the fact of it not generally known, instead of through our working with partners to discover it—
Q. Because the IAEA guidelines basically dictate that if you're even going to do anything like this you have to send us your plans—
Secretary Clinton. That's right. That is exactly right. And of course, as you point out rightly, there have been many other actions along the way that raise similar doubts.
Now, the Iranians keep insisting, “No, no, this is just for peaceful purposes.” Well, I think. as the Russians said in their statement, and as we believe, and what this meeting on October 1st is to test is “Fine. Prove it. Don't assert it, prove it.” And we are looking to see what they have to say.
Q. You keep talking about the Russians, and it's interesting, because President Medvedev almost did cartwheels once the President announced that the radar shields were not to be constructed in the Czech Republic and the missile systems weren't to be constructed in Poland.
Do you really have—is Russia really in tune with the United States on this? Because they have made verbal statements in the past, and then when it comes time to have the rubber meet the road, so to speak, they haven't been there. Will they really be there this time?
Secretary Clinton. I think Russia has begun to see many more indications that Iran is engaging in threatening behavior. Certainly these last incidents seem to confirm that. And, finally, the Russians were very supportive of our sanctions against North Korea. President Medvedev said in this room that sanctions may not be preferable, but they may be inevitable.
So, I think this is what diplomacy and engagement is about. We are doing what we think is right for the United States. The missile defense decision, the Iranian process, this is in the interest of our people, our security, our safety, and our friends' and allies'. But we also believe that, in working closely with Russia, sharing information, that they have been quite helpful this past week.
Q. Is there anything the Iranians can do in this meeting on October 1st to dissuade you from what you believe they're up to? What can they say in this meeting to say, “All we're trying to do is make electricity.”
Secretary Clinton. Well, they can't say anything, because they've said that for years. But they can open up their entire system to the kind of extensive investigation that the facts call for.
Q. Is that the only thing the U.S. and the other nations that will be there, is that the only thing that you'll be satisfied with? If they completely open the doors?
Secretary Clinton. Well, we have to be satisfied. And there may be other approaches short of that. But, you know, I think it's really essential that we satisfy ourselves and the international community, which has passed numerous resolutions against Iran's program, pointing out that they are violating UN and IAEA obligations and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So words are not enough. They are going to have to come and demonstrate clearly to the international community what they're up to.
Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of Defense Gates, September 27, 2009Footnote 9
Secretary Robert Gates was interviewed on CNN's State of the Union with John King
Q. I'm John King, and this is “State of the Union.” A wrenching debate over whether to send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. And startling revelations about a secret underground bunker in Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Secretary Gates. This is an illicit nuclear facility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Q. So the question now for Secretary Gates and others, what does the Obama administration know and what actions will it take?
Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us.
We learned as the week came to an end about a new underground secret Iranian nuclear bunker, and the president described it this way. “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.”
Tell us more about what we know, and do you have any doubt Iran was using this facility or planned to use this facility to develop nuclear weapons?
Secretary Gates. We've been watching the construction of this facility for quite some time, and one of the reasons that we waited to make it public was to ensure that our conclusions about its purpose were right. This is information shared among ourselves, the British, the French, as we've gone along. And I think that, certainly, the intelligence people have no doubt that this is an illicit nuclear facility, if only because the Iranians kept it a secret. If they wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a secret for a protracted period of time.
Q. Take me back in time. You say you've known about it for some time, dating back into the Bush administration. You, of course, were serving in the Bush administration. How far back?
Secretary Gates. Well, it's hard for me to remember, but at least a couple of years we've been watching it.
Q. At least a couple of years. Because the former vice president, Dick Cheney, is on record as saying in the closing months of the administration, he was an advocate for possibly using military action against some of these Iranian sites. Was this one of his targets, this area we've just learned about?
Secretary Gates. Well, I think I'll just let his statement speak for itself.
Q. All right. We know—and correct me if I'm wrong, please—that you were skeptical about that, in fact, opposed to that. You didn't think that was the way to go. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said publicly many times how skeptical he is about the military options here. I just want you to help an American out there who says, we can't trust Ahmadinejad, this has been going on for years. We don't think sanctions will work. Why don't we do something about it? Explain to that person out there, whether they work in the United States Congress or whether it's just an average American, when you look at the contingencies that you have available to you and the president has available to him, are there any good military options when it comes to these deep underground facilities?
Secretary Gates. Well, without getting into any specifics, I would just say we obviously don't take any options off the table.
My view has been that there has been an opportunity through the use of diplomacy and economic sanctions to persuade the Iranians to change their approach to nuclear weapons.
The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so. And the only way you end up not having a nuclear capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons as opposed to strengthened.
So I think, as I say, while you don't take options off the table, I think there's still room left for diplomacy. The P5 plus 1 will be meeting with Iran here shortly. The Iranians are in a very bad spot now because of this deception, in terms of all of the great powers. And there obviously is the opportunity for severe additional sanctions. And I think we have the time to make that work.
Q. I want to get to that diplomacy in just a minute, but when you shared this intelligence with others, I want to ask you specifically about the case of Israel, which you know in the past has been very skeptical about the diplomatic route. And many have thought perhaps Israel would take matters into its own hands because it is in the neighborhood. What did the Israeli government, specifically the Israeli military, say when they learned of this intelligence, about this new second facility?
Secretary Gates. Well, Israel, obviously, thinks of the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel. We've obviously been in close touch with them, as our ally and friend, and continue to urge them to let this diplomatic and economic sanctions path play out.
Q. And as that goes forward, President Sarkozy was quite skeptical and he was very clear, this year, December, he wants to see progress or else we'll see tougher sanctions. From your perspective, what sanctions would have the most teeth, would work?
Secretary Gates. Well, there are a variety of options still available, including sanctions on banking, particularly sanctions on equipment and technology for their oil and gas industry. I think there's a pretty rich list to pick from, actually.
Q. If you look at that list, though, in some of those cases, you'll find the suppliers, gasoline, imports, some of the equipment and technology would be China, would you not?
Secretary Gates. China's participation is clearly important.
Q. And the early indications are they will or won't help?
Secretary Gates. Well, I haven't had—I haven't had an opportunity to talk to the president or those who were with him in Pittsburgh, so I don't know the nature of the conversations that they had with the Chinese there, but I do have the sense that the Chinese take this pretty seriously.
Q. Let me ask you about the situation in Iran, as this diplomacy goes forward. You're the defense secretary now. You have been the director of Central Intelligence. When you look at post- election Iran, all the talk of turmoil, reports of tension between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, Ahmadinejad and the reforms, is the water bubbling or is the water boiling in the sense that you just see trouble or do you see potential seeds of revolution?
Secretary Gates. Well, I guess I would say it's simmering. It's clear in the aftermath of the election, that there are some fairly deep fissures in Iranian society and politics, and probably even in the leadership. And frankly, this is one of the reasons why I think additional and especially severe economic sanctions could have some real impact, because we know that the sanctions that have already been placed on the country have had an impact. The unemployment among youth is about 40 percent. They have some real serious problems, especially with the younger people.
So I think that we are seeing some changes or some divisions in the Iranian leadership and in society that we really haven't seen in the 30 years since the revolution.
Q. And if you think sanctions work and this is a clear violation—they hid this from the world, they hid this from everybody, in clear violation of their commitments—why wait? Why not slap tougher sanctions now? Why wait until the end of the year?
Secretary Gates. Well, the opportunity exists in the October 1st meeting and over the next few weeks to see if we can leverage publicizing this additional illegal facility and activity to leverage the Iranians to begin to make some concessions, to begin to abide by the U.N. Security Council resolutions.
I think we are all sensitive to the possibility of the Iranians trying to run the clock out on us. And so nobody thinks of this as an open-ended process.
Q. And so, lastly, on this point, this facility, obviously, is not on-line yet. It is under construction, not on-line. So Iran's capability in terms of being ready to perhaps have a nuclear bomb, in the past, the public statements have been a year to three away. Is that still operational?
Secretary Gates. That would be my view.
