Op-Ed by U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Internet Policy, July 14, 2011Footnote 1
Representative Karen Kornbluh and Deputy Chief Daniel Weitzer authored this Op-Ed in the Washington Post Foreign Policy of the Internet
Iran's recent announcement that it plans to disconnect Iranian cyberspace from the rest of the world was another dramatic sign that the Internet is at risk of being carved up into national mini-Internets, each with its own rules and restrictions. In contrast, the United States has staked out a clear position of leadership in building a global consensus around the benefits of an open, interconnected Internet.
In May, President Obama issued the U.S. International Strategy for Cyberspace, our agenda for safeguarding the single Internet. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has developed a groundbreaking Internet freedom agenda, a principled approach to preserving the freedom to connect—the freedoms of expression, association and assembly online—and to ensuring that the Internet can be a platform for commerce, debate, learning and innovation in the 21st century. Senior government officials and stakeholders, meeting at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) this month, took a major step toward these goals by committing to Internet policy-making principles.
The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because it allows information and ideas to flow freely. According to McKinsey, the Internet has generated as much growth over the past 15 years as the Industrial Revolution generated in 50 years. This is a clear jobs issue—particularly in the United States. Over the past five years, the Internet has been responsible for 21 percent of the growth in mature economies and has created 2.6 jobs for every job it has displaced. Its power to generate innovation is rivaled only by its potential to help people realize their rights and democratic aspirations.
The Internet is so productive—and powerful—because no centralized authority governs it and no nation owns it. You do not need permission to share ideas or associate with others around the globe. Instead, a decentralized system of public and private actors collaborates to ensure its function and expansion.
But this means that nations that choose to take a heavy-handed approach to regulating the Internet can reduce its value for every other nation and user.
For this reason, collective action is needed to safeguard this global treasure. A foreign policy that accounts for the Internet has become essential. We need to work with other countries and stakeholders to build a global consensus on the importance of open communications online among all users—everywhere in the world. And we must build consensus around norms and expectations of behavior essential to that vision.
That's why the president's strategy calls for international partnership to support an open Internet that is secure and reliable. And it's why the secretary of state has called for the global community to “join us in the bet we have made, a bet that an open Internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries.”
The recent meeting called by the OECD (the international economics policy standards organization) assembled leaders from 40 governments, business and the Internet technical community. It produced a set of broad principles for safeguarding the open Internet that address three key international threats to the seamless, interconnected Web.
The first threat is posed by some governments and international institutions intent on imposing pre-Internet-era telecommunications regulatory schemes to provide them control over the flow of information (and money) they enjoyed in the old days of the monopoly phone company. The OECD consensus principles provide Internet diplomats a rallying point of best-practice guidelines, including support for today's multi-stakeholder approach as the pro-growth alternative to backward-looking controls over the Internet.
The second challenge is how to address important concerns, including protection of personal data, children and consumers; intellectual property rights; and cyberse-curity without balkanizing the Internet or restricting competition and the free flow of information. The OECD principles provide guidelines for how to respond. The Obama administration is already implementing them domestically and working with other countries to find technology-savvy solutions that avoid onerous regulations that run counter to the design of an open Internet.
The third threat comes from Iran, Syria and other cyber-autocracies that use pretexts to deny their citizens their rights to express themselves, seek and receive information, and freely associate. These OECD guidelines make clear that countries can address policy challenges without violating these fundamental rights.
Our Internet foreign policy will require building support for these principles with governments, business and civil society. We will need to work with other countries to demonstrate that the principles work. Our diplomacy will also entail continuing to build support for the “freedom to connect” for everyone, and for the human rights, innovation and free-trade benefits that flow from it. The stakes are high, but the OECD principles are an important tool to help us achieve those objectives.
Press Release from the Department of Homeland Security, August 3, 2011Footnote 2
Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced today the unsealing of three indictments and one complaint charging a total of 72 individuals for their participation in an international criminal network dedicated to the sexual abuse of children and the creation and dissemination of graphic images and videos of child sexual abuse throughout the world. Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano announced the charges with Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Director of U.S. Immigration of Customs Enforcement (ICE) John Morton and U.S. Attorney Stephanie Finley of the Western District of Louisiana.
Operation Delego, an ongoing investigation that was launched in December 2009, targeted the 72 charged defendants and more than 500 additional individuals around the world for their participation in Dreamboard—a private, members-only, online bulletin board that was created and operated to promote pedophilia and encourage the sexual abuse of very young children, in an environment designed to avoid law enforcement detection. To date, 52 of the 72 charged defendants have been arrested in the United States and abroad. Members traded graphic images and videos of adults molesting children 12 years-old and under, often violently, and collectively created a massive private library of images of child sexual abuse. The international group prized and encouraged the creation of new images and videos of child sexual abuse—numerous Dreamboard members sexually abused children, produced images and videos of the abuse, and shared the images and videos with other members of Dream-board. Operation Delego represents the largest prosecution to date in the United States of individuals who participated in an online bulletin board conceived and operated for the sole purpose of promoting child sexual abuse, disseminating child pornography and evading law enforcement.
“This operation is an example of the good work that DHS, through its principal investigative arm, ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) does every year in cooperation with our domestic and international law enforcement partners to protect children,” said Secretary Napolitano. “We take our responsibility to protect our children seriously, and this case is a prime example of how cooperation can bring real results.”
“The members of this criminal network shared a demented dream to create the preeminent online community for the promotion of child sexual exploitation but for the children they victimized, this was nothing short of a nightmare,” said Attorney General Holder. “This operation marks another important step forward in our work to protect children across—and beyond—this country. Our nation's fight to protect the rights, interests, and safety of children goes on, and it will continue to be a top priority of this Justice Department.”
“As alleged in court documents, Dream-board was a self-described global ‘community’ of pedophiles dedicated to the relentless victimization and exploitation of children 12 and under,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Using sophisticated methods to evade detection by law enforcement, Dreamboard members allegedly used the power and anonymity of the Internet to motivate each other to commit their horrific acts of sexual abuse of minors and trading in child pornography. The charges unsealed today show the department's continued commitment to a strategy of targeting the most sophisticated child exploitation networks, at home and abroad. No matter how savvy online predators think they are, we will find them, dismantle their networks, and bring them to justice.”
“These indictments capture the activity of a major, global child pornography and exploitation enterprise whose primary objective was to sexually abuse vulnerable children,” said U.S. Attorney Finley. “I hope that these charges send a clear message that we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who participate in this type of activity. We will continue to aggressively pursue these criminals to ensure that there is no place to hide—not in the United States, not anywhere around the globe.”
“The dismantling of Dreamboard is another stark warning to would-be child predators who think they can trade in child pornography and commit heinous acts against innocent children while hiding behind pseudonyms and other technological tricks,” said ICE Director John Morton. “As these criminals try new techniques to digitally erase their trail, ICE's Homeland Security Investigations along with our U.S. and international law enforcement partners continue to upgrade our strategies and technology to track down the depraved individuals who bring suffering to children.”
According to court documents filed in the Western District of Louisiana and elsewhere, Dreamboard members employed a variety of measures designed to conceal their criminal activity from detection by law enforcement. Members communicated using aliases or “screen names,” rather than their actual names. Links to child pornography posted on Dreamboard were required to be encrypted with a password that was shared only with other members. Members accessed the board via proxy servers, which routed Internet traffic through other computers so as to disguise a user's actual location and prevent law enforcement from tracing Internet activity. Dreamboard members also encouraged the use of encryption programs on their computers, which password-protect computer files to prevent law enforcement from accessing them in the event of a court-authorized search.
Membership was tightly controlled by the administrators of the bulletin board, who required prospective members to upload child pornography portraying children 12 years of age or younger when applying for membership. Once they were given access, members were required continually to upload images of child sexual abuse in order to maintain membership. Members who failed to follow this rule would be expelled from the group.
According to court documents, Dream-board members were divided into groups based on status and ranking. The highest level of membership was “Super VIP.” Individuals who obtained that title had created new images of child pornography by molesting children and shared those images with the board administrators. The next level of membership was “Super VIP,” which was comprised of trusted members of the website. The next level after Super VIP was the VIP rank. Individuals in the lowest level of membership were called Members. Those in the lower ranks could only access a limited quantity of child pornography on the bulletin board. The higher the rank, the more material was available to the member. Individuals advanced to higher levels of membership by providing child abuse images that the individual had produced, providing a large number of images, or providing images that had never been seen before.
The bulletin board included rules of conduct, printed in English, Russian, Japanese and Spanish. The rules required prospective members to upload material depicting children under the age of 12 engaged in sexually explicit activity. Approved members were required to observe strict posting rules designed to encourage members to disseminate large quantities of child pornography, thwart efforts by law enforcement to identify members of the board, and encourage members to sexually abuse children in order to produce new material for the board. The board rules also required members to organize postings based on the type of content. One particular category was entitled “Super Hardcore.” The rules for that category described in graphic language that the only posts permitted were those involving adults having violent sexual intercourse with “very young kids” who were being subjected to both physical and sexual abuse and were obviously “in distress, and or crying.”
All 72 of the defendants are charged with conspiring to advertise and distribute child pornography, and 50 of them are also charged with engaging in a child pornography enterprise. The charges and arrests were conducted in three separate phases over the course of the operation. Twenty-eight defendants were charged and 19 were arrested during phase one of the operation; 22 defendants were charged and 17 were arrested during phase two of the operation; and 22 defendants were charged and 16 arrested during phase three of the operation.
Thirteen of the 52 individuals arrested have pleaded guilty. To date, 20 of the 72 charged individuals remain at large and are known only by their online identities. Efforts to identify and apprehend these individuals continue.
Four of the 13 individuals who have pleaded guilty for their roles in the conspiracy have been sentenced to prison. On May 10, 2011, Timothy Lee Gentry, 33, of Burlington, Ky., was sentenced to 25 years in prison. On May 31, 2011, Michael Biggs, 32, of Orlando, Fla., was sentenced to 20 years in prison. On June 22, 2011, Michael Childs, 49, of Huntsville, Ala., was sentenced to 30 years in prison. On July 14, 2011, Charles Christian, 49, of Tilton, Ill., was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison. Each defendant also received a lifetime of supervised release following his release from prison as part of their sentence.
Operation Delego involved extensive international cooperation to identify and apprehend Dreamboard members abroad. Through coordination between ICE; the Department of Justice; Eurojust, the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit; and dozens of law enforcement agencies throughout the world, 19 Dreamboard members across five continents and 13 countries have been arrested to date outside the United States, including two of the five lead administrators of the board. Those countries include Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Hungary, Kenya, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Qatar, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. Numerous foreign investigations related to Operation Delego remain ongoing. The location and arrest of Dream-board members abroad have led to the capture and investigation of other global targets.
To date, law enforcement has confirmed that 15 arrested Dreamboard members personally created child pornography. For example, during his July 11, 2011, guilty plea, Anthony Sowders, 28, of Middles-boro, Ky., admitted that he posted on Dreamboard sexually explicit images of female children that he had created via a webcam. Efforts by federal, state, local and international law enforcement to locate and identify the victims of sexual abuse and exploitation by Dreamboard members are ongoing.
Operation Delego is a spinoff investigation from leads developed through “Operation Nest Egg,” the prosecution of another online group dedicated to the sharing and dissemination of child pornography. Operation Nest Egg was a spinoff investigation developed from leads related to another international investigation, “Operation Joint Hammer,” which targeted transnational rings of child pornography trafficking.
An indictment is merely an allegation and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney John “Luke” Walker of the Western District of Louisiana and Trial Attorneys Keith Becker and Anitha Ibrahim of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the Justice Department's Criminal Division. The Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs provided substantial assistance. The investigation was conducted by ICE HSI, the Child Exploitation Section of ICE's Cyber Crime Center, CEOS, CEOS's High Technology Investigative Unit, and 35 ICE offices in the United States and 11 ICE attaches offices in 13 countries around the world, with assistance provided by numerous local and international law enforcement agencies across the United States and throughout the world.
The investigation was part of Operation Predator, a nationwide ICE initiative to identify, investigate and arrest those who prey on children, including human traffickers, international sex tourists, Internet pornographers, and foreign-national predators whose crimes make them deportable.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, August 4, 2011Footnote 3
Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered this statement in Washington, DC
Secretary Clinton. Preventing mass atrocities and serious human rights violations is both a powerful moral imperative and a compelling strategic interest for the United States. The new interagency Atrocities Prevention Board announced by President Obama today will develop cross-cutting strategies to prevent atrocities and ensure that senior officials throughout our government are warned about emerging threats. And for the first time, we will explicitly bar persons identified as organizing or participating in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and certain serious violations of human rights from entering the United States.
These steps, accompanied by a thorough interagency review of our practices and capabilities, will improve our ability to prevent and respond to future mass atrocities and human rights violations. They will help us put our principles into practice and protect more people in more places.
Remarks by President Obama, August 8, 2011Footnote 4
President Obama. Good afternoon, everybody. On Friday, we learned that the United States received a downgrade by one of the credit rating agencies—not so much because they doubt our ability to pay our debt if we make good decisions, but because after witnessing a month of wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, they doubted our political system's ability to act. The markets, on the other hand, continue to believe our credit status is AAA. In fact, Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about good investments, said, “If there were a quadruple-A rating, I'd give the United States that.” I, and most of the world's investors, agree.
That doesn't mean we don't have a problem. The fact is, we didn't need a rating agency to tell us that we need a balanced, long-term approach to deficit reduction. That was true last week. That was true last year. That was true the day I took office. And we didn't need a rating agency to tell us that the gridlock in Washington over the last several months has not been constructive, to say the least. We knew from the outset that a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling—a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip—could do enormous damage to our economy and the world's. That threat, coming after a string of economic disruptions in Europe, Japan and the Middle East, has now roiled the markets and dampened consumer confidence and slowed the pace of recovery.
So all of this is a legitimate source of concern. But here's the good news: Our problems are eminently solvable. And we know what we have to do to solve them. With respect to debt, our problem is not confidence in our credit—the markets continue to reaffirm our credit as among the world's safest. Our challenge is the need to tackle our deficits over the long term.
Remarks by President Obama, August 10, 2011Footnote 5
President Obama. Thank you. Thank you so much. Everyone, please have a seat, have a seat.
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the White House. Tonight is part of a rich tradition here at the White House of celebrating the holy days of many faiths and the diversity that define us as a nation. So these are quintessentially American celebrations—people of different faiths coming together, with humility before our maker, to reaffirm our obligations to one another, because no matter who we are, or how we pray, we're all children of a loving God.
Now, this year, Ramadan is entirely in August. That means the days are long, the weather is hot, and you are hungry. So I will be brief.
I want to welcome the members of the diplomatic corps who are here; the members of Congress, including two Muslim American members of Congress—Keith Ellison and Andre Carson; and leaders and officials from across my administration. Thank you all for being here. Please give them a big round of applause.
To the millions of Muslim Americans across the United States and more—the more than one billion Muslims around the world, Ramadan is a time of reflection and a time of devotion. It's an occasion to join with family and friends in celebration of a faith known for its diversity and a commitment to justice and the dignity of all human beings. So to you and your families, Ramadan Kareem.
This evening reminds us of both the timeless teachings of a great religion and the enduring strengths of a great nation. Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life. This has been especially true over the past 10 years.
In one month, we will mark the 10th anniversary of those awful attacks that brought so much pain to our hearts. It will be a time to honor all those that we've lost, the families who carry on their legacy, the heroes who rushed to help that day and all who have served to keep us safe during a difficult decade. And tonight, it's worth remembering that these Americans were of many faiths and backgrounds, including proud and patriotic Muslim Americans.
Muslim Americans were innocent passengers on those planes, including a young married couple looking forward to the birth of their first child. They were workers in the Twin Towers—Americans by birth and Americans by choice, immigrants who crossed the oceans to give their children a better life. They were cooks and waiters, but also analysts and executives.
There, in the towers where they worked, they came together for daily prayers and meals at Iftar. They were looking to the future—getting married, sending their kids to college, enjoying a well-deserved retirement. And they were taken from us much too soon. And today, they live on in the love of their families and a nation that will never forget. And tonight, we're deeply humbled to be joined by some of these 9/11 families, and I would ask them to stand and be recognized, please.
Muslim Americans were first responders—the former police cadet who raced to the scene to help and then was lost when the towers collapsed around him; the EMTs who evacuated so many to safety; the nurse who tended to so many victims; the naval officer at the Pentagon who rushed into the flames and pulled the injured to safety. On this 10th anniversary, we honor these men and women for what they are—American heroes.
Nor let us forget that every day for these past 10 years Muslim Americans have helped to protect our communities as police and firefighters, including some who join us tonight. Across our federal government, they keep our homeland secure, they guide our intelligence and counterterrorism efforts and they uphold the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans. So make no mistake, Muslim Americans help to keep us safe.
We see this in the brave service of our men and women in uniform, including thousands of Muslim Americans. In a time of war, they volunteered, knowing they could be sent into harm's way. Our troops come from every corner of our country, with different backgrounds and different beliefs. But every day they come together and succeed together, as one American team.
During the 10 hard years of war, our troops have served with excellence and with honor. Some have made the ultimate sacrifice, among them Army Specialist Kareem Khan. Galvanized by 9/11 to serve his country, he gave his life in Iraq and now rests with his fellow heroes at Arlington. And we thank Kareem's mother, Elsheba, for being here again tonight. Like Kareem, this generation has earned its place in history, and I would ask all of our service members here tonight—members of the 9/11 Generation—to stand and accept the thanks of our fellow Americans.
This year and every year, we must ask ourselves: How do we honor these patriots—those who died and those who served? In this season of remembrance, the answer is the same as it was 10 Septembers ago. We must be the America they lived for and the America they died for, the America they sacrificed for.
An America that doesn't simply tolerate people of different backgrounds and beliefs, but an America where we are enriched by our diversity. An America where we treat one another with respect and with dignity, remembering that here in the United States there is no “them” or “us;” it's just us. An America where our fundamental freedoms and inalienable rights are not simply preserved, but continually renewed and refreshed—among them the right of every person to worship as they choose. An America that stands up for dignity and the rights of people around the world, whether a young person demanding his or her freedom in the Middle East or North Africa, or a hungry child in the Horn of Africa, where we are working to save lives.
Put simply, we must be the America that goes forward as one family, like generations before us, pulling together in times of trial, staying true to our core values and emerging even stronger. This is who we are and this is who we must always be.
Tonight, as we near a solemn anniversary, I cannot imagine a more fitting wish for our nation. So God bless you all and God bless the United States of America. Thank you.
White House Statement, August 19, 2011Footnote 6
This week in Somalia, the terrorist group Al-Shabaab burst into a hospital in Mogadishu and kidnapped three aid workers who were treating innocent civilians injured by the fighting in that war-torn nation. This senseless attack came almost a year to the day since ten humanitarian workers in Afghanistan were brutally murdered by the Taliban simply for delivering medicine and eyeglasses to the Afghan people. On this third annual World Humanitarian Day, the United States joins with the international community in honoring the courage and commitment of dedicated aid workers like these who devote their lives to serving their fellow human beings, often in extremely dangerous circumstances.
From the eastern Horn of Africa to the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya to Yemen, Sudan to Pakistan to Afghanistan, these unarmed aid workers risk their lives to provide life-saving assistance to millions of men, women and children. When disaster strikes, these local and international humanitarians are often the first on the scene, as we saw again this year. Following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the earthquake in New Zealand, aid workers from those countries and around the world mobilized quickly and helped to lead the rescue and recovery efforts. In the face of the on-going drought and famine in East Africa, aid workers are delivering food, medical treatment and clean water and saving countless lives. In Sudan, aid workers continue to risk violent attacks, kidnapping and an increasing threat of landmines in their selfless efforts to provide food and shelter to those who have been displaced from their homes.
On this World Humanitarian Day, we also honor the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while in service to others. Over the past decade, more than 750 humanitarian workers have lost their lives while helping innocent civilians in times of conflict and suffering. Last year alone, 242 aid workers were killed, injured or kidnapped. At a time when armed groups are increasingly targeting these humanitarians, the United States condemns any effort to harm aid workers and demands that they be given the access they need to reach those in need and save lives. And we reaffirm our enduring commitment to the principles to which they dedicated their lives. Around the world, every humanitarian aid worker must be free to serve without fear for their safety, and every human being must be able to pursue their aspirations in peace, dignity and security.
Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of Defense Panetta, August 23, 2011Footnote 7
Secretary Leon Panetta delivered these remarks at the Defense Language Institute, Monterey, California
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Panetta. I have long been an advocate of strong foreign language training in this country. I think it is absolutely vital to what the United States is all about. At one point, when I was a member of Congress, served on a commission that President Carter appointed at that time to look at the state of foreign language training in the United States. And at that time, we determined that the level of foreign language training in America was indeed a national scandal, that it was not supported, that students were not learning the kind of languages they should be learning, and that much more needed to be done to try to improve our foreign language training. We've come a little bit further since that commission report, but frankly more needs to be done.
I'm a believer that foreign language training is vital to just good education. Let's start with that, good education in this country. We talk about the three Rs, but there is a fourth R, which is the reality of the world that we live in. We live in a global world. We have to understand that world if we really are going to be able not only to defend this country, but to extend our relationships to others so that we can work together to defend the world that we live in.
It's vital to our economic interests because we are a global world. We are increasingly competitive in this world. What happens abroad, what happens in Europe, what happens in Greece, what happens in Spain, what happens in China affects our economy. It affects our living standards. And so it is important for us to have the ability to speak the languages of those countries that can impact on our economic security.
It is vital to our diplomacy. How can we possibly deal with other countries without understanding their culture, without understanding their language, without understanding what really is at the heart and soul of those nations? And so having language training, language capability is important for our ability to relate to the world that we live in.
And lastly, it's vital to our national security. When I was at the CIA as director, it was my view that you could not be a good intelligence analyst; you couldn't be a good intelligence operations individual without having foreign language capability. So one of the things I did there as director was establish a mandate that if you're going to be an analyst, if you're going to be an operations officer at the CIA, you better learn a foreign language. It was crucial to your career, but more importantly it was crucial to what you do in the intelligence business. The reality is that we have to reflect the nation we live in and we have to reflect the world that we're a part of.
Languages are the key to understanding that world, to understanding the nuances, to understanding what other people are saying, what they mean. If we're going to be able to advance stability in some of the countries that we're fighting in today, we've got to be able to understand what motivates those countries, what motivates their people, understand where they're coming from, their culture, their beliefs, their faiths, their ideologies, their hatreds, their loves. And it's only through language that you develop that kind of capability.
So it is crucial to our national security to be—to be able to have a strong language ability.
I consider the Defense Language Institute as a treasure in the ability to be able to train you, to give you that language ability so that you can better defend this country in what you do.
As secretary of defense, when I was director of the CIA, one of the first things I did is I traveled throughout the world, and as I travel throughout the world now to meet with our forces is to take the time to thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for giving back to this country. Thank you for caring enough about this great country of ours to be willing to put your lives on the line in order to defend this country and what we represent to ourselves and to the world.
Our democracy is dependent on those that are willing to serve this country. That goes to the heart and soul of what a strong democracy is all about, the ability to have people, citizens who are willing to roll up their sleeves and serve this country. It was true for our forefathers. It's true for our pioneers. It's true for the immigrants who have come to this country. It is true for all of us today. Throughout history, we have been blessed with men and women who've been willing to wear the uniform of this country, to defend this country, to put their lives on the line, many times to sacrifice their lives in order to ensure that we protect our freedoms, our liberties, our values, and what this country is all about.
We need to have that kind of dedication. And for that, I thank you. I thank you for being willing to do that. Wherever you come from, whatever part of this country is your hometown, fact is you've been willing to do it. You're here. And I thank you for that on behalf of the Defense Department, but more importantly on behalf of our country.
We are a country that's facing the war on terrorism and continue to be involved in that. Even though we come to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 this September, we look back at the operations. We look back at the efforts that we've made to confront al Qaeda and we have made good progress at weakening al Qaeda and terrorists’ ability to attack this country. Those operations have been very successful, and yet al Qaeda still remains a threat. In the effort, one of the proudest I've had as CIA director was the ability to put together the operation that took down Osama bin Laden. The military and intelligence community, working together, made that happen.
It's the kind of partnership, the kind of effort that is so reflective of the capabilities of those in uniform. We still confront a threat. We still have to put pressure on in the FATA, in Yemen, in Somalia, and wherever al Qaeda goes. We have to make sure they have no place to hide in which to be able to threaten this country.
We have continuing threats in Iran, in North Korea, to make sure that they do not develop a nuclear capability that can threaten our world. We face cyber threats, increasing challenges in cyber threats that can endanger this country, that can paralyze this country.
We must be prepared to defend ourselves against those kinds of attacks and be able to be aggressive at going after those countries that would try to attack us using this kind of technology.
And we continue to confront rising powers in the world—China, India, Brazil, Russia, countries that we need to cooperate with. We need to hopefully work with. But in the end, we also need to make sure do not threaten the stability of the world.
We've got to be able to project our power in a world in which we make clear that we are a force to be reckoned with. All of this comes at a time when we are facing budget challenges in this country, challenges that all of us have a responsibility to confront. We are facing the largest deficit in the history of this country, a debt that now approaches $14 trillion, an annual deficit of $1.4 trillion. We do have to roll up our sleeves and discipline our budget for the future. And defense has to play a role in that. I understand that. But we do not have to choose between fiscal responsibility and protecting our national security.
The Congress has enacted some budget savings in the debt ceiling agreement. Secretary Gates and the president pretty much were talking about a number that was in the ball park that was passed by the Congress. It's my view that while those decisions are going to be tough, that we have the opportunity to make some very important decisions that not only shape defense for today, but the future; that make us an agile force, a deployable force, a force that can confront the threats in the world that has the weapons to be able to do that effectively, that we can project our presence throughout the world and make clear to others that we care about peace in the world. But most importantly, that protects our troops and protects their families. All of that is essential.
The key strength in our military is a strong volunteer force. That's you. What we have to do is make sure that we never break faith with you or with you families and the commitments that we make to you.
I think we can do this. I'm confident that we can shape this defense for the future and it can be one that will protect this country, protect our core security interests, make us the best military in the world, and protect our troops and their families.
The greatest danger that I share with you is the danger that perhaps Congress, as it tries to struggle with additional deficit reduction, fails and the mechanism that they put in place called sequester suddenly requires additional cuts across the board. If that happens, we could face almost $500 to $600 billion more in cuts, and that would be devastating to defense.
We've seen this happen in the past and we must not make the mistakes of the past. We don't want to hollow out our force. We don't want to weaken our defense. We do not want to undermine our ability to create alliances that defend the world. And most importantly, we do not want to break faith with the troops and with their families.
Excerpts of Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, September 9, 2011Footnote 8
Secretary Hillary Clinton made these remarks in New York, NY
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Clinton. I know that this is a time when we are meeting here in New York amid a looking-back as well as a looking-forward, and with the news last night of a specific credible, but unconfirmed, report that al-Qaida again is seeking to harm Americans and, in particular, to target New York and Washington. This should not surprise any of us. It is a continuing reminder of the stakes in our struggle against violent extremism no matter who propagates it, no matter where it comes from, no matter who its targets might be. We are taking this threat seriously. Federal, state, and local authorities are taking all steps to address it.
And of course, making it public, as was done yesterday, is intended to enlist the millions and millions of New Yorkers and Americans to be the eyes and the ears of vigilance. Of course, people should proceed with their lives and do what they would do ordinarily, but to be part of this great network of unity and support against those who would wreak violence and evil on innocent people.
I could not think of a better place to discuss this topic than here at John Jay. For decades you have trained many of New York's leaders in law enforcement and public service, including many who are working right now around the clock to keep our cities safe and secure during this anniversary weekend. And as President Travis has reminded us, ten years ago, John Jay lost more students and alumni, many of them first responders, than any other educational institution in the country. And you became one of the few institutions to offer a master's program in the study of terrorism. Because as John Jay has recognized, the way we understand the meaning of that terrible day, which brought out the best of humanity alongside the worst, will help determine how we meet the continuing challenge of terrorism, which remains an urgent question not only for the United States, but indeed for the world.
This memorial, which is fashioned from steel salvaged from the north tower will serve as a reminder here at John Jay of what this city and our country went through not only on 9/11 with the memories of the twisted girders and the shattered beams looming above the pile, not only the faces and images of firefighters and police officers and construction workers and volunteers who responded immediately and who stayed to dig through the rubble, but it will also remind us of the resilience of our city and our country and the fortitude that we have shown in picking ourselves up, going on with our lives, and dealing with the serious questions we face.
When I first visited Ground Zero on September 12th with Senator Schumer and Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki, the air was thick, and many of us wore masks that were meant to protect us who were only there for a matter of hours from what was in the air. But as I watched the firefighters emerging from the—behind the curtain of darkness, the soot that covered them, they weren't wearing masks; they were focused on the job in front of them. When I returned a week later, the rescuers were still there. It was raining that day, but they hadn't stopped. They stayed right there looking for their comrades, looking for the hundreds of others whom they never had known in life but would try to recover in death.
At a family assistance center on Pier 94, I began to meet with and work with families who were cradling photos of their missing loved ones. There are some wounds that never fully heal that we all live with for the rest of our lives, and there are those who have shown how strong they have been in the face of their pain and their loss and have moved forward to lead with new purpose to help build a better future.
There were not very many survivors, as you remember, but I tried to meet with them. I remember visiting one at St. Vincent's who had been so profoundly injured by a part of the airplane falling on her. I remember going to the rehabilitation center up in Westchester where a number of the burn victims had been moved. I was very honored to work with these survivors, one of whom, Lauren Manning, has been very much front and center in my mind because of the book that she has just published, and her husband Greg, who is with us. Although she was badly burned, through fierce willpower and character, she fought her way back and reclaimed her life. And now she and Greg have two wonderful young sons. In her book, Lauren writes that we may all, in fact, we all will be touched by adversity as we go on our life's journey, but we can refuse to be trapped by it.
And that is what emerged so powerfully on September 11th and all the days that followed—compassion, courage, and character as strong as one can imagine and even stronger than the steel that were in the towers. We learned something about what makes this city great and what makes this country exceptional.
New Yorkers worked hard to sustain that spirit.
[T]he work is not done. We still have heroes to honor, friends to care for, family to love. And there is also other unfinished business for us as a nation.
On that day, Americans pledged to do everything in our power to prevent another attack and to defeat the terrorists responsible. As a senator from New York, I stood with the 9/11 families who called for a commission to investigate the attacks and recommend reforms. Then we worked together to begin implementing them.
Ten years later, we have made important strides. Our government is better organized. Our defenses are safer than on 9/11. But we still face real threats, as we see today, and there is more work to be done. As the members of the 9/11 Commission recently reported, a number of their major recommendations remain unfulfilled. For example, much-needed radio frequencies have not yet been allotted to first responders to allow them to communicate effectively in a crisis—an issue that I worked on for years in the Senate and is long overdue for completion.
As President Obama has said over the last decade, our government also sometimes went off course, failed to live up to our own values, but we never lost sight of our mission, and we set aside those detours to stay focused, and we made progress. As we move forward, we are determined not to let the specter of terrorism darken the national character that has always been America's greatest asset.
The United States has thrived as an open society, a principled nation, and a global leader. And we cannot and will not live in fear, sacrifice our values, or pull back from the world. Closing our borders, for example, might keep out some who would do us harm, but it would also deprive us entrepreneurs, ideas, and energy, things that help define who we are as a nation, and ensure our global leadership for years to come.
Before 9/11, the commission found that America did not adapt quickly enough to new and different kinds of threats, and it is imperative that we not make that mistake again. It is also imperative that we adapt just as quickly to new kinds of opportunities, that we not be paralyzed or preoccupied by the threats we face, that we not squander our strengths.
So we keep our focus not only on what we are fighting against—on the terrorist networks that attacked us that day and continue to threaten us—but also on what we are fighting for—for our values of tolerance and equality and opportunity, for universal rights and the rule of law, for the opportunity of children everywhere to live up to their God-given potential. That's a fight we can be confident of and a mission we can be proud of. So today, after a decade of learning the lessons of 9/11, let's take stock of where we stand and where we need to go as a nation.
We find ourselves in a moment of historic change and opportunity. The war in Iraq is winding down. The war in Afghanistan has entered a transition phase. Millions of people are pushing their nations to move away from repression that has long fueled resentment and extremism. They are embracing universal human rights and dignity. And this has discredited the extremist argument that only violence can bring about change. Against this backdrop, the death of Usama bin Ladin has put al-Qaida on the path to defeat. And as President Obama has pledged, we will not relent until that job is done.
Earlier this summer, the Administration released its National Strategy for Counterterrorism. It makes very clear we face both a short-term and a long-term challenge. First, to keep up the pressure on al-Qaida and its network. Second, to face down the murderous ideology that fueled bin Ladin's rise and that continues to incite violence around the world. To meet these challenges, our methods must match this unique moment. And we need to apply hard-learned lessons.
We have seen that precise and persistent force can significantly degrade even an enemy as elusive as al-Qaida. So we will continue to go after its leaders and commanders, disrupt their operations and bring them to justice.
But we've also learned that to truly defeat a terror network, we need to attack its finances, recruitment, and safe havens. We need to take on its ideology, counter its propaganda, and diminish its appeal, so that every community recognizes the threat that extremists pose to them and they then deny them protection and support. And we need effective international partners in government and civil society who can extend this effort to all the places where terrorists operate.
To achieve these ends requires smart power, a strategy that integrates all our foreign policy tools—diplomacy and development hand-in-hand with defense—and that advances our values and the rule of law. We are waging a broad, sustained, and relentless campaign that harnesses every element of American power against terrorism. And even as we remain tightly focused on the terrorist network that attacked us 10 years ago, we're also thinking about the next 10 years and beyond, about the next threats, about that long-term ideological challenge that requires us to dig deeply into and rely upon our most cherished values.
I want to speak briefly about these elements of our strategy. First, the operational side: You all know about the bin Ladin raid. It was 10 years in coming. It was a great tribute to the thousands of Americans and others around the world who worked with us. The United States has made great strides over the past decade in capturing or killing terrorists and disrupting cells and conspiracies. In line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, we've broken down bureaucratic walls so we can act on threats quickly and effectively. We've also taken steps to protect against new cyber dangers and to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That remains the gravest threat facing our country and the world. I will not go through all of our actions on this front.
We have talked about the necessity of bringing the world together around a common cause of preventing the proliferation of nuclear material into the hands of extremists. And President Obama held the first-ever Nuclear Security Summit to try to enlist leaders from across the world for this common goal. As we pursue our campaign on these various fronts, we will always maintain our right to use force against groups such as al-Qaida that have attacked us and still threaten us with imminent violence. In doing so, we will stay true to our values and respect the rule of law, including international law principles guiding the use of force in self-defense, respect for the sovereignty of other states, and the laws of armed conflict.
When we capture al-Qaida members, we detain them humanely and consistent with international standards. And when we do strike, we seek to protect innocent civilians from harm. Terrorists, of course, do exactly the opposite. And just as we will not shy away from using military force as needed, we will also use the full range of law enforcement tools. Those who argued in the past that the fight against terrorism was a military matter and not appropriate for law enforcement posed a false choice. It is and it must be both. Look at the superb work that the New York Police Department has done to keep this city safe over the last 10 years and the work they are doing again today.
This also means putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts, which have time and again shown their effectiveness at convicting terrorists, including many right here in New York, without endangering our local population. And we will use, where appropriate, reformed military commissions, because a lawful system that makes use of both civilian courts and reformed military commissions sends an important message to the world that the rule of law plays an essential role in confronting terrorism, and that it works.
In fact, the AP just did a recent study that there have been 120,000 arrests around the world in the last 10 years of terrorists, and 35,000 convictions. Thanks to our military intelligence and law enforcement efforts over the last decade, al-Qaida's leadership ranks have been devastated. Virtually every major affiliate has lost key operatives, including al-Qaida's number two just this last month.
But we must be clear about the threat that remains. Cities such as London and Lahore, Madrid, and Mumbai have been attacked since 9/11. Recently, Abuja was added to this list. Thousands of innocent people, the majority of whom are Muslims, have been killed. And we know, as we have known for 10 years, that despite our best efforts, there is no such thing as perfect security. So while we have significantly weakened al-Qaida's core leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, today we are reminded they can still conduct regional and international attacks and inspire others to do so. And the threat has become more geographically diverse, with much of al-Qaida's activity devolving to its affiliates around the world. I have long described al-Qaida as a syndicate of terror, not a monolith, and this is becoming truer every day.
For example, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula is reaching far beyond its base in Yemen and seeking to carry out attacks like its attempts to bring down cargo and passenger planes bound for the United States. Other extremist groups in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan not only continue to protect al-Qaida's remaining leadership; they are plotting attacks like the failed Times Square bombing. And from Somalia, al-Shabaab is looking to carry out more strikes like last July's suicide bombings that killed 76 people in Uganda during the World Cup.
So even as we mark the progress we have achieved, which has been substantial since 9/11, we cannot afford to ignore these continuing dangers. We need to take a smart and strategic approach that recognizes that violent extremism is bound up with nearly all of today's other complex global problems. It can take root in zones of crisis and poverty, flourish under repression and in the absence of the rule of law, spark hatreds among communities that have lived side by side for generations, and exploit conflict within and between states.
These are all challenges that we face in the 21st century, and they demand global cooperation and, first and foremost, American leadership. So just as counterterrorism cannot be the sole focus of our foreign policy, it does not make sense to view counterterrorism in a vacuum. It must be integrated into our broader diplomatic and development agendas. And we should appreciate that while working to resolve conflicts, reduce poverty, and improve governance, those are valuable ends in themselves, but they also advance the cause of counterterrorism and national security. That is why I have more fully integrated the State Department and USAID into the fight.
We have emphasized innovation. For example, we are now using sophisticated new biometric screening tools to improve border security and the visa process, including electronic fingerprints, facial recognition, and on an experimental basis even iris scans.
We have renewed our alliances and forged new counterterrorism partnerships. Together, we are using all the tools in our arsenal to go after the support structure of al-Qaida, including finances, ideology, recruits, and safe havens.
This is not easy, of course, and we are clear-eyed about how much we can accomplish and how fast. But we will not stop until we do everything possible to prevent recruits and illegal transactions. And we will certainly not solve all the problems of every failed state, nor should we try. But we can make it harder for al-Qaida to fill its ranks and its coffers while ramping up pressure from new and more effective partners.
Let's look at finances, because we know illicit cash pays for terrorist training camps, propaganda, and operations. So cutting off the money is essential. It's a step toward shutting down the network itself. That's why the United States worked with scores of countries to put in place tough new legislation and help many of them disrupt illicit financial networks. Because of the successes that we've had in this area, terrorists are moving out of the formal financial system and increasingly funding their operations through criminal activity, especially kidnapping for ransom. Many of those ransoms have been paid by governments, which only encourages more kidnapping and undermines our counterterrorism efforts. So we are urging our partners around the world to embrace a no-concessions policy.
Even more than the money, what sustains al-Qaida and its affiliates is the steady flow of new recruits. They replace the terrorists we kill or capture, and they plan new attacks. Over the last 10 years, we've learned about how al-Qaida and its affiliates find these new members, about the process of radicalization, and the community dynamics that offer them support and protection. Slowing recruitment is a difficult task, but it begins by undermining extremist appeal. And it continues with highly targeted interventions in recruiting hot spots. That's one reason why the Administration has worked from its first days in office to restore our standing in the world, to bring our policies in line with our principles. This is not about winning a popularity contest. It's a simple fact that achieving our objectives is easier with more friends and fewer enemies.
One of the first things I did after arriving at the State Department was to appoint a special representative to Muslim communities around the world and to step up our engagement in the most crucial media spaces. We put our people—especially Arabic, Urdu, Dari speakers—on key channels like Al Jazeera and others to explain U.S. policies and counter at least some of the widespread misinformation out there. There was this idea that it was—it would be a waste of our time to go on channels and go onto websites to refute and rebut what was being said, but we're in a fight, and I'm not going to let people say things about us that are not true. If they want to say things about us that are true, we'll explain that. But to make up stuff, to be accusing us of things that are totally outlandish and outrageous, was just unacceptable. You're the only way we will get into the conversation where it matters most, and we have to show up. I sometimes get asked by members of Congress: I saw an American diplomat on X, Y, or Z; why? It's because that's where people are. That's where we need to be. I make no apologies for that.
It is with this in mind that we developed and launched the new Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, which is tightly focused on undermining the terrorist propaganda and dissuading potential recruits. The center is housed at the State Department, but is a true whole-of-government endeavor. It has a mandate from the President. And as part of this effort, a group of tech savvy specialists—fluent in Urdu and Arabic—that we call the digital outreach team are contesting online space, media websites and forums where extremists have long spread propaganda and recruited followers. With timely posts, often of independent news reports, this team is working to expose al-Qaida's and extremists’ contradictions and abuses, including its continuing brutal attacks on Muslim civilians. This effort is still small, but it is now growing.
Take, for example, a short video clip that the team put together earlier this year. First, we hear a recording of al-Qaida's new leader, Zawahiri, claiming that peaceful action will never bring about change in the Middle East. Then we see footage of protests and celebrations in Egypt. The team posted this video on popular websites and stirred up a flurry of responses. Like “Zawahiri has no business with Egypt; we will solve our problems ourselves,” wrote one commentator on the website Egypt Forum. Another on Face-book said those are people no one listens to anymore. Now, we won't change every mind with these tactics, but we know from extremists in our own country that they are recruited by and influenced by websites. So we're going to do everything we can to be in that fight for their minds and their hearts, and we are ratcheting up the pressure.
Now, this playbook is still being written. But the more we learn about al-Qaida's structure and methods, the more we have homed in on a number of specific recruiting hotspots, not just online but particular neighborhoods, villages, prisons, and schools. We have found that recruits tend to come in clusters, influenced by family and social networks. By focusing on these hotspots in cooperation with our partners, we can begin to disrupt the recruiting chain.
There is no silver bullet, to be sure, but the United States, especially USAID, has long experience with development projects that actually improve people's lives, create new economic opportunities, increase confidence in local communities. We have seen around the world, including in certain areas of Pakistan and Yemen, that this kind of work can begin diminishing the appeal of extremism.
This is a job that calls for a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. So we are pursuing micro-strategies that include credible local leaders and are driven by local needs and informed by local knowledge. For example, in the triangle between Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia where famine and conflict have opened the door to extremists, we are exploring a new partnership with the Kenya Muslim Youth Association. They will organize small learning circles around mainstream religious scholars, who will help provide counseling to young people who have been radicalized. This is a small project, one of many we're doing, but it's taking on a big challenge, and it's a start, and we will keep learning and adapting and keep convincing others to join with us.
Civil society and the private sector have important roles to play. Groups such as Sisters Against Violent Extremism, a group of women in 17 countries around the world who have risked their lives to tell terrorists that they are not welcome in their communities. They have written newspaper articles in Yemen, held workshops for young people in Indonesia, brought Indian and Pakistani women together to show a united front. These women know they will not stop extremism everywhere, but they refuse to sit on the sidelines. Local authorities and civil society often are better positioned than we are to provide services to their people, disrupt plots, and prosecute extremists, and they often bear the brunt of terrorist attacks.
Especially as a threat from al-Qaida becomes more diffuse, it is in the interest of the United States to forge closer ties with the governments and communities on the front lines and to help them build up their counterterrorism capacity. We need to expand our efforts to build an international counterterrorism network that is as nimble and adaptive as our adversaries’. So we have launched a diplomatic offensive to strengthen bilateral and multilateral cooperation on counterterrorism. We have a broad and ambitious agenda, and to carry out this work, I am upgrading our office devoted to counterterrorism to a full-fledged bureau within the State Department.
Last year the State Department trained nearly 7,000 law enforcement and counterterrorism officials from more than 60 countries. Working with the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, we have supported capacity building in Yemen, Pakistan, and other frontline states. Indonesia offers a good example of how this kind of partnership can pay off. When Jakarta decided to form an elite counterterrorism unit, the State Department provided training and equipment. Experts from the FBI and the Department of Justice shared their experience with police and prosecutors.
Indonesia's invigorated law enforcement effort has disrupted plots, tracked down, arrested, and in some cases, killed al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist leaders, including some of those responsible for the Bali bombing. And Indonesian prosecutors and courts have successfully tried and convicted hundreds of terrorists. We need to expand this cooperation worldwide. As the foreign minister of the UAE wrote yesterday, we need a comprehensive global mission to eradicate terrorism and violent extremism.
But until now, there's been no dedicated international venue to regularly convene key counterterrorism policy makers and practitioners from around the world. So later this month, we will take another significant step forward by establishing a new global counterterrorism forum. We're bringing together traditional allies, emerging powers, and Muslim-majority countries around a shared counterterrorism mission in a way that's never been done before. Turkey and the United States will serve as founding co-chairs and we will be joined by nearly 30 other nations. Together, we will work to identify threats and weaknesses, devise solutions, mobilize resources, share expertise and best practices.
This will improve international coordination, but it will also help countries address terrorist threats within their own borders and regions. We will work to eliminate safe havens and identify the most effective messages to counter violence extremism. The forum will assist countries that are transitioning from authoritarian rule to democracy and the rule of law. It will provide support as they write new counterterrorism legislation and train police, prosecutors, and judges to apply the laws in keeping with universal human rights.
So as we deepen our bilateral and multilateral counterterrorism relationships, the United States has clear expectations for our partners. In some cases, by necessity, we are working with nations with whom we have very little in common except for our desire to defeat al-Qaida and terrorism. We make it a point to underscore our concerns about upholding universal rights. We demonstrate through our own example the effectiveness of doing so.
Unfortunately, some countries, even some friends, allow their territory to remain relatively permissive operating environments for terrorist financiers and facilitators. And yet some who undermine our work by fomenting anti-Western sentiment and exporting extremist ideologies to other Muslim communities even as they try to battle terrorists in their own country. Funding madrassas that preach violence and recruit terrorists, distributing textbooks that teach hate, will only accelerate the growth of extremism. This is like planting weeds in your garden and then acting surprised when they choke the flowers. It is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating, and we will continue to argue against such practices in public and private. We will work with others to extend the success we have had in disrupting the financing of terrorism and will do all I can to try to make sure that more and more countries join this fight.
So all the efforts I have described—the pressure on al-Qaida's leaders, the campaign to deny it funding, recruits, and safe havens, the diplomatic effort to build local capacity and international cooperation—they have put al-Qaida on the defensive. But as important—in fact, even more important, I would argue—has been the blow delivered by the people themselves of the Middle East and North Africa. People across the region are charting a different course than the one that bin Ladin claimed was the only way forward. There is no better rebuke to al-Qaida and its hateful ideology. They are increasingly irrelevant in a region now more concerned with forming political parties than hearing another extremist rant.
It is true that the future is uncertain and it's still possibly going to be exploited by extremists. Security forces are distracted and disorganized. Weapons are missing. We know from experience that democratic transitions can be hijacked by new autocrats or derailed by sectarians. How this moment plays out, and what happens in these transitions, will have profound consequences for our long-term struggle against violent extremism.
But we believe that democracies are better equipped than autocracies to stand up against terrorism for the long term. They offer constructive outlets for political grievances, they create opportunities for upward mobility and prosperity that are clear alternatives to violent extremism, and they tend to have, over time, more effective governing institutions. So it is very much in the interest of the United States to support the development of strong and stable democracies in the region. That is what we are doing, and we are trying to assist both the people and the transitional governments to create economic opportunity and embrace the rule of law.
And it is equally important that the United States continues to live up to our own best values and traditions. The people of these nations are looking at us with fresh eyes, and we need to make sure they see us as a source of opportunity and hope, as a partner, not an adversary.
So as we stand here on the brink of the anniversary of 9/11, we can remember how the world rallied around us in our very difficult time. And we can recall that many were long accustomed to distrusting us, but they reacted on a human level to such an unimaginable crime. We came together as a nation, with a sense of purpose and unity. There were no lines dividing us. We celebrated our diversity—including the many contributions of Muslim Americans—and we showed deep compassion that has always been at the core of the American character.
Today the world is watching us again and seeing whether we will summon up that spirit, that core American spirit, to meet the many challenges that face us here at home and around the world. I am honored to represent our country in every place on the globe. America is exceptional. We are exceptional for our creativity and our openness. We draw people from everywhere. We are exceptional for our unwavering commitment to secure a more just and peaceful world, for our willingness, especially when it matters most, to put the common good ahead of ideology, party, or personal interest.
American leadership is still revered and required. And when old adversaries need an honest broker or fundamental freedoms need a champion, the international community looks to us. When a famine threatens the lives of millions in East Africa or floods sweep across Pakistan, people look to America. They see what we sometimes miss amid all the noise coming out of Washington: America is and remains a beacon of freedom, a guarantor of global security, a true opportunity society, a place to excel, a country of possibility where ideas hatched in a college dorm room can grow into a multibillion dollar business.
The source of our greatness is more durable than many people seem to realize. Yes, our military is by far the strongest and our economy is by far the largest. Our workers are the most productive. Our universities, like this one, are the gold standard. Our values are solid. But we have real challenges, and we have to step up and deal with them. But there should be no doubt that America has the capacity to grow our economy, solve our problems, and renew our global leadership.
Statement by President Obama, September 10, 2011Footnote 9
In this week's address, President Obama marked the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks and paid tribute to the first responders, those serving our nation in the military, and those who lost their lives on that tragic day. In the difficult decade since 9/11, our nation has stayed strong in the face of threat, and we have strengthened our homeland security, enhanced our partnerships, and put al Qaeda on the path to defeat. As we look to the future, we will continue to prove that the terrorists who attacked us are no match for the courage, resilience, and endurance of the American people.
President Obama. This weekend, we're coming together, as one nation, to mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks. We're remembering the lives we lost—nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children. We're reaffirming our commitment to always keep faith with their families.
We're honoring the heroism of first responders who risked their lives—and gave their lives—to save others. And we're giving thanks to all who serve on our behalf, especially our troops and military families—our extraordinary 9/11 Generation.
At the same time, even as we reflect on a difficult decade, we must look forward, to the future we will build together. That includes staying strong and confident in the face of any threat. And thanks to the tireless efforts of our military personnel and our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security professionals—there should be no doubt. Today, America is stronger and al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.
We've taken the fight to al Qaeda like never before. Over the past two and a half years, more senior al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated than at any time since 9/11. And thanks to the remarkable courage and precision of our forces, we finally delivered justice to Osama bin Laden.
We've strengthened the partnerships and tools we need to prevail in this war against al Qaeda—working closer with allies and partners; reforming intelligence to better detect and disrupt plots; investing in our Special Forces so terrorists have no safe haven.
We're constantly working to improve the security of our homeland as well—at our airports, ports and borders; enhancing aviation security and screening; increasing support for our first responders; and working closer than ever with states, cities and communities.
A decade after 9/11, it's clear for all the world to see—the terrorists who attacked us that September morning are no match for the character of our people, the resilience of our nation, or the endurance of our values.
They wanted to terrorize us, but, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Yes we face a determined foe, and make no mistake—they will keep trying to hit us again. But as we are showing again this weekend, we remain vigilant. We're doing everything in our power to protect our people. And no matter what comes our way, as a resilient nation, we will carry on.
They wanted to draw us in to endless wars, sapping our strength and confidence as a nation. But even as we put relentless pressure on al Qaeda, we're ending the war in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Because after a hard decade of war, it is time for nation building here at home.
They wanted to deprive us of the unity that defines us as a people. But we will not succumb to division or suspicion. We are Americans, and we are stronger and safer when we stay true to the values, freedoms and diversity that make us unique among nations.
And they wanted to undermine our place in the world. But a decade later, we've shown that America doesn't hunker down and hide behind walls of mistrust. We've forged new partnerships with nations around the world to meet the global challenges that no nation can face alone. And across the Middle East and North Africa a new generation of citizens is showing that the future belongs to those that want to build, not destroy.
Ten years ago, ordinary Americans showed us the true meaning of courage when they rushed up those stairwells, into those flames, into that cockpit. In the decade since, a new generation has stepped forward to serve and keep us safe. In their memory, in their name, we will never waver. We will protect the country we love and pass it safer, stronger and more prosperous to the next generation.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, September 13, 2011Footnote 10
Secretary Hillary Clinton made this statement in Washington, DC
Secretary Clinton. Good morning, everyone. Here with me today are Michael Posner, our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Suzan Johnson Cook, our Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, and members of their teams. They will brief you on our efforts to promote religious freedom and will take your questions afterwards.
Before I begin on this important topic, I want to address the situation in Afghanistan, where there was an attack on our Embassy in Kabul today. It appears that a number of Afghan civilians have been hurt, and we, of course, will do all we can to assist them. There are no reports of casualties among Embassy personnel at this time.
We are following this very closely, also the unfolding situation in the area, including at NATO-ISAF Headquarters, which, for those of you have been in Kabul, you know is across the street from our Embassy compound. We will take all necessary steps not only to ensure the safety of our people, but to secure the area and to ensure that those who perpetrated this attack are dealt with.
But I want to say a word about our civilians who serve at our Embassy. It is, of course, State Department diplomats, USAID development experts, but it's a whole-of-government effort, and there are civilians from across our government who are there with the sole purpose of assisting the people of Afghanistan in a transition toward stability, security, and prosperity.
The civilians who serve are dedicated, brave men and women, committed to advancing our mission. They will not be intimidated by this kind of cowardly attack. While they work hard every day along with their Afghan colleagues to help children go to school, to help save mothers’ lives at childbirth, to build roads, to assist farmers, the opposition of violent extremists, the Taliban and their allies, engage in a constant effort to threaten and to undermine the peace and progress of the Afghan people.
So we will be vigilant, but we will be continuing with even greater commitment to doing all we can to give the Afghan people, who have suffered so much, a chance at a better future for themselves and their children.
Now, as you know, the protection of religious freedom is a fundamental concern of the United States going back to the earliest days of our republic, and it remains so today.
As we look around the world, in fact, we see many countries where governments deny their people the most fundamental human rights: the right to believe according to their own conscience—including the freedom to not believe or not follow the religion favored by their government; the right to practice their religion freely, without risking discrimination, arrest, or violence; and the right to educate their children in their own religious traditions; and the freedom to express their beliefs.
In Iran, authorities continue to repress Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, Jews, Bahais, Sunnis, Ahmadis, and others who do not share the government's religious views. In China, Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims, “house church” Christians all suffer from government attempts to restrict their religious practice. In Eritrea last year, a 43-year-old evangelical Christian died in prison; he was reportedly tortured for 18 months and denied treatment for malaria because he refused to renounce his faith.
Of course, threats to the free exercise of conscience and religion do not always come directly from governments. Just yesterday, we heard reports that gunmen masquerading as security officers waylaid a bus of Shia pilgrims traveling throughout western Iraq. The women were abandoned by the side of the road, but the 22 men were shot, and their bodies left in the middle of the desert. This sort of hateful, senseless violence has no aim other than to undermine the fabric of peaceful society.
In the Middle East and North Africa, the transitions to democracy have inspired the world, but they have also exposed ethnic and religious minorities to new dangers. People have been killed by their own neighbors because of their ethnicity or their faith. In other places, we've seen governments stand by while sectarian violence, inflamed by religious animosities, tears communities apart.
Now, the people of the region have taken exciting first steps toward democracy—but if they hope to consolidate their gains, they cannot trade one form of repression for another.
Shining a spotlight on violations of religious freedom around the world, such as those I just mentioned, is one of our goals in releasing this report.
We also call attention to some of the steps being taken to improve religious freedom and promote religious tolerance. One of those is UN Human Rights Council Resolution 1618, which was introduced by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and adopted by consensus in March. It calls on all states to take concrete action against religious bigotry through tolerance, education, government outreach, service projects, and interfaith dialogue. And we worked very hard with a number of nations and with the OIC to pass this resolution, and we will be working with our OIC and European counterparts on implementing it. And Ambassador Johnson Cook is leading our efforts.
We have also seen Turkey take serious steps to improve the climate for religious tolerance. The Turkish Government issued a decree in August that invited non-Muslims to reclaim churches and synagogues that were confiscated 75 years ago. I applaud Prime Minister Erdogan's very important commitment to doing so. Turkey also now allows women to wear headscarves at universities, which means female students no longer have to choose between their religion and their education.
Third, as we release this report, we reaffirm the role that religious freedom and tolerance play in building stable and harmonious societies. Hatred and intolerance are destabilizing. When governments crack down on religious expression, when politicians or public figures try to use religion as a wedge issue, or when societies fail to take steps to denounce religious bigotry and curb discrimination based on religious identity, they embolden extremists and fuel sectarian strife.
And the reverse is also true: When governments respect religious freedom, when they work with civil society to promote mutual respect, or when they prosecute acts of violence against members of religious minorities, they can help turn down the temperature. They can foster a public aversion to hateful speech without compromising the right to free expression. And in doing so, they create a climate of tolerance that helps make a country more stable, more secure, and more prosperous.
So the United States Government will continue our efforts to support religious freedom. We are engaging with faith groups to address the issues that affect them. Our embassies encourage inter-faith dialogue. And we will speak out against efforts to curtail religious freedom.
Because it is our core conviction that religious tolerance is one of the essential elements not only of a sustainable democracy but of a peaceful society that respects the rights and dignity of each individual. People who have a voice in how they are governed—no matter what their identity or ethnicity or religion—are more likely to have a stake in both their government's and their society's success. That is good for stability, for American national security, and for global security.
And with that, let me introduce both our assistant secretary and our ambassador-at-large to come forward. Thank you all very much.
Q. Madam Secretary, could you just—do you have anything that—can you tell us anything about your understanding of what's going on in Iran with the hikers and President Ahmadinejad saying that they might be able—that they will be free?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Matt, as you know, we have followed this very closely. And we are encouraged by what the Iranian Government has said today, but I am not going to comment further than that. We obviously hope that we will see a positive outcome from what appears to be a decision by the government.
White House Statement, September 20, 2011Footnote 11
The Obama Administration has dramatically changed America's course at the United Nations to advance our interests and values and help forge a more secure and prosperous world. We have repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We have ended needless American isolation on a range of issues. And as a consequence, we have gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.
What the President calls a “new era of engagement” has led to concrete results at the UN that advance U.S. foreign policy objectives and American security. The dividends of U.S. leadership at the UN are tangible—the stiffest UN sanctions ever against Iran and North Korea, renewed momentum to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials, strong sanctions and an unprecedented mandate to intervene and save lives in Libya, support for the historic and peaceful independence of Southern Sudan, vital UN assistance in Afghanistan and Iraq, vigorous defense of our staunch ally Israel, lifesaving humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable in the Horn of Africa and initial progress in improving the flawed UN Human Rights Council. In a world of 21st-century threats that pay no heed to borders, rebuilding a strong basis for international cooperation has allowed the United States to work together with others to solve common problems at the United Nations, making the American people more secure.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation: The President's vision for a world without nuclear weapons includes a realistic path to get there. Several significant milestones on this important Administration priority have taken place at the UN.
UN Security Council Resolution 1887:
In September 2009, the United States held the presidency of the UN Security Council, and President Obama chaired an historic Council Summit on nonproliferation and disarmament, culminating in the unanimous passage of Security Council Resolution 1887. This U.S.-drafted resolution reaffirmed the international community's commitment to the global nonproliferation regime based on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, supported better security for nuclear weapons materials to prevent terrorists from acquiring materials essential to make a bomb, and made clear that all countries need to comply with their international nuclear obligations.
Iran: In June 2010, the United Nations Security Council voted overwhelmingly to put in place the toughest UN sanctions regime ever faced by the Iranian government for its continued failure to live up to its obligations, sending an unmistakable message about the international community's commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. The new sanctions in Resolution 1929 impose restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities, its ballistic missile program, and its ability to acquire certain conventional weapons. They put a new framework in place to stop Iranian smuggling and crack down on Iran's use of banks and financial transactions to fund proliferation. They also target individuals, entities, and institutions – including those associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – that have supported Iran's nuclear program and prospered from illicit activities at the expense of the Iranian people. The U.S. continues to ensure that these sanctions are vigorously enforced, just as we continue to refine and enforce our own sanctions on Iran alongside those of our friends and allies.
North Korea: In response to North Korea's announced 2009 nuclear test, the United States secured the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1874, which put in place a tough array of sanctions, including asset freezes, financial sanctions, a broad-based embargo on arms exports and imports, and an unprecedented framework for the inspection of suspect vessels. Since the adoption of Resolution 1874, countries have intercepted and seized tons of contraband cargo. These interdictions show that countries are taking seriously their obligations to enforce these tough new measures. The United States will continue to press on sanctions implementation until there is concrete, verifiable progress on denuclearization.
NPT Review Conference: In May 2010, NPT parties adopted by consensus a Final Document that advances a realistic path towards a world without nuclear weapons. This document includes calls for strengthened verification and compliance, recognizes the New START agreement and the need for deeper reductions of nuclear weapons, and calls for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the immediate start of talks on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. It also supports efforts to pursue international fuel banks and related mechanisms to broaden access to peaceful nuclear energy without creating new proliferation risks. This major achievement is a vindication of the broad thrust of U.S. efforts to inject new energy and renewed effort into stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
UN Security Council Resolution 1977:
In April 2011, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1977, underscoring the vital importance of the Committee established pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1540 by extending its mandate for an additional ten years. The 1540 Committee is charged with assisting UN Member States in the implementation of UNSCR 1540's obligations to take and enforce effective measures against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their means of delivery, and related materials, important elements in achieving U.S. nonproliferation objectives. The United States is making a $3 million donation to the United Nations trust fund for global and regional disarmament to help the Committee in its implementation efforts.
Bolstering Progress in Afghanistan and Iraq
Afghanistan: Since 2009, the United States has pursued a strategy in Afghanistan that places much greater emphasis on the role of international civilian assistance, while our troops work to secure the country and transition to a mission in support of Afghan security forces taking responsibility for their own security. To support this goal, the United States has worked to ensure that the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has the resources and political support to carry out its vital mission to lay the foundation for a sustainable peace and a prosperous future, including providing assistance with security, elections, governance, economic development, and humanitarian assistance. The United States will continue to work to strengthen all aspects of the UN presence in the country so that UNAMA can best complement efforts to support the Government of Afghanistan by the United States and the International Security Assistance Force and better coordinate donor support.
Iraq: The United States and the international community are keeping their commitments to the Government and the people of Iraq, and as the United States is completing the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) continues to play a critical role. The United States strongly supports the work of the UNAMI as it continues to provide important technical assistance to the Government of Iraq, assists displaced persons in Iraq and provides humanitarian assistance. Additionally, the United States played a key role in the passage of three resolutions that mark an important milestone in normalizing Iraqi ties to the international community that were significantly limited when Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein. The Security Council, in a special session chaired by Vice President Biden, passed Resolutions 1956, 1957 and 1958 to help return Iraq to the legal and international standing it held prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Promoting American Values
Protecting Civilians in Libya: In March, the United Nations took unprecedented quick and strong action to protect civilians in Libya. Resolution 1973 provided legal authority for the international community to intervene to save lives in Libya. The resolution authorized states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone, saving countless lives. The Security Council also imposed on the Qadhafi regime and on Libya's major financial institutions a sweeping regime of financial sanctions and other measures to pressure the Qadhafi regime to end its brutal crackdown on demonstrators. Among other things, Resolutions 1970 and 1973 provided for an arms embargo, a ban on flights by Libyan-operated aircraft and asset freezes and travel bans on Qadhafi and his inner circle. These measures helped to isolate the Qadhafi regime from the international financial system, restricting its ability to fund military operations and to maintain support in Tripoli.
The people of Libya are now taking the initial steps to rebuild their country and transition to an inclusive democracy. There are still many issues to be resolved in the coming days, but the United States is very encouraged by early the steps the TNC has taken. The United States, the United Nations, and our international partners are helping the TNC build a government that reflects the aspirations of the Libyan people. The United States and our partners have worked through the United Nations to unfreeze billions of dollars in order for Libya to get access to their state assets to meet critical humanitarian needs. The United States will continue to work with the TNC to ensure that these funds are disbursed in a transparent, accountable manner. The United States is also providing over $90 million to UN agencies, international organizations and NGOs to address humanitarian needs generated by the crisis in Libya.
Moreover, the Security Council has adopted a new resolution to promote Libya's recovery from its recent conflict and support its transition to a free society. This resolution mandates a new, three-month UN mission that will assist Libyan efforts to restore security and the rule of law, protect human rights, and undertake an inclusive political dialogue towards establishing a democratic government. It also begins the process of unwinding the UN sanctions that were imposed last spring. Although some measures will remain in place, ensuring that funds previously frozen are released in a transparent and responsible way, the Libyan authorities are now able to pursue a reenergized Libyan economy.
Promoting a Peaceful Transition to South Sudan Independence: On July 9, the Republic of South Sudan celebrated its independence. This action took place following months of intensified diplomatic efforts in the lead up to the historic, peaceful referendum on independence in January. Much of this work was accomplished working within or alongside the United Nations, including last year's highlevel meeting at which President Obama delivered remarks to galvanize international action to ensure a credible and timely referendum.
The United States continues to work closely with the UN and other international partners to support full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and improve the humanitarian situation on the ground. In June, the Security Council created UNISFA, a UN peacekeeping force that will monitor the redeployment of armed forces from the Abyei area and that is authorized to use force to protect civilians and humanitarian workers. In July, the Security Council created UNMISS, a new UN peacekeeping force in the Republic of South Sudan, to consolidate peace and security and to help establish conditions for economic and political development.
The United States continues to work to end genocide and conflict in Darfur, including by supporting the joint UN and African Union peacekeeping mission (UNAMID), and calling for the Government of Sudan to end aerial bombardments, improve conditions and freedoms on the ground, and allow humanitarian access.
Horn of Africa Famine: With more than 13.3 million people—primarily in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia—in need of emergency assistance in the Horn of Africa, the United Nations is at the forefront of a large-scale international response, and the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the region, providing over $600 million in life-saving humanitarian assistance to those in need. Much of this funding is funneled through various UN agencies and supports humanitarian assistance to refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and other drought affected populations.
Additionally, the United States helped garner international support for the Transitional Federal Government and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), including by supporting UN funding to keep international peacekeepers in the country. The United States has been a strong supporter of recent efforts to augment the number of troops deployed in AMISOM, which now has a force of nearly 9,600. Since AMISOM's deployment in 2007, the United States has obligated more than $258 million in assistance to AMISOM and over $85 million to the Somali transitional government's National Security Force.
Defending Israel
Standing up for Israel at the UN: The Obama Administration has consistently and forcefully opposed unbalanced and biased actions against Israel in the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, and across the UN system. President Obama has pledged that we will “continue U.S. efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel —including and especially at the United Nations.”
When an effort was made to insert the Security Council into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it. When the 2009 Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. When the UN General Assembly voted for a commemoration in September 2011 of the original 2001 Durban conference, we voted against it and announced we would not participate. When the Goldstone Report was released, we stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself. When anti-Israel resolutions come up at the UN Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, UNESCO, and elsewhere, we consistently oppose them.
Strengthening UN Peacekeeping and Conflict Prevention Efforts
Improving Peacekeeping Effectiveness:
In his first visit as President to the United Nations, President Obama hosted the first-ever meeting with the leaders of the top troop-contributing nations to UN peacekeeping operations, underscoring America's commitment to this vital tool, which allows countries around the world to share the burden for protecting civilians and supporting fragile peace processes in societies emerging from war. The U.S. continues to advance initiatives to strengthen UN peacekeeping capabilities, including by seeking to expand the number, capacity, and effectiveness of troop and police contributors, helping secure General Assembly approval for vital peacekeeping reforms, and working with fellow Security Council members to craft more credible and achievable mandates for operations in Haiti, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and several other current operations.
Haiti: After the devastating earthquake of January 2010, which claimed the lives of over 100 UN personnel and the UN Mission's leadership, the United States worked extremely closely with the UN to help the Government of Haiti ensure security and deliver vital humanitarian relief to the people of Haiti. Tens of thousands of U.S. forces were able to withdraw from Haiti within a few months, as countries from Latin America and around the world moved quickly to share the burden and augment the UN peacekeeping presence. In addition, the total U.S. 2010 and 2011 humanitarian assistance funding provided is $1.2 billion for the earthquake and $75 million for cholera.
Liberia: The United States built an international consensus to maintain a robust UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) peacekeeping operation for an additional 12 months, ensuring continued support for the 2011 elections. Security Council resolution 2008, which was adopted unanimously on September 17, also calls for a technical assessment mission in spring of 2012 to evaluate potential reductions in UNMIL's authorized strength.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): The United States continues to champion improved protection of civilians, especially by demanding an end to the epidemic of rape and gender-based violence. The United States has worked successfully to secure new Security Council sanctions against key leaders of armed groups operating in the DRC, including one individual linked to crimes involving sexual and gender based violence and child soldier recruiting. Additionally, the United States led the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution that supported, for the first time, due diligence guidelines for individuals and companies operating in the mineral trade in Eastern Congo and agreed to practice due diligence when considering targeted sanctions.
Ivory Coast: In April, the United States welcomed the end of former President Laurent Gbabgo's illegitimate claim to power in Ivory Coast, following robust implementation of Security Council Resolution 1975, which demanded that Gbagbo step down as President, imposed sanctions on him and his close associates, reaffirmed the international recognition given to Alassane Ouattara as President of Ivory Coast, and reiterated that the UN Operation in Ivory Coast (UNOCI) could use “all necessary means” in its mandate to protect civilians under imminent threat of attack. Early in the conflict, the United States worked with partners to renew UNOCI's mandate and increase its ranks by 2,000 troops, further bolstering the mission's ability to protect civilians. The United States supports accountability on all sides for atrocities committed during the electoral crisis, and we will continue to support UN efforts in Ivory Coast as the nation recovers from this crisis. The Ivory Coast has accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and President Ouattara requested that the Prosecutor open an investigation into the most serious crimes committed in during the post-electoral crisis.
Eritrea: In 2009, the United States supported the African Union's call to sanction Eritrea for that country's role in destabilizing Somalia and the region and its failure to comply with Security Council Resolution 1862 concerning Eritrea's border dispute with Djibouti. As a direct result of U.S. and African leadership, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1907 to impose an arms embargo and targeted financial and travel sanctions on Eritrean officials. Eritrea is paying a price for its sponsorship of foreign extremist groups. The Security Council, with the support of the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, continue to review additional measures to respond to Eritrea's acts to destabilize its neighbors.
Protecting and Empowering Women and Girls
Women, Peace and Security: The United States continues to lead efforts across the UN focused on women's important roles in preventing, managing, and resolving conflict, as well as ending conflict-related sexual violence. In 2009, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presiding, the United States led the Security Council in unanimously adopting Resolution 1888, which strengthens the international response to sexual violence in conflict by establishing a dedicated UN Special Representative and creating of a team of experts to assist individual governments in strengthening their capacities to address sexual violence in conflicts within their borders.
Building upon this success, during the 2010 U.S. presidency of the Security Council, the United States supported the adoption of Resolution 1960, which expressed deep concern that violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict continues to occur. The resolution also improved reporting mechanisms on gender-based violence in conflict. On the margins of this year's General Assembly, Secretary of State Clinton will join other women leaders from across the world in spotlighting the importance of women's political participation in times of peace, conflict, and transition. And in the year to come, the United States will continue to lead efforts to support women's decision-making in matters of conflict prevention and international security by releasing its National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security.
UN Women: The United States was also instrumental in the establishment of a new UN agency called UN Women. This vital new organization combines four separate UN offices into one stronger, streamlined and more efficient entity working in support of women around the world. UN Women will work to elevate women's issues within the UN system, on the ground in member states, and on the international stage. The United States is working very closely with Michelle Bachelet, the former President of Chile, as the first head of UN Women. In addition, when elections were held for the 41-member Executive Board, the United States secured a seat and supported other countries with strong records on women's rights, while successfully leading efforts to block Iran's bid for membership.
Promoting Human Rights
Human Rights Council: At the beginning of the Obama Administration, the United States made the decision to join the Human Rights Council, and that decision has paid real dividends for oppressed people around the world. Though the Council remains flawed, the United States has worked tirelessly to create the political will necessary for the Council to realize its full potential. While much work remains, in particular ending the Council's excessive focus on Israel, the Council has taken great strides in speaking up for those suffering under the world's cruelest regimes and focusing on the major human rights abuses worldwide.
In the past two years, the United States has spoken out on serious human rights abuses in Iran, Burma, Sudan, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Russia, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. With active U.S. leadership, the Council authorized international mandates to closely monitor and address the human rights situations in Iran, Libya, Syria, Ivory Coast, Burma, North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan. With U.S. engagement, Council members also voted to keep Iran and Syria from gaining seats on the Council.
We have also worked cooperatively with governments such as those of Haiti, Somalia, Kyrgyzstan, Guinea and Tunisia, as they experienced crises and sought help from the Council to strengthen their human rights capabilities and help their countries rebuild. For example, last year the United States partnered with the government of Afghanistan to build international support for efforts to prevent attacks on Afghan school children, especially girls, who seek to be educated.
In 2011, the United States has shown leadership that has led to additional concrete results. On Iran, the Council took assertive action to highlight Iran's deteriorating human rights situation by establishing a Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Iran. In June, the Human Right's Council appointed Ahmed Shaheed to serve as Special Rapporteur. He will serve as a voice for all those Iranians who have suffered egregious human rights violations. This is the first new country mandate established since the Human Rights Council was formed in 2006.
U.S. leadership has led to two Special Sessions on the situation in Syria, sending President Assad a clear message that the world is watching what he does and that atrocities and human rights violations would not go unnoticed. At the most recent special session, the Council established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate all violations of international human rights law by Syrian Authorities and help the international community address the serious human rights abuses in Syria and ensure that those responsible are held to account.
The United States also played a pivotal role in convening the Council's Special Session in February 2011 during which the Council condemned the human rights violations and other acts of violence committed by the Government of Libya, and created an independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate those violations. Additionally on March 1, 2011 the General Assembly unanimously suspended Libya from the Human Rights Council because of the atrocities the Libyan authorities are committing against its own people. This was the first time that either the Human Rights Council or its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, suspended any member state for gross violations of human rights.
In March 2011, the Council took an important step away from the deeply problematic concept of defamation of religion by adopting a constructive new resolution that promotes tolerance for all religious beliefs, promotes education and dialogue and is consistent with U.S. laws and universal values. Previous resolutions adopted under the concept of defamation of religion have been used to rationalize laws criminalizing blasphemy, and challenging widely held freedoms of expression and the press, rather than protecting religious freedom and human rights.
In June, the Human Rights Council took historic, bold and assertive action to highlight violence and human rights abuses faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gender (LGBT) persons around the world by passing the first UN resolution solely focused on LGBT persons. The United States co-sponsored, strengthened, and gained support for a South African initiative, which was ultimately joined by countries from every UN geographic region and paves the way for the first UN report on the challenges faced by LGBT people and sustained Council attention to LGBT issues.
Along with our international partners and the NGO community, the United States has made important initial steps toward improving the work of the Council. The United States will run for re-election next year so that we can continue the progress the Council has made over the last two years.
LGBT Rights: In a reversal of the previous Administration's policy, the United States supported a landmark General Assembly declaration condemning human rights violations based on sexual orientation. The United States also spearheaded an effort that led to a decisive victory in the United Nations Economic and Social Council, which voted to grant consultative status to the International Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Commission (ILGHRC), a U.S.-based non-governmental organization that does invaluable work around the globe to protect basic human rights, combat discrimination, and fight against the scourge of HIV/AIDS. When a committee vote removed a reference in a resolution condemning extrajudicial killings based on sexual orientation, the United States led a successful campaign to reinstate that reference in the final General Assembly resolution. And the United States joined the LGBT core group in New York for the first time. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: On behalf of the President, Ambassador Rice signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the first new human rights treaty of the 21st century.
DRIP: In another important reversal of the previous Administration's policy, President Obama announced U.S. support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP).
Health Security: The United States has taken a multi-faceted approach to dealing with infectious diseases, whatever their cause, through fora such as the UN Security Resolution 1540, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and World Health Organization (WHO). The BWC Review Conference in December offers an important opportunity to revitalize international efforts against these threats, helping to build global capacity to combat infectious disease, and prevent biological weapons proliferation and bioterrorism. This week the United States is signing an agreement with the WHO on “Global Health Security,” affirming their shared commitment to strengthen cooperation on common health security priorities. Improving global capacities to detect, report and respond to infectious diseases quickly and accurately lies at the heart of the WHO's International Health Regulations. The U.S. is committed to have in place these vital IHR core capacities as soon as 2012.
Reforming the United Nations
UN Arrears: Working with the U.S. Congress, the Administration cleared hundreds of millions in arrears to the United Nations, which accumulated between 2005 and 2008, and is now working to stay current with payments to the Organization.
Budget Discipline: As the largest financial contributor to the UN, ensuring that U.S. funds are spent wisely and not wasted is vital. The United States has worked to contain the growth of the UN budget and consistently pressed the issue of efficiency and accountability in our discussions with the UN, pushing for a focus on results. In 2009, the Administration successfully negotiated an agreement that held constant the share of U.S. assessed contributions to the United Nations.
UN Peacekeeping: In 2011, the United States rallied major financial contributors to thwart an effort by troop-contributing countries to impose a 57% increase in the reimbursement rate for troops in peacekeeping missions, which would have cost the organization well over $700 million annually. The United States was able to insert a new provision to prevent reimbursement for troops who have been repatriated for disciplinary reasons, including violation of the UN zero tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse.
U.S. leadership was instrumental in ensuring adoption of the Global Field Support Strategy, a sweeping reform of how the UN undertakes administrative and logistics support for UN field operations. This initiative will improve the quality, consistency, and efficiency of service delivery by capturing efficiencies within peacekeeping operations and improving the UN's capacity to support complex field missions.
Oversight and Accountability: The United States advocated and supported adoption of key elements of an accountability framework for the UN. The United States has also blocked attempts to curb the authority and operational independence of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and succeeded in March 2010 in preserving OIOS’ existing mandate and authority, allowing OIOS to fill many long-vacant positions.
The United States has consistently and aggressively supported OIOS to be a strong and independent watchdog so that U.S. taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and UN programs are managed effectively. And, while OIOS has provided valuable recommendations to improve the UN's effectiveness and served as a deterrent in the area of waste, fraud, and sexual exploitation and abuse, it has fallen short, especially in the area of investigations. The United States has pushed hard for improvements in that function so that OIOS can more vigorously pursue fraud and misconduct. The United States was pleased to see quick action by Carman LaPointe, the Head of OIOS, in filling several leadership positions in that critical office. The United States was successful in ensuring that the position of Director of Investigations, vacant for almost two years, was filled by a qualified candidate who is tasked, among other things, with reigniting the former financial crimes unit of OIOS.
Transparency: The United States has promoted transparency throughout the United Nations system for many years. We have pushed for the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Funds and Programs to take a number of important steps toward public disclosure of all internal audit, oversight and financial reports, and have seen significant progress. For example, Carman LaPointe has announced that she will post internal audits of the UN Secretariat on her website for public viewing starting in January 2012. Additionally, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) gave access to internal audit reports to the Global Fund and other intergovernmental donors. All of these organizations also voted to let governments who fund their programs—like the United States—read audit reports remotely from all over the world, instead of keeping audits under lock and key in New York. This September, leaders at all of these New York based funds and programs announced their support for full public disclosure of internal audits on the internet. Every agency in the UN system is a public institution and should open its doors to public scrutiny.
Human Resources Reform: In December 2010, the United States pushed through reforms that led to harmonization of conditions of service for staff serving in the most difficult locations in the world, eliminating disparities in practices between organizations—including reducing the unreasonably high levels of allowances paid by some organizations—to ensure a balance between fiscal responsibility and ensuring that the organization is able to attract and retain the most qualified staff for service in hardship locations.
The United States also demanded a review of the recent action by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) to increase the post (cost of living) adjustment for staff in New York, in light of the ongoing pay freeze in the U.S. federal civil service—whose salaries and benefits serve as the basis for those of professional staff at the UN—and the difficult international economic climate.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, September 22, 2011Footnote 12
Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered this statement at the United Nations, New York, NY
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Minister, and it's a privilege to join with so many of you on this very important and timely issue of nuclear safety. I want to thank Secretary General Ban for leading this discussion, and I want to recognize the leadership of Director General Amano. This year the International Atomic Energy Agency has, again, proven itself to be an indispensible forum for monitoring and supporting the peaceful nuclear activity of countries.
A member of our international community suffered a great trauma this year. We all followed it with our hearts and our heads trying to understand the consequences of an immense earthquake that sparked a tsunami that in turn created a nuclear crisis. This trio of disasters devastated the people of Japan, but they also made nuclear safety concerns a headline the world over. The fear of nuclear contamination casts a long shadow. Six months later, Japanese authorities are still working to bring the reactors to a cold shutdown. The towns in the immediate vicinity are still unlivable.
So this crisis, if the world needed one, is a very stark reminder that nuclear power requires comprehensive security precautions. Although nuclear safety has been a priority concern in the international community for years, it is clear that we need to redouble our efforts and our thinking as to how to imagine and then put in place reactions to whatever might occur.
The United States faced a core meltdown just 180 miles from here at Three Mile Island. The world recently marked the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. None of us is immune. And on each of these occasions, the IAEA and nuclear regulatory bodies have moved to determine what went wrong and to try to prevent it from happening again. But it's imperative that every nuclear country be prepared for scenarios that include multiple severe hazards and prioritizes public safety. I think we have to take this opportunity to update our risk and safety assessments in nuclear power plants, to continue improving our international standards for nuclear safety, and strengthen our global emergency preparedness.
In this spirit, President Obama immediately ordered a comprehensive safety review of all 104 active nuclear power plants in the United States. Our Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already completed its near-term inspections and made recommendations for improving our regulatory framework and safety procedures. And as we design and construct next-generation nuclear power plants, we must integrate the lessons that we are still learning from Japan.
Each country must also similarly be responsible for ensuring their own reactors meet the highest, most up-to-date standards of safety. But we must set those standards here. And because a nuclear accident in one country can quickly become a transnational crisis, we are all vested in ensuring each other's success. That is why the United States supports the action plan on nuclear safety that the IAEA General Conference endorsed earlier today. It outlines steps to strengthen and expand the IAEA's peer review programs, improve emergency response training, enhance transparency and cooperation, and strengthen nuclear safety infrastructures around the world.
The IAEA safety standards are invaluable to the success of every country's nuclear energy program. They should be continually reviewed and revised as we learn more and detect new risks. The United States also calls on all nations with nuclear reactors to adhere to the Nuclear Safety Convention, which remains our best instrument for promoting international safety standards. We will continue to support the IAEA and the peer review process, both scheduling missions in the United States and contributing senior experts to missions in other countries. We look forward to working with our partners around the world to implement the provisions of the action plan.
The Obama Administration is committed to nuclear power as a component of our secure energy future, and we recognize that nuclear power is a vital contributor to the world's growing energy needs. It is, therefore, not an option that we simply can take off the table. But it is an option that carries special risks and dangers. Therefore, we must do everything possible to ensure its safe and responsible use. We must remain vigilant against outside threats and internal weaknesses to prevent accidents from occurring. We must make continuous improvements to regulations and strengthen implementation of existing conventions so we hold ourselves, and others, to the highest standards. And we must have exhaustive international response plans in place so that if an accident does occur, the damage is contained as much as, and as soon as, possible.
With mutual resolve, and with the IAEA's continuing leadership, we can make concrete improvements to nuclear safety practices around the world. The United States is eager to work with our fellow members states to achieve this goal. And finally, let me say that, at a time when there is just so much happening in the world, so many both challenges and opportunities, we recognize there are differences of opinion, there are differences in approach, but on this issue we should be all united. There is no room for politics or partisanship, or any other divisiveness. We have to be united. We have to work together. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to future generations.
Thank you very much.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, September 22, 2011Footnote 13
Secretary Hillary Clinton this statement in New York, NY
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Clinton. We have always known there are those who will do all they can to undermine the cause of peace and reconciliation and we will surely see more violence before this is over. But I am confident that the Afghan people will not be deterred from seeking a more peaceful, stable, prosperous Afghanistan. And the international community must continue to stand with them and support their efforts—including the work of the High Peace Council.
In previous meetings, our discussions have focused largely on the on-going coalition military campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban, and on the political strategy we hope will end the conflict and chart a more peaceful future for the entire region. This does include a reconciliation process based on clear red lines, which Professor Rabbani was leading; regional buy-in, with firm pledges from all of Afghanistan's neighbors to respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity; and enduring commitment from the United States, United Nations and other multilateral organizations on behalf of the entire international community that we will not abandon Afghanistan or let it once again become a safe haven for terrorists.
Having said that, I am pleased that today we are turning to the economic side of the strategy. Because we all recognize that Afghanistan's political future is linked to its economic future—and in fact to the future of the entire region. That is a lesson we have learned over and over again, all over the world—lasting stability and security go hand in hand with economic opportunity. People need a realistic hope for a better life, a job and a chance to provide for their family. And that is especially true in Afghanistan.
For political reconciliation to succeed, Afghans must be able to envision a more prosperous, peaceful future. That will take a lot of hard work, but I firmly believe it is possible.
Afghanistan needs a sustainable economy at home that is not dependent on international assistance, and that will require leadership from the government and investment from the private sector. But it is also clear, as it has been throughout Afghanistan's past that it's economic future, like it's political future is bound up with the fortunes of the wider region.
For Afghans to enjoy sustainable prosperity, they will have to work alongside all of their neighbors to shape a more integrated economic future for the region that will create jobs and will undercut the appeal of extremism.
As I outlined in a speech that I gave this summer in Chennai, an Afghanistan firmly embedded in the economic life of a thriving South and Central Asia would be better able to attract new sources of foreign investment, connect to markets abroad and provide people with credible alternatives to insurgency. Increasing regional trade could open up new sources of raw material, energy, and agricultural products for every nation in the region.
For centuries, the nations of South and Central Asia were connected to each other and the rest of the continent by a sprawling trading network called the Silk Road. Afghanistan's bustling markets sat at the heart of this network. Afghan merchants traded their goods from the court of the Pharaohs to the Great Wall of China.
As we look to the future of this region, let's take this precedent as inspiration for a long-term vision for Afghanistan and its neighbors. Let's set our sights on a new Silk Road—a web of economic and transit connections that will bind together a region too long torn apart by conflict and division.
Now, let me hasten to add that I am clear-eyed about the entrenched obstacles standing in the way. But I don't know what the alternative is. If we do not pledge ourselves to a new economic vision for the region, I do not think that a more prosperous future is as likely. Now I also realize that this long-term vision may seem detached from everyday concerns of Afghans. But I also believe it has the potential to drive tangible progress on the ground and make a difference in people's lives.
Turkmen gas fields could help meet both Pakistan's and India's growing energy needs and provide significant transit revenues for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tajik cotton could be turned into Indian linens. Furniture and fruit from Afghanistan could find its way to the markets of Astana or Mumbai and beyond.
So how do we turn this vision into a reality? Well, starting today, and in the coming months at international meetings in Istanbul, Bonn, and Chicago, we will have the opportunity to think through the specifics.
First, in the short-term, we need to work together to support the Afghan people as they meet the economic and security challenges that come with transition from the military mission. As coalition combat forces leave Afghanistan, the support structure that has grown up to supply them will shrink dramatically. That will mean fewer jobs for Afghans and a loss of economic activity. So the Afghan economy will need new sources of growth independent of foreign assistance connected to the military mission. Today at the World Bank, many of our colleagues are discussing this challenge. We need to work together to support an achievable, Afghanled economic strategy to improve agricultural productivity, develop Afghanistan's natural resources in a way that benefits the Afghan people, increase exports and strengthen the financial sector, among other steps.
And as we head toward Bonn, I hope our partners will commit to reinvest a share of the so-called “transition dividend” achieved by drawing down combat forces back into Afghan-led economic and security efforts. We will work closely together with all of you in the coming months to develop a transparent and sustainable mechanism to identify and deliver assistance in a way that builds Afghanistan's capacity.
The United States will continue shifting our development efforts from short-term stabilization projects, largely as part of the military strategy, to longer-term sustainable development that focuses on spurring growth, creating jobs, invigorating the private sector, and integrating Afghanistan into the South and Central Asia economy.
We also know that governments alone cannot possibly solve Afghanistan's economic problems, so we have to work to create an environment that attracts private sector investment.
Just today we launched a new partnership to promote private investment in Afghanistan's energy sector that will drive significant economic growth during the transition process and beyond.
As transition proceeds, Afghanistan and its neighbors can begin taking concrete steps toward developing a more sustainable Afghan economy and better connecting it to the rest of the region.
For example, upgrading the facilities at border crossings, such as what India and Pakistan are now doing at the Wagah Crossing. Fostering private sector investment in rail lines, highways, and energy infrastructure, like the proposed pipeline, the so-call (inaudible) pipeline to run from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, Pakistan and into India. This isn't about grand infrastructure projects—it's about promoting sustainable cross-border economic activity.
And it will require removing bureaucratic barriers and other impediments to the free flow of goods and people that currently stifle trade and cooperation.
We are very pleased to see Afghanistan and Pakistan implementing fully their historic transit trade agreement. I think this could be seen as a benchmark to extend to the countries of Central Asia. Indeed, several of Afghanistan's Central Asian neighbors have already moved to implement similar transit trade agreements to the north. And we are very much looking forward to the meetings of India and Pakistan's commerce ministers next week, along with their large private sector delegations.
All of these steps would have an immediate impact on economic activity and could help lay the foundation for true regional integration.
But let's be honest, any of this to be successful will require changes in attitude and a sustained commitment of political will. To attract more private investment, which is critical, the nations of the region need to offer lasting stability and security. That means as hard as it is, putting aside old enmities and rivalries, focusing on opportunities, not just threats. And, I would of course add, welcoming the full participation of women in the economic and political life of the region, which will add to unlocking the enormous untapped economic potential we see in the countries there.
At each step of the way down this road, in the short-, medium- and long-term, economic and political progress will be mutually reinforcing. Nations will not only enjoy the benefits of greater trade but they will also enjoy the benefits that come from working together. And we know that there has to be tangible improvements in people's lives.
But I think it's about time we have something we can say yes to, not just no to. No to terrorism, no to extremism, no to insurgency. Yes, that is our message and has been for more than a decade.
But yes to economic integration, yes to closer ties between the nations of this region, yes to a better future for the people who live there.
When we meet again in Germany, I hope we are ready to formalize our specific support for this vision, and to welcome regional commitments that will have been made in Istanbul and to commit to the transition dividends that I think are so important. I look forward to working with all of you to realize the vision of the New Silk Road.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, September 22, 2011Footnote 14
Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks at the launch of the Counterterrorism Forum in New York, NY
Secretary Clinton. Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us here in New York for the launch of this Global Counterterrorism Forum. I think the words of the Global Survivors Network that we have just heard and witnessed in this very moving documentary gives us the right basis on which to meet this morning, because clearly our goal is to work together to do whatever we can to ensure that there are not more victims anywhere in the world.
I am pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague, Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu, as co-chair. We know very well that Turkey's commitment to strengthening international cooperation against the threats we all face is a very important contribution, so I thank you, Ahmet, for being here for this kickoff.
I also want at the outset to recognize the foreign minister of the UAE, His Highness Sheikh Abdallah bin Zayid, and also the foreign minister of Egypt, Minister Amr, and Lady Ashton for their contributions to this forum. Many others have played an important role, including Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, who two years ago started a conversation with me about the need for such an initiative, and that idea has grown to fruition. I also wish to acknowledge and thank King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was also an early and strong advocate for these efforts. It's not possible at this time to name everyone, but we will be hearing from our colleagues around the table.
All of us are here because we recognize the threat that terrorism poses to people everywhere. We understand terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but, unfortunately, given advances in technology and communication and travel and so many other of the ways we live together today, terrorism has become truly global and, unfortunately, an ongoing threat to us all.
Ten years ago, I was a senator from New York, and so I have a very personal and longstanding, searing set of memories from what happened just a few blocks from here in New York with the attacks on the World Trade Center. But since that time, terrorists have claimed so many other victims, as we saw in this movie. And they were victims of al-Qaida and its affiliates, of other terrorist groups like the PKK, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, the FARC, just to name a few. And the stories we saw today of victims and survivors reminds us that no one is immune. All of us, unfortunately, are at risk—those of us who live in societies, in countries, in nation-states, who go about our business every single day.
From London to Lahore, from Madrid to Mumbai, from Kabul to Kampala, it's innocent civilians who have been targeted. And no country can afford to sit on the sidelines and no country can afford to go it alone.
Now, in recent years, together we have made real progress against violent extremism. But I think we all recognize we can do more, which is why we are here. We can build an international counterterrorism network that is as nimble and adaptive as our adversaries, that can mobilize resources and expertise from across the globe, and that can not only meet today's challenges but prepare for tomorrow's.
This begins, of course, with robust bilateral cooperation, and I want to thank the many nations around this table with whom the United States has a very strong bilateral partnership against terrorism. We are proud of all the work that we have done over the years to strengthen these partnerships. Our efforts continue with regional organizations, such as ASEAN, the African Union, the Organization of American States, the OSCE, all of which are helping members build capacity and pool expertise.
At the global level, the United Nations and the international counterterrorism policy and legal framework that it has developed, including the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy, help to reinforce our efforts.
I want to echo Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's recent call for all states, every state, to work to finalize the Comprehensive Convention Against International Terrorism, which India introduced more than a decade ago.
But as important as all of these elements are, all of us have been convinced that a crucial piece of the puzzle against terrorism is missing. We need a dedicated global venue to regularly convene key counterterrorism policy makers and practitioners from around the world. We need a place where we can identify essential priorities, devise solutions, and chart a path to implementation of best practices.
It is our hope that this new Global Counterterrorism Forum will provide that venue. Now at the outset, let me say we will not always agree on every issue, but we do agree that there are urgent needs and challenges that are not being addressed and that each member gathered here today has unique expertise to contribute. We know that what works in Turkey or the United States may not work in Indonesia or Colombia, but let us pledge to learn as much as we can from one another. And our work here has the potential to have a double impact: improving the coordination of counterterrorism efforts across borders and between regions, and then helping countries better address terrorist threats within borders.
And this is not a group whose impact will be limited just to its members. We intend to strengthen the capacity of other governments, multilateral bodies, and civil society groups all over the world. To be effective, we need a clear and forward-looking agenda that galvanizes solutions around the core questions at the heart of our work.
First, how do we work together to support frontline states and nations in transition develop justice systems that are rooted in the rule of law, respectful of universal human rights, but very effective against violent extremism? Across the Middle East and North Africa and beyond, governments are turning their backs on repressive tactics. They are writing new counterterrorism legislation, reorganizing their police, and reforming their judiciaries. So this is an opportunity to develop and share best practices and to mobilize resources, technical assistance, and political will.
Second, what are the best ways to work together to deepen our understanding of the process of radicalization and terrorist recruitment and undermine the appeal of extremism? Over the last ten years, we've learned a lot about how terrorist networks find their followers and maintain support and protection in particular communities. But there's much we still don't know about how best to disrupt their efforts and deny them support. This forum can serve as a clearinghouse for research and analysis into these challenges, bringing together experts to design effective strategies for countering violent extremism, and helping ensure that both governments and NGOs are trained to understand the phenomenon of radicalization and how to address it.
Third, how can we collaborate together to improve border security and other transnational weaknesses that are exploited by terrorist networks? This forum can help us improve coordination and build working-level partnerships between law enforcement, intelligence, customs, and judiciary officials, who deal with these problems on the ground every day.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, how can we ensure that we are always thinking and acting strategically in our counterterrorism efforts? Now, we've made important investments over the past decade in intelligence gathering and military capabilities. Looking ahead, I think we now need to focus on helping states develop more effective civilian institutions and counterterrorism partnerships. I think we need to use all the tools in our arsenal, including the power of our own values, and to make it unacceptable, socially exclusionary, for those to support and advocate, give aid and comfort to family members, friends, and kin and larger networks who are attracted or involved in groups that do not renounce violent extremism.
This forum can help us, if we take seriously the need to develop a work plan together. Today is just the beginning. We don't want another debating society. We want to catalyze ourselves to action. I can pledge the United States will be an active partner, and I'm pleased that, even starting today, we have a number of concrete proposals to discuss.
Excerpts from Remarks by Secretary of State Clinton, September 30, 2011Footnote 15
Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks at the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series, Little Rock, Arkansas
Secretary Clinton. Before I begin, I want to say a few serious words about events because we had a very significant event in Yemen earlier today, when we learned of the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, a leader and chief propagandist of al-Qaida's most active and dangerous affiliate, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. This is the terrorist group that tried to blow up an airplane filled with innocent people on Christmas Day in 2009, that attempted to bring down U.S. cargo planes in 2010. Awlaki took a leading role in those plots and in spreading an ideology of hate and violence. But today, like Usama bin Ladin and so many other terrorist leaders who have been killed or captured in recent years, he can no longer threaten America, our allies, or peace loving people anywhere in the world.
Today we are all safer, but we recognize that the threat remains, that al-Qaida does maintain the ability to plan and carry out attacks, and that our vigilance is required. So we will, along with our partners and allies, continue to ratchet up the pressure, continue pursuing a comprehensive strategic approach to counterterrorism, and work to deny al-Qaida and its affiliates safe haven anywhere in the world. It seems a long way from this absolutely glorious day here at the library after dedicating the bridge and the Bill Clark Wetlands, but it is what I spend a lot of my time working on and doing every day…
From the first days of the Obama Administration, we have worked to renew America's global leadership because we want it to deliver more for the American people. And for the last decade our foreign policy has been focused on places where we faced the greatest dangers. And responding to threats will always be central to our foreign policy; but it cannot be our foreign policy. If all we do is focus on the threats and the dangers, we will miss the opportunities. And in the decade ahead we need to focus just as intensely on the places where we have the greatest opportunities as on those places where we have faced the greatest dangers.
Now, what that means for me every day is looking for ways to support the so-called Arab Awakening, the transitions sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa, they are some of the most consequential, historic changes of the last many decades, certainly since the fall of the Soviet Union.
It also means renewing America's preeminent role in the Asia Pacific. That is, for our future, the most consequential region of the world. It means elevating the role of economics in foreign policy, the most vibrant source of our power and a vital part of driving our economic recovery right here at home.
It means working to empower women and girls around the world, a piece of unfinished business of humanity. It means changing the way we do foreign policy, so we are using 21st century tools and harnessing what I call smart power to produce results.
So we are working on all of these fronts and more. But I deeply understand why so many Americans today are worried about what lies ahead for them, for their families, and for our country. Some even wonder, looking at the landscape of problems here at home and abroad, whether America is still up to the job. Well, we have lived through times of anxiety before.
I remember when I was growing up the fear was we were falling behind the Soviets in technology and ambition. I remember my fifth-grade teacher that we needed to all study mathematics so that the Russians wouldn't get ahead of us and that President Eisenhower himself expected us to learn math. That made a big impression on me. I tried and hoped that the President would give me some credit for effort.
When I started practicing law here in Little Rock, our country faced stagflation and oil shocks. When I moved with Bill and Chelsea to Washington, as he was inaugurated President, it was outsourcing, the apparent decline of American competitiveness and a budget deficit which at the time seemed unbelievable, about, what, $350 billion. But each time we rose to whatever challenge faced us. American entrepreneurs and innovators proved the naysayers wrong. We out-worked, we out-built, and we simply out-competed every rival. When it mattered most, we put the common good first ahead of ideology, party, or personal interest.
So our people and generations of American leaders built a resilient economy, a global architecture of institutions and norms that protected not just our interests but the interests of all people who wanted a better life in a rules-based international order. That was exceptional leadership from an exceptional country. I remember when Bill and I went to East Asia when he was governor. It was the first trade mission ever to places that seemed very far away from Arkansas, like Japan and Hong Kong. The people we met in Asia didn't see an America in trouble; they saw a beacon of opportunity and liberty, a superpower underwriting peace and security in the region, and a dynamic market driving global growth. And lucky for us, they also saw lots of Arkansas soybeans they wanted to buy.
Q. But to get to the fun part, my question involves the fact that since 9/11 our country has had a policy where anybody who harbors terrorists is considered a terrorist themselves. And it's now become pretty evident that Pakistan has been harboring the Haqqani Network for a while, not just harboring them but even helping them.
So my question to you as our chief diplomat is: How do you plan on balancing the pressure that we need to put on Pakistan to stop that with the fact that we also need them as an ally in the war on terror? And thank you again.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much. And I think your question sums up the challenge and the policy that we have been pursuing. Our relationship with Pakistan is critical to the ongoing stability and peace of the region, as well as the fight against terrorism. And I think it is important to remind ourselves that Pakistanis have paid a much greater price in the war against terrorism and in the violence perpetrated on them over the last 10 years than, thankfully, we have. Nearly 30,000 people have been killed—civilians and military, scores of bombing attacks all over the country in places from mosques to markets to universities to police stations.
So the Pakistani people are trying to navigate through a very difficult security environment. And I like to remind myself and my colleagues of that because they have a great stake in trying to end terrorism against themselves, but they bring to their fight against terrorism deep concerns about the relationship with India, about what happens in Afghanistan after U.S. and coalition troops draw down, what happens in the greater region that could destabilize them further.
So it's a challenging position for us to be in and to advocate. But if you, for example, looked at Admiral Mullen's entire testimony, where he did express deep concerns about ties between the Pakistani Government and terrorist groups, including the Haqqani Network, and the absolute necessity for us to continue to work at this relationship, there were two sides to his address to the Congress.
Now, I also think it's important to take a little historical review. If you go on YouTube, you can see Sirajuddin Haqqani with President Reagan at the White House, because during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States Government, through the CIA, funded jihadis, funded groups like the Haqqanis to cross the border or to, within Afghanistan, be part of the fight to drive the Soviets out and bring down the Soviet Union.
So when I meet for many hours, as I do, with Pakistani officials, they rightly say, “You're the ones who told us to cooperate with these people. You're the one who funded them. You're the ones who equipped them. You're the ones who used them to bring down the Soviet Union by driving them out of Afghanistan. And we are now both in a situation that is highly complex and difficult to extricate ourselves from.” That is how they see it.
And they also have used groups in the past to support their ongoing conflict with India over Kashmir. And when I became Secretary of State, they were trying to basically appease the Pakistani Taliban who were attacking them. So they were trying to draw a distinction between the good terrorists and the bad terrorists, because we had funded the good terrorists together. And so they were dealing with this network of terrorism that had been better organized and directed because of al-Qaida, which brought a lot more funding into the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan and much more of a sense of mission, because bin Ladin and those who worked with him had a very highly developed idea about how to inflict damage on the United States and others.
So one of our first rounds of discussions with the Pakistanis was how it was not in their interest to permit terrorists to take over territory, something they thought would appease them, which obviously did not and could not. So they began moving troops off their Indian border. They began going after the Pakistani Taliban.
So I think it's important that we appreciate their perspective about where we both are right now. That in no way excuses the fact that they are making a serious, grievous, strategic error supporting these groups, because you think that you can keep a wild animal in the backyard and it will only go after your neighbor? We have too many stories where that doesn't turn out like that.
So I think that we are pressing and pushing on every lever that we have in the relationship, and we have to be effective in trying to achieve our strategic goals, which is to prevent any attacks against us emanating from Pakistan, as well as to try to help stabilize Pakistan against this internal threat, and to create the best possible circumstances for Afghanistan to be able to have control over its own future. Those are all extremely difficult, and we are learning it, each piece of that, every single day.
Q. I'm fine. What I want you to do is what I've known you've always done. I'm a futurist celebrating my 80th birthday here Sunday. But Time Magazine—had a front page cover page about what's going to happen in 2054, and I want you to help me to know systemically how do you plan to address the immorality of the world (inaudible).
Secretary Clinton. Well, Annie, I think it is wonderful that someone about to celebrate her 80th birthday is looking forward the way you are, as you always have, and by asking your question forcing all of us to look forward. Bill has—one of his many great observations is there are the headlines and then there are the trend lines. And it's so easy to get caught up the headlines. That's true if you're in government, and it's true if you're a citizen trying to follow what happens. But you've got to keep your eye on the trend lines.
And I think that the trend lines favor United States if we do what we're expected to do, if we keep true to our values, our faith, if we pursue our interests in a smart way, if we get over the internal political conflicts that we have too much of today. Because it really is—to quote my husband again—an example of us majoring in the minors, and we need to start looking at what's important for us: How do we grow this economy, how do we take care of our people, how do we close the income gap, how do we take on inequality in our own nation, how do we keep perfecting our union and improving our democracy?
Because we have to remain the exemplar. When people are trying to figure out what does democracy look like in Egypt or Libya or Tunisia or Indonesia, they look at us. Now, that doesn't mean they're going to adopt everything we do whole cloth, because they have different histories, different cultures. But we have to be a good model of what it means in what I've referred to as the age of participation, where everybody wants to participate, where everybody has the means to do so through technology. How do we make sure that democracy just doesn't collapse under all that participation and all the diversions for making decisions that are going to benefit us for years and decades to come?
So I do think that we have all the raw materials. We have all of the ability that God gave us. We have used it and risen to the challenge many times before, and we will again. But it is—as we are often reminded by the old Winston Churchill observation, Americans will eventually do the right thing after trying nearly everything else. So that's where we have to keep our focus. Because it's not only important for our own country, it is important for the world.
I'll give you an example of—when I first started traveling as Secretary of State and my first trip was to the Far East, to Japan and South Korea and to China and to Indonesia, and I would do public events in all of these settings, usually at universities, sometimes on popular television shows. I was asked so many times, and then in the months afterwards, “How can you work with President Obama? You two were running against each other. You were trying to beat him. He was trying to beat you. He won, and why would you be working with him and why would he ask you to?”
I said, “Well, in our country, we really think that we have to close ranks after elections are over. We have to put aside the differences. And I think the really simple answer is we both love our country and both want to serve our country.” And that was so hard for people to understand. Because politics is a blood sport, and truly a blood sport in some places. It's a contact sport at the very least here.
And I've met so many people who—fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers and sons and daughters have been killed because they were trying to participate in developing a democracy. So part of what we have to tell the world is there are certain fundamental values, and there is a morality to democracy, where we respect the other, the other's opinion, the other's aspirations; where we try to work together to find that common ground and that common good. And if we ever stop doing that, then we'll be a great country. We'll still have a great economy for very, very far into the future, as far as I can certainly imagine, but we won't be the kind of model that the world desperately needs.
There is a democratic awakening in places that have never dreamed of democracy. And it is unfortunate that it's happening at a historic time when our own government is facing so many serious economic challenges, because there's no way to have a Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.
I'll just end with this, but think about how we remarkable this was. End of World War II, hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, everybody in the country totally dislocated, millions of men off to war, women in factories. I mean, it was a full experience from every part of society. And like my father, who was in the Navy for all those years during the war—he came home; all he wanted to do was get back to his business, start a family, live his life.
And along came Harry Truman and George Marshall, and they said, “We want a future that will be good for your children, the so-called baby boomers, the post-World War II kids. Guess what, we have to rebuild our enemies, and that means we have to keep taxing you to pay for us to do that.”
So here's my dad and all the men like him, and some of the women too, who thought, “I just want to be left alone. I just want to make my own way. And now my President and this general Secretary of State is saying, “Sorry, we have to build for the future.” And so they did. And it was in today's dollars about $150 billion of a commitment to rebuild places like Japan and Germany and Italy and war-torn Europe.
But look what it gave us. It gave us the greatest period of prosperity and peace. And just dreaming, if we had the means today to really make a huge commitment in these places that are talking about democracy, but they don't have labor parties, they don't know what that really means for them to have to do, we could have a very significant impact. Because it's not only political reform they need; it's economic reform. And the thing about the Marshall Plan that people forget is that we basically gave money to businesses to rebuild, to hire people. We can make a huge difference in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya, and elsewhere.
But we are stretched here at home and we have our own priorities. But just think of the difference not only in leadership. Everybody talks about oh my goodness, we need this and that in leadership, but in citizenship. Now, it's also why Harry Truman nearly lost the election and how he had to work really hard didn't run for reelection, but then 10, 15 years later was viewed as the great statesman, not only American but global, that he actually was.
Q. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I'm a second-year masters candidate here at the Clinton School.
I just wanted to ask you because I was honored last week to be at CGI and got to sit in on a session with Her Majesty Queen Rania from Jordan and other influential women from the Middle East. They talked about their experience women's role. And I just wanted to know what you saw, what kind of impact you see women having with the new Middle East.
Secretary Clinton. Well, it's a great question. And the short answer is the jury is out. Women were at the forefront in Tahrir Square, in Tunisia. And it's too soon to really speak about what will be the outcome of their sacrifice and their commitment. But we constantly raise how important it is that if you have a democracy, it means you respect human rights, you respect women's rights, you respect minority rights.
I just met with the foreign minister of Egypt and he and I had a very good comprehensive discussion about that. I just did an interview on an Egyptian television show saying, “Look, Egypt has the chance to demonstrate that we have a democracy after 5,000 years of history, but you can't do it by leaving out women. You can't do it by marginalizing the Coptic Christians. You can't do it by having one election one time, where one group wins and then they never want to have another vote.” So all of these are concerns that we raise constantly with our counterparts.
And the United States has tried to be supportive of groups that are working to make sure that the full meaning of democracy is not lost. Because I think for too long people thought, okay, we have an election, fine; then we're a democracy. And we know from our long experience you need an independent, free press; you need an independent judiciary; you need protection of minority rights; you need all kinds of a framework for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and religion, and all that goes into to really showing respect and the dignity of every individual.
So we are pushing this at every opportunity, but it's too soon to tell. And a lot of the voices of the women that you heard at CGI are very important because they're from the region. They're speaking out, they're trying to make a difference. But we all have to be really vigilant about that.
Q. Hi. My name is Kate (inaudible). I'm a second year student here and I'm also a graduate assistant at the Center (inaudible) here at the school. And I'm wondering if you could speak to the role of citizen diplomacy and development diplomacy in the U.S. role (inaudible), and also if that impact is different than traditional diplomacy.
Secretary Clinton. It's a great question. And I think that—I think both citizen diplomacy and development diplomacy have been part of our diplomatic arsenal for a long time, but the benefits of each is becoming much clearer. And when I became Secretary of State, I ordered the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. The Defense Department does what's called the Quadrennial Defense Review, a QDR, so we do the QDDR, to say how can we be more effective. And two areas that jumped out were citizen diplomacy and development diplomacy.
With respect to citizen diplomacy, we can actually talk about it in a disciplined way now because of what we call 21st century statecraft. Technology, social networking, connections of all kinds that people can make directly citizen-to-citizen have changed the landscape.
Back when—in June 2009 after the Iranian election, and there was a great outrage among the Iranian people and a lot of efforts in the streets to try to overturn what was clearly a fraudulent election and to have a voice in their own future, and we had a really difficult decision to make because a lot of our Iranian contacts were saying, “Don't get too out front on this. We want this to be Iranian. We don't want this to be American.”
But at the same time, people arranging for demonstrations and sharing information were on the internet doing that through all of the various sites. And we were told that some of the sites were going to—just as—on a regular cycle were about to be shut down because it was the time of year when they shut them down for, like, a day and took at look at them. So we intervened and said, “No, you've got to keep the information flowing so that the people in the streets can communicate.” And then, of course in Tahrir Square and in Tunisia, we saw that without that kind of connection to technology it would have been very difficult to put the people in the streets to be demanding their rights.
Now that's citizen-to-citizen in a very direct way. Governments are catching on. They're becoming much smarter about how they try to block that. So what we're doing in the State Department and in the Obama Administration is putting a lot of money into devising ways with our experts in technology to get around a lot of the barriers and the ways that governments try to shut these down. There was that period in Egypt when the Mubarak regime shut the entire internet down, but it so damaged business and it also damaged the government that they had to get it back up again. So we're watching all of this, and we're very concerned about how we keep adding to what is possible for citizen-to-citizen diplomacy.
On development diplomacy, really I'm always a little bit saddened when people say, “Well, we can balance the budget if we just end foreign aid,” which, if you could do it, maybe it would be worth thinking about. But obviously, it's not at all credible. We have a very limited amount of our budget—about 1 percent—that goes to foreign aid. Well, what do we use it for? Well, we use it for emergencies, like after the earthquake in Haiti. America was there and we were seen as really reaching out and helping. Other national disasters around the world, where we get there, we try to help organize, and I think it's a real credit to us. We use it to deal with some of these trend line problems, like malaria and HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis because we do it for humanitarian reasons, but we also do it because in this interconnected world diseases travel.
So there's a lot of reasons why development is good for America, but it's also a way of interacting with countries other than military or diplomats. It's a different approach. It's a different way of enlisting the understanding of governments and people in other countries that they, too, can help improve the lives of those who are less fortunate. So there's a lot that we do through those two means.
Q. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for speaking with us today. My name is (inaudible) from the Democratic Republic of Congo, and I am a first-year Clinton School student. Madam, (inaudible) questions about talking about women in Africa, allow me to thank you for your visit in the Congo in 2009 (inaudible), where (inaudible) in my country. But mostly, thank you for visiting Goma, the most dangerous place in Africa today as a woman, despite security concern, you went on to be (inaudible). Also, thank you for speaking out against the unspeakable crimes against women and girls in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Madam, (inaudible) people when they learn (inaudible) student, they ask me, “Have you met with President Clinton yet?” But I know why people from my country ask, “Have you met Madam Secretary Clinton?” Madam, since your visit in 2009 there have been some change, some (inaudible). Thank you for what you have done for us and (inaudible) to my country.
Secretary Clinton. Let me thank you for being here, for attending the Clinton School, and for increasing your understanding and skills so that you can contribute to future of the Democratic Republic of Congo. As you said, I was very honored to go to Goma, which is in eastern Congo, in the heart of the area where conflict has claimed more lives in the last 20 years than anywhere else in the world, probably at least five million, and where violence against women and using rape as a tool of war has become commonplace.
And it always is, for me, humbling to meet women and men who every day work to try to protect the most vulnerable, who work to try to end the conflict, who work to try to change the underlying reasons why the conflict continues. Some of it is because of spillover from neighboring countries, as you know, and some of it is over the great vast wealth of the Congo, including conflict minerals. Some of it is because of the difficulty in extending governmental control over such a vast country as the DRC is.
But for whatever reason, the main victims of war today are women and children, because there are no front lines to these wars. Whether it's in eastern Congo or the northwest provinces of Pakistan, the way war is conducted is indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians. So militias roam through eastern Congo, going village to village, killing the men, raping and maiming women and children, and we are all struggling to help try to put an end to this unspeakable, horrific history of violence.
But I'll just end by saying that what I took away most from going to Goma was the extraordinary spirit, energy, joy that I saw in so many of the people with whom I met. Because even as hard as it was, they had a love of life that was overwhelming. And those who were working in the trenches to deal with the physical and mental wounds of the vicious attacks that so many people I met with and saw had suffered were doing it with money from their governments, from multinational organizations, from religious organizations. They were all committed to doing what they could to start hospitals to help save lives and give people a new future. And I met one woman who herself had been brutally raped. And what happens often when this occurs is that the family doesn't want the woman back because the shame of it, the confusion of it, is just too much. And so often they are separated from their remaining families, not taken in. And this woman found refuge in one of the hospitals that has been established in Goma, and thankfully she successfully underwent physical surgery. When I met her, she was returning to the forest every week, searching for women who were left there to die and were too ashamed to try to struggle to come forward, and she was literally picking them up, moving them into the hospital, staying with them and helping them.