S. Hrg. 111-249
NOMINATION OF HILLARY R. CLINTON TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 13, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-615PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin Republican Leader designee
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
David McKean, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from New York,
nominated to be Secretary of State............................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Dodd, Hon. Christopher J., U.S. Senator from Connecticut......... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared
statement...................................................... 38
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from New York, statement.. 14
Appendix
Responses of Senator Clinton to questions submitted by the
following Senators:
John F. Kerry................................................ 99
Richard G. Lugar............................................. 147
Russell D. Feingold.......................................... 192
Barbara Boxer................................................ 195
Bill Nelson.................................................. 198
Robert Menendez.............................................. 199
Robert P. Casey, Jr.......................................... 212
George V. Voinovich.......................................... 216
Lisa Murkowski............................................... 217
Jim DeMint................................................... 217
Johnny Isakson............................................... 234
David Vitter................................................. 235
(iii)
NOMINATION OF HILLARY R. CLINTON TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer, Nelson,
Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Webb, Lugar, Corker, Voinovich,
Murkowski, DeMint, Isakson, Vitter, and Barrasso.
Also Present: Senator Schumer and Senator Shaheen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. Well, good morning, everyone. We welcome you
all here. We're delighted to welcome Senator Clinton, Secretary
of State-designate.
I think every member of the committee believes very
strongly that, in Senator Clinton, we have a nominee who is
extraordinarily capable and smart, an individual with the
global stature and influence to help shape events. She will
take office on a first-name basis with numerous heads of state,
but also with billions of people in every corner of the globe,
those billions of people that the Obama administration hopes to
reach, inspire, and influence. Her presence overseas will send
a strong signal immediately that America is back.
This morning, we look forward to a good, healthy dialogue;
and, over the coming years, we particularly look forward to a
strong, close, cooperative working relationship.
This is a historic moment for this committee. For the first
time in American history, one of our Members will be sworn in
as President, and another one as Vice President. Before any of
the newer members of our committee get too excited about future
prospects, let Dick Lugar, Chris Dodd, and myself, and perhaps
even Hillary will join in this, in saying, ``Trust us, it ain't
automatic.'' [Laughter.]
For me, it is a particularly special and personal privilege
to be sitting here, having testified before Chairman Fulbright,
in 1971, and having worked closely with the chairmen since who
have set a strong example for this committee's ability to
contribute to our security.
And this morning we should remember one chairman, in
particular. Last week, Dick, Chris, Sheldon, and I attended
memorial services for Claiborne Pell in Rhode Island. President
Clinton, who first met Chairman Pell when he was a college
student interning on this committee, spoke movingly at the
funeral. And today, I know we all join together in expressing
our gratitude for Chairman Pell's exemplary service. His
commitment to bipartisanship and multilateralism remains the
guideposts by which this committee will continue its efforts.
I'm privileged also to follow in the more recent footsteps
of two respected chairmen and good friends. Vice President-
elect Biden and I first ran for office together in 1972. We
grew up together in politics. I know Joe and his family well,
as many of the members of this committee do. I value his
friendship, and the country will come to value the wisdom and
strength which he brings to the vice-presidency. The committee
is grateful for his leadership.
I also have the good fortune, as chairman, to have beside
me, as ranking member, the senior-most Republican in the
Senate, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his groundbreaking
nonproliferation work, and a trusted, thoughtful voice in our
national security dialogue.
Senator Lugar, I look forward to working with you in the
same cooperative way that Senator Biden did, and others have in
the past, and I know that that will characterize the work of
this committee as we go forward and I could not have a better
partner, and I thank you for that.
If we do our job correctly as we begin a new Presidency and
a new Congress, we stand on the brink of a new era of American
diplomacy, with great potential for significant, if not
transformational, steps forward across the globe. And I look
forward to working with Secretary Clinton to seize that
potential.
In the last 7 years, we have spent the treasure of our
Nation--young American soldiers, first and foremost, and
billions of dollars--to fight terrorism; and yet, grave
questions remain as to whether or not we have chosen our
battles correctly, pursued the right strategy, defined the
right goals. That we are engaged in fighting a global
insurgency is beyond doubt, but our task is to define the
method and means of our response more effectively, and no
challenge will be greater in the days ahead than to get this
right.
Pakistan and Afghanistan are definitively the front line of
our global counterterrorism efforts. Having visited, several
times recently, it is clear that no amount of additional troops
will succeed, absent the effective instruments of a functioning
state. We face a gargantuan task, and, to be successful, I
believe we must fundamentally redefine our approach.
We went into Afghanistan to deny al-Qaeda sanctuary. Our
goals must be defined by our original mission, by the regional
security context, and by the tribal, decentralized nature of
Afghan society. I'm eager to hear Senator Clinton's thoughts on
the road ahead in Afghanistan.
Nor should anyone believe that Iraq is a completed task.
Despite the Status of Forces Agreement that sets out a schedule
for reduction of United States forces, Sunni and Shia tensions,
the unresolved status of Kirkuk, the distribution of oil
revenues, and setbacks to political reconciliation, each
threaten to upend our fragile progress, and they will require
active diplomatic engagement by Secretary of State Clinton and
the rest of the Obama administration with Iraq's Government,
and particularly with its neighbors.
Iraq, as well as Iran, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza, all
require an approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of
each of these challenges. We look forward to working with the
administration and with Secretary Clinton on a significantly
expanded and vigorous diplomatic effort.
In the age of catastrophic terrorism, it is also urgent--
and I know Senator Lugar joins me in expressing this--urgent
that we restore America's leadership on nonproliferation.
Whatever our differences, we must reengage with Russia on
nuclear security--specifically, the START Treaty. It is my hope
that we will embrace deep, reciprocal cuts in our nuclear
arsenals, and I'm eager to hear Senator Clinton's thoughts on
this matter.
Consistent with our security needs, I believe we should set
a goal of no more than 1,000 deployed warheads; and that goal
should be just a beginning. We should also lay the groundwork
for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The last 8 years have resulted in increased suspicion of
our motives abroad, especially in the Muslim world, where we
must do much more to reduce the prevalent and costly perception
of an assault on Islam. It is vital that we redouble our
efforts to find common ground, including through interfaith
dialogue.
We must integrate all of the disparate elements of our
national power into a single unified effort. And I agree with
Secretary Gates that we need a State Department with more
resources and greater capacity to deal with 21st century
challenges in conflict zones and in weak and failing states.
I was heartened to hear Senator Clinton signal her desire
to radically improve our diplomatic capacity and finally give
the State Department the tools it needs to put civilian
functions back in civilian hands, and she can count on our
support in that effort. She can also count on our support in
efforts to reengage with Latin America and recognize how
crucial renewed and expanded relationships with Russia and
China are to our overall goals.
I believe, Madam Secretary-designate, that China offers us
extremely important opportunities for a more productive
partnership, and we need to approach that relationship with
greater respect for, and understanding of, our common
interests.
Before turning to Senator Lugar, let me just say one thing
about global climate change. Many today do not see global
climate change as a national security threat. But it is;
profoundly so. And the consequences of our inaction grow more
serious by the day. In Copenhagen, this December, we have a
chance to forge a treaty that would profoundly affect the
conditions of life on our planet itself. The resounding message
from the recent Climate Change Conference in Poland was that
the global community is looking, overwhelmingly, to our
leadership. This committee will be deeply involved in crafting
a solution that the world can agree to and that the Senate can
ratify. And as we proceed, the lesson of Kyoto must remain
clear in our minds: all countries must be part of the solution.
Each of these challenges present major opportunities for a
new administration and for a new Secretary of State. After the
polarization of the last 8 years, diplomacy must be directed
domestically, as well. Senator Clinton's record in the Senate
shows her to be an alliance builder in the finest traditions of
this body. She has repeatedly sought out the best people, the
best ideas, and the common ground upon which solutions could be
found.
While the committee still has some questions with respect
to the fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation, I'm
pleased that Senator Clinton will have an opportunity today to
address them beyond the ways, in-depth, that they have already
been addressed. I understand that Senator Lugar will be
speaking to this issue in greater detail, and we look forward
to hearing the Senator's responses.
Let me just say, personally, that, in the year 2000, I had
the privilege of joining the then-First Lady and her husband on
the first visit by an American President to Vietnam after the
normalization of relations. I have seen Senator Clinton's
diplomatic acumen up close. I saw her immense curiosity, her
quick and impressive grasp of detail, and her authoritative
approach, all of which will serve her well in this new
undertaking.
Hillary Clinton has shown the intelligence to navigate the
complex issues that we face, the toughness and the tireless
work ethic that this job will require, the stature to project
America's world leadership, and the alliance-building, at home
and abroad, that will be vital to our success in the years
ahead. As Senator, Hillary has earned the respect of her
colleagues--Democrat and Republican alike--and we are honored
to welcome her here today to our committee for confirmation as
America's next Secretary of State.
Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on taking
the gavel. We wish you every success, and we appreciate the
very gracious comments you have made about previous chairmen.
And I join you especially in your tribute to our former
colleague, Senator Pell, and the life we celebrated together
last week.
It is a great pleasure to welcome Senator Hillary Clinton
to the Foreign Relations Committee. Those of you who have
served with her during the past 8 years can attest to her
impressive skills, her compassion, her collegiality. I've
enjoyed the opportunity to work with her in the Senate, and I
look forward to the prospect of much more frequent
collaboration when she is Secretary of State.
I also want to congratulate Senator Kerry on the assumption
of chairmanship of this committee. My first hearing as chairman
of the committee, in 1985, was one of the proudest moments of
my career, and I'm sure Senator Kerry is feeling the gravity,
as well as the joy, of this historic occasion. And I want to
thank him and his staff for their great assistance during the
last several weeks. It's been a pleasure to work with them. I
look forward to all that we can achieve together under Senator
Kerry's chairmanship.
I have frequently said the foremost criteria for selection
of a national security Cabinet official should be whether the
nominee is a big-leaguer who has achieved extraordinary
accomplishments, is well known to the world, understands both
process and policy, and can command global respect. In Senator
Clinton, President-elect Obama has boldly chosen the epitome of
a big-leaguer. Her qualifications for the post are remarkable.
Her presence at the helm of the State Department could open
unique opportunities for United States diplomacy and can
bolster efforts to improve foreign attitudes toward the United
States. She has a longstanding relationship with many world
leaders that could be put to great use in the service of our
country. Her time in the Senate has given her a deep
understanding of how United States foreign policy can be
enriched by establishing a closer relationship between the
executive and legislative branches. She is fully prepared to
engage the world on myriad of issues that urgently require
attention.
During the last 6 years, this committee has held more
hearings than any other committee in the Senate, and we have
tried to come to grips with issues involving Iraq, Afghanistan,
Iran, North Korea, Russia, the Middle East peace process,
Africa, the Western Hemisphere, the NATO alliance,
nonproliferation, foreign assistance reform, the State
Department budget, and numerous other priorities. All of these
challenges will continue to occupy Senator Clinton as Secretary
of State.
I would highlight several other points to which I hope the
Secretary will give very high priority in addition to the
ongoing crises that will press for her attention.
First, it is vital that the START Treaty with Russia be
renewed. When the Senate gave its consent to ratification of
the Moscow Treaty in 2002, it did so knowing that the United
States could rely on the START Treaty's verification regime. It
provides important assurances to both sides. At the time, this
committee was assured that extension of START was a very high
priority. Unfortunately, little progress has been made and the
treaty will expire in 11 months. In other words, the conceptual
underpinning of our strategic relationship with Russia depends
upon something that is about to expire. Such an outcome will be
seen as weakening the international nonproliferation regime.
Second, energy security must be given a much higher
priority in our diplomacy. Earlier this month, Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered a cutoff--or, rather, Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin ordered a cutoff in natural gas
supplies that struck allies across Europe, and this dispute is
only the most recent example of how energy vulnerability
constrains our foreign policy options around the world,
limiting effectiveness in some cases, and forcing our hand in
others. I look forward to supporting President-elect Obama in
taking the necessary steps to dramatically reduce our domestic
dependence on oil. Yet, domestic reform alone will not be
sufficient to meet the global threats to our national security,
our economic health, or climate change. In my judgment, energy
security must be at the top of our agenda with nearly every
country. Progress will require personal engagement by the
Secretary of State.
Third, eradicating global hunger must be embraced as both a
humanitarian and national security imperative. Precipitous food
price increases that occurred in 2007 and 2008 created havoc in
many parts of the world, causing riots in some 19 countries,
and plunging an additional 75 million people into poverty and
increased vulnerability to malnourishment. Nearly 1 billion
people are presently food-insecure. It is predicted the world's
population will grow to such an extent that, by 2050, current
food production will need to double in order to meet demand.
There is no reason why people should be hungry when we have the
knowledge, the technology, and the resources to make everyone
food-secure. The United States is uniquely situated to help the
world feed itself and has the opportunities to recast its image
by making the eradication of hunger a centerpiece of United
States foreign policy.
Now, with these issues in mind, it is especially important
we move forward with Senator Clinton's nomination. President-
elect Obama has expressed his confidence in her, and he
deserves to have the Secretary of State in place at the
earliest opportunity.
The main issue related to Senator Clinton's nomination that
has occupied the committee has been the review of how her
service as Secretary of State can be reconciled with the
sweeping global activities of President Bill Clinton and the
Clinton Foundation. To this end, the Obama transition and the
Clinton Foundation completed a memorandum of understanding
outlining steps designed to minimize potential conflicts of
interest. I share the President-elect's view that the
activities of the Clinton Foundation, and President Clinton
himself, should not be a barrier to Senator Clinton's service,
but I also share the view implicitly recognized by the
memorandum of understanding that the work of the Clinton
Foundation is a unique complication that will have to be
managed with great care and transparency.
The core of the problem is that foreign governments and
entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain
favor with the Secretary of State. Although neither Senator
Clinton nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in
the Foundation, obviously its work benefits their legacy and
their public service priorities.
There is nothing wrong with this, and President Clinton is
deservedly proud of the Clinton Foundation's good work in
addressing HIV/AIDS, global poverty, climate change, and other
pressing problems. But the Clinton Foundation exists as a
temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes
it could curry favor through a donation. It also sets up
potential perception problems with any action taken by the
Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers or their
countries.
The nature of the Secretary of State post makes recusal
from specific policy decisions almost impossible, since even
localized U.S. foreign policy activities can ripple across
countries and continents. Every new foreign donation that is
accepted by the Foundation comes with the risk it will be
connected in the global media to a proximate State Department
policy or decision. Foreign perceptions are incredibly
important to United States foreign policy, and mistaken
impressions or suspicions can deeply affect the actions of
foreign governments toward the United States. Moreover, we do
not want our own government's deliberations distracted by
avoidable controversies played out in the media.
The bottom line is that even well-intentioned foreign
donations carry risk for United States foreign policy. The only
certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the
Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign contributions when
Senator Clinton becomes Secretary of State. I recommend this
straightforward approach as the course most likely to avoid
pitfalls that could disrupt United States foreign policy or
inhibit Senator Clinton's own activities as Secretary of State.
Alternatively, the Clinton Foundation and the Obama
transition have worked in good faith to construct a more
complex approach based on disclosure and ethics reviews that
would allow the Foundation the prospect of continuing to accept
foreign donations deemed not to have the appearance of a
conflict of interest. The agreement requires, among other
measures, the disclosure of all Foundation donors up to this
point; an annual disclosure of donations going forward; and a
State Department ethics review process that would evaluate
proposed donations from foreign governments and governmental
entitles. All of these are positive steps, but we should be
clear that this agreement is a beginning and not an end. It is
not a guarantee against conflict of interest or its appearance.
And for the agreement to succeed, the parties must make the
integrity of United States foreign policy their first principle
of implementation.
For this reason, the requirements for transparency and the
memorandum of understanding should be considered a minimum
standard. I am hopeful the Clinton Foundation and the Obama
administration will go further to ensure that the vital
business of United States foreign policy upon which the
security of our country rests is not encumbered by perceptions
arising from donations to the Foundation. If there is a
slightest doubt about the appearance that a donation might
create, the Foundation should not take that donation. If there
are issues about how a donation should be disclosed, the issue
should be resolved by disclosing the donation sooner and with
as much specificity as possible.
Operational inconveniences for the Foundation or a
reduction in some types of donations that have been accepted in
the past are small prices to pay when balanced against the
serious business of United States foreign policy that affects
the security of every American.
With this in mind, I have suggested several additional
transparency measures that could be embraced by the Clinton
Foundation and the Obama administration, going forward.
Because time is limited, I will not discuss each one
explicitly now, but I have provided a background sheet--
Attachment A--that outlines these measures. And my
understanding is the Clinton Foundation has already accepted
the fourth item listed. The willingness of all parties to
voluntarily implement these additions would strengthen the
commitment to transparency and at least partially mitigate the
risks inherent in foreign contributions.
I believe that every member of this committee will seek
ways to support Senator Clinton's work as Secretary of State. I
am certain every member wants her to succeed. We have the
opportunity, through the leadership of President-elect Obama
and Senator Clinton, to establish a new foreign policy path
that will greatly benefit security and prosperity of the United
States.
And I look forward to our discussion with our esteemed
colleague today. I applaud her willingness to take on the role
of Secretary of State at a very difficult moment in history.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator From Indiana
It is a pleasure to welcome Senator Clinton to the Foreign
Relations Committee. Those of us who have served with her during the
past 8 years can attest to her impressive skills, her compassion, and
her collegiality. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with her in
the Senate, and I look forward to the prospect of much more frequent
collaboration when she is Secretary of State.
I also want to congratulate Senator Kerry on assuming the
chairmanship of our committee. My first hearing as chairman of this
committee in 1985 was one of the proudest moments of my career, and I
am sure Senator Kerry is feeling the gravity of this historic occasion.
I want to thank him and his staff for their graciousness during the
last several weeks. It has been a pleasure to work with them, and I
look forward to all that we can achieve together under Senator Kerry's
chairmanship.
I have frequently said that the foremost criteria for selecting a
national security Cabinet official should be whether the nominee is a
``big-leaguer'' who has achieved extraordinary accomplishments, is well
known to the world, understands both process and policy, and can
command global respect. In Senator Clinton, President-elect Obama has
boldly chosen the epitome of a big-leaguer. Her qualifications for this
post are remarkable. Her presence at the helm of the State Department
could open unique opportunities for U.S. diplomacy and could bolster
efforts to improve foreign attitudes toward the United States. She has
longstanding relationships with many world leaders that could be put to
great use in the service of our country. Her time in the Senate has
given her a deep understanding of how U.S. foreign policy can be
enriched by establishing a closer relationship between the executive
and legislative branches. She is fully prepared to engage the world on
myriad issues that urgently require attention.
During the last 6 years, this committee has held more hearings than
any other committee in the Senate, as we have tried to come to grips
with issues involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the
Middle East peace process, Africa, the Western Hemisphere, the NATO
alliance, nonproliferation, foreign assistance reform, the State
Department budget, and numerous other priorities. All of these
challenges will continue to occupy Senator Clinton as Secretary of
State. I would highlight several other points to which I hope the
Secretary will give very high priority in addition to ongoing crises
that will press for her attention.
First, it is vital that the START Treaty with Russia be renewed.
When the Senate gave its consent to ratification to the Moscow Treaty
in 2002, it did so knowing that the U.S. could rely on the START
Treaty's verification regime. It provides important assurances to both
sides. At the time, this committee was assured that extension of START
was a very high priority. Unfortunately, little progress has been made
and it will expire in 11 months. In other words, the conceptual
underpinning of our strategic relationship with Russia depends upon
something that is about to expire. Such an outcome will be seen as
weakening the international nonproliferation regime.
Second, energy security must be given a much higher priority in our
diplomacy. Earlier this month Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
ordered a cutoff in natural gas supplies that struck allies across
Europe. This dispute is only the most recent example of how energy
vulnerability constrains our foreign policy options around the world,
limiting effectiveness in some cases and forcing our hand in others. I
look forward to supporting President-elect Obama in taking the
necessary steps to dramatically reduce our domestic dependence on oil.
Yet domestic reform alone will not be sufficient to meet the global
threats to our national security, economic health, and climate. In my
judgment, energy security must be at the top of our agenda with nearly
every country. Progress will require personal engagement by the
Secretary of State.
Third, eradicating global hunger must be embraced as both a
humanitarian and national security imperative. Precipitous food price
increases that occurred in 2007 and 2008 created havoc in many parts of
the world, causing riots in some 19 countries, and plunging an
additional 75 million people into poverty and increased vulnerability
to malnourishment. Nearly 1 billion people are presently food-insecure.
It is predicted that the world's population will grow to such an extent
that by 2050, current food production will need to double in order to
meet demand. There is no reason why people should be hungry when we
have the knowledge, technology, and resources to make everyone food-
secure. The United States is uniquely situated to help the world feed
itself, and has the opportunity to recast its image by making the
eradication of hunger a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.
With all these issues in mind, it is especially important that we
move forward with Senator Clinton's nomination. President-elect Obama
has expressed his confidence in her, and he deserves to have his
Secretary of State in place at the earliest opportunity.
The main issue related to Senator Clinton's nomination that has
occupied the committee has been a review of how her service as
Secretary of State can be reconciled with the sweeping global
activities of President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. To
this end, the Obama Transition and the Clinton Foundation completed a
Memorandum of Understanding outlining steps designed to minimize
potential conflicts of interest.
I share the President-elect's view that the activities of the
Clinton Foundation and President Clinton himself should not be a
barrier to Senator Clinton's service. But I also share the view,
implicitly recognized by the Memorandum of Understanding, that the work
of the Clinton Foundation is a unique complication that will have to be
managed with great care and transparency.
The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities
may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the
Secretary of State. Although neither Senator Clinton, nor President
Clinton has a personal financial stake in the Foundation, obviously its
work benefits their legacy and their public service priorities. There
is nothing wrong with this, and President Clinton is deservedly proud
of the Clinton Foundation's good work in addressing HIV/AIDs, global
poverty, climate change, and other pressing problems.
But the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign
entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a
donation. It also sets up potential perception problems with any action
taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers or their
countries. The nature of the Secretary of State post makes recusal from
specific policy decisions almost impossible, since even localized U.S.
foreign policy activities can ripple across countries and continents.
Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the Foundation comes
with the risk that it will be connected in the global media to a
proximate State Department policy or decision. Foreign perceptions are
incredibly important to U.S. foreign policy, and mistaken impressions
or suspicions can deeply affect the actions of foreign governments
toward the United States. Moreover, we do not want our own government's
deliberations distracted by avoidable controversies played out in the
media. The bottom line is that even well-intentioned foreign donations
carry risks for U.S. foreign policy.
The only certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for
the Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign contributions when
Senator Clinton becomes Secretary of State. I recommend this
straightforward approach as the course most likely to avoid pitfalls
that could disrupt U.S. foreign policy or inhibit Senator Clinton's own
activities as Secretary of State.
Alternatively, the Clinton Foundation and the Obama Transition have
worked in good faith to construct a more complex approach based on
disclosure and ethics reviews that will allow the Foundation the
prospect of continuing to accept foreign donations deemed not to have
the appearance of a conflict of interest. The agreement requires, among
other measures, the disclosure of all Foundation donors up to this
point, an annual disclosure of donations going forward, and a State
Department ethics review process that would evaluate proposed donations
from foreign governments and government entities.
All of these are positive steps. But we should be clear that this
agreement is a beginning, not an end. It is not a guarantee against
conflict of interest or its appearance. For the agreement to succeed,
the parties must make the integrity of U.S. foreign policy their first
principle of implementation. For this reason, the requirements for
transparency in the MOU should be considered a minimum standard.
I am hopeful that the Clinton Foundation and the Obama
administration will go further to ensure that the vital business of
U.S. foreign policy upon which the security of our country rests, is
not encumbered by perceptions arising from donations to the Foundation.
If there is the slightest doubt about the appearance that a donation
might create, the Foundation should not take it. If there are issues
about how a donation should be disclosed, the issues should be resolved
by disclosing the donation sooner and with as much specificity as
possible. Operational inconveniences for the Foundation or a reduction
in some types of donations that have been accepted in the past are
small prices to pay when balanced against the serious business of U.S.
foreign policy that affects the security of every American.
With this in mind, I have suggested several additional transparency
measures that could be embraced by the Clinton Foundation and the Obama
administration going forward. Because time is limited, I will not
discuss each one now, but I have provided a background sheet
[Attachment A] that outlines these measures. My understanding is that
the Clinton Foundation has already accepted the fourth item listed. The
willingness of all parties to voluntarily implement these additions
would strengthen the commitment to transparency and at least partially
mitigate the risks inherent in foreign contributions.
I believe that every member of this committee will seek ways to
support Senator Clinton's work as Secretary of State. I am certain that
every member wants her to succeed. We have the opportunity through the
leadership of President-elect Obama and Senator Clinton to establish a
new foreign policy path that will greatly benefit the security and
prosperity of the United States. I look forward to our discussion with
our esteemed colleague today and applaud her willingness to take on the
role of Secretary of State at a very difficult moment in history.
______
Attachment A
1. All donations of $50,000 or more in a given year from any source
(foreign or domestic) should be disclosed immediately upon receipt,
rather than waiting up to 12 months to list them in the annual
disclosure. Multiple gifts of less than $50,000 should be disclosed at
the time they collectively exceed $50,000 in a given calendar year.
There is no appreciable administrative burden in having a staffer
post these notable donations on the Web site at the time they are
received. According to the Clinton Foundation Web site, 499 donors have
given $50,000 or more during the entire period since the Foundation's
inception in 1997--an average of less than one a week. They could be
posted as part of the normal routine of processing a large donation.
The transparency benefits of this simple step would be significant, and
it would strengthen the Foundation's commitment to protecting the
integrity of U.S. foreign policy activities.
2. Pledges from foreign entities to donate more than $50,000 in the
future should be disclosed both at the time the pledge is made and when
the donation eventually occurs.
This is likely to involve a very small number of cases, but it
would mitigate the risk that large donors might seek to circumvent
disclosure by promising donations in future years, including years
beyond Senator Clinton's service at the State Department, when no
disclosure would be required.
3. Gifts of $50,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation from any
foreign source, including individuals, should be submitted to the State
Department designated agency ethics official for the same ethics review
that will be applied to donations from foreign governments and
government controlled entities.
The MOU only commits the Foundation to submit gifts from foreign
governments and government controlled entities for State Department
ethics review. In many foreign countries, the line between the
government and private citizens is blurred. Individuals with close
connections to governments or governing families often act as
surrogates for those governments. Consequently, contributions from
foreign governments or government controlled companies are not the only
foreign contributions that could raise serious conflict of interest
issues. For example, conflicts of interest could arise from a donation
from a Gazprom executive or a member of the Saudi Royal family as
easily as from the governments of Russia and Saudi Arabia. All large
foreign donations should be vetted by the State Department to discover
any connections between the giver and a foreign government or other
potential conflicts of interest.
4. The annual disclosure requirement in the MOU does not specify
the format of the disclosure. The Foundation should clarify that it
will annually disclose a distinct list of the donors and corresponding
donation amounts (or the amounts within a dollar range) for that year.
It is important that each annual disclosure provides a distinct
picture of donations for the previous year. Other formats might not
satisfy the spirit of the annual disclosure requirement. For example,
merely updating the original donor list released in December 2008 would
not achieve transparency, because even a large donation might not push
some previous donors into the next highest dollar range. To illustrate,
a past donor who has given $5 million and has been disclosed in the
December 2008 disclosure within the $5 to $10 million range, could give
almost $5 million more without altering where their name appears.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you, Senator Lugar. And let me
just say that, for the record, first of all, the attachment
will be made part of the record, with the statement. And
second, I think it's fair to say that Senator Lugar is not
speaking from a partisan perspective, but I think he is really
expressing the view of the committee as a whole, and we look
forward to having a good discussion about this.
If I could just say to my colleagues that what we're going
to do is at--I'm about--I want to take a point of personal
privilege to let Senator Dodd say something, because he has to
go chair a hearing--but, we're going to have a 10-minute round.
We have not yet, obviously, been able to have our
organizational meeting so we'll have a chance to talk about
procedures, going forward. But, today we will go, as we have in
the past, as a matter of seniority. My hope is, we can get a
full round, maybe plus, before we break. We will take a break
at about 12:45, until 2 o'clock, thereabouts. And that's by
agreement with Senator Clinton and some other needs that we
have to attend to.
We also intend to try to do the business meeting, in order
to try to expedite this nomination, Thursday morning, when we
have another hearing on another nominee. So, we look forward to
trying to have the cooperation of everybody to be able to do
that.
I think Senator Lugar, again, spoke for the committee in
expressing our desire to have a Secretary of State in place and
ready to go as rapidly as possible, and obviously on Tuesday of
next week.
That said, let me turn to Senator Dodd. I know, Senator
Schumer, you're being very patient, and we appreciate it.
Senator Dodd.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Dodd. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize to my colleagues, but as we are in the midst of
all of this, this is sort of a New York day. Sean Donovan is
the nominee to be the new Secretary of HUD, and I have to chair
that hearing, as chairman of the Banking Committee. Mr. Duncan
is the designee to the new Secretary of Education; I'm the
ranking Democrat on that committee, as well. We all have a busy
day in front of us, so I'm going to be very, very brief and ask
consent, Mr. Chairman, that a longer statement be included in
the record.
But, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to first of all commend you.
You are so well suited to this job, as chairman of this
committee--your background and experience, your knowledge of
these issues. And I'm very excited about your leadership of
this committee. And let me underscore the points you made about
Claiborne Pell and Dick Lugar--as well as Joe Biden. We've been
blessed in this committee over the years, with some remarkable
people to chair this committee, and you're going to carry on in
that tradition.
Let me also welcome and congratulate my wonderful friend
from New York, the nominee, Senator Clinton. I've worked with
her over the years, and I am very excited, as all of us are,
about your nomination, and I look forward to having a very
strong and healthy relationship between the State Department
and this committee.
I don't think it's overstating the case to say that you
will be inheriting some of the largest and most difficult
international challenges the United States has faced in over
half a century. And it's been said by Senator Kerry and Senator
Lugar, the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction still loom large. Our own prestige,
influence, and elements of our soft power have been questioned
as has our commitment to the rule of law.
And while these issues and others, including the crisis in
Gaza and our relationships with China and Russia, are very much
at the forefront of our minds, I want to just raise one issue
briefly before departing and hopefully get back later in the
day to discuss this with you further.
But, as I mentioned, I'm chairman of the Banking Committee.
And the one issue that overlaps almost all of this, in many
ways, is the global economic crisis. While we're very much
aware of it here in our own country, with the problems we're
grappling with every single day, I think most are aware today
that this is not just a localized problem.
In a sense, every other issue we are dealing with will be
affected by our ability to grapple effectively with the
economic crisis we face. This crisis has inflicted serious and
wide-reaching damage from which no nation is immune. As
important as our domestic response to this crisis is, I think
it is particularly critical that we develop a well-coordinated
international strategy to deal with what, in many ways, is
fundamental to our own well-being as our physical security or
economic security. Both the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations as well as the Senate Committee on Banking maintain
jurisdiction over a wide array of international economic
issues. And my intent is, along with Senator Kerry and Senator
Lugar, to work together on these issues. We have jurisdiction,
in the Banking Committee, over many of the international
institutions, and yet, obviously it's a matter of deep concern
to this committee, as well. So, we need to coordinate our
activities. And I raise that because the jurisdictional overlap
is similar to the jurisdictional overlap that currently exists
within the executive branch, the State Department, and the
Treasury Department.
Senator Clinton, you and I have discussed this issue
briefly, had a chance to talk about it, but in order to
implement an effective international policy in response to the
economic crisis, we first must ensure that there is coordinated
leadership on this issue. And so, I raise this point before
leaving. You may address it in your statement; I'm not sure if
you're going to, but it's tremendously important. And I
certainly look forward to working with Senator Kerry and you
and others on these issues, and how we can coordinate our
activities.
And again, I welcome you. I'm excited about your leadership
role as the new Secretary of State. I commend you and
President-elect Obama. There's been a lot of speculation about
having two candidates who sought the Presidency taking on these
responsibilities. I think it says volumes about both of you.
The idea that this President-elect is not in any way threatened
by a significant challenger, to ask her to be a part of his
team, and your willingness to step up and accept that
challenge, is, I think, what makes this country so unique in
the eyes of the world. So, I wish you the very best.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dodd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chris Dodd, U.S. Senator From Connecticut
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement which I'd like
to submit for the record. I would like to join my colleagues in
congratulating you, Senator Clinton, on your nomination. I have had the
pleasure of working closely with you on a wide range of issues for many
years, and I look forward to our continued partnership and to your
leadership as Secretary of State. I have no doubt you will do a
remarkable job.
I don't think it is overstating the case to say that you will be
inheriting some of the biggest international challenges the United
States has seen in over 50 years. We are waging simultaneous wars
overseas. The threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction still loom large, and our own prestige, influence, and
elements of our ``soft power'' have been questioned, as has our
commitment to the rule of law.
And while these issues and others, including the crisis in Gaza,
and our relationships with China and Russia, are very much at the
forefront of our minds this morning, I want to raise with you another
issue of particular importance before I must leave to chair a hearing
at the Banking Committee: The global economic crisis.
This crisis has inflicted serious and far-reaching damage, from
which no nation is immune. As important as is our domestic response to
the crisis, I think it is also critical that we develop a well-
coordinated international strategy to deal with what is in many ways as
fundamental to our well-being as our physical security--our economic
security.
Both the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as well as the
Senate Committee on Banking, which I chair, maintain jurisdiction over
a wide array of international economic issues.
This jurisdictional overlap is similar to the jurisdictional
overlap that currently exists within the executive branch, between the
State Department and the Treasury Department and others.
And Senator Clinton, as you have already pointed out, in order to
implement an effective international policy response to the economic
crisis, we must first ensure that there is coordinated leadership on
this issue. In my view, the Secretary of State's leadership is key, and
a well-coordinated strategy including aggressive diplomatic
initiatives, Treasury's initiatives, and those of other Federal
agencies is absolutely essential. We must ensure that the United States
Government speaks with one coherent voice as we implement a set of
strategic and well-coordinated international policies.
In the short time that I have this morning, I was hoping you could
respond to these thoughts and tell this committee how you envision
coordinating and leading such a strategy from the State Department.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to jump the queue and,
Senator Clinton, thank you for your years of remarkable, dedicated, and
historic public service to this country.
I am fully confident that under your leadership we can restore not
only American foreign policy but also our leadership in the world. I
look forward to our conversation today, to your swift confirmation, and
to working with you as Secretary of State.
Again, congratulations on your nomination.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Dodd, for those warm and
generous comments, and we appreciate it. And we very much look
forward, obviously, to working very closely with you on that.
The international and global economic linkages nowadays have
really transformed foreign policy, and we're already looking,
within our staff structure on the committee, for ways to try to
address that more effectively.
Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, you've both been very
patient. We appreciate it enormously. Let me, as I introduce
you, Senator Schumer, also welcome Chelsea.
We are delighted to have you here. Your mother said, as we
were walking across the dais, that she wished you weren't
sitting behind her, that she could look at you up here. So,
since your father served as an intern on this committee, maybe
we can make you an intern for a day. Chairman's prerogative.
[Laughter.]
So, if you want to come here later, and look out, you know,
we're happy to welcome you.
So, Senator Schumer, thanks so much for joining us here.
Happy to have you here.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Is that for Senator Schumer or for Chelsea?
[Laughter.]
Senator Schumer. Chelsea, for sure. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a true
honor to be here. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Lugar,
all the members of the committee, for the opportunity, the
honor--the true honor of introducing my friend and colleague
Senator Clinton.
Before I do, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on
your ascension to the chairmanship. And I share the confidence
of many that you'll be a truly great chairman of this
committee, and I look forward to watching the committee work.
Now, colleagues, I've known Hillary a long time, and I'm
confident that there is no one--no one who would better serve
our country and the world as the next Secretary of State. We're
in a new era. The world is yearning for strong, but
consultative, American leadership in foreign policy. Hillary
Rodham Clinton, as Secretary of State, is exactly the right
person at the right time. Hillary has spent more time under the
national political spotlight than almost anyone; first as First
Lady, then in her race for the New York Senate seat, the
subsequent 8 years of Senate, and then her historic victories
in her campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and
now, finally, as President-elect Obama's choice for Secretary
of State.
Through all of this time, Hillary has demonstrated the
equanimity, the prudence, the fortitude that have made her an
exceptional leader and public servant. In her years as First
Lady, Senator Clinton was one of the country's most important
and best-loved ambassadors. She traveled to over 80 countries,
meeting with heads of state from the Czech Republic to Nepal.
She served as a representative to the United Nations,
addressing forums around the world. She has negotiated aid
packages in Asia, pushed democratic reforms in the former
Soviet bloc, and promoted peace plans in Northern Ireland and
Serbia.
But, Hillary didn't just meet with world leaders; she has
met with private citizens around the world whose lives are
shaped by international decisions. She has met survivors of the
Rwandan genocide, she's met with advocates for social justice
and women's rights in Pakistan, and with the families of
children kidnapped in Uganda.
And after serving her country 8 years as First Lady, when
most people would retire, Hillary stepped up and has served as
a vital and powerful advocate on behalf of the people of New
York. Going from the White House to White Plains, Hillary has
continued to show just as much acumen in her dealings with
national and global leaders as she shows empathy and interest
in the needs of private individuals around New York.
In all of her many roles as a public servant, Hillary has
always shown the insight to see the heart of the problem, the
courage to tackle it, and the talent to solve it. What could be
a better description of what we need as Secretary of State?
And no matter how abstract the problem, no matter how
esoteric the question, Hillary has never once forgotten the
peoples whose lives and happiness depend on her work.
Hillary, you've dedicated your career to improving the
lives of the least fortunate. Since your work, 30 years ago
with the Children's Defense Fund, you've come a long way, but
you've always retained your tireless efforts to better the
world.
For me, it's been a pleasure and a privilege serving with
you in the Senate, and I will sorely miss you. But, I wish you
the best of luck. And I know that you will be a brilliant
Secretary of State.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. And I
know we need to excuse you, post-hug----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman [continuing]. To go about other duties. And I
know that our Republican colleagues are thrilled that those
duties no longer include being chairman of the Campaign
Committee. [Laughter.]
Senator Schumer. Mr. Chairman, it is, as Chris Dodd,
mentioned, a New York day, and I have to go in to do Sean
Donovan at----
The Chairman. We understand that.
Senator Schume [continuing]. The Banking Committee. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Senator Schumer. Thank you, colleagues.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Schumer. Appreciate it very much.
The Chairman. Well, Madam Secretary-designate, we are,
again, really delighted to welcome you here, and we look
forward to your testimony and to have a chance to get some
questions in. Thanks so much.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And as
he's leaving, I want to thank Senator Schumer for that generous
introduction, and, even more, for his support and our
partnership over so many years. He's been a valued and trusted
colleague, a friend, and a tribute to the people of New York
whom he has served with such distinction.
Mr. Chairman, I join in offering my congratulations as you
take on this new role. You've traveled quite a distance from
that day, back in 1971, when you testified here as a young
Vietnam veteran. You have never faltered in your care and
concern for our Nation, its foreign policy, and its future. And
America is in good hands with you leading this committee.
And, Senator Lugar, I look forward to working with you on a
wide range of issues, especially those of greatest concern to
you, including the Nunn-Lugar initiative.
And let me say a word to Senator Voinovich, because of his
announcement yesterday. I want to commend you for your service
to the people of Ohio, and I ask for your help, in the next 2
years, on the management issues that you have long championed.
It is an honor and a privilege to be here this morning as
President-elect Obama's nominee for Secretary of State. I am
deeply grateful for the trust, and keenly aware of the
responsibility, that the President-elect has placed in me to
serve our country, and to serve our people at a time of such
grave dangers and great possibilities. If confirmed, I will
accept the duties of the office with gratitude, humility, and
firm determination to represent the United States as
energetically and faithfully as I can.
At the same time, I must confess that sitting across the
table from so many colleagues brings me sadness, too. I love
the Senate. And if you confirm me for this new role, it will be
hard to say goodbye to so many Members, Republicans and
Democrats, whom I have come to know, admire, and respect
deeply, and to this institution, where I have been so proud to
serve on behalf of the people of New York through some very
difficult days over the past 8 years. But, I assure you, I will
be in frequent consultation and conversation with the members
of this committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the
Appropriations Committees, and with Congress as a whole. And I
look forward to working with my good friend Vice-President-
elect Biden, who's been a valued colleague and a very valued
chairman of this committee.
For me, consultation is not a catch word, it is a
commitment. The President-elect and I believe that we must
return to the time-honored principle of bipartisanship in our
foreign policy, an approach that has served our Nation well. I
look forward to working with all of you to renew America's
leadership through diplomacy that enhances our security,
advances our interests, and reflects our values.
Today, our Nation and our world face great perils, from
ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the continuing threats
posed by terrorist extremists to the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, from the dangers of climate change to pandemic
disease, from financial meltdowns to worldwide poverty. The 70
days since the Presidential election offer fresh evidence of
these challenges. New conflict in Gaza, terrorist attacks in
Mumbai, mass killings and rapes in the Congo, cholera in
Zimbabwe, reports of record-high greenhouse gases and rapidly
melting glaciers, and even an ancient form of terror, piracy,
asserting itself in modern form off the Horn of Africa.
Always, and especially in the crucible of these global
challenges, our overriding duty is to protect and advance
America's security, interests, and values, to keep our people,
our Nation, and our allies secure, to promote economic growth
and shared prosperity at home and abroad, and to strengthen
America's position of global leadership so we remain a positive
force in the world, whether in working to preserve the health
of our planet or expanding opportunity for people on the
margins whose progress and prosperity will add to our own.
Our world has undergone an extraordinary transformation in
the last two decades. In 1989, a wall fell and old barriers
began to crumble after 40 years of a cold war that had
influenced every aspect of our foreign policy. By 1999, the
rise of more democratic and open societies, the expanding reach
of world markets, and the explosion of information technology
had made globalization the word of the day.
For most people, it had primarily an economic connotation;
but, in fact, we were already living in a profoundly
interdependent world in which old rules and boundaries no
longer held fast, a world in which both the promise and the
peril of the 21st century could not be contained by national
borders or vast distances. Economic growth lifted more people
out of poverty faster than at any time in our history, but
economic crises can sweep across the globe even more quickly. A
coalition of nations stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans,
but the conflict in the Middle East continues to inflame
tensions from Africa to Asia.
Nonstate actors fight poverty, improve health, and expand
education in the poorest parts of the world, while other
nonstate actors traffic in drugs, children, and women, and kill
innocent civilians across the globe.
Now, in 2009, the clear lesson of the last 20 years is that
we must both combat the threats and seize the opportunities of
our interdependence. And to be effective in doing so, we must
build a world with more partners and fewer adversaries. America
cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the
world cannot solve them without America.
The best way to advance America's interest in reducing
global threats and seizing global opportunities is to design
and implement global solutions. That isn't a philosophical
point; this is our reality.
The President-elect and I believe that foreign policy must
be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid
ideology; on facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our
security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today's
world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our
interdependence.
I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is
still wanted. We must use what has been called ``smart power,''
the full range of tools at our disposal--diplomatic, economic,
military, political, legal, and cultural--picking the right
tool, or combination of tools, for each situation.
With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our
foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman
poet Terence declared that, ``In every endeavor, a seemly
course for wise men is to try persuasion first.'' The same
truth binds wise women, as well.
I assure you that, if I am confirmed, the State Department
will be firing on all cylinders to provide forward-thinking,
sustained diplomacy in every part of the world, applying
pressure wherever it may be needed, but also looking for
opportunity, exerting leverage, cooperating with our military
and other agencies of government, partnering with
nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and
international organizations, using modern technologies for
public outreach, empowering negotiators who can protect our
interests while understanding those of our negotiating
partners.
Diplomacy is hard work; but, when we work hard, diplomacy
can work, not just to defuse tensions, but to achieve results
that advance our security, interests, and values.
Secretary Gates, as the chairman said, has been
particularly eloquent in articulating the importance of
diplomacy. As he notes, it's not often that a Secretary of
Defense makes the case for adding resources to the State
Department and elevating the role of the diplomatic corps.
Thankfully, Secretary Gates is more concerned about having a
unified, agile, and effective U.S. strategy than in spending
precious time and energy on petty turf wars. As he has stated,
``Our civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have
been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far too
long.'' That is a statement that I can only heartily say
``amen'' to. President-elect Obama has emphasized that the
State Department must be fully empowered and funded to confront
multidimensional challenges, from thwarting terrorism to
spreading health and prosperity in places of human suffering,
and I will speak in greater detail about that in a moment.
We should also use the United Nations and other
institutions whenever possible and appropriate. Both Democratic
and Republican Presidents have understood that these
institutions, when they work well, enhance our influence; and
when they don't work well, as in the cases of Darfur and farce
of Sudan's election to the former U.N. Commission on Human
Rights, we should work with like-minded friends to make them
more effective.
We will lead with diplomacy, because that's the smart
approach, but we also know that military force will sometimes
be necessary, and we will rely on it to protect our people and
our interests, when and where needed, as a last resort.
All the while, we must remember that, to promote our
interests around the world, America must be an exemplar of our
values. Senator Isakson made the point to me the other day that
our Nation must lead by example, rather than edict. Our history
has shown that we are most effective when we see the harmony
between our interests abroad and our values at home. Our first
Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, subscribed to that view,
reminding us across the centuries, ``The interests of a nation,
when well understood, will be found to coincide with their
moral duties.''
Senator Lugar, I'm going to borrow your words here, too. As
you said, ``The United States cannot feed every person, lift
every person out of poverty, cure every disease, or stop every
conflict, but our power and status have conferred upon us a
tremendous responsibility to humanity.''
Of course we must be realistic. Even under the best of
circumstances, our Nation cannot solve every problem or meet
every global need. We don't have unlimited time, treasure, or
manpower, especially with our own economy faltering and our
budget deficits growing. So, to fulfill our responsibility to
our children, to protect and defend our Nation while honoring
our values, we have to establish priorities.
I'm not trying to mince words here. As my colleagues in the
Senate know, establishing priorities means making tough
choices. Because these choices are so important to the American
people, we must be disciplined in evaluating them, weighing the
costs and consequences of action or inaction, gauging the
probability of success, and insisting on measurable results.
Right after I was nominated, a friend told me, ``The world
has so many problems, you've got your work cut out for you.''
Well, I agree, but I don't get up every morning thinking only
about the threats and dangers we face. In spite of all the
adversity and complexity, there are so many opportunities for
America out there calling forth the optimism and can-do spirit
that has marked our progress for more than two centuries. Too
often, we see the ills that plague us more clearly than the
possibilities in front of us, but it is the real possibility of
progress, of that better life, free from fear and want and
discord, that offers our most compelling message to the rest of
the world.
I've had the chance to lay out and submit my views on a
broad array of issues in written responses to questions from
the committee, so this statement will only outline some of the
major challenges we face, and the major opportunities we see,
as well.
First, President-elect Obama is committed to responsibly
ending the war in Iraq and employing a broad strategy in
Afghanistan that reduces threats to our safety and enhances the
prospects of stability and peace. Right now, our men and women
in uniform, our diplomats, and our aid workers are risking
their lives in these two countries. They have done everything
we have asked of them and more. But, over time, our larger
interests will be best served by safely and responsibly
withdrawing our troops from Iraq, supporting a transition to
full Iraqi responsibility for their sovereign nation,
rebuilding our overtaxed military, and reaching out to other
nations to help stabilize the region and employ a broader
arsenal of tools to fight terrorism.
We will use all the elements of our power--diplomacy,
development, and defense--to work with those in Afghanistan and
Pakistan who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other
violent extremists who threaten them, as well as us, in what
President-elect Obama has called the ``central front in the
fight against terrorism.''
As we focus on Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, we must
also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle
East that addresses the security needs of Israel and the
legitimate political and economic aspirations of the
Palestinians, that effectively challenges Iran to end its
nuclear weapons program and its sponsorship of terror, and
persuades both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous
behavior and become constructive regional actors, and that also
strengthens our relationship with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
other Arab states, along with Turkey and our partners in the
gulf, to involve them in securing a lasting peace in the
region.
As intractable as the Middle East problems may seem--and
many Presidents, including my husband, have spent years trying
to work out a resolution--we cannot give up on peace. The
President-elect and I understand, and are deeply sympathetic
to, Israel's desire to defend itself under the current
conditions and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets.
However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian
costs of conflict in the Middle East and pained by the
suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians. This must only
increase our determination to seek a just and lasting peace
agreement that brings real security to Israel, normal and
positive relations with its neighbors, independence, economic
progress, and security to the Palestinians in their own state.
We will exert every effort to support the work of Israelis and
Palestinians who seek that result. It is critical, not only to
the parties involved, but to undermining the forces of
alienation and violent extremism around the world.
For terrorism, we must have a comprehensive strategy,
levering intelligence, diplomacy, and military assets to defeat
al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups by rooting out their
networks and drying up their support for violent and nihilistic
extremism.
The gravest threat that America faces is the danger that
weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of
terrorists. We must curb the spread and use of these weapons--
nuclear, biological, chemical, or cyber--and prevent the
development and use of dangerous new weapons.
Therefore, while defending against a threat of terrorism,
we will also seize the parallel opportunity to get America back
in the business of engaging other nations to reduce nuclear
stockpiles. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of
the nonproliferation regime. The United States must exercise
leadership needed to shore it up. So, we will seek agreements
with Russia to secure further reductions in weapons under
START. We will work with this committee and the Senate toward
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and we will
dedicate efforts to revive negotiations on a verifiable
fissile-material cutoff treaty. At the same time, we will
continue to work to prevent proliferation in North Korea and
Iran, to secure loose nuclear weapons and materials, and to
shut down the market for selling them, as Senator Lugar has
pushed for so many years.
These threats, however, cannot be addressed in isolation.
Smart power requires reaching out to both friends and
adversaries to bolster old alliances and to forge new ones.
That means strengthening the alliances that have stood the test
of time, especially with our NATO partners and our allies in
Asia. Our alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of American
policy in Asia, essential to maintaining peace and prosperity
in the Asia-Pacific region and based on shared values and
mutual interests. We also have crucial economic and security
partnerships with South Korea, Australia, and other friends in
ASEAN. We will build on our economic and political partnership
with India, the world's most populous democracy and a nation
with growing influence in the world.
Our traditional relationships of confidence and trust with
Europe will be deepened. Disagreements are inevitable, but, on
most global issues, we have no more-trusted allies. The new
administration will reach out across the Atlantic to leaders in
France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others, including, and
especially, the new democracies.
President-elect Obama and I seek a future of cooperative
engagement with the Russian Government on matters of strategic
importance while standing strongly for American values and
international norms.
China is critically important as an actor who will be
changing the global landscape. We want a positive and
cooperative relationship with China, one where we deepen and
strengthen our ties on a number of issues and candidly address
differences where they persist. But, this is not a one-way
effort. Much of what we will do depends on the choices China
makes about its future at home and abroad.
With both Russia and China, we should work together on
vital security and economic issues, like terrorism,
proliferation, climate change, and reforming financial markets.
The world is now, as Senator Dodd said, in the crosscurrents of
the most severe global economic contraction since the Great
Depression. The history of that crisis teaches us the
consequences of diplomatic failures and uncoordinated reaction.
We have already seen this crisis extend beyond the housing and
banking sectors, and our solutions will have to be as wide in
scope as the causes themselves, taking into account the
complexities of the global economy, the geopolitics, and the
continued political and economic repercussions from the damage
already done.
But, here again, as we work to repair the damage, we can
find new ways of working together. For too long, we've merely
talked about the need to engage emerging powers in global
economic governance. The time to take action is upon us. The
recent G20 meeting that President Bush hosted as a first step,
but developing patterns of sustained engagement will take hard
work and careful negotiation. We know that emerging markets,
like China and India, Brazil, and South Africa, and Indonesia,
are feeling the effects of the current crisis, and we all stand
to benefit, in both the short and long term, if they are part
of the solution and become partners in maintaining global
economic stability.
In our efforts to return to economic growth here in the
United States, we have an especially critical need: to work
more closely with Canada, our largest trading partner, and
Mexico, our third largest. Canada and Mexico are also our
biggest suppliers of imported energy. More broadly, we must
build a deeper partnership with Mexico to address the shared
dangers arising from drug trafficking and the challenges along
our border, an effort begun this week with the meeting between
President-elect Obama and President Calderon.
Throughout our hemisphere, we have opportunities to enhance
our relationships that will benefit all of us. We will return
to a policy of vigorous involvement, partnership even, with
Latin America, from the Caribbean to Central America to South
America. We share common political, economic, and strategic
interests with our friends to the south, as well as many of our
citizens who share ancestral and cultural legacies. We're
looking forward to working on many issues during the Summit of
the Americas in April and taking up the President-elect's call
for a new energy partnership around shared technology and new
investments in renewable energy.
And in Africa the foreign policy objectives of the Obama
administration are rooted in security, political, economic, and
humanitarian interests, including combating al-Qaeda's efforts
to seek safe havens in failed states in the Horn of Africa,
helping African nations conserve their natural resources and
reaping fair benefits from them, stopping war in the Congo,
ending autocracy in Zimbabwe and human devastation in Darfur.
But, we also intend to support the African democracies, like
South Africa and Ghana, which just had its second peaceful
change of power in a democratic election. We must work hard
with our African friends to reach the Millennium Development
goals in health, education, and economic opportunity.
Many significant problems we face will challenge us, not
only a bilateral basis, but all nations. You, Mr. Chairman,
were among the very first, in a growing chorus from both
parties, to recognize that climate change is an unambiguous
security threat. At the extreme, it threatens our very
existence; but, well before that point it could well incite new
wars of an old kind over basic resources, like food, water, and
arable land.
President-elect Obama has said America must be a leader in
developing and implementing a global and coordinated response
to climate change. We will participate in the upcoming U.N.
Copenhagen Climate Conference and a global energy forum, and
we'll pursue an energy policy that reduces our carbon emissions
while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas, fighting
climate change, and enhancing our economic and energy security.
George Marshall noted that our gravest enemies are often
not nations or doctrines, but hunger, poverty, desperation, and
chaos. So, to create more friends and fewer enemies, we must
find common ground and common purpose with other peoples and
nations to overcome hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair.
The Obama administration recognizes that even when we cannot
fully agree with some governments, we share a bond of humanity
with their people. By investing in that common humanity, we
advance our common security.
Mr. Chairman, you were one of the first, again, to
underscore the importance of our involvement in the global AIDS
fight. Now, thanks to a variety of efforts, including President
Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, as well as the work of
NGOs and foundations, the United States enjoys widespread
support in public opinion polls in many African countries. Even
among Muslim populations in Tanzania and Kenya, America is seen
as a leader in the fight against AIDS, malaria, and TB. We have
an opportunity to build on this success by partnering with NGOs
to help expand health clinics in Africa so more people can have
access to life-saving drugs, fewer mothers transmit HIV to
their children, and fewer lives are lost. We can generate more
goodwill through other kinds of social investments; again,
partnering with international organizations, NGOs, to build
schools and train teachers. The President-elect supports a
global education fund to bolster secular education around the
world.
I want to emphasize the importance to us of this bottom-up
approach. The President and I--the President-elect and I
believe in this so strongly. Investing in our common humanity
through social development is not marginal to our foreign
policy, but essential to the realization of our goals. More
than 2 billion people worldwide live on less than $2 a day,
they're facing rising food prices and widespread hunger. We
have to expand civil and political rights in countries that are
plagued by poverty, hunger, and disease, but our pleas will
fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually improves people's
lives while weeding out the corruption that too often stands in
the way of progress.
Our foreign policy must reflect our deep commitment to help
millions of oppressed people around the world, and of
particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls, who
comprise the majority of the world's unhealthy, unschooled,
unfed, and unpaid. If half the world's population remains
vulnerable to economic, political, legal, and social
marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity
is in serious jeopardy. The United States must be an
unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women's rights
in every country on every continent.
As a personal aside, I want to mention that President-elect
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was a pioneer in microfinance in
Indonesia. In my own work on microfinance around the world,
from Bangladesh to Chile to Vietnam to South Africa and many
other countries, I've seen firsthand how small loans given to
poor women to start businesses can raise standards of living
and transform local economies. The President-elect's mother had
planned to attend a microfinance forum at the Beijing Women's
Conference in 1995 that I participated in. Unfortunately, she
was very ill and couldn't travel, and, sadly, passed away a few
months later. But, I think it's fair to say that her work in
international development, the care and concern she showed for
women and for poor people around the world, mattered greatly to
her son, our President-elect. And I believe that it has
certainly informed his views and his vision. We will be honored
to carry on Ann Dunham's work in the years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I know we'll address many issues in the
question-and-answer session, but I want to underscore a final
point. Ensuring that our State Department is functioning at its
best is absolutely essential to America's success. The
President-elect and I believe strongly that we need to invest
in our capacity to conduct vigorous American diplomacy, provide
the kind of foreign assistance that I've mentioned, reach out
to the world, and operate effectively alongside our military.
Now, the entire State Department bureaucracy in Thomas
Jefferson's day consisted of a chief clerk, three regular
clerks, and a messenger, and his entire budget was $56,000 a
year. But, over the past 219 years, the world has certainly
changed. Now the Department consists of Foreign Service
officers, the civil services, and our locally engaged staff,
working not only at Foggy Bottom, but in offices across our
country and in some 260 posts around the world. And USAID
carries out its critical development missions in some of the
most difficult places on our earth.
These public servants are too often the unsung heroes, they
are in the trenches, putting our policies and values to work in
a complicated and dangerous world. Many risk their lives, and
some have lost their lives, in service to our Nation. They need
and deserve the resources, training, and support to succeed.
I know this committee--and, I hope, the American public--
understand that Foreign Service officers and civil service
professionals and development experts are doing invaluable
work, and it is the work of the American people, whether
helping American businesses make inroads in new markets, or
being on the other end of the phone when someone gets in
trouble beyond our shores, needs a passport, needs advice at an
embassy, or doing the delicate work of diplomacy and
development with foreign governments that leads to arms control
and trade agreements, peace treaties and post-conflict
reconstruction, standing up for greater human rights and
empowerment, broader cultural understanding, and building
alliances.
State Department is a large, multidimensional organization,
but not the placid, idle bureaucracy that some have suggested.
It is an outpost for American values that protects our citizens
and safeguards our democratic institutions in times both
turbulent and tame. State Department employees offer a lifeline
of hope and help, often the only lifeline, for people in
foreign lands who are oppressed, silenced, and marginalized. We
must not shortchange them or ourselves.
One of my first priorities is to make sure that the State
Department and USAID have the resources they need--and I will
be back to make the case to the committee for full funding of
the President's budget request--but I will work just as hard to
make sure we manage those resources prudently, efficiently, and
effectively.
Now, like most Americans, when I was growing up I never had
the chance to travel widely. Most of my early professional
career was as a lawyer and an advocate for children and the
poor who found themselves disadvantaged here at home. But,
during the 8 years of my husband's Presidency, and now of 8
years as the Senator from New York, I have been privileged to
travel on behalf of our country, and I've had the opportunity
to get to know many world leaders. As a member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, I've spent time with our military
commanders, as well as our brave troops, I've immersed myself
in a number of military issues, and I've spent many hours with
American and non-American aid workers, business men and women,
religious leaders, teachers, doctors, nurses, students,
volunteers, all who have made it their mission to help other
people across the world. And I've seen countless ordinary
people in foreign capitals, small towns, and rural villages,
who live in a world far removed from our experiences.
In recent years, as other nations have risen to compete for
military, economic, and political influence, some have argued
that we have reached the end of the American moment in world
history. Well, I disagree. Yes, the conventional paradigms have
shifted, but America's success has never been solely a function
of our power, it has always been rooted in, and inspired by,
our values. With so many troubles here at home and around the
world, millions of people are still trying to come to this
country, legally and illegally. Why? Because we are guided by
unchanging truths that all people are created equal, that each
person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. And in these truths, we will find, as we have for
more than two centuries, the courage, the discipline, and the
creativity to meet the challenges of this ever-changing world.
I am humbled to be a public servant and honored by the
responsibility placed on me, should I be confirmed, by our
President-elect, who embodies the American dream, not only here
at home, but far beyond our shores. No matter how daunting the
challenges may be, I have a steadfast faith in this country and
in our people, and I am proud to be an American at the dawning
of this new American moment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, for
granting me your time and attention today. I know there's a lot
more territory to cover, and I'd be delighted to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator From
New York, Nominee for Secretary of State
Thank you, Senator Schumer, for your generous introduction, and
even more for your support and our partnership over so many years. You
are a valued and trusted colleague, a friend, and a tribute to the
people of New York whom you have served with such distinction
throughout your career.
Mr. Chairman, I offer my congratulations as you take on this new
role. You certainly have traveled quite a distance from that day in
1971 when you testified here as a young Vietnam veteran. You have never
faltered in your care and concern for our Nation, its foreign policy or
its future, and America is in good hands with you leading this
committee.
Senator Lugar, I look forward to working with you on a wide range
of issues, especially those of greatest concern to you, including the
Nunn-Lugar initiative.
And Senator Voinovich, I want to commend you for your service to
the people of Ohio and ask for your help in the next 2 years on the
management issues you champion.
It is an honor and a privilege to be here this morning as
President-elect Obama's nominee for Secretary of State. I am deeply
grateful for the trust--and keenly aware of the responsibility--that
the President-elect has placed in me to serve our country and our
people at a time of such grave dangers, and great possibilities. If
confirmed, I will accept the duties of the office with gratitude,
humility, and firm determination to represent the United States as
energetically and faithfully as I can.
At the same time I must confess that sitting across the table from
so many colleagues brings me sadness, too. I love the Senate. And if
you confirm me for this new role, it will be hard to say good-bye to so
many members, Republicans and Democrats, whom I have come to know,
admire, and respect deeply, and to the institution where I have been so
proud to serve on behalf of the people of New York for the past 8
years.
But I assure you that I will be in frequent consultation and
conversation with the members of this committee, with the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, the appropriations committees, and with Congress as
a whole. And I look forward to working with my good friend, Vice
President-elect Biden, who has been a valued colleague in the Senate
and valued chairman of this committee.
For me, consultation is not a catch-word. It is a commitment.
The President-elect and I believe that we must return to the time-
honored principle of bipartisanship in our foreign policy--an approach
that past Presidents of both parties, as well as members of this
committee, have subscribed to and that has served our Nation well. I
look forward to working with all of you to renew America's leadership
through diplomacy that enhances our security, advances our interests,
and reflects our values.
Today, 9 years into a new century, Americans know that our Nation
and our world face great perils: From ongoing wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, to the continuing threat posed by terrorist extremists, to
the spread of weapons of mass destruction; from the dangers of climate
change to pandemic disease; from financial meltdown to worldwide
poverty.
The 70 days since the Presidential election offer fresh evidence of
the urgency of these challenges. New conflict in Gaza; terrorist
attacks in Mumbai; mass killings and rapes in the Congo; cholera in
Zimbabwe; reports of record high greenhouse gasses and rapidly melting
glaciers; and even an ancient form of terror--piracy--asserting itself
in modern form off the Horn of Africa.
Always, and especially in the crucible of these global challenges,
our overriding duty is to protect and advance America's security,
interests, and values: First, we must keep our people, our Nation, and
our allies secure. Second, we must promote economic growth and shared
prosperity at home and abroad. Finally, we must strengthen America's
position of global leadership--ensuring that we remain a positive force
in the world, whether in working to preserve the health of our planet
or expanding dignity and opportunity for people on the margins whose
progress and prosperity will add to our own.
Our world has undergone an extraordinary transformation in the last
two decades. In 1989, a wall fell and old barriers began to crumble
after 40 years of a cold war that had influenced every aspect of our
foreign policy.
By 1999, the rise of more democratic and open societies, the
expanding reach of world markets, and the explosion of information
technology had made ``globalization'' the word of the day. For most
people, it had primarily an economic connotation, but in fact, we were
already living in a profoundly interdependent world in which old rules
and boundaries no longer held fast--one in which both the promise and
the peril of the 21st century could not be contained by national
borders or vast distances.
Economic growth has lifted more people out of poverty faster than
at any time in history, but economic crises can sweep across the globe
even more quickly. A coalition of nations stopped ethnic cleansing in
the Balkans, but the conflict in the Middle East continues to inflame
tensions from Asia to Africa. Nonstate actors fight poverty, improve
health, and expand education in the poorest parts of the world, while
other nonstate actors traffic in drugs, children, and women and kill
innocent civilians across the globe.
Now, in 2009, the clear lesson of the last 20 years is that we must
both combat the threats and seize the opportunities of our
interdependence. And to be effective in doing so we must build a world
with more partners and fewer adversaries.
America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the
world cannot solve them without America. The best way to advance
America's interest in reducing global threats and seizing global
opportunities is to design and implement global solutions. This isn't a
philosophical point. This is our reality.
The President-elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based
on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On
facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our
vitality, and our ability to lead in today's world oblige us to
recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.
I believe that American leadership has been wanting, but is still
wanted. We must use what has been called ``smart power'': The full
range of tools at our disposal--diplomatic, economic, military,
political, legal, and cultural--picking the right tool, or combination
of tools, for each situation.
With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy.
This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence, who was
born a slave and rose to become one of the great voices of his time,
declared that ``in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to
try persuasion first.'' The same truth binds wise women as well.
The President-elect has made it clear that in the Obama
administration there will be no doubt about the leading role of
diplomacy. One need only look to North Korea, Iran, the Middle East,
and the Balkans to appreciate the absolute necessity of tough-minded,
intelligent diplomacy--and the failures that result when that kind of
diplomatic effort is absent. And one need only consider the assortment
of problems we must tackle in 2009--from fighting terrorism to climate
change to global financial crises--to understand the importance of
cooperative engagement.
I assure you that, if I am confirmed, the State Department will be
firing on all cylinders to provide forward-thinking, sustained
diplomacy in every part of the world; applying pressure and exerting
leverage; cooperating with our military partners and other agencies of
government; partnering effectively with NGOs, the private sector, and
international organizations; using modern technologies for public
outreach; empowering negotiators who can protect our interests while
understanding those of our negotiating partners. There will be
thousands of separate interactions, all strategically linked and
coordinated to defend American security and prosperity. Diplomacy is
hard work; but when we work hard, diplomacy can work, and not just to
defuse tensions, but to achieve results that advance our security,
interests, and values.
Secretary Gates has been particularly eloquent in articulating the
importance of diplomacy in pursuit of our national security and foreign
policy objectives. As he notes, it's not often that a Secretary of
Defense makes the case for adding resources to the State Department and
elevating the role of the diplomatic corps. Thankfully, Secretary Gates
is more concerned about having a unified, agile, and effective U.S.
strategy than in spending our precious time and energy on petty turf
wars. As he has stated, ``our civilian institutions of diplomacy and
development have been chronically undermanned and underfunded for far
too long,'' both relative to military spending and to ``the
responsibilities and challenges our Nation has around the world.'' And
to that, I say, ``Amen!''
President-elect Obama has emphasized that the State Department must
be fully empowered and funded to confront multidimensional challenges--
from working with allies to thwart terrorism, to spreading health and
prosperity in places of human suffering. I will speak in greater detail
about that in a moment.
We should also use the United Nations and other international
institutions whenever appropriate and possible. Both Democratic and
Republican Presidents have understood for decades that these
institutions, when they work well, enhance our influence. And when they
don't work well--as in the cases of Darfur and the farce of Sudan's
election to the former U.N. Commission on Human Rights, for example--we
should work with like-minded friends to make sure that these
institutions reflect the values that motivated their creation in the
first place.
We will lead with diplomacy because it's the smart approach. But we
also know that military force will sometimes be necessary, and we will
rely on it to protect our people and our interests when and where
needed, as a last resort.
All the while, we must remember that to promote our interests
around the world, America must be an exemplar of our values. Senator
Isakson made the point to me the other day that our Nation must lead by
example rather than edict. Our history has shown that we are most
effective when we see the harmony between our interests abroad and our
values at home. And I take great comfort in knowing that our first
Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, also subscribed to that view,
reminding us across the centuries: ``The interests of a nation, when
well understood, will be found to coincide with their moral duties.''
So while our democracy continues to inspire people around the
world, we know that its influence is greatest when we live up to its
teachings ourselves.
Senator Lugar, I'm going to borrow your words here, because you
have made this point so eloquently: You once said that ``the United
States cannot feed every person, lift every person out of poverty, cure
every disease, or stop every conflict. But our power and status have
conferred upon us a tremendous responsibility to humanity.''
Of course, we must be realistic about achieving our goals. Even
under the best of circumstances, our Nation cannot solve every problem
or meet every global need. We don't have unlimited time, treasure, or
manpower. And we certainly don't face the best of circumstances today,
with our economy faltering and our budget deficits growing.
So to fulfill our responsibility to our children, to protect and
defend our Nation while honoring our values, we have to establish
priorities.
Now, I'm not trying to mince words here. As my colleagues in the
Senate know, ``establishing priorities'' means making tough choices.
Because those choices are so important to the American people, we must
be disciplined in evaluating them--weighing the costs and consequences
of our action or inaction; gauging the probability of success; and
insisting on measurable results.
Right after I was nominated a friend told me: ``The world has so
many problems. You've got your work cut out for you.'' Well, I agree
that the problems are many and they are big. But I don't get up every
morning thinking only about the threats and dangers we face. With every
challenge comes an opportunity to find promise and possibility in the
face of adversity and complexity. Today's world calls forth the
optimism and can-do spirit that has marked our progress for more than
two centuries.
Too often we see the ills that plague us more clearly than the
possibilities in front of us. We see threats that must be thwarted;
wrongs that must be righted; conflicts that must be calmed. But not the
partnerships that can be promoted; the rights that can be reinforced;
the innovations that can be fostered; the people who can be empowered.
After all, it is the real possibility of progress--of that better
life, free from fear and want and discord--that offers our most
compelling message to the rest of the world.
I've had the chance to lay out and submit my views on a broad array
of issues in written responses to questions from the committee, so in
this statement I will outline some of the major challenges we face and
some of the major opportunities we see.
First, President-elect Obama is committed to responsibly ending the
war in Iraq and employing a broad strategy in Afghanistan that reduces
threats to our safety and enhances the prospect of stability and peace.
Right now, our men and women in uniform, our diplomats, and our aid
workers are risking their lives in those two countries. They have done
everything we have asked of them and more. But, over time we have seen
that our larger interests will be best served by safely and responsibly
withdrawing our troops from Iraq, supporting a transition to full Iraqi
responsibility for their sovereign nation, rebuilding our overtaxed
military, and reaching out to other nations to help stabilize the
region and to employ a broader arsenal of tools to fight terrorism.
Equally important will be a comprehensive plan using all elements
of our power--diplomacy, development, and defense--to work with those
in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
and other violent extremists who threaten them as well as us in what
President-elect Obama has called the central front in the fight against
terrorism. We need to deepen our engagement with these and other
countries in the region and pursue policies that improve the lives of
the Afghan and Pakistani people.
As we focus on Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, we must also
actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East that
addresses the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political and
economic aspirations of the Palestinians; that effectively challenges
Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of terror, and
persuades both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior and
become constructive regional actors; that strengthens our relationships
with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other Arab states, with Turkey, and
with our partners in the gulf to involve them in securing a lasting
peace in the region.
As intractable as the Middle East's problems may seem--and many
Presidents, including my husband, have spent years trying to help work
out a resolution--we cannot give up on peace. The President-elect and I
understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel's desire to defend
itself under the current conditions, and to be free of shelling by
Hamas rockets.
However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian
costs of conflict in the Middle East, and pained by the suffering of
Palestinian and Israeli civilians. This must only increase our
determination to seek a just and lasting peace agreement that brings
real security to Israel; normal and positive relations with its
neighbors; and independence, economic progress, and security to the
Palestinians in their own state.
We will exert every effort to support the work of Israelis and
Palestinians who seek that result. It is critical not only to the
parties involved but to our profound interests in undermining the
forces of alienation and violent extremism across our world.
Terrorism remains a serious threat and we must have a comprehensive
strategy, leveraging intelligence, diplomacy, and military assets to
defeat al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorists by rooting out their
networks and drying up support for their violent and nihilistic
extremism. The gravest threat that America faces is the danger that
weapons of mass destruction will fall into the hands of terrorists. To
ensure our future security, we must curb the spread and use of these
weapons--whether nuclear, biological, chemical, or cyber--while we take
the lead in working with others to reduce current nuclear stockpiles
and prevent the development and use of dangerous new weaponry.
Therefore, while defending against the threat of terrorism, we will
also seize the parallel opportunity to get America back in the business
of engaging other nations to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We
will work with Russia to secure their agreement to extend essential
monitoring and verification provisions of the START Treaty before it
expires in December 2009, and we will work toward agreements for
further reductions in nuclear weapons. We will also work with Russia to
take U.S. and Russian missiles off hair-trigger alert, act with urgency
to prevent proliferation in North Korea and Iran, secure loose nuclear
weapons and materials, and shut down the market for selling them--as
Senator Lugar has done for so many years.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is the cornerstone of the
nonproliferation regime, and the United States must exercise the
leadership needed to shore up the regime. So, we will work with this
committee and the Senate toward ratification of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty and reviving negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material
Cutoff Treaty.
Today's security threats cannot be addressed in isolation. Smart
power requires reaching out to both friends and adversaries, to bolster
old alliances and to forge new ones.
That means strengthening the alliances that have stood the test of
time--especially with our NATO partners and our allies in Asia. Our
alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of American policy in Asia,
essential to maintaining peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific
region, and based on shared values and mutual interests. We also have
crucial economic and security partnerships with South Korea, Australia,
and other friends in ASEAN. We will build on our economic and political
partnership with India, the world's most populous democracy and a
nation with growing influence in the world.
Our traditional relationships of confidence and trust with Europe
will be deepened. Disagreements are inevitable, even among the closest
friends, but on most global issues we have no more trusted allies. The
new administration will have a chance to reach out across the Atlantic
to leaders in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others across
the continent, including the new democracies. When America and Europe
work together, global objectives are well within our means.
President-elect Obama and I seek a future of cooperative engagement
with the Russian Government on matters of strategic importance, while
standing up strongly for American values and international norms.
China is a critically important actor in a changing global
landscape. We want a positive and cooperative relationship with China,
one where we deepen and strengthen our ties on a number of issues, and
candidly address differences where they persist.
But this not a one-way effort--much of what we will do depends on
the choices China makes about its future at home and abroad.
With both Russia and China, we should work together on vital
security and economic issues like terrorism, proliferation, climate
change, and reforming financial markets.
The world is now in the cross currents of the most severe global
economic contraction since the Great Depression. The history of that
crisis teaches us the consequences of diplomatic failures and
uncoordinated reactions. Yet history alone is an insufficient guide;
the world has changed too much. We have already seen that this crisis
extends beyond the housing and banking sectors, and our solutions will
have to be as wide in scope as the causes themselves, taking into
account the complexities of the global economy, the geopolitics
involved, and the likelihood of continued political and economic
repercussions from the damage already done.
But here again, as we work to repair the damage, we can find new
ways of working together. For too long, we have merely talked about the
need to engage emerging powers in global economic governance; the time
to take action is upon us. The recent G-20 meeting was a first step,
but developing patterns of sustained engagement will take hard work and
careful negotiation. We know that emerging markets like China, India,
Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia are feeling the effects of the
current crisis. We all stand to benefit in both the short and long term
if they are part of the solution, and become partners in maintaining
global economic stability.
In our efforts to return to economic growth here in the United
States, we have an especially critical need to work more closely with
Canada, our largest trading partner, and Mexico, our third largest.
Canada and Mexico are also our biggest suppliers of imported energy.
More broadly, we must build a deeper partnership with Mexico to address
the shared danger arising from drug-trafficking and the challenges of
our border; an effort begun this week with a meeting between President-
elect Obama and President Calderon.
Throughout our hemisphere we have opportunities to enhance
cooperation to meet common economic, security, and environmental
objectives that affect us all. We will return to a policy of vigorous
engagement throughout Latin America, seeking deeper understanding and
broader engagement with nations from the Caribbean to Central to South
America. Not only do we share common political, economic, and strategic
interests with our friends to the south, our relationship is also
enhanced by many shared ancestral and cultural legacies. We are looking
forward to working on many issues during the Summit of the Americas in
April and taking up the President-elect's call for a new energy
partnership of the Americas built around shared technology and new
investments in renewable energy.
In Africa, the foreign policy objectives of the Obama
administration are rooted in security, political, economic, and
humanitarian interests, including: Combating
al-Qaeda's efforts to seek safe havens in failed states in the Horn of
Africa; helping African nations to conserve their natural resources and
reap fair benefits from them; stopping war in Congo; ending autocracy
in Zimbabwe and human devastation in Darfur; supporting African
democracies like South Africa and Ghana--which just had its second
change of power in democratic elections; and working aggressively to
reach the Millennium Development Goals in health, education, and
economic opportunity.
Many significant problems we face challenge not just the United
States, but all nations and peoples. You, Mr. Chairman, were among the
first, in a growing chorus from both parties, to recognize that climate
change is an unambiguous security threat. At the extreme it threatens
our very existence, but well before that point, it could very well
incite new wars of an old kind--over basic resources like food, water,
and arable land. The world is in need of an urgent, coordinated
response to climate change and, as President-elect Obama has said,
America must be a leader in developing and implementing it. We can lead
abroad through participation in international efforts like the upcoming
U.N. Copenhagen Climate Conference and a Global Energy Forum. We can
lead at home by pursuing an energy policy that reduces our carbon
emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas--which
will benefit the fight against climate change and enhance our economy
and security.
The great statesman and general, George Marshall, noted that our
gravest enemies are often not nations or doctrines, but ``hunger,
poverty, desperation, and chaos.'' To create more friends and fewer
enemies, we can't just win wars. We must find common ground and common
purpose with other peoples and nations so that together we can overcome
hatred, violence, lawlessness, and despair.
The Obama administration recognizes that, even when we cannot fully
agree with some governments, we share a bond of humanity with their
people. By investing in that common humanity we advance our common
security because we pave the way for a more peaceful, prosperous world.
Mr. Chairman, you were one of the first to underscore the
importance of our involvement in the global AIDS fight. And you have
worked very hard on this issue for many years. Now, thanks to a variety
of efforts--including President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
as well as the work of NGOs and foundations--the United States enjoys
widespread support in public opinion polls in many African countries.
This is true even among Muslim populations in Tanzania and Kenya, where
America is seen as a leader in the fight against AIDS, malaria, and TB.
We have an opportunity to build on this success by partnering with
NGOs to help expand the infrastructure of health clinics in Africa so
that more people can have access to life-saving drugs, fewer mothers
transmit HIV to their children, and fewer lives are lost.
And we can generate even more goodwill through other kinds of
social investment, by working effectively with international
organizations and NGO partners to build schools and train teachers, and
by ensuring that children are free from hunger and exploitation so that
they can attend those schools and pursue their dreams for the future.
This is why the President-elect supports a Global Education Fund to
bolster secular education around the world.
I want to take a moment to emphasize the importance of a ``bottom-
up'' approach to ensuring that America remains a positive force in the
world. The President-elect and I believe in this strongly. Investing in
our common humanity through social development is not marginal to our
foreign policy but integral to accomplishing our goals.
Today more than 2 billion people worldwide live on less than $2 a
day. They are facing rising food prices and widespread hunger. Calls
for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass
hunger and disease will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually
delivers material benefits that improve people's lives while weeding
out the corruption that too often stands in the way of progress.
Our foreign policy must reflect our deep commitment to the cause of
making human rights a reality for millions of oppressed people around
the world. Of particular concern to me is the plight of women and
girls, who comprise the majority of the world's unhealthy, unschooled,
unfed, and unpaid. If half of the world's population remains vulnerable
to economic, political, legal, and social marginalization, our hope of
advancing democracy and prosperity will remain in serious jeopardy. We
still have a long way to go and the United States must remain an
unambiguous and unequivocal voice in support of women's rights in every
country, every region, on every continent.
As a personal aside, I want to mention that President-elect Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, was a pioneer in microfinance in Indonesia. In my
own work on microfinance around the world--from Bangladesh to Chile to
Vietnam to South Africa and many other countries--I've seen firsthand
how small loans given to poor women to start small businesses can raise
standards of living and transform local economies. President-elect
Obama's mother had planned to attend a microfinance forum at the
Beijing women's conference in 1995 that I participated in.
Unfortunately, she was very ill and couldn't travel and sadly passed
away a few months later. But I think it's fair to say that her work in
international development, the care and concern she showed for women
and for poor people around the world, mattered greatly to her son, and
certainly has informed his views and his vision. We will be honored to
carry on Ann Dunham's work in the months and years ahead.
I've discussed a few of our top priorities and I know we'll address
many more in the question-and-answer session. But I suspect that even
this brief overview offers a glimpse of the daunting, and crucial,
challenges we face, as well as the opportunities before us. President-
elect Obama and I pledge to work closely with this committee and the
Congress to forge a bipartisan, integrated, results-oriented
sustainable foreign policy that will restore American leadership to
confront these challenges, serve our interests, and advance our values.
Ensuring that our State Department is functioning at its best will
be absolutely essential to America's success. This is a top priority of
mine, of my colleagues' on the national security team, and of the
President-elect's. He believes strongly that we need to invest in our
civilian capacity to conduct vigorous American diplomacy, provide the
kind of foreign assistance I've mentioned, reach out to the world, and
operate effectively alongside our military.
I realize that the entire State Department bureaucracy in Thomas
Jefferson's day consisted of a chief clerk, three regular clerks, and a
messenger--and his entire budget was $56,000 a year.
But over the past 219 years the world, and the times, have
certainly changed. Now the Department consists of Foreign Service
officers, the civil service, and locally engaged staff working at Foggy
Bottom, in offices across our country, and at some 260 posts around the
world. And today, USAID carries out a critical development mission that
is essential to representing our values across the globe.
These public servants are too often unsung heroes. They are in the
trenches putting our policies and values to work in an increasingly
complicated and dangerous world. Many risk their lives, and some lose
their lives, in service to our Nation. And they need and deserve the
resources, training, and support to succeed.
I know this committee, and I hope the American public, understand
that right now Foreign Service officers, civil service professionals,
and development experts are doing work essential to our Nation's
strength--whether helping American businesses make inroads in new
markets; being on the other end of the phone at a United States embassy
when an American citizen needs help beyond our shores; doing the
delicate work of diplomacy and development with foreign governments
that leads to arms control and trade agreements, peace treaties and
post-conflict reconstruction, greater human rights and empowerment,
broader cultural understanding and stronger alliances.
The State Department is a large, multidimensional organization. But
it is not a placid or idle bureaucracy, as some would like to paint it.
It is an outpost for American values that protects our citizens and
safeguards our democratic institutions in times both turbulent and
tame. State Department employees also offer a lifeline of hope and
help--often the only lifeline--for people in foreign lands who are
oppressed, silenced, and marginalized.
Whether they are an economic officer in a large embassy, or an aid
worker in the field, or a clerk in a distant consulate, or a country
officer working late in Washington, they do their work so that we may
all live in peace and security. We must not shortchange them, or
ourselves, by denying them the resources they need.
One of my first priorities is to make sure that the State
Department and USAID have the resources they need, and I will be back
to make the case to Congress for full funding of the President's budget
request. At the same time, I will work just as hard to make sure that
we manage those resources prudently so that we fulfill our mission
efficiently and effectively.
In concluding, I hope you will indulge me one final observation.
Like most Americans, I never had the chance to travel widely outside
our country as a child or young adult. Most of my early professional
career was as a lawyer and advocate for children and who found
themselves on society's margins here at home. But during the 8 years of
my husband's Presidency, and then in my 8 years as a Senator, I have
been privileged to travel on behalf of the United States to more than
80 countries.
I've had the opportunity to get to know many world leaders. As a
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I've spent time with our
military commanders, as well as our brave troops serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I have immersed myself in an array of military issues.
I've spent many hours with American and non-American aid workers,
business men and women, religious leaders, teachers, doctors, nurses,
students, volunteers and others who have made it their mission to help
people across the world. I have also learned invaluable lessons from
countless ordinary citizens in foreign capitals, small towns, and rural
villages whose lives offered a glimpse into a world far removed from
what many of us experience on a daily basis here in America.
In recent years, as other nations have risen to compete for
military, economic, and political influence, some have argued that we
have reached the end of the ``American moment'' in world history. I
disagree. Yes, the conventional paradigms have shifted. But America's
success has never been solely a function of our power; it has always
been inspired by our values.
With so many troubles here at home and across the world, millions
of people are still trying to come to our country--legally and
illegally. Why? Because we are guided by unchanging truths: That all
people are created equal; that each person has a right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And in these truths we will
find, as we have for more than two centuries, the courage, the
discipline, and the creativity to meet the challenges of this ever-
changing world.
I am humbled to be a public servant, and honored by the
responsibility placed on me by our President-elect, who embodies the
American dream not only here at home but far beyond our shores.
No matter how daunting our challenges may be, I have a steadfast
faith in our country and our people, and I am proud to be an American
at the dawning of this new American moment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for granting
me your time and attention today. I know there is a lot more territory
to cover and I'd be delighted to answer your questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator, for a
very comprehensive and thoughtful statement. And I can tell
you, from certainly this Senator's perspective, it's wonderful
to hear so many of these issues set out as priorities for the
new administration, and we're excited about the prospect of
working with you in order to implement the policies in greater
detail that will support the agenda that you've set out.
I'd just say to all my colleagues--and I think we all know
this--that this committee and the Congress in its role in
foreign policy has been at its strongest when we've been
bipartisan. And I think the old adage about politics ending at
the water's edge with respect to diplomacy and our national
security interests is something that would serve us well as a
guidepost as we think about the enormity of the choices that
we're going to face in the days ahead.
We will begin, now, a 10-minute question round. And in
deference to Senator Corker, who has the same obligations as
Senator Dodd, since we let Senator Dodd go, I'm going to let
him go after Senator Lugar. Is that amenable to you? And then
we'll go through the--is that all right?
So, we'll start the clock running on a 10-minute series of
questions.
And I think, Senator, that in your opening, you wonderfully
covered a broad array of the challenges. And the task,
obviously, before all of us is really now to try to hone in a
little bit and see how these are really going to play out with
specific regions and specific countries and challenges.
Obviously, one of the most pressing issues we face--and it
was underscored in the New York Times on Sunday--is a question
of Iran's nuclear program and the entire relationship with
Iran, which was, needless to say, a subject of discussion
throughout the campaign. The time when Iran is going to be
capable of producing enough weapons-grade uranium to build a
bomb, if they choose to, is very fast approaching. The clock is
ticking. And yet, Iran continues to defy the U.N. resolutions,
enriching more uranium to reactor-grade levels, installing and
operating more and more centrifuges, failing to address the
concerns of inspectors, and so forth. And recent efforts to get
tough, as you know, failed with respect to the U.N. Security
Council.
So, I would ask you--during the campaign, President-elect
Obama said that he would employ, ``big carrots and big sticks''
to deal with Iran's nuclear program. We do know that there's a
significant package of incentives already on the table from the
``P5-plus-1,'' and the prospect of increased Security Council
sanctions may be questionable, at best. So, could you share
with us the thinking, at this stage--I know it's early--but,
can you share with us what additional carrots the
administration might have in mind? Why do you believe those
might be enough to change Iran's calculations? Are tougher
sanctions achievable? And how are you and the administration
viewing this, at this point?
Senator Clinton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
obviously the incoming administration views, with great
concern, the role that Iran is playing in the world, its
sponsorship of terrorism, its continuing interference with the
functioning of other governments, and its pursuit of nuclear
weapons. There is an ongoing policy review that the Obama
administration has undertaken. But, I think, as the President-
elect said just this past weekend, our goal will be to do
everything we can pursue, through diplomacy, through the use of
sanctions, through creating better coalitions with countries
that we believe also have a big stake in preventing Iran from
becoming a nuclear-weapon power, to try to prevent this from
occurring.
We are not taking any option off the table at all, but we
will pursue a new, perhaps different, approach that will become
a cornerstone of what the Obama administration believes is an
attitude toward engagement that might bear fruit. We have no
illusions, Mr. Chairman, that, even with a new administration
looking to try to engage Iran in a way that might influence its
behavior, that we can predict the results. But, the President-
elect is committed to that course, and we will pursue it.
The Chairman. Do you believe that tougher U.N. sanctions
are available from which to choose? And second, are they
achievable?
Senator Clinton. You know, it's kind of like the
experimenter's bias, in a way. We won't know what we're capable
of achieving until we're actually there working on it. We have
a commitment to engaging with international organizations in a
very intense and ongoing way. We are going to be working with
our friends and our adversaries in the United Nations. We're
going to be making the case to members of the Security Council,
who have been either dubious or unwilling to cooperate up until
now, that a nuclear-armed Iran is in no one's interests under
any circumstances.
So, Mr. Chairman, it's hard to predict how successful we
will be, but I promise you our very best efforts in doing all
that we can to try to achieve greater international support for
sanctions and actions that could actually influence the
behavior of the Iranian Government, the Supreme Leader, and the
Religious Council, and the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds
Force; because, as you know so well, all these are players. And
so, our task will be to try to figure out the appropriate and
effective pressure that will perhaps lead to us dissuading Iran
from going forward.
The Chairman. Well, I happen to agree with you that it is,
in fact, legitimately impossible to be able to determine
exactly what options are available until you begin to get into
a conversation and begin to see what the play is. But, as a
matter of fundamental American policy, let me ask you a
question. Is it the policy of the incoming administration, as a
bottom line of our security interests and our policy, that it
is unacceptable that Iran has a weapon, under any
circumstances, and that we will take any steps necessary to
prevent that? Or is there--is it simply ``not desirable''? I
think, as you said ``It's in no one's interest,'' which is less
than an affirmation of a prohibition.
Senator Clinton. Well, Mr. President--the President-elect--
Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. I'll take that.
Senator Clinton. Yes, it was a Freudian slip. The
President-elect----
The Chairman. We're both subject to those, I want you to
know.
Senator Clinton. Yes. Indeed. [Laughter.]
On this subject, especially.
The President-elect has said, repeatedly, it is
unacceptable. It is going to be United States policy to pursue
diplomacy, with all of its multitudinous tools, to do
everything we can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-
weapons state. As I also said, no option is off the table. But,
the President-elect has been very clear that it is
unacceptable; and that is our premise, and that is what we are
going to be basing our actions on.
The Chairman. The Bush administration sent Under Secretary
Burns to the last round of those talks, essentially as an
observer. Do you plan to send a U.S. representative to engage
directly in those kinds of discussions almost immediately?
Senator Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at a
range of possibilities. One very important aspect of the
decisions we make is that we engage in consultation with our
friends in the region and beyond. We don't want anything I say
today, or anything the President-elect says, to take our
friends and allies by surprise. So, we cannot tell you with
specificity exactly the steps we will take, but I think it's
fair to say that the President-elect, as recently as this
weekend, has said that we're going to be trying new approaches,
because what we've tried has not worked; they are closer to
nuclear weapons capacity today than they were. So, we're going
to be looking broadly, but in consultation. And I want to
underscore that, because it's very important that those who
have to live in the region, many of whom are our allies--Israel
and others who have a legitimate set of concerns about Iran's
growing power and its use of that power--should know that the
Obama administration will be consulting broadly and deeply so
that, when we move, we will move in concert, insofar as
possible.
The Chairman. Do you plan, personally, to engage in
personal diplomacy with Iranian officials at high level in the
near term?
Senator Clinton. Well, again, Mr. Chairman, I want to wait
to determine the exact contours of how we proceed until we're
actually in office and have a chance to consult with others,
because it is very clear to me that we have not as full a brief
as we need on the feelings of many of the important players. We
have carefully hued to the President-elect's position: there's
one President at a time. We have not spoken with foreign
leaders, we have not, in many instances, taken their calls,
because we want to be very respectful of the ongoing work of
the Bush administration. As soon as we are in a position to do
so, we will be consulting and we will be setting forth a series
of actions, and we will be consulting and informing this
committee.
The Chairman. Well, I know you've been very careful about
that, and I think it's been appropriate and, I think, a wise
course, and I look forward to you being able to get deeply
engaged.
Last question, just quickly. Last year, six colleagues and
I, including Senator Levin, wrote to Secretary Rice, urging her
to establish an intersection in Tehran. It just seems
counterproductive and almost incomprehensible that we're not on
the ground in some of these places. We don't have an ambassador
in Syria, for instance. We should. So, I would ask you if you
have made a decision, and will there be--will you proceed
forward to create an intersection in Tehran and immediately put
an ambassador back into Syria?
Senator Clinton. Again, Mr. Chairman, these are matters
that are part of our policy review, and we will turn to them
with, you know, great diligence and attention as soon as we are
able to.
The Chairman. Well, I hope the question establishes some
sense of priority.
Senator Clinton. I think I got your drift, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, could you recognize Senator
Corker----
The Chairman. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Lugar [continuing]. And then Senator Feingold and--
The Chairman. You want to do that?
Senator Lugar. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I'd be delighted to----
Senator Lugar. We can expedite his work.
The Chairman [continuing]. Do that. Thank you so much.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Senator Lugar, I appreciate
that. And, Chairman Kerry, I'm glad you're going to be leading
us here. I think you're the right person to be doing it at this
time, and I thank you for your leadership.
Madam Secretary-designate, we welcome you. We're always
glad to see when one of our own does well, has a real job. And
I certainly welcome your daughter.
Along the comments of--and I think you have tremendous
opportunities. You laid out, in your opening comments, sort of
a travelogue of opportunities, and I know that many of the
opportunities that exist, you didn't mention. You mentioned
those, certainly, in Q&A back to us. So, the opportunities that
you have as Secretary of State are just huge, and I think you
will succeed in that role; I really do.
I want to piggyback, and not dwell, on the comments that
Senator Lugar made early on regarding the Clinton Foundation.
And I'm just a junior Senator from Tennessee, but, you know, it
seems to me that everything has seasons.
And this is your season. And I look at the opportunities
that you have to influence the world and our place in the
world. I look at the resources that our government can bring to
that, under your leadership. And then, I look at the
Foundation. And regardless of who's running it and how great it
is, it's a speck in relation to the huge magnitude of efforts
that you can put forth on behalf of our government. And so,
without dwelling on the details, I would encourage the steps
that Senator Lugar requested to be taken. There's just no need
to sully or dampen, or anything, the tremendous opportunities
that you have. And I do hope that, sometime over the next 2
weeks, you'll educate us all as to how that's going to be done.
But, the potential is so vast in the role that you have, and so
small in the other role, it just seems to me there's no reason
whatsoever to have continual press comments and other kinds of
things that might take away from, I think, what might be
extraordinary efforts on your part. So, thank you so much for
your service.
You know, I noticed, as I've traveled the world in my short
tenure here, the State Department, as you mentioned toward the
end of your comments, is vast. We have people in tough parts of
the world that are carrying out tough duties. It's my sense
that--when Colin Powell was Secretary, that he really built the
Department. He understood, being a military person, what it
meant to have a culture and for people to have the tools and
training and those kinds of things necessary to really exceed
in their jobs--or to excel in their jobs. I think that's been a
little bit lesser the case recently, and--and I'm not in any
way criticizing. It seems to me a Secretary of State really has
two major responsibilities. One is to be our chief dealmaker.
And that's how you get recorded in history. And I know that
there'll be many things that you'll be recorded in that way.
But, then there's the whole issue of running the Department. My
sense is, that's not, probably, your basic strength. That
you're probably going to see to the other responsibilities. And
I wonder if you might educate us as to how you're going to
ensure that the Department really does have the support, the
tools, the culture, the morale necessary to be successful while
we're working on the more major accomplishments.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Corker, this is, to me, one
of the most important questions, because we can talk about all
of the good work we'd like to do, and how grateful we are to
those people who are out there doing it, but if we don't
enhance our diplomatic and development efforts, and move toward
more equilibrium, as Secretary Gates even has said, we will not
be as successful as we need to be in promoting our foreign
policy.
So, to that end, in consultation with the President-elect
and the Vice-President-elect, as well as the leaders of this
committee, I decided to fill a position that had not been
filled, although it had been created, 10 years ago, and that
was the deputy for resources and management. And I concluded
that that was important, because what happens in every
government agency, but certainly in the State Department, is,
you get consumed by the crisis of the moment. You have the best
intentions to deal with the management challenges, the resource
shortages, but the Secretary's time and the, you know, top
diplomats' time are spent, you know, on Gaza or on Iran or on
Russia and the Ukraine pipeline issue. So, it seemed to me
that, in order to really fulfill my responsibility to you and
the American people, we needed to have someone whose total job
focus was to manage the Department, along with the career
professionals, to work to manage USAID to be more effective,
and to represent the interests of the Department, as well as
the Presidential budget here on the Hill when it came to these
resource matters.
I feel very fortunate that you will be seeing before you
for confirmation two extraordinary deputies. The principal
deputy filling the role that has been there, historically, will
be Jim Steinberg, a very accomplished foreign policy expert.
He's leaving the deanship of the LBJ School, at the University
of Texas, to take on this responsibility. And filling the
second deputy position for resources and management will be
Jack Lew, a former director of the Office of Management and
Budget, someone with deep experience here on Capitol Hill, who
is diving into work already. Because I want you, as well as me,
to have someone who is accountable and the point-person.
You know, the argument kind of stops when you say, ``Well,
what about more training for our Foreign Service officers? What
about, you know, more funding for all of the responsibilities,
from reconstruction and stabilization efforts, the Office on
Trafficking, and so much else? How do we do that? How do we do
more with less?''--we've got to have somebody who will take
charge of all those issues. And I really believe, Senator, that
this will be a significant step on the way toward putting the
State Department on a sounder financial and management footing.
Senator Corker. We have a maze of aid efforts that are
underway. Every Senator that travels and sees some need
authorizes another aid program. I wonder if you would consider,
during the first 6 months you're there, rationalizing that for
us and reporting back as to some of those things that need to
be done away with. Again, it's--all are in good intentions, but
they seem to water each other down and not have the focus that
they might otherwise have. I'm wondering if you might commit to
doing that during some short period of time after you're there.
Senator Clinton. Well, in fact, Senator, that's going to be
one of the responsibilities that will be given to this second
deputy, under my direction, to take a look at our existing
authorities, to determine what works, what doesn't work, to try
to eliminate redundancies, to fill gaps; because, you know, we
do have some of those, as well, obviously.
You know, it matters greatly to me, as it does to the
President-elect, these development efforts, these humanitarian
commitments by the United States Government, are often the way
we are perceived. And frequently, to our advantage, if they are
done correctly.
But, I think it's fair to say that USAID--our premiere aid
agency--has been decimated. You know, it has half the staff it
used to have, it's turned into more of a contracting agency
than an operational agency with the ability to deliver.
Yet, at the same time, whether I'm talking to Secretary
Gates, or I'm talking to people in the nongovernmental
organizational world, very often they will say the same thing.
Well, they've turned to USAID to determine how to implement
these programs. So, we're going to take a hard look at all of
our aid and development efforts.
Additionally, the Congress has given the State Department a
very important responsibility with reconstruction and
stabilization. If we're going to move authorities and resources
back from the Defense Department to the State Department we
have to be able to function effectively and demonstrate our
efficiency.
We're at a great disadvantage--I'll give you just a quick
example. There's a program that I learned about, of course, on
my Senate Armed Services Committee work, called CERP--the
Commander's Emergency Response Program. I remember the first
time I went to Iraq, in 2003, and I met young captains and
majors and lieutenant colonels who were literally handed
thousands of dollars of cash, and told, ``Go get that school
opened, go get that road built. Go fix that, you know, sewer
problem.'' And they were doing an incredible job with great
flexibility, and very little accountability.
I came back a believer in the CERP program, and advocated
for it to continue, but when I contrast that with a development
officer, or a State Department expert, who knows the culture,
knows the language, unlike, you know, this very well-meaning
and well-trained warrior, and that person can't get $500 to
fulfill a development mission that is in service of American
security and our national interests, there's a big disconnect.
So, Secretary Gates understands it, so we're going to try
to better organize and rationalize what we do, and build
confidence with you, and the rest of Congress, that we can take
on these responsibilities.
The Chairman. Thanks.
Thank you very much, Senator Corker.
Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and of course,
my warm congratulations to you on your new position. I look
forward to working closely with you, and this committee, and
the incoming Obama administration to reverse much of the
foreign policies of the last 8 years, and to restore America's
leadership abroad, and security at home, and I just ask that my
full statement be placed in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Russell Feingold, U.S. Senator From
Wisconsin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman--and congratulations on your new position.
I look forward to working closely with you, this committee, and the
incoming Obama administration to reverse the disastrous foreign
policies of the last 8 years and restore America's leadership abroad
and security at home. I am very pleased that Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton has been nominated to be Secretary of State. She is an
excellent choice for our most senior diplomat, has a demonstrated
record of thinking creatively about the challenges our country faces,
and has already indicated a willingness to consult with Congress that
is refreshing and very welcome.
Mr. Chairman, the negative impact of the Bush administration's
foreign policies reverberates loudly and will continue to do so long
after January 20. One of the challenges the new administration will
face is dealing with that negative impact while refocusing attention on
our top national security priority--going after
al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Our deficit is astronomical, anti-
Americanism around the world has reached an all-time high, and we still
have not developed many of the capabilities we need to gather
intelligence, pursue strategic objectives, and build sustainable
partnerships abroad in the 21st century.
I am optimistic that, with President-elect Obama's victory and the
nomination of Senator Clinton, we will finally have the smart, focused
foreign policies we need. With Senator Clinton at the helm of the State
Department, I expect we will see thoughtful decisionmaking that
reflects careful consideration of diverse opinions and of the
consequences of our actions. I expect she will stand strong in the face
of difficult challenges as she supports our embassies in-country and
reasserts the primacy of her agency to lead our foreign policy--whether
here in Washington or in the remote desert regions of Africa. I look
forward to working with Senator Clinton and her team to ensure we
properly allocate our resources and choose the appropriate tools to
fight al-Qaeda globally.
I will continue to advocate for a more comprehensive and effective
approach to counterterrorism that supports efforts to strengthen the
rule of law and maintain respect for human rights. I am confident there
will be many partners in this administration with whom I can work to
achieve those objectives, and that together we can undo the many
missteps of the current administration and set a wiser course for our
foreign policy and our Nation's security.
Senator Feingold. I am very pleased that Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton has been nominated to be Secretary of State.
She's an excellent choice for our most senior diplomat, has a
demonstrated record of thinking creatively about the challenges
our country faces, and I want to say that she's already shown,
not only the indication, but in fact, has shown a willingness
on a regular basis to consult with Congress, that is refreshing
and very welcome as she sets up the operation she's going to
have as Secretary of State. I'm very, very pleased with that
process.
And I'd just note before I get into my questions that some
of my colleagues have asked about the Clinton Foundation, I
have some questions on that topic, Mr. Chairman, that I will
simply submit for the record.
But, what I'd like to do is to start off with what I think
we agree on, and that is that our top national security
priority is the global fight against al-Qaeda and its
affiliates. I was pleased with your reference in your opening
statement to efforts of al-Qaeda in places like Africa.
How we allocate our resources, the tools used in this
struggle, is key to winning this fight. And without a more
global and comprehensive approach, we will be unable to make
our country or the world a safer place.
Now, the current administration's decision to focus so many
of our resources on Iraq at the expense of other areas has, and
I think, been a tragic mistake in this regard. So, I would ask
you--and I know you mentioned this issue first--to please share
your vision of how you will follow up on President-elect
Obama's pledge to redeploy the bulk of our troops from Iraq in
16 months. What steps do you expect the State Department will
take to ensure that this transition occurs as safely and
smoothly as possible?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, thank you very much. And,
you know, this is a primary priority, as you know, of the
incoming administration. The President-elect, Secretary Gates,
and others are working assiduously to try to be able to begin
the process of withdrawal safely and responsibly, as soon as
possible.
It is being done within the context of the Status of Forces
Agreement, which is now clearly set forth the path that both
the Iraqi Government and the United States Government intend to
follow. There is some differences in timing, but the important
aspect of the so-called SOFA, is that United States Government
under President Obama, will be withdrawing troops, and the
Iraqi Government not only accepts that, but wishes to
facilitate it.
So, we look to begin moving our combat brigades out of
cities and towns and villages, hopefully by June, and then
proceed with the withdrawal, and in some instances,
redeployment of some of those troops to Afghanistan.
Now the military details of this are obviously not within
the province of the State Department. But there is a companion
document that was signed by the United States Government, and
the Government of Iraq, which was an agreement of friendship
and cooperation. And in it are listed a number of areas that we
intend to be very active in pursuing--on rule of law, on
education, and health care, technical assistance for the energy
industry and the like.
It is my intention that we will--very quickly, in
consultation with the Iraqi Government, and other agencies
within our own government--put together the teams and
activities that we will be offering that will support the
withdrawal of our troops, and also fulfill the agreement that
we have with the Government of Iraq.
The details are, you know, still to be worked out, as you
know, our current Ambassador will be, you know, leaving after a
very distinguished and courageous tour in Iraq, for personal
and health reasons, as I'm told. But he deserves a great deal
of gratitude for the leadership that he's provided on the
civilian side. And we will look to move that nomination as
quickly as possible, once we can make it, so that we have an
ambassador on the ground, and we have the assets deployed so
that we are able to fulfill our part of the agreement, as set
forth.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Senator.
Let me turn to another topic that we covered. You've been
an outspoken advocate of United States action to stop genocide
in Darfur and to protect the fragile peace between the north
and south, in Sudan.
Now President-elect Obama, Vice-President-elect Biden, and
Dr. Susan Rice also have strong records of support for United
States action to stop the ongoing violence in Sudan.
Senator, I believe it's crucial that the new administration
signal a commitment from day one to this effort. There's been a
lot of talk of bold actions that the United States could take,
such as expanding sanctions, imposing a no-fly zone over Sudan,
bombing Sudanese aircrafts, air fields, and perhaps even the
regime's military and intelligence assets.
Would you give me your sense at this point of how viable
these options are, what steps the new administration will take
to demonstrate a new and bold and comprehensive approach to
Sudan?
Senator Clinton. Senator, again this is an area of great
concern to me, as it is to the President-elect. We are putting
together the options that we think are available, and workable.
It is done in conjunction--as you would assume--with the
Department of Defense. There is a great need for us to sound
the alarm, again, about Darfur.
It is a terrible humanitarian crisis, compounded by a
corrupt and very cruel regime in Khartoum. And it's important
that the world know that we intend to address this in the most
effective way possible, once we have completed our review, and
that we intend to bring along as many people as we can to
fulfill the mission of the United Nations/African Union force,
which is not yet up to speed and fully deployed, as a very
first measure--that's a preexisting policy we agree with. We
are going to work to try to effectuate it.
And then, as you rightly point out, the President-elect,
the Vice-President-elect, I and others have spoken about other
options--
no-fly zones, other sanctions and sanctuaries. Looking to
deploy the United Nations/African Union force to try to protect
the refugees, but also to repel the militia.
So, there is a lot that is under consideration, and I know
of your interest in this, along with other colleagues, and we
will keep you advised, as we move forward.
Senator Feingold. Thank you very much.
Obviously you, and the President-elect, recognize the
importance of our efforts in Afghanistan. And given the serious
national security concerns in that part of the world, we have
to address the growing instability there.
But keeping in mind the lessons to be learned from Iraq, we
need to address Afghanistan comprehensively. Which I know you
realize includes looking more broadly at Pakistan, and in India
and Iran and the larger region. And we need to think clearly,
rather than simply assuming that more troops is somehow
sufficient to turn the tide.
Now, you and I discussed the fact that there is a
significant military review underway. But will there also be a
policy review, to ensure we define the full scope of our
mission in Afghanistan, and explain to the American people how
sending more American troops actually fits into a comprehensive
regional strategy?
Senator Clinton. There will certainly be such a policy
review, it is the highest priority of the President-elect. He
has put forth what he calls the ``more for more'' strategy
that, if there are to be more troops from the United States,
there also needs to be more support for that mission from NATO,
there needs to be more work done by the Government of
Afghanistan and the people.
And I would add that the ``more for more'' strategy is not
just on the military side, it's on the civilian and development
side, as well.
We have to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together,
particularly the border region. As you were telling me when we
met, you personally have traveled along that border. You have
seen with your own eyes, the elements of resistance and
extremism that have taken root there.
And it is imperative that we work with our friends, in both
Pakistan and Afghanistan, because this is not only about
denying
al-Qaeda and other extremist groups' safe haven. This is about
persuading those two countries that their security and their
future is also at risk. And I am encouraged that the
democratically elected Government of Pakistan seems to be much
more aware of how this is their fight, not just ours.
The Government of Afghanistan, as you know, the Vice-
President-elect, was just in both countries, is going to be
presented with alternatives from the Obama administration that
we think are not only in the interest of our overall mission,
but in their interests, as well.
So, this will be a collaboration, and the other countries
you mentioned are also players, to some extent, that have to be
brought in.
So, I anticipate, Senator, having a civilian review, and a
civilian presence that will be the counterpart of the military
review, and the military presence.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Feingold.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Clinton, when the Albanians informed the United
States in the summer of 2004 that they saw some suspicious
drums above Tirana, and some of us went over there and found
nerve gas and MANPAD missiles and sheds and what have you--and
we're grateful to the Albanians seeking that assistance--this
was the first opportunity for the Nunn-Lugar Act to go outside
of Russia and the former states that comprised the former
Soviet Union.
I mention this because it created quite a problem
bureaucratically. I had to get Secretary Powell's signature on
a piece of paper and take another piece to the President
himself to eradicate the situation.
But when Senator Obama first came to the committee, we
traveled to Russia and the Ukraine, saw additional MANPAD
missiles, and in fact a whole acreage of weapons that were very
dangerous, although not weapons of mass destruction. And we
secured Senate assistance in passing the Proliferation Security
Initiative and other bills.
I bring all of this to your attention because, despite all
of this legislative effort, there has been no translation of
this into increased financial or leadership commitment in the
State Department.
Admittedly, there are budget constraints and problems of
organization of the Department, but nevertheless, all of this
became almost individual diplomacy, rather than a concerted
effort by our country. And the problem now is that we have
found that there are dangerous pathogens and disease
repositories in other countries in need of WMD proliferation
prevention assistance.
Can you describe, even in these early days of your study of
this, what sort of an effort--under your leadership--the State
Department may be able to offer to begin to do those things
which are clearly diplomatic. That is, to open up conversations
with other countries, to work with the Defense Department, of
course, the Department of Energy, others who have interests in
this, but in which thus far the State Department has been
either reluctant, or an almost nonexistent, partner.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Lugar, I don't think there
is a more important issue that confronts the incoming
administration. And your leadership and inspiration, with
respect to arms control, and especially nonproliferation--the
efforts to contain and destroy loose nukes and other material,
and now moving into the pathogen area which is particularly
dangerous--is a great example, to me, of what we should be
doing.
It won't surprise you to know that in my transition review
of the Department, it became clear that the arms control and
nonproliferation functions had been significantly degraded.
There was a difference of opinion within this current
administration as to whether such an effort is worthwhile,
whether it pays off, whether it's, you know, just spinning
wheels. You know, I heard someone in the administration
previously say, ``Well, you know, we don't need these
agreements, because good people don't need them, and bad people
won't follow them.''
So the infrastructure for being able to back you up when
you went to Albania was severely undermined. We intend to build
it even more robustly. I am seeking arms control and
nonproliferation experts to come back into the Department. This
is one of the passionate concerns of the President-elect who, I
think, under your tutelage, understands very much the threats
that we face.
So, I believe, Senator, that you will find a very willing
and active partner in these efforts. I remember when I met with
you, looking at the pictures that you have displayed in your
conference rooms of all of the various trips that you've made,
looking for this material, seeing it finally destroyed. And you
know better than I how much more work lies ahead, and
unfortunately, the bad guys are always at it, they're always
going to be testing us.
So, to that end, we will have a very strong commitment to
the START treaty negotiations. We want to get out of the box
early, we want Russia to know we are serious. I take to heart
what the chairman said about trying to reduce our numbers even
lower.
This incoming President--like all Presidents--has been
committed to the end of nuclear weapons, as long as we can be
assured that we have adequate deterrence, and that we are
protected going forward. So, we're going to enter it with that
frame of mind, which is quite a change.
In the nonproliferation area, I want to do everything I
can, working with you, working with former Senator Nunn, to see
what authorities we need, how we can better beef them up, how
we can better fund them. Use this occasion, even, to invite
some of the technical experts, and others who have left
government over the last 8 years to reenlist, because it is
true that you could make the case that bad actors won't follow
agreements--you can look at North Korea, you can look at Iran.
But I think those should be the exception, and not the
rule. There should be a rules-based framework for arms control,
and nonproliferation. That if the United States, once again,
leads and constructs that architecture, we will be in a
stronger position to isolate the bad actors.
So, I hope, Senator, that you will take my remarks as the
invitation they're meant to be--for collaboration, not just
consultation--as we rebuild this function, staff it and fund it
appropriately.
Senator Lugar. Well, this is very good news. I had a visit
with Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia and Mr. Kyrienko and
RusAtom in mid-December, and I know they will welcome your
words today. There have certainly been some doubts on the
Russian side as to where we were. And the time is wasting. And
so your leadership will be very much appreciated.
Let me pursue a second line of questioning. At the Riga
NATO summit in 2006, I gave a speech suggesting that Article V
of NATO was violated just as severely when someone cut off
natural gas and thus plunged a country either into the cold in
the middle of the winter, where people would die, and industry
would flounder, as when tanks and aircraft and what have you
come across the border.
Behind the scenes, Foreign Ministers said, ``Of course
you're right, but we don't talk about this publicly. You know,
we try to deal behind the barn as best we can with an
intractable situation.'' Now we are still in the process of
coming out of another crisis of this variety. The United States
has fostered the Nabucco pipeline as a prospect of helping
either our NATO partners or our EU partners, if Europeans
prefer to deal with the EU in this problem.
But the fact is, Europeans have not dealt with it very
positively, the prospects for some grid underneath Europe, in
which natural gas or other power might be spread, has been very
halting because of nationalistic boundaries. And, on occasion,
you have a feeling we are more worried about the Europeans'
energy problems than some of them are.
I ask you this, because this is a major diplomatic problem,
for our working with the NATO allies, with the EU, with the
energy community, and in general. But I also come to ask if you
agree that if we do not solve this problem, at some point, our
NATO allies are going to be rendered--if not impotent--at least
in a position in which the NATO alliance is weakened severely.
Perhaps the EU could be affected likewise, with the new members
especially feeling acute pain and watching Georgia, and feeling
a real problem, in terms of their physical existence. Would you
make a comment on this proposition?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Lugar, I think once again,
you're demonstrating your far-sighted, realistic understanding
of security threats, because I agree with you. I think we have
learned the hard way that the OPEC cartel is not just a
commercial enterprise, but a security, geopolitical strategic
effort that we have had to contend with, now, for 36 years.
As you know, Russia is attempting to create a gas
equivalent of OPEC, that would give it--in addition to the
bilateral powers it has--a much greater, multilateral,
international reach on gas.
So this whole question of energy security, I think, has
enormous implications for our country, for Europe, but indeed
for the entire world. I'm also aware that you authored a
provision in the last energy bill, to have a coordinator on
these energy security issues in the State Department--I intend
to fulfill that.
Senator Lugar. Great.
Senator Clinton. We've had individual envoys on specific
pipeline issues, but we haven't brought it all together in a
way that, I think, reflects the elevated seriousness of the
challenges that are being posed. Specifically, with respect to
Russia, and its interactions with Ukraine, Georgia, other
European countries, its recent purchase of the Serbian gas
utility--I hope we can make progress with our friends in NATO,
and the EU, to understand that we do need a broader framework
in which we can talk about energy security issues. It may or
may not be Article V, but I think it certainly is a significant
security challenge that we ignore at our peril.
So, I will look, again, for advice and consultation ideas
you might have. We will be going to Europe in the due course,
on Foreign Ministers meetings, on the NATO anniversary
meeting--this should be on the agenda. And I hope that we can
find willing partners to make it so.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thanks very much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Clinton, I'm so excited to see you here today. As
you know, I was very much in favor of your saying yes to this
opportunity.
You're a dedicated public servant, and I think by
nominating you, President-elect Obama has sent a message that
world peace and stability trumps politics and ego. And, I think
by accepting this position, Senator Clinton, that you are
sending the same message, because you are working with your
toughest rival, and you have set your ego aside for world
peace, world stability, and the good of the country. I mean
that sincerely, you know I do.
I wanted to tick off a few of the issues that I care
about--I'm going to do it very quickly because there's so many.
Just to make my voice heard on those, and then ask you a
question on a topic you raised, and we discussed before--the
status of women in the world. In particular, violence against
women in the world. Nicholas Kristof has written a series of
articles on this, and I've spoken with our great new chairman,
and I think his concern certainly lies in this direction, along
with yours.
So, let me just say you face unbelievable challenges--you
and the President-elect. Six years later, we still have 140,000
troops in Iraq. Seven years later, after the brutal attack of
9/11, we're fighting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and
al-Qaeda poses a great threat to us on that safe haven border
of the Afghan/Pakistan border.
The outrageous terrorist attack in Mumbai significantly
heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, and the
outbreak of violence in Gaza reminds us that Israel continues
to face grave threats to its very existence, from never-ending
rocket attacks. Our leadership is sorely needed there to
protect the innocents--not just in the short term, but in the
long term, where we hope to see a very good solution for all
sides.
In Iran, we face defiance--in North Korea, the same. And
due to our own inaction, we continue to be dependent on oil and
gas, whose revenues line the pockets of hostile regimes, and
this dependence has slowed our fight against global warming.
And I'm so proud that you mentioned global warming in your
talk, and that Senator Kerry, our chairman, is going to be so
dedicated to helping you lead the charge in terms of a
solution, internationally. As chairman of the Environment
Committee, I will be by his side in that international treaty
issue. HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, Africa, Asia, Latin America also
need our attention.
So that's the list. And now I want to get to my questions.
I have a few pictures to share with all of us, and they're
brutal pictures, and I'm not showing them for shock value. I
want to show them because I don't think we can look away from
the plight of women in the world.
And, as I said, Nicholas Kristof confronts these issues in
a series of compelling articles. In one, he tells us about the
recent acid attack against young girls in Afghanistan who were
going to school with their teachers. We have a photo of one of
the victims to show you on that. I'm just going to do these
very quickly.
He profiles another story about a Pakistani woman who was
viciously burned by her husband with acid, because she dared to
divorce him. This is what we're talking about. This is a second
picture of Ms. Azar.
Thousands of women have suffered similar attacks throughout
Asia--no prosecutions against perpetrators are carried out,
Senator.
Kristof tells us the story of a Vietnamese girl named Sina
Vann, who was kidnapped at age 13, and sold into sex slavery in
Cambodia. When she refused to seek customers, she was tortured
brutally with electric shocks, and locked in a coffin full of
insects. And Kristof illustrates an act of horrific brutality
in a piece called, ``If This Isn't Slavery, What Is?'' in which
a young Cambodian girl had her eye gouged out by her brothel
owner after taking time off to recover from a forced abortion.
This is a picture of that very beautiful young woman.
So, I'm introducing some legislation. One is a companion to
a bill introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney, another
one is the Afghan Women Empowerment Act, which many on this
committee have worked with us on. And that's just the
beginning. No woman or girl should ever have to live in fear or
face persecution for being born female.
And, Senator, I know how deeply you feel about this, and so
I wanted you to take a little more time, to talk about your
commitment to this particular issue, and obviously I would be
so pleased if you would commit to help us work on a legislation
to fight this immorality.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, you have been such a
leader, and I have been honored to be your colleague and your
partner in a number of these efforts that have been undertaken
on behalf of women around the world. And I want to pledge to
you that, as Secretary of State I view these issues as central
to our foreign policy, not as adjunct, or auxiliary or as any
way lesser than all of the other issues that we have to
confront.
I, too, have followed the stories that are exemplified by
the pictures that you held up. I mean, it is heartbreaking
beyond words that, you know, young girls are attacked on their
way to school by Taliban sympathizers and members who do not
want young women to be educated. It's not complicated. They
want to maintain an attitude that keeps women, as I said in my
testimony, unhealthy, unfed, uneducated, and this is something
that results all too often in violence against these young
women, both within their families, and from the outside.
This is not culture, this is not custom--this is criminal.
And it will be my hope to persuade more governments--as I have
attempted to do since I spoke at Beijing on these issues, you
know, 13 and some years ago--that we cannot have a free,
prosperous, peaceful, progressive world if women are treated in
a such a discriminatory and violent way.
I have also read, closely, Nick Kristof's articles over the
last many months, but in particular, the last weeks on the
young women that he has both rescued from prostitution, and
met, who have been enslaved and abused, tortured in every way--
physically, emotionally, morally--and I take very seriously the
function of the State Department to lead our government through
the Office on Human Trafficking, to do all that we can to end
this modern form of slavery. We have sex slavery, we have wage
slavery, and it is primarily a slavery of girls and women.
So, I look also forward, Senator, to reviewing your
legislation, and working with you as a continuing partnership
on behalf of these issues we care so much about.
And finally, the work that the women of the Senate did in
connection with First Lady Laura Bush on behalf of the women of
Afghanistan has been extremely important. That program was
started in the State Department, it was mid-wifed by a group
that I helped to start back in the Clinton administration,
called Vital Voices. Mrs. Bush has been outspoken on behalf of
the plight of Afghan women, on behalf of Aung San-Suu Kyi in
Burma, and other women facing oppression around the world. And
I'm very pleased that that project will be spun off to
Georgetown, where it will continue under Mrs. Bush's
sponsorship.
So, we're going to have a very active Women's Office, a
very active Office on Trafficking. We're going to be speaking
out consistently and strongly against discrimination and
oppression of women, and slavery, in particular. Because I
think that is in keeping--not only with American values, as we
all recognize, but American national security interests, as
well.
Senator Boxer. Well, I couldn't have asked for a better
answer.
I wanted to note, Mr. Chairman, that even the most
conservative historians have said that if women in the world
were allowed to live up to their potential, it would bring the
whole world forward. A lot of the problems we face really come
from this mindset that half of the population doesn't matter,
and can be abused and ignored, or hurt and can't contribute.
So, I think it's a key matter. So, I'll stop there, and
just say how much I appreciate your comments, not only on this
subject, but everything you've spoken about. It shows your
breadth of understanding, and I feel the same way as my
chairman. I think we have a team that's just extraordinary, and
I'm proud--I hope to play a small role in that team, thank you.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Boxer, thank you. Thanks for that
important line of inquiry.
And let me just say, Senator Boxer has talked to me,
personally, about how the committee might focus on this, and
I'm determined that the committee will. We obviously have--with
Lisa Murkowski, and Jean Shaheen who will be joining the
committee--an important nucleus, but I think that all of the
other members of the committee share a concern and passion
about this.
So, we will find a way to appropriately work with the
Secretary and see if we can't augment our international efforts
on this.
Let me just say as I introduce Senator Voinovich, speaking
for the members of the committee, myself, I know we are
saddened by your decision. We're going to work the hell out of
you over the course of the next 2 years and get the most we
can. We're delighted that you are a member of this committee
and we appreciate enormously the many contributions that you
make. So, prepare for--you're not going to cruise these next 2
years.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. One of the reasons I'm not running is
that I wanted to devote my full time to----
The Chairman. There you go.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. These historic problems
that we have. And how we handle them over the next 2 years will
have a great impact on the future of our country and the world.
First of all, I want to thank you for the time we spent on
the telephone, and also for your receiving a very lengthy
letter from me. And for the record, I'd like to just give the
categories--management of the State Department, visa waiver,
fighting global anti-Semitism, Israel, United Nations
management, Security Council, anti-Israel bias, enforcement of
1701, which we're both familiar with, stability and security in
Europe, United States-Serbia relationships, Kosovo, NATO
expansion, Russia, Canada, and United States relations.
The thing I'd like to spend some time on is management, and
I think Senator Corker did a pretty good job of outlining his
concern about management of the Department. But I think from a
big picture point of view, we have--if we can all work together
on a bipartisan basis--an absolutely wonderful opportunity to
really change the image of the United States of America. And we
all know that our public diplomacy is at a low ebb, I think
Secretary Rice has tried to do a good job in the last couple of
years in terms of multilateralism, but you know, once the water
goes over the dam, it's hard to bring it back up.
And I think the Obama policy--smart power--I was in Europe
this last month, and they're all excited about our new
President. And I think, we all ought to be excited about the
new national security team.
Jim Jones, I had him wax about what he thinks we should do
a couple of years ago in Brussels at the German Marshall Fund
meeting that we had. And I said, ``Why can't we get this guy
into this administration? He's got the right idea.'' And then
you've got Gates who has the right idea; you have the idea. And
so this smart power is something that we really need to focus
on.
I would be interested in your reaction to the
recommendations of Joe Nye and Dick Armitage in terms of smart
power.
The other issue, of course, is when you get into the
management of the Department, I think your getting Jack Lew in
there, and Steinberg doing the policy, and the fact that you
recognized that you're going to be putting out a lot of fires,
and somebody's going to have to be working on this stuff on a
day-to-day basis, is important.
But I think your recognition also of priorities--
prioritizing your time, where you're going to spend your time,
who's going to do that, and the management here, is extremely
important, and I sent to you--and I don't know whether you read
it or not, but the American Academy of Public Diplomacy has
come out with a foreign affairs budget for the future. And for
the record it finds that the Secretary lacks the tools, people,
competencies, authorities, programs and funding to meet U.S.
foreign policy demands effectively, and talks about hiring
another 4,000 people from 2010 to 2014.
Again, I'd be interested either hearing from you about if
you've read it, or what you think about it. I haven't met
personally, yet, with Jack Lew, but I definitely intend to do
it.
And I want the chairman to know that, whether I'm on this
committee or not, I'm going to stay on this management thing,
as a ranking member of the oversight of government management
and the Federal workforce, and on appropriations, and on
foreign policy--this is a big deal, and I think it really needs
to get done. So, what are your thoughts on that?
Senator Clinton. Well, first, Senator I thank you for your
emphasis on workforce issues, management issues, better
utilization of resource issues--that's been a hallmark of your
service. First in Ohio, and now, of course, in the Senate. So,
I welcome your involvement and your ideas as we go forward.
I want to say a word about your reference to smart power,
because clearly that is what the Obama administration and I
will try to do. It is a recognition that it shouldn't be an
either/or debate. Either we use military force, and all of the
strength and power that we have, or we use diplomacy and
development. We want to marry those, because we think that will
give us a more effective foreign policy for our country.
And, you know, General Jones is a perfect example. You know
that he was asked by President Bush and Secretary Rice to work
in the Middle East, and starting in December 2007, that's
exactly what he did--working with the Palestinian authority and
the Israeli Defense Force to build up security in the West
Bank. And I think the results were very promising, with
sustained bottoms' up effort, day in and day out, working to
bridge gaps of understanding and trust. There was a turnover of
security from the Israelis to the Palestinians, which is
still--as of this moment--holding. And that is the work that
General Jones, and General Dayton, and others that he was
involved with, have been done, and we're going to continue that
kind of approach.
So, smart power is the combined tools that we have.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I'm concerned
about is the turf--and you've got Susan Rice going to the
United Nations, she's going to become a part of the Cabinet,
and I hope that there's a lot of discussion given about who's
responsible for what, and a recognition that there will be
times when you'll all be stepping on each others' toes, but
that you're doing it for the best interest of the team. I think
that that's very, very important. The worst thing that we can
have would be--something come out, say that we've got a
conflict there.
I'd like to switch to another issue that I'm very
interested in, and that is--and you haven't really mentioned
it--is the issue of energy independence, and its impact on our
foreign policy.
And, as you know, for years we were on the Environment and
Public Works Committee, and I talked about harmonizing the
environment, and our energy, our economy and national security.
And on this trip to Europe, I was frightened when I found out
the influence that Russia is having in terms of natural gas,
including Great Britain.
And I thought to myself, this threat of being cut off is
going to have an influence on their decisionmaking, and it's
extremely important that we not be, you know, in the hands of
somebody else in terms of our energy.
And I'm wondering--have you thought about that aspect of
it? And climate change is very much a part of this.
Senator Clinton. Right.
Senator Voinovich. But it seems to me that we ought to
really raise the issue of energy independence in terms of our
national security, and also being able to make the right
decisions in the world when some of our allies may not be able
to because they're frightened that somebody's going to shut off
their gas.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, the President-elect and I
could not agree more with your point of view. It's one of the
reasons why the President-elect has talked about an energy
partnership for Latin America--looking to find ways, through
technology and other activities, we can work together to become
more energy independent in this hemisphere. And of course, we
have problems in our own hemisphere with some of the providers
of energy, like Hugo Chavez, and you know, President Morales--
we have problems even in this hemisphere, with countries
feeling, you know, somewhat worried about what will happen with
their energy supplies.
As you and Senator Lugar have pointed out, that becomes
even more acute in Europe. So, I think this deserves a lot of
attention--it is part of the climate change agenda, but it also
deserves separate attention. And to that end, I will follow the
recommendation of the legislation that Senator Lugar passed,
which says we should have someone coordinating energy security
issues in the State Department, to work with the Europeans, to
work with others to try to come up with ways that we can both
promote energy independence, so they're not so vulnerable, but
also try to help equip them with ways of dealing with their
current vulnerability, particularly to Russia.
Because I see this as a big security challenge, and, you
know, I know of your longstanding interest in Serbia, and you
know, with the purchase of the gas company in Serbia by
Gazprom, there is some concern on the part of the Serbians.
Well, what's going to happen to their gas supply? Are they
going to be kind of a pawn in whatever the larger Russian
ambitions are about energy?
So, this is a very timely issue, and it should go hand in
hand with our climate change work.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I hope that because the cost of
gasoline has gone down that we're all going to just sit back
like we did in 1973 and just say, ``Everything's going to be
fine,'' because it's not going to be fine. And I would really
hope that you and your team would give a great deal of
consideration to how do we become energy independent--meaning,
I'd like to say, find more----
Senator Clinton. Right.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. Use less. And then the
international dimension of this that then--in terms of public
diplomacy, to get the other folks in the world that are
emitting greenhouse gases to come together in a unique way to
say, ``We're going to do this as a team,'' rather than us
coming up with the technology and then forcing it down their
throat.
Senator Clinton. Well, I think that the chairman, who's had
a longstanding interest in this, knows that as we move toward
Copenhagen and attempt to craft a climate change agreement, all
of the major nations must be part of it. You know, China,
India, Russia and others, they have to be part of whatever
agreement we put forth. And I think--as I say, this can be both
included in, but also independently given attention to by
emphasizing energy security, which I intend to do.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Senator Clinton, I have just a couple of
questions. But I want to say at the outset that this Senator
thinks that your husband's Clinton Global Initiative is an
extremely positive thing to have in a relationship with the
future Secretary of State.
The fact that that Global Initiative has done such good
things all over the world--the dispensing of antiretroviral
drugs, the working on poverty and hunger, the promotion of
development in the Third World--I think is a significant
accomplishment. That work can only lend additional credibility
to your coming to the table as the foreign policy
representative of the United States Government. I want that on
the record.
Now, I want to pick up on something that Senator Boxer
said. I had the privilege in our subcommittee on this committee
of chairing the hearings about rapes of American contractor
women in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what we found, in dramatic
testimony from very courageous women that came forth and
testified to the committee, was that there was always an
attempt among State Department contractor personnel--and that,
of course, was the jurisdictional hook, through our Foreign
Relations Committee, but the same applied to contractor
personnel in the Department of Defense--always the attempt to
sweep it under the rug, not have it conveyed to the United
States attorneys for the proper prosecution.
When we got this out in the open, we have tried to
encourage the cooperation and collaboration between those three
Departments--Justice, Defense, and State. I bring it out for
your consideration.
Now, let me just raise just a couple of questions.
Because of the beneficence of this committee in allowing me
to travel, I have seen a good part of the Third World, of this
planet, where there is such poverty and disease. But we come
right back to the Western Hemisphere, and the poorest nation in
this hemisphere is Haiti. Please keep your eye on Haiti.
Senator Clinton, you've already been briefed on this, but
one of the things that you're going to face is, there is an
American that is missing in Iran. Because he is a Floridian,
and because he has left behind a wife and seven children, I
have gone to the Iranian Ambassador at the United Nations, who
will see me even though his government will not allow him to
talk to our U.N. Ambassador. He operates under the fiction that
he will see me because I'm a representative of the people of
the State of Florida.
But the door has been closed at every turn. What I have
said to him, and I speak through the lens of this committee
hearing, that out of human compassion, this is a great
opportunity for the country of Iran to crack the door because
we think he is being held by the Government of Iran in a secret
prison in Iran. And if we want to have some renewed relations,
this is a good first opportunity.
Then I would just ask you--we've basically had a lack of a
vigorous policy toward Latin America. And what a great
opportunity for the Obama administration. In the memory of
President Kennedy's vigorous Latin America policy, the Alliance
for Progress. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Nelson, you've covered a
number of important issues. And let me start with your question
about Latin America. I have a lot of thoughts about that, and I
think you're right--it is a tremendous opportunity, and I look
forward--on behalf of the President-elect--and working with
Members of Congress who have a particular concern and interest
in Latin America to making it abundantly clear that the Obama
administration is seeking partnerships and friendships across
Latin America.
We're looking forward, with great anticipation, to the
Summit of the Americas, that will be held in April. We want to,
you know, not only respond to the issues that are in the
headlines, as the President-elect did yesterday with President
Calderon--issues of security, issues of criminality, and
narcotrafficking and the like, but we want to seize the
opportunities in Latin America, which is why the energy
partnership that the President-elect has suggested has so much
potential.
The countries of Latin America are really our closest
allies. That, if you look at trade, if you look at familial
relationships, you can see all of these connections. And I
think that we're going to put a new face on American diplomacy,
as we reach out to Latin America.
That is particularly a mission of mine, and I share your
concern about Haiti. It is, as you say, one of the poorest
nations in the world--the poorest in our hemisphere. I hope
that we can have a comprehensive approach that could alleviate
the suffering of the people of Haiti. And I look forward to
working with you on that.
With respect to the Floridian who is in prison, it would be
an extraordinary opportunity for the Government of Iran to make
such a gesture. To permit contact, to release him, to make it
clear that there is a new attitude in Iran, as we believe there
will be with the Obama administration toward engagement,
carefully constructed, and with very clear outcomes attempted.
Senator Nelson. His name is Bob Levinson.
Senator Clinton. That's right.
And, you know, Senator, on contractors--this is going to be
a big issue for this committee. We have seen the abuses by
contractors, but even when they are not headline-grabbing
abuses, there has been a steady transfer of authority and
resources from government employees, and a chain of
accountability to contractors. And we have reaped the very
difficult consequences of that. We know, obviously, of the
security contractors, and some of the difficulties that they
have presented, but it's been contractors across the board.
We've used so many of them--particularly in Iraq, but not
exclusively.
And I think we have to take a hard look at whether we want
the U.S. Government to turn into a contracting agency, or
whether we're going to be smart about using our resources,
because in most instances, contracting out a job costs more
than keeping it in-house, and building up expertise and
experience, and imposing accountability.
So, I look forward to working with you and your
subcommittee to determine what we can do about contractors, but
I would just end on this cautionary note: The chairman asked me
about the role of the State Department in Iraq. We're going to
try to fulfill any of the pledges that we've made in the
agreement of friendship and cooperation--our civilian employees
need to be protected. As we withdraw our troops, we have to be
absolutely assured that they will be protected by the Iraqis,
or we have to use contracts, or we have to wonder whether we
can send them out to the countryside, if there is still the
threat of violence.
So, this has direct effects on how we're going to perform
our diplomatic responsibilities inside Iraq and other
countries.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to you, Senator Clinton. Thank you for your
leadership, for your willingness to step forward and assume
this very, very important position for our country, for the
nation. I truly appreciate all that you are poised to do, and
what you have done in the past.
We had an opportunity in my office last week to discuss an
issue that is, I think, vitally important to this country. And
that is our role as an Arctic nation. And I know oftentimes, my
colleagues don't view the United States as an Arctic nation,
but we are, by virtue of Alaska, and we have opportunities,
when it comes to a leadership role, in collaboration on
research, on environmental issues, on issues as they relate to
commerce.
And we're seeing more of those issues present themselves,
as we see a world up there that is more and more free of sea
ice--the loss of summer sea ice from climate change is having a
truly dramatic effect on the Arctic. And the Bush
administration saw this unfolding, we've been working with them
for about the past 18 months, to advance a new Arctic policy.
Our Arctic policy is about 15 years stale. That was just
released on Friday, I don't know if you've had an opportunity
to fully review it.
But I'd like your comment here this morning on the evolving
role of the Arctic, on the role that we can play, as an Arctic
nation, in dealing with our neighbors. We discussed the issue
of Russia, and oftentimes we've got some very difficult
relationships with them, but the opportunity on issues as they
relate to research and an evolving world up north, how that
might play out.
And if you could just speak to that issue this morning. I
have missed most of your comments this morning and I apologize
for that. I have been in two other confirmation hearings. But,
I'm pretty certain that you haven't fielded, yet, a question on
the Arctic.
Senator Clinton. And, Senator, it's very timely that one
has been raised, because as I have said to you before, and even
when you and your husband hosted Senator McCain's CODEL when we
were in Alaska, and saw for ourselves some of the changes that
are going on, in the Arctic, both on land and in the sea--you
have been a leader on this issue, and I hope your time has
come, Senator. Because I believe that the issues of the Arctic
are one of those long-term matters that will dramatically
affect our commercial, our environmental, our energy futures,
that we have got to start attending to now.
So, to that end, I agree with you completely, that the
issues that are posed by the recent Bush administration report
that did come out just a few days ago, the work of the Arctic
Council that has been an attempt to try to summon the best
thinking of the government and outside experts, will find a
very receptive ear in the State Department.
I think President-elect Obama and I see that this is one of
those areas that offers a chance for cooperation that might
lead not only to positive actions with respect to the Arctic,
but deepen our partnerships with Russia and others across the
board.
So, to that end, we will be working to try to sort through
the recommendations and the ideas in the recent report, to see
how we fit that into already existing frameworks, and consider
what additional actions and positions might be necessary, but I
agree with you completely. You know, maybe because the change
has been relatively rapid, with the melting of the sea ice--
people haven't kept up with what is going on now in the Arctic.
And when I was in your office, and you were telling me about
how cruise ships now are going to Point Barrow, I was shocked.
Senator Murkowski. So were the people of Point Barrow.
Senator Clinton. So were the people of Point Barrow. I
mean, look at the map--it's the northernmost place in the
United States, and it's not a place that one would have
thought, previously, was on the tour for cruise ships. We know
that there is going to be a necessity to map out our
Continental Shelf. We know that there will be disputes over
energy resources, and minerals, and other natural resources in
the Arctic.
To go along with that, I know that hand in hand with
concerns about the Arctic is, you know, the Oceans Convention,
the Law of the Sea, which would clarify a lot of the problems
that you're going to face in Alaska, if we don't have a
national Arctic policy that also includes what our
international position is on the oceans.
Senator Murkowski. Will ratification of the Law of the Sea
Treaty be a priority for you?
Senator Clinton. Yes; it will be. And it will be because it
is long overdue, Senator. The Law of the Seas Treaty is
supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff's environmental, energy,
and business interests. I have spoken with some of our naval
leaders, and they consider themselves to be somewhat
disadvantaged by our not having become a party to the Law of
the Seas.
Our industrial interests--particularly with seabed mining--
just shut up. There's nothing that they can do, because there's
no protocol that they can feel comfortable that gives them the
opportunity to pursue commercial interests.
So, for all of those reasons--and I mention it in
conjunction with the Arctic because I think they go hand in
hand--we've got to figure out where our boundaries are, you
know, people start drilling in areas that are now ice-free most
of the year, and we don't know where they can and can't drill,
or whether we can--we're going to be disadvantaged.
So, I think that you will have a very receptive audience in
our State Department and in our administration.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I'm very pleased, very encouraged
to hear that, and truly look forward to the opportunity to be
working with you to advance these very important issues. And as
we look to some of the basics that we're lacking up in the
Arctic, whether it's the capacity for search and rescue, you
know what we need to be prepared for in this ever-evolving
world without borders, it's quite a concept to think.
One more question, another that Alaskans look to with great
interest, because of our proximity to North Korea. As we look
to the hot spots of the world, we certainly appreciate all of
the other threats that you will be dealing with as Secretary of
State, but you kind of get most nervous about those that are
more proximate to you, and North Korea is certainly to us.
In that vein, what do you see the future of the six-party
talks under your tenure? How do you anticipate that you'll be
able to--whether it's jump-start the process, or--how do you
see that moving forward?
Senator Clinton. Senator, I've had several lengthy
conversations with Secretary Rice, who has brought me up to
date on the status of the six-party talks, it is a framework
that the President-elect and I believe has merit, but it also
provides an opportunity, as Secretary Rice has testified before
this committee, for bilateral contact, as well, between North
Korea and the United States.
Again, this is under review, we're looking at all of the
record of the negotiation up to this date. Our goal is to end
the North Korean nuclear programs--both the plutonium
reprocessing program, and the highly enriched uranium program,
which there is reason to believe exists, although never quite
verified.
And it is our strong belief that the six-party talks,
particularly the role that China is currently playing, along
with our close allies, South Korea and Japan, is a vehicle for
us to exert pressure on North Korea in a way that is more
likely to alter their behavior.
Again, I have no illusions about that. I think it takes
tough, reality-based diplomacy to determine what is doable.
We've got to end North Korea as a proliferator, there is
certainly reason to believe that North Korea has been involved
with Syrian efforts, we know that it was involved with Libyan
efforts. So, it's not only preventing the threat from North
Korea, which is of particular interest to Hawaii, Alaska, and
the west coast of the United States--but it is their role as a
proliferator.
So, we will embark on a very progressive effort to try to
determine the best way forward to achieve our objectives with
them.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your, again, willingness and your great
capacity in the ice effort. Appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Let me just say
to you, and others interested, that we are already--I've talked
to Senator Lugar about this, and I've talked to Senator Clinton
about it--we are now laying the groundwork for, and expect to
try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty, so that will be one
of the priorities of the committee, and the key here is just
timing, how we proceed.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Well, first, Senator Kerry, let me tell you
how proud all of us are to serve on this committee,
particularly with you as our chairman. We're looking forward to
this time, and while you know the challenges are great, we
thank you for stepping forward as chairman of the committee.
And to Senator Clinton, thank you. Thank you for being
willing to do this and to your entire family. I know it was a
difficult decision. I know how much you love being a Senator
from New York and I just thank you for stepping forward. The
issues are so difficult in this country and there couldn't be a
better person to represent our Nation, and we thank you for
doing that.
We had a chance to talk about several issues when you were
in my office over the weekend. Your opening statement and your
responses to questions have covered much of the area. I
particularly want to just underscore the challenge you're going
to have in the Middle East between the Israelis and the
Palestinians, and I think you have covered that in your
statement and in your responses.
I want to deal first, with another void that you've created
in the U.S. Senate because of your selection as Secretary of
State. And obviously there's going to be a void for the people
of New York as you leave that Senate seat, but also the
Helsinki Commission, which you serve as an active member.
You've been a very valuable member of the Commission and I will
have the honor of chairing the Commission during these next 2
years. And you know, it was established as the United States
arm to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
created in 1976 with President Ford as a way to engage Europe
on security issues, on economic issues, and on human rights.
It's perhaps best known for its work in the former Soviet
Union. When it spoke up against the human rights violations, it
led to changes within the Soviet Union. In recent years, it's
been very helpful on creating a strategy in Europe to deal with
anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination.
The Helsinki Commission is very actively involved on the
human trafficking issues, and we've had discussions here today
about necessity to monitor, not only the activities from those
countries where the women--and they're usually women and
children--come from, but also the receiving countries, and to
deal with the problems. We now have an annual report from the
State Department to see how well countries are doing on
trafficking and a lot of that work came out of the Helsinki
Commission. The list goes on and on and on.
My point is that I think the OSCE, and United States
involvement through the Helsinki Commission can be a valuable
tool in your game plan on dealing with the foreign policy
objectives of the United States, and whether it is engaging
Russia--Russia, as you know, is an active member of OSCE--
dealing with global climate change or dealing with refugee
issues. And I would just urge you to challenge us as to how the
OSCE can be more effective in dealing with your game plan for
this country's foreign policy.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Cardin, it's been an honor
to serve on the Helsinki Commission, and I know you have, not
only a longstanding interest, but involvement going back to
your days in the House, with respect to OSCE, and the Helsinki
Accords.
And when you and I were talking, we briefly discussed how
history sometimes plays out. Because at the time of the
Helsinki Accords, then-President Ford was urged by both the
right and the left not to go and negotiate those, that they
would not be a good idea, and he--very courageously--said that
he was going to go forward, because any opportunity to
negotiate, to try to set up a framework for human rights, was
in America's interest.
And we now can look back and see how President Ford's
vision, which led to the Helsinki Accords, which obviously the
former Soviet Union was a party to, actually contributed to the
eventual breakup of the Soviet Union, because it gave
legitimacy and voice to people who were dissidents and had
human rights complaints.
So, I think this work must continue. I look forward to
figuring out ways that we can work together. And I also would
appreciate any advice you would have about how the framework of
OSCE and the Helsinki Accords could be, perhaps, modernized,
and transported into the 21st century with some of the problems
that we see around the world today. Because the problems are
certainly different, but human nature isn't. And how we take
advantage of diplomacy and agreements and setting goals on
human rights will be a priority, and doing that in service of
outcomes like what we saw with the Helsinki Accords, is what
I'm interested in.
Senator Cardin. And we will. That's one of the highest
priorities for us, to evaluate how we can modernize the
Helsinki Commission and the OSCE process. We are fortunate to
have representatives from the executive branch that serve on
the Commission with us, so we will do this in conjunction with
your own views as to how you think we can best carry out the
objectives of this country.
Let me mention one or two issues that are relevant to the
human rights issues, but also relevant to the broader issues:
the refugee problem, particularly as it relates to Iraq. We
hear a lot about how we're going to ultimately resolve the
circumstances in Iraq, but when you have 5 million displaced
individuals, many of whom are in other countries, it makes it
extremely challenging to see a lasting solution in that region.
Several Senators have sent a letter to President-elect Obama,
urging the creation of a White House office on refugee issues,
just so we can get the type of visibility we need on refugees.
Clearly, this is a high area of concern within foreign
policy in the State Department, and I would welcome your
involvement as to how we come to grips with the refugee crisis
in that region.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, as you know there is an
office in the State Department, Population, Migration, and
Refugees, it's our intention to staff that with effective and
creative professionals, because we agree that the refugee
problem is growing worse in many places around the world.
You referenced Iraq--one of the challenges of the Iraqi
Government and in so far as we are involved, our Government, in
you know, sort of balancing how we're going to support the
stability of the Iraqi Government and help them deal with the
repatriation and return--both externally and internally--of
Iraqis is a big challenge to the Iraqi Government that we're
conscious of.
But we have refugee populations, some of decades-long
standing, some of a few days standing, in so many places--I
will do my very best to elevate this issue, to give you the
kind of expertise within the State Department that will give
you comfort that we're going to make this a high priority, and
to come up with solutions to some of our longstanding refugee
challenges.
This is a very complex issue, because everywhere we look in
the world, conflict, famine, disease, the economy--we have
refugees. And so our hope is that we can get a more
comprehensive strategy to deal with refugees, come to the
Congress to get the funding for refugees, a problem which is
compounded by the point that Senator Lugar made at the
beginning of the hearing, about the food crisis.
So, I would welcome working with you and those who are
concerned as you are, to come up with an effective strategy for
the United States to deploy, with respect to refugees.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much for that answer.
Many of us have been asking you questions on energy. Energy
is a huge international issue and the State Department is going
to have to play a critical role. We talked about the global
climate change issues and we've talked about some of the
conduct of other countries trying to stop energy from flowing
between different countries.
I want to talk about one other issue. We have a lot of
mineral-rich countries, in which citizens are very poor. We
think that many of those revenues are going against U.S.
security interests, funding activities that are against our
country's interests. There is an effort made for transparency
in extraction, so that we set up the model system for how a
nation should handle its mineral wealth, used for the benefit
of the people of their own country.
The United States is participating in that discussion. I
think we could be more aggressive in trying to move forward.
We've talked about foreign assistance. Many of these countries
that have mineral wealth are receiving foreign aid from the
United States and we don't know where their mineral wealth is
going. So, I just want to bring that to your attention, and I
think this is an area that we can make much further
advancements in trying to help deal with the poverty around the
world.
Senator Clinton. Very creative suggestion, Senator, and we
should look at the models of countries that have handled their
mineral wealth to the advantage of their people. Botswana comes
to mind--they've been very good stewards of their diamonds, and
have invested in roads and schools and infrastructure in
Botswana. So, we should be looking for best practices, and see
if there is a way to create a regulatory framework that would
give both protection and incentives to mineral-rich countries,
so that they would be able to stand up for their rights, and
then use the revenues in a very positive way to enhance the
well-being of their people.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. I look forward to working with you.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thanks a lot, Senator Cardin.
And let me just say that given the time, here, we're going
to have two more rounds--two more questioners--before we do the
mandatory break at quarter of.
And just for the knowledge of the press and others--and
many of them are already aware of this--we have a very
extensive questioning process that takes place, prior even to
our convening here, called Questions For the Record. And the
committee has already submitted--just through the Chair, over
138 questions, and there were additional questions by other
Senators, all of which have been answered by Senator Clinton,
and we're very appreciative for the in-depth answers. We know
it's an enormous take, and a lot of people have, you know,
ground away on it. But we're very, very appreciative.
What it does do is facilitate the hearings considerably,
and help us to sort of narrow the areas of inquiry that we need
to do here, now.
With that said, let me turn now to Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record, a
longer list of questions that I will not have time to ask
today.
The Chairman. Fine. But we are going to try to proceed
forward, so we'll try to get those answered in the next 24
hours for you, Senator.
Senator DeMint. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Because we do have a business meeting
scheduled for Thursday.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
Senator Clinton, congratulations on your nomination. I
appreciate your call, it's amazing what a little communication
can do, so I feel a lot better about you already.
I am optimistic and hopeful about your role as Secretary of
State, and despite the news accounts that say that I'm the one
that's going to ask you the hard questions about potential
conflicts of interest, I have no questions about your
integrity.
I would support Senator Corker and others who support your
nomination, in appealing to you to do whatever is necessary to
silence any critics before you take office. Enough said, as far
as I'm concerned.
The State Department, over several administrations, has a
mixed reputation, at best. And in private, talking to military
leaders, business people, international adoption agencies,
independent aid workers, even foreign officials, I often hear
that the State Department is more of an obstacle than a help,
or mixed reviews, again, at best.
We even have foreign governments calling our office, and
coming in and meet with us to want to bypass the State
Department to develop better relations with our country. And
I'm sure other members have experienced the same thing. So, the
challenge is tremendous.
You mentioned in your opening statement the many challenges
all around the world--economic and human rights, and there's so
much to do that it's mind-boggling. And with our economy, and
our debt, and the domestic needs that we have and incredible
levels of spending that we're experiencing now, it's very
difficult to see an expanded role for America around the
world--certainly one that has to be prioritized.
And I would join with Senator Isakson, who paraphrased, but
we need to be that city on the hill, I'm not sure that we can
afford to build cities on the hill all around the country,
although I hope we can play a role.
With so much to do, I just wanted to ask you to comment
about other ways that we might accomplish our goals. I've
seen--as I've traveled and talked to people from around the
world--that very often business, trade, commerce is our best
ambassador. And even in difficult political times, when Germany
and France were squabbling with the United States, I have
Michelin headquarters and BMW headquarters in my district--
business goes on and everybody gets along just fine, despite
the political wrangling.
And we also see private charities, aid workers,
missionaries doing so much good. How do you see the role of the
State Department in facilitating the good private sector things
that are there, without trying to replace them and maybe
without trying to manage them?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, I appreciate very much your
posing this question because I think it's a real opportunity
for us if we can figure out how best to better coordinate and
facilitate the private sector, and the not-for-profit and
religious community of the United States on behalf of
humanitarian and commercial efforts.
I think that the State Department has been, you know,
reviewed in a mixed way for a number of years. In part, it's
because the work of the State Department both in diplomacy and
development, is not as well understood, and sometimes appears
to be frustrating. I mean, trying to argue over where a comma
goes, or what the appropriate language would be, and how to
actually get to that treaty--it does raise, in the eyes of the
American people--questions about, well, what is it we do?
And I think we have a bigger job, which I will assume, of
trying to explain to the American people why our national
security depends on defense, diplomacy, and development.
Now, defense is primarily a government mission, as we know.
And thank goodness for these young men and women and their
commanders who wear the uniform of our country.
Diplomacy is primarily a government mission, but there are
lots of ways that nongovernment actors, like corporations, like
religious organizations, like charities and foundations, are
actually building relationships with foreign governments and
foreign people, all the time. Which, if done in the right way,
are really value-added to who we are as a nation, and what we
can achieve.
You know, right now in Rwanda, a number of foundations, a
number of churches, a number of private sector actors are all
working to try to build that country back up.
So, I would hope that when we look at the State Department,
we think of the role of foreign policy, diplomacy, and
development as involving not just those who are the Foreign
Service officers and the civil service professionals and the
development experts, but really it's all hands on deck. We have
a lot of work to, in my view, kind of repair damage, and get
out there, and present America as we know we are. But I don't
think in this complex and dangerous world, there is any
substitute for the role of the State Department and USAID
professionals.
So, it will be my undertaking to make this Department as
efficient as possible, so that you know you're getting your
money's worth. To streamline it, as much as possible. I mean, I
will be frustrated--as you will be--if all we do is pile up
paper. I want strategies, I want specific ideas, I want more
partnerships.
That's how I see the role of the State Department in the
21st century, that's how I hope that USAID will be revitalized,
to perform that role, as well. But the disparity of resources
is such that when you've got more than 10 times the resources
going to the Defense Department, than you have going to the
State Department and foreign aid, the Defense Department has
been, in effect, recreating mini State Departments.
You know, they're out doing development assistance, and
rule of law and other things. Why? Because as I said earlier,
they have a presumption of being able to move much more
quickly, the money we give them is, in many respects, more
flexible.
So, I think we have to see, how do we get what we want, and
what we're paying for, out of our State Department and USAID.
And I want to work closely with you and others on this
committee. I want new ideas, I want best practices. But I don't
think there's any substitute for having seasoned, experienced
professionals and experts, sort of leading our efforts on
diplomacy and development. And working, where possible, in
partnership and coordination with the private sector, and the
not-for-profit sector.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
I can see I'm not going to get to too many of my questions,
but just a couple of concerns, and on a last question.
Just as you're concerned about the disadvantaged difficulty
of women and children around the world, much the same can be
said for religious persecution. Even in countries like Iraq,
that we're doing so much sacrifice to free, Iraqi Christians
can't come home. I would hope that you would be sensitive to
that.
And also, you've spoken about Israel, and I think there's
widespread agreement of our support there, but it appears to be
naive and illogical to continue diplomacy and calls for peace
with governments that are publicly opposed to the existence of
Israel. How we reconcile that is very difficult.
One last concern, I think, one difficulty that you will
have is balancing protecting our sovereignty as a nation with
international cooperation. I've seen some of our agreements
with the United Nations, the United States is going to bear the
brunt of the expense, and often the execution of what the U.N.
promises. They don't back up their own resolutions, as in Iraq,
or now in Iran, North Korea--we submit, and we comply and
yield, in many ways, our decisionmaking to organizations like
the United Nations, but then we're left holding the bag with
what they don't do.
And maybe in just the minute or so that I have left, how
can we do a better job of being cooperative, at the same time,
protecting our sovereignty?
Senator Clinton. Well, I think the absolute bottom line for
any agreement or undertaking by the U.S. Government is that it
has to be, in our view, in the best interest of the United
States. That it furthers our national security, advances our
interests, and both protects and reflects our values. That's
how I see my responsibility.
I think there are ways that we can cooperate more than we
have, without--in any way--impinging upon our sovereignty, our
identity or our security interests or values. But I will remain
very conscious of that, Senator.
Because two issues that you mentioned--religious
persecution--you know, that is anathema to Americans. I mean,
we believe in the freedom to worship. And there is an office in
the State Department that is committed to religious freedom,
but I believe that that is an area that we want to talk more
about, that we want to raise, because of the significance.
You point out, rightly, that, you know, we've given a lot
of aid, and we've given a lot of blood on behalf of certain
countries that persecute--not just Christians--but people of
other religious beliefs, even interfaith beliefs within the
same denomination, or a particular view of religion.
I think on Israel, you cannot negotiate with Hamas until it
renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and agrees to abide by
past agreements. That is just, for me, an absolute. That is the
U.S. Government's position; that is the President-elect's
position.
And finally, on the questions--we will turn those around in
the next 24 hours, Senator. I know that the chairman and
Senator Lugar submitted very thoughtful, extensive questions,
and we responded to those--more than 300 of them. We will take
whatever other questions for the record, any member has, and
turn those around within 24 hours, because I want you to have
as comprehensive a record as possible, for you to consider my
nomination.
Senator DeMint. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me just shock your troops by telling you
that, unfortunately, we have to--in order to move forward--
close the record by 12 noon tomorrow.
Senator Clinton. OK.
The Chairman. So, we'll get the Starbucks out tonight. Look
at those smiles over there.
Senator Clinton. Don't look too closely, because they
haven't had a lot of sleep, they're not looking too alert
today.
The Chairman. What we're going to do is, Senator Menendez
will close out the morning questioning, and then we'll come
back, Senator Isakson, you'll lead off as close to 2 o'clock as
possible. It's slightly dependent on someone else's schedule,
but we'll figure that out.
We'll go through the rest of the questioning, and then
we'll have another round. We'll probably shorten the second
round, but I think Senator Clinton and I have discussed this,
we are both prepared to stay here as late as necessary to try
to get through it.
There are other areas of inquiry that I know a lot of us
have, and there are some important subjects that we haven't yet
touched on, so we need to expedite that, if we can.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start off by saying, Senator Clinton, I
appreciate the significant voluntary steps that go above and
beyond the requirements of the law and ethics regulations that
you have been willing to put forth. I think that they are
exemplary, and should answer a lot of people's concerns. And,
as I say, they are above and beyond the law and the ethics
requirements, and I appreciate that.
Particularly, I appreciate that even pledges and proposed
contributions to the Clinton Foundation will be eligible for
review by the Deputy Legal Advisor and designated agency ethics
official at the State Department. That, again, is above and
beyond. And I think that that's the type and tone of tenor to
set and I want to salute you for doing that.
You and I have had the conversation to talk about something
I care about a great deal, which is foreign assistance. We've
held and I have had the privilege in the last Congress, to
chair the Subcommittee on Foreign Assistance, and we've held a
series of hearings on it.
You know, it's interesting to note that nearly a half a
century ago, President Kennedy sent a letter to the Congress,
in which he said some things that if we were to hear today
would largely be the same.
He said, ``The economic collapse of those free, but less
developed nations, which now stand poised between sustained
growth and economic chaos would be disastrous to our national
security, harmful to our comparative prosperity, and offensive
to our conscience.'' He said, ``No objective supporter of
foreign aid can be satisfied with the existing program,
actually a multiplicity of programs. Bureaucratically
fragmented, awkward, slow, administration is diffused over a
haphazard and irrational structure, covering at least four
departments, and several other agencies.''
And he went to talk about the morale of those employees
trying to pursue that. That was nearly a half a century ago,
and in some respects, I could say that that is a large degree
of what we face today.
So, as one of the most powerful tools of soft diplomacy,
I'd like to hear--you know, some of us are concerned. I've
heard about the designation of Mr. Lew as the Deputy Secretary
of State for Resources and Management; that he will be the
advocate. That's a broad title, a lot of resources, and a lot
of management.
The question is, How do we ensure that we elevate foreign
assistance? How do we ensure that we appoint a high-profile
manager to lead that agency? A strong, independent voice for
foreign assistance, building up the staff at AID, making sure
that a lot of what's gone to the Defense Department by--simply
by the lack of having the appropriate structure and effort at
State, comes back to State where it really should be done, in
cooperation with the Defense Department. Give me a sense of
confidence that, under your leadership, this is something that
we're going to see pursued vigorously.
Senator Clinton. Well, you have my commitment that it will
be pursued vigorously. It is an area that I care deeply about,
it is where much of my, you know, early public voluntary
efforts were directed, and I am hopeful, Senator, that we're
going to put in place a system that will, No. 1, rationalize
what we have there now. And not only within the State
Department and USAID, but as you know, there are pockets of
foreign aid programs across the government that are technically
under the coordination of the Secretary, but are not really
working together as they should.
And when we look at USAID, we've got to get a handle on the
contracting out of functions, and personnel. It leaves us
without the capacity to respond to the many needs that we know
are there.
When we look at what's called ``the G function'' in the
State Department, that's where you see Population, Migration,
and Refugees. And, you know, having served very happily in this
body, I know how, how it seems that if an issue of such
importance as refugees is not getting attention, then let's put
a coordinator in the White House, and maybe that will get
people's attention.
But, of course, what we ought to be doing is making the
existing State Department programs work effectively. We have
PEPFAR, which has been very successful, and is a great tribute
to the Bush administration. But it is within the State
Department, but not within USAID, but it utilizes many of the
development and health experts in USAID--both on the government
payroll and on contracts--to actually do the work.
We have the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which is a
very creative, and innovative approach to foreign aid, which is
an independent entity, which again looks to USAID for advice
and expertise. So, we've got to get our arms around what you
could think of as traditional foreign aid--health, education,
economic empowerment, and the like--plus what is now becoming
increasingly important, that's the reconstruction, stability,
conflict resolution, peacekeeping challenges that we face.
And, Senator, I am determined that we're going to present
to you a plan and a system that will try to maximize
coordination, minimize redundancy, and make the case for the
increased resources that are so desperately needed if we intend
to meet the missions that we've been given.
And that is why I think Jack Lew, who will fill the Deputy
position on Budget and Resources, is the point of
accountability, because so much of what we're going to have to
straighten out and fix, are resource decisions.
And we've got to make the case--I think Secretary Gates is
open to the case--I know the President-elect is very committed,
he wants a--actually an increase in foreign aid, because he
believes so strongly in its efficacy as part of our foreign
policy. They're committed to transferring assets and functions
back to the State Department, but we have to prove that we're
ready to take them on. That we're going to handle them, that we
can instill confidence in you and Senator Cardin and others
about these core functions, and you know, answer Senator
DeMint's concerns about, you know, are we really doing what we
need to do, here.
So, that is my pledge to you, and I'm going to work as hard
as I know how to make it happen.
Senator Menendez. We look forward to working with you on
that. Let me just touch on specific areas, and then I hope not
to give you any questions at the end of the day so you can move
through the process--written questions.
But, in 100 days, the new administration will inherit the
Summit of the Americas. And it will be either the President-
elect's imprint, or it will be that which existed before.
We have challenge in Latin America, and our challenge is
our lack of engagement in a way that makes a difference.
We need to care less about what Chavez does, and more about
what we do at the end of the day. And so I hope that we can
work with you, and I also hope the administration will focus
very quickly on what that summit is going to look like. And I
hope that we have an America's Initiative soon, obviously not
by the summit, but at least talking about the outlines of what
that will be.
The hemisphere is incredibly important to us, it is in
turmoil and challenge in many parts of it, and I hope that that
is something that we will look at very quickly.
I know you supported the legislation we had that came to
the committee in a bipartisan, unanimous on creating a Social
and Economic Development Fund for the Americas. We call it to
your attention.
Two last areas of the world. There are many, but--I hope
that the support you gave while you were a Senator to the
question of the Armenian genocide, that the President-elect has
himself supported. The recognition of that. And if we are to
say, never again, part of that is ultimately the recognition of
what has happened, so that we can move forward.
And I hope that you will be an advocate of having us get
off of where we have been, and move forward to a recognition of
that part of history that is universally recognized, and we can
move forward in that respect.
And I also hope in the part of the world that's very
important to me, the question of the reunification of Cyprus,
that we have honest brokers at the State Department at the end
of the day. One that recognizes that if Greek and Turkish
Cypriots could work with each other, they would seek a bizonal,
bicommunal federation that could move forward and reunify the
island and end the incredible militarization of that island--
the most militarized part of the world, per capita.
So, I hope that you will look at those issues. I know the
positions you've taken as a Senator, and I applaud them. I hope
that they won't change drastically as you move to the Secretary
of State.
Senator Clinton. Senator, we will be looking very closely
at those, and other challenging issues, with the eye of moving
forward and being effective and responding to these very
legitimate concerns.
Senator Menendez. I look forward to supporting your
nomination.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Thank you, Senator Clinton, for a good morning of
testimony. You displayed one of the assets necessary for the
job, you sat there for 3 hours and 15 minutes. And we look
forward to the afternoon session--and I should say that to
everybody here, it's been a remarkably attentive and quiet
audience. So we appreciate that very much.
So we will recess until no sooner than 2 o'clock, and we
will try to make it as absolutely close to two as possible. We
stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee recessed to
reconvene at 2 p.m.]
Afternoon Session
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:19 p.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
The Chairman. The hearing will come back into order and I
apologize to everybody, particularly to our colleagues who were
on time, Senator Isakson, I'm sorry about that.
We had the President-elect meeting with us at our caucus on
the minor topic of the monster of TARP and also the stimulus.
So I'm sure you can all understand it was spirited and
important and that's why we are late and I apologize for that.
I said that we would pick up. We're going to complete the
first round of 10-minute questions and I think for the second
round we'll probably go with 7 minutes and see how we proceed,
but Senator Isakson, you're up next and we appreciate your
patience.
Senator Isakson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Chelsea; Chelsea, you should know that your mother and I had a
conversation in my office. She's very proud of you and very
proud of the support you give to her and I got to show her all
my grandchildren, so she'll have plans for you in the future, I
guarantee you. [Laughter.]
Senator Clinton, it's a pleasure. I want to commend you.
This is not really a question, just a statement, but I have the
highest regard for Senator Lugar. I think the remarks,
prehearing questions he sent to you with regard to the Clinton
Foundation were very important, and I think his insights are
very important because in your answers to those questions on a
couple of occasions, you made the statement, ``The goal was to
protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest
between his work,'' meaning the Foundation's, ``and the duties
of the Secretary of State,'' and we all know that in this world
of politics, perception becomes a reality. So appearance is
everything, and I commend Senator Lugar's recommendations to
you.
Also, twice in your opening remarks, which were extensive
and really appreciated because you really covered some very
important topics, you refer to what I call the three Ds:
diplomacy, development, and defense, and two different
occasions, once vis-a-vis
al-Qaeda and then another just based on overall policy, I
believe that the better your diplomacy the better your ability
to defense yourself and a strong military is a great foundation
for good diplomacy and then if you add the development, which I
think is soft power or smart power, you have a great trilogy.
Do you agree with that?
Senator Clinton. Senator Isakson, I couldn't say it any
better. I certainly do agree.
In order to protect and defend the United States of
America, to advance our interests and to further our values, we
have to have all three of those elements of our power working
in concert, but clearly, as I said, as you pointed out, in my
opening statement, a strong military is essential for the
ultimate protection of our country and our interests.
It is my hope that through more vigorous and effective
diplomacy we would be able to resolve both problems that we
have with individual countries and the transnational problems,
like proliferation, that threaten us.
So I think that the State Department has a very big
responsibility to improve its capacity with respect to both
diplomacy and development because without those two elements of
our power projection and our policy being as effective as they
can be, we're not going to have the agile comprehensive foreign
policy we should look forward to.
Senator Isakson. In the Presidential debate, I watched both
sides, ours and yours, and there was a significant debate over
foreign policy and over the issue of precondition.
I really appreciated your responses throughout and I think
you added a great deal of strength to that debate and now that
we're looking at suggestions of talking to Hamas or maybe
Hezbollah or maybe Iran, preconditions are absolutely
essential, I think, to good strong diplomacy.
I hope you still feel that way.
Senator Clinton. Well, I certainly do, as does the
President-elect. I think that his commitment to vigorous and
effective diplomacy is in context of his understanding that
there are different ways for us to engage.
When it comes to nonstate actors, like Hamas, as I said at
the very end of the morning session, there are conditions.
Hamas must renounce violence, they must recognize Israel, and
they must agree to abide by all previous agreements. There are
conditions that are usually part of the preliminary discussion
that would lead to any kind of negotiation.
The President-elect believes that he has the right to claim
the opportunity to speak with anybody at any time, if it's in
furtherance of our country's national interests and security,
but he fully appreciates the preliminary work that has to be
done in order to tee up any such discussion.
So I think we're in vigorous agreement, Senator, that we
want to be smart about how we engage in diplomacy. We want to
make sure that when the President of the United States or the
Secretary of State is engaged in any diplomatic effort that all
of the necessary preliminary work, including conditions, if
appropriate, have been met before doing so.
Senator Isakson. You quoted George Marshall at the end of
your remarks in saying that ``sometimes our enemies are not the
nations or doctrines but they're in fact hunger, poverty,
desperation and chaos.''
I'm the ranking member on the Africa Subcommittee, and if
you talk about desperation, chaos, hunger and poverty,
certainly you can talk about the continent of Africa and in
particular North Africa and the Horn of Africa where al-Qaeda
is attempting to do what it did in Afghanistan effectively a
decade and a half ago.
And you talked about smart power. I think AFRICOM was a
smart move on behalf of our country and although a lot of
people don't realize what AFRICOM is doing, they are military
personnel doing a lot of soft power. They're drilling wells.
They're building bridges. They're doing the things--I hate to
say this, but Hamas and Hezbollah figured it out. They got
political strength by giving people housing and clothing. A lot
of times that use of soft power can win over people's attitudes
toward you.
So I hope, as the couple years go by--the next 4 years go
by--we can work together on the continent of Africa and on
those issues because I think it's the next place we are
vulnerable if we aren't proactive in dealing with the
governments, the people, the poverty, and obviously also
continuing the Bush PETFAR Program which has been so
successful, that and the malaria eradication.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, I appreciated, when I spoke
with you, your commitment to Africa and your making it a
priority of the service you've performed here on the committee
and I look forward to working with you.
It is a serious concern that we could see safe havens
created again, the chaos that flows from failed states, like
Somalia at this moment, the aftermath of autocratic regimes
that have so mistreated their people, like Zimbabwe, the
anarchy and terrible violence in Eastern Congo.
I mean, those are breeding grounds not only for the worst
abuses of human beings, from mass murders to rapes to
indifference toward disease and other terrible calamities, but
they are invitations to terrorists to find refuge amidst the
chaos and anyone who thinks that our interest in Africa is only
humanitarian, I think, misses the strategic import of the
comments you have made and I do look forward to working with
you.
Senator Isakson. My last question. If you ask the average
Georgian what's the one thing they have the most consternation
about, it's how much money we spend in foreign aid and although
as a percentage of the budget it's a small number, a lot of the
stories that get published raise questions about it.
Talking about preconditions for a second, I am one that
feels like foreign aid invested, especially with preconditions
for results, is beneficial to the United States of America and
I shared with you the issue on women's education in Muslim
countries and Africa who, prior to 2001, we weren't really
aware that we had money going to NGOs, then going to education,
that was only teaching Muslim men, not Muslim women, and we put
a precondition post-9/11 and built schools for women in Egypt
and Ethiopia and other places and the payback has been a
renaissance in those countries at least in raising the
educational level of all.
I'd appreciate your comments on the extent to which
preconditions can be used in foreign aid, not preconditions to
agree with us but preconditions to see that the result brings
about a benefit like in this case the education of women.
Senator Clinton. Well, I think that has been an important
contribution to the foreign aid debate by this administration,
most manifest with the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
I think we're still finding our way, trying to figure out
the best practices to use to encourage governments to act in
certain ways, conditioning our aid, but I really believe this
holds tremendous promise, and again it's an area that I would
like to work with this committee on because there's a lot of
expertise here.
When you look at foreign aid, we want to be able to justify
the investment to the American people and we want to get
measurable results. Those are two goals that really go hand in
hand and so I believe strongly that as we try to shore up
foreign aid, as we try to make the case for more development
assistance, as we try to, you know, get back some of the
authority and the resources that have drifted to the Defense
Department, that we have to be ready to make that case and I
think the, you know, conditional aid approach in certain
countries and situations is one we have to look at more
closely.
Senator Isakson. Well, I appreciate your willingness to
serve and wish you the best of luck in your tenure.
Thank you.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson.
Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I
want to commend you on the new leadership position that you
take and we're grateful for your service.
Senator Clinton, thank you very much for committing
yourself to do a difficult job at a difficult time in our
Nation's history and for the time you're spending with us
today. You're getting close to the end here. When you get down
to this end of the table, we're kind of rounding the corner,
and I want to stay within my time limits because my friend here
needs his time; Jim Webb.
I wanted to read you a statement that I think you're
familiar with but I think it bears some emphasis today in light
of what you said in your statement and in light of a lot of our
concerns about the way foreign policy has been conducted--
especially over the last 8 years.
The person who made this statement first made reference to
our institutions of diplomacy and development being undermanned
and underfunded and then I'll pick up with the quotation, and
it starts this way: ``When it comes to America's engagement
with the rest of the world, it's important that the military is
in a supporting role, supporting role to civilian agencies. Our
diplomatic leaders must have the resources and political
support needed to fully exercise their statutory
responsibilities in leading American foreign policy. To truly
harness the full strength of America requires having civilian
institutions of diplomacy and development that are adequately
staffed and properly funded.''
The person who made that statement was Secretary Gates this
past July, and I wanted, in light of the discussion here today
and grateful for the time you spent in your statement on this,
but also in light of what you and I have talked about in our
meeting and in other conversations, tell us how you're going to
work with Secretary Gates to make sure that we can give meaning
and integrity to the observation he made in that July speech.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Casey, it's a tremendous
honor for me to be working with Secretary Gates. He has a very
long history of service in our country and has worked with I
don't know how many Presidents, six, maybe seven, but he has a
broad comprehensive view about what works for America and what
doesn't and he was in the, you know, real vanguard in the CIA
and the National Security Council at the height of the cold
war. So his experience is especially valuable and I know the
President-elect believes that and, as you know, asked him to
stay on.
I've had several conversations with him already and what
you read is exactly what he believes, that we are going to be
stronger if we are better able to promote diplomacy and
development, not just rely on our military power.
There's a lot of work to be done between that belief, which
he and I and the President-elect share, and actually realizing
its promise. We have work to do at the State Department, you
know. Part of the reason functions and resources have migrated
is because there's just a presumption that the, you know,
military can move much quicker and with greater effort, impose
development or negotiate agreements, whatever it might be, than
the State Department and it's going to be our job to prove
that, you know, the State Department is not only substantively
strong, which indeed it is, not only experienced in diplomacy
and development, which indeed it is, but can in this 21st
century move with dispatch, be results-oriented, create an
atmosphere of collegiality and cooperation across the State
Department and USAID and across the United States Government.
So I am taking this very seriously. I'm working with
Secretary Gates. He's very open to cooperative efforts, but we
have to prove that we can shoulder this responsibility, like
stabilization and reconstruction and the new Civilian Corps,
like, you know, really outcomes-oriented development aid that
can be done quickly without enormous bureaucracy.
So we're going to take that challenge on because I don't
think we have a choice. I think that our foreign policy has
gotten way out of balance. Secretary Gates knows it. The
President-elect certainly knows it. So it's going to be up to
us to try to get back into more equilibrium which will be good
for our government and for the image of our country around the
world.
Senator Casey. Well, we want to support you in meeting that
objective, and I do want to commend you. We had a discussion
the other day about the mechanics of running such a massive
agency, and I know we don't have a lot of time today, but I
wanted to commend you on appointing Jack Lew as Deputy
Secretary of Management. I think it's important that when
someone is assuming the responsibility as you are that you've
spent the kind of time you have to put together a team that can
help you run the Department.
I wanted to move to one or two more issues before my time
expires. One is on an issue that I've worked with Senator Lugar
on, the ranking member, as well as other members of this
committee have worked for years. Senator Biden worked hard on
this as well as others and that's the challenge posed by
nuclear terrorism.
As great as the challenge and the threat is, we know from
our history and from our research that it's a preventable
catastrophe if we take the right steps not just here but around
the world, and I just want to get your thoughts on the steps we
need to take which will involve a number of departments of our
Federal Government and State Department under your leadership
will play a significant role in working with other countries to
identify fissile material and to prevent it from getting in the
hands of the wrong people.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Casey, I know you expressed
to me your deep concern about this and your desire to get very
involved in helping us craft an effective approach to
protecting our country and our allies, indeed humanity, from
weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists.
The recent Commission on WMD chaired by former-Senators
Graham and Tallent, was very sobering. Basically, they
concluded that the evidence points to our seeing a terrorist
attack using nuclear or biological material some time in the
next 4 years.
You add to that the growing threat of cyber terrorism which
has the potential of disrupting the networks we rely on for all
kinds of things, like traffic signals and electric grids and
the like which would be incredibly disruptive and dangerous. I
mean, this is the No. 1 threat we face. There's no doubt in my
mind.
So we're going to start calling it such. We're going to
reorganize the Department to be better prepared to deal with
nonproliferation arms control and these new threats. I look
forward to working closely with this committee to get the best
people we can into the State Department, to work with our
partners across the United States Government, and to send out a
message loudly and clearly that the United States wants to be a
leader once again, to control arms, particularly with Russia,
and that's what the START talks will be aimed at doing, and to
be much more aggressive in going after nonproliferation.
So this is our very highest priority because the
consequences are so devastating.
Senator Casey. One more question in the time I have. We
spoke a little bit the other day about the challenge that
Pakistan presents to all of us, to the American people, but
also to the world and for a lot of reasons, we know, not only
because of the threat in the border region between Pakistan and
Afghanistan, the concern about the rivalry--and that's an
understatement--with India, and the question of whether this
government will really make it a priority to root out the
extremist elements that are throughout different parts Pakistan
and the region, and finally, the concern about the stability of
their nuclear command and control.
Coming into the office, and I realize you're just starting,
but from the State Department's point of view, how do you think
we need to approach meeting or being focused on those various
concerns that I just outlined?
Senator Clinton. Well, as I stated in my opening remarks,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, remain in the
forefront of the challenges that the new administration will
face.
Pakistan has a particular complexity because of its nuclear
weapons capacity, but the democratically elected government has
been saying a lot of the right things with respect to the
threat posed by the extremists, terrorists, particularly along
the border and in the Fatah region in Pakistan.
So I'm hopeful that we will have a very active positive
relationship with the new Pakistan Government. I know that
there's a lot of work being done even by the outgoing
administration to deepen ties between our country and various
institutions in Pakistan, but this is a tough problem, Senator.
I mean, this is a very complicated problem. It has many
dimensions to it, as you pointed out, the relationship with
India, the relationship with Afghanistan, the role that Iran
and others are playing in that region.
We have to approach this with the same level of attention
and comprehensive understanding that our military is attempting
to do as it ramps up our troop commitments in Afghanistan and
works more closely with the Government of Pakistan to protect
them from violent extremists as well as to root out al-Qaeda
and other remnants of the terrorist networks so that they don't
find safe haven in Pakistan to plan attacks against us or any
other country.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations on your new chairmanship.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Vitter. And thank you, Senator Clinton, for all of
your public service, including being open to this very
challenging position.
Like a lot of folks, I have some concerns about these
conflict issues, particularly with regard to the Clinton
Foundation, and so I wanted to spend my first round exploring
those concerns.
Let me say a couple things. First, that I think a lot of
folks legitimately share these concerns across the spectrum,
from the New York Times to Senator Lugar, who submitted some
questions about it to me. That perhaps defines the entire
political spectrum, I'm not sure, and also they arise because
of very extraordinary circumstances, your husband being a
former President, his very unique work in terms of the
Foundation and in terms of that work, and I applaud that, but
they nevertheless arise because of that, and I think it really
requires an extraordinary response.
Obviously you all have put forward this Memorandum of
Understanding to suggest that such a response and so I wanted
to go into that and some of the details about it and some of my
concerns and these posters just sort of briefly outline the
situation before the MOU with the Foundation and all those
abbreviations are the ones used in the MOU and then the
situation after.
One thing that sort of leaped out at me is with regard to
the Clinton Global Initiative which in many ways is the most
public and perhaps significant of these initiatives. Under the
MOU, there's no disclosure of contributions, contributors going
forward and that seems to be a big omission because again
that's one of the most significant activities here, probably
the most widely followed and recognized in terms of the annual
conference, et cetera.
Would you support and help produce an amended MOU that
would bring the same disclosure to future contributions to the
Clinton Global Initiative?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, I appreciate your concern
and your question and I recognize that these are unique
circumstances, to say the least.
I'm very proud to be the President-elect's nominee for
Secretary of State and I am very proud of what my husband and
the Clinton Foundation and the associated efforts he's
undertaken have accomplished as well.
It is not unique, however, for spouses of government
officials to work and there are very well-established rules for
what is expected when that occurs. In this particular case, the
Office of Government Ethics and the Career Ethics officials at
the State Department have looked at the rules and concluded
there is not an inherent conflict of interest in any of my
husband's work at all.
However, the Foundation and the President-elect decided to
go beyond what the law and the ethics rules call for to address
even the appearance of conflict and that is why they signed a
Memorandum of Understanding which outlines the voluntary steps
that the Foundation is taking to address potential concerns
that might come up down the road.
The Memorandum of Understanding is, as you know, public and
the President-elect and the Foundation and I have all worked to
be very transparent. My team has stayed in close touch with the
committee and we've addressed the committee's questions on
these issues in a broad range of written answers which are part
of the so-called QFRs--the Questions for the Record.
But I want to speak for a minute, if I can, about the work
that is done because I think it's important----
Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection listening
to this, but I'd like it not to come out of my time because I'd
like to pursue these questions.
The Chairman. Well, I guess, I mean, it's fair to say that
if you ask a question, you deserve an answer and the answer
traditionally comes out of the time of the Senator.
Senator Vitter. Well, I'm still waiting for the answer. I'd
love an answer, but if there's an answer to my question----
The Chairman. Well, I think you need to give the Senator an
opportunity to give you the answer and if you need additional
time----
Senator Vitter. Well, let me repeat the question, which is,
Would you support and help produce a new MOU that requires the
same sort of disclosure for contributions for the Clinton
Global Initiative?
Under this, there's no disclosure moving forward for
contributions of the Clinton Global Initiative. So it's a yes
or no. Would you support expanding that disclosure? Admittedly,
this is voluntary. It's not required by law, but it seems to be
a big exception to the rule of the MOU in terms of disclosure.
Senator Clinton. Well, I think that the MOU and the other
undertakings that have been worked out between the President-
elect and the Transition and the Foundation and my husband have
looked very broadly at all of the questions that you're raising
and there are answers to many of these questions in the
collection of answers that we have provided, and I will be
happy to provide additional material and answers to you in
response to that question.
Senator Vitter. OK. Well, if you could consider that
suggestion, I think that's a big gap in the MOU, that moving
forward, the Clinton Global Initiative is separated from the
Foundation and then there's no disclosure whatsoever about
contributors to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The other big gap, it seems to me, is that the disclosure
in the MOU is for new contributors and so old contributors who
regive or who even substantially increase their contributions,
if it's to certain initiatives, aren't disclosed.
Would you consider amending that so that all contributions,
whether from new contributors or old contributors, would be
disclosed?
Senator Clinton. All contributors will be disclosed and all
contributors to the Clinton Global Initiative are disclosed in
public as of now anyway.
Senator Vitter. OK. But that changes under the MOU.
Senator Clinton. No.
The Chairman. No. I think, if I could just interrupt,
Senator, I think if you look at the MOU and you look at the
subsequent questions that were answered by the Senator to the
committee because we followed up on this issue, I believe that
we asked the question, will all future contributions to the
Foundation be disclosed, and----
Senator Vitter. To the Foundation?
The Chairman. That's the Foundation, but, in addition, it's
my understanding that the--under the MOU, the CGI additionally,
if there are contributions, they would be disclosed at the end
of the year.
Senator Clinton. That's right.
Senator Vitter. OK. I'm very happy to hear that. That's not
what's in the MOU. So if I could simply request before our vote
a document or an amendment from the Transition and the
Foundation that clarify that because under the MOU, moving
forward, the Clinton Global Initiative is separated from the
Foundation and then there's disclosure under the Foundation.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, I believe that all the
answers that are relevant to these inquiries are in the record.
There is no intention to amend the MOU. It has been worked out
between the Transition and the Foundation, but the Clinton
Global Initiative is a pass-through.
Now, the money of any donors to put on the Clinton Global
Initiative are public and there is no ongoing, you know,
Foundation is a yearly event, it's unlike the Foundation. So we
will clarify, we will definitely clarify that for you.
Senator Vitter. That would be great, if you can clarify it.
Again, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but under the MOU, as
it stands, there's no required disclosure going forward for
Clinton Global Initiative contributions and there's no
necessary required disclosure for new contributions of old
contributors, just new contributors.
There's also been the suggestion from a lot of folks to
disclose the date and amount or at least amount within ranges
of new contributions and to do that at least quarterly rather
than annually. Would you be open to that?
Senator Clinton. Well, again, you know, this is an
agreement that has been worked out between all of the parties
and the fact is that the concerns that were raised in the
discussions between the Foundation and the President-elect's
team were thoroughly discussed and they believe, and I agree,
that the transparency and disclosure that is needed which, as
you said yourself, it goes beyond any kind of legal or ethical
consideration and not only that, there will be ongoing reviews
by anything that is brought to the attention of the career
professionals.
But I just have to go back, Senator, and try to set the
record straight. CGI is not in the Memorandum of Understanding
because they already have a practice of disclosing all of their
contributions. There is no need to require it. I will
certainly, you know, state here that they're going to continue
the practice which they've already done. No President has ever
disclosed the contributions to his foundation.
So when my husband agreed to disclose the contributions to
his foundation, that was a very unprecedented event which he
was happy to do, but the Clinton Global Initiative, which is
separate from the Foundation, has always disclosed the
contributions.
Senator Vitter. Well, again, I'd love for that to be
embodied in any agreement that's at issue, so I'll look forward
to that.
The Chairman. Well, Senator, can I just--this won't come
out of your time, but let me make sure the record is clear
here.
As I understand it, I think Senator Lugar has raised a
couple points and we're going to address them perhaps a little
bit later, but I don't think this one, frankly, is on target
for the following reason.
On page 4, paragraph 2, it specifically says that ``CGI,
President Clinton personally will not solicit funds. President
Clinton will continue to send invitation letters to potential
invitees; however, he will no longer send sponsorship letters
which seek contributions. Apart from attendance fees, CGI will
not accept contributions from foreign governments.'' So there
is no solicitation and no acceptance of a foreign government.
Senator Vitter. But, for instance, there could be foreign
national contributions which, within the four corners of this
agreement, are not disclosed, not necessarily disclosed.
I mean, my question is in that same paragraph, why isn't
there a disclosure?
The Chairman. Well, I think the Senator has appropriately
said that they'll answer that in the addendum.
Senator Vitter. Well, I'd look forward to that as well as
the old contributor issue because it just talks about new
contributors.
Again, let me back up and underscore the central concern,
which is, I really do think this poses a lot of real and
perceived conflict issues and you just need to look at some of
the contributors from the past, particularly from the Middle
East, to get a sense of what I'm talking about.
For instance, the Alavi Foundation supports Iranian causes.
Just this past December 19, they made a substantial
contribution to the foundation and that same day, the president
of the foundation was indicted for obstruction of justice
related to terrorist financing, and 2 days earlier Treasury had
named a partner of the foundation as a ``terrorist entity.''
Another partner of the foundation, Bank Melli, has long been
thought to be a procurement front for the Iranian Nuclear
Program. That's the sort of big issue/conflict issue that I
think this poses which could obviously complicate your job and
be an impediment to your effectiveness.
Another similar example, Assam Fares, former Deputy Prime
Minister of Lebanon. He's a big supporter of Hezbollah. It says
it's not in any way a terrorist organization, doesn't target
the United States. I'm sure the widows and family members of
the victims of the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241
Americans are comforted by that. Obviously they are terrorists.
They do target the United States. This poses serious issues.
So I look forward to following up and getting that
clarification and also I think it would round out this
agreement immeasurably to include the date and amount of
contributions, to include pledges made, not simply have
disclosures when a payment is made, and to at least do
quarterly reports versus annual reports.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Vitter.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Clinton, I've had the pleasure of having sat
through this entire hearing today--I'm not sure you have found
it very pleasurable--partly because I'm really interested in
these issues and partly because I'm so far down the food chain
that I had to wait until 3 o'clock this afternoon to ask my
questions. But it's nice to have Senator Shaheen to my left,
you know, and I'm very impressed by the range that you have
shown here on a wide variety of issues that have been thrown at
you.
I've had the pleasure of working with you and discussing
these issues over the past years, but I think you've done a
marvelous job today.
I guess the phrase of the week is ``smart power.'' You
know, I've been doing this a long time, in and out of
government. People come up with different phrases. I think the
most important thing that you have said is in your opening
statement, when you mentioned that the ``goal of this
administration is going to be more partners and fewer
adversaries and to do so in a realistic way that still protects
the interests of the United States,'' and I think that is a
major demarcation for our government as we relate to the rest
of the world.
You and I have had many conversations over the years. This
is a time that the context of these conversations are going to
be shaped into what I believe will be achievable policies. I
would like to list very quickly for the record six or seven
areas where I believe that these conversations will need to
continue and in some cases there will probably be debates, but
I think that it's important to outline these.
The first is the nature of the residual force in Iraq or
even whether there should be a residual force in Iraq and how
that situation would assist us in increasing stability in the
region.
You mentioned the SOFA and the Strategic Framework
Agreement as national policy. As you know, I had a great deal
of heartburn over the way that those agreements were signed
here. They were approved by the Iraqi Parliament. We in the
Congress did not even have an opportunity to vote on whether
this was the way to proceed forward. I don't anticipate that
situation coming up again.
The second is the need for a clearly articulated strategy
with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we don't have a
strategy unless we can articulate the endpoint. I look forward
to working with you toward not only being able to define that
but also being able to define some sort of an achievable
endpoint to our presence in Afghanistan.
The third is a reexamination of the way that we have
proceeded with NATO expansion. I did a lot of work in NATO when
I was Assistant Secretary of Defense and, quite frankly, this
isn't the NATO that I was working with and I'm very concerned
about the transition from essentially alliances into a number
of protectorates in these newer countries and it's a situation
that makes our country, I believe, very vulnerable.
The fourth is a need for us to adjust our strategic
relationship with China. There have been a lot of comments made
today about China that were fairly benign, and it's my hope--in
fact, I was meeting with the Chinese Ambassador a couple days
ago.
It's my hope that both of our countries can understand how
vulnerable we are to each other right now after this economic
downturn, but there are serious points of contention in our
relationship that are going to have to be addressed over the
next 4 to 8 years.
The next is the need for us to reexamine the failure, quite
frankly, of the past administration to engage not only
potential adversaries but also hostile regimes with which we
have some disagreement.
You had, I think, a great exchange with the chairman with
respect to Iran and I certainly would identify myself with the
chairman's position on that, but also Burma, as you and I had
discussed earlier. I think we made some real mistakes in terms
of how we have approached the relationship with Burma and I
hope we can start some new ground there.
The next is an urgent need, in my view, for the United
States to focus on reconnecting in East Asia and Southeast
Asia, not simply with respect to the China and sometimes the
China-Japan relationship, but I would hope that you would lead
the charge in terms of a much-invigorated relationship with
ASEAN and some of these other countries.
The next is our need, and you addressed it, I think, in a
very clear way in your statement to show clear leadership in
the complex and difficult situations with respect to the
Israeli and the Palestinian conundrum. There's no other word
for it really at this point, but I think with the right kind of
leadership that we can mitigate a lot of the tensions in that
area and work toward a different situation.
And the final one is, and I want to actually spend what
little time I have here to get your thoughts on this because
it's been talked about in many different ways here, the need
for us to rebalance the tasks being performed by the Department
of Defense and the Department of State as they relate to our
involvement around the world.
I would like to emphasize here that the implications for
this are beyond the notion of turf wars. They're beyond this
discussion of simply who can do it better. They really go to
how our country is being perceived around the world. It's one
of the most graphic things that I have been seeing over the
past couple of years since I came to the Senate versus the time
when I was in the Pentagon years ago where even when I was
traveling as a journalist very heavily in Asia before 9/11 and
that is, that we are increasingly being seen as a military
guarantor and in many cases a desirable military guarantor in
these other countries, as opposed to being an economic partner
or a cultural partner or growing our interdependence with these
countries with respect to educational programs and reciprocal
trade and these sorts of things.
I think it's vitally important that the State Department
invigorate these policies, to put a civilian face on them, and
to push these cultural, economic and issues of interdependence,
and I would appreciate your thoughts on that.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Webb, as always, you are not
only eloquent but extremely useful in your quick summary of all
these issues because every one that you mentioned is one that I
think is going to be on our agenda.
With respect to this rebalancing of the tasks being
performed by State and Defense, you're absolutely right. I
mean, it is a much larger issue than just intergovernmental
relations and, you know, line items in a budget. It has to do
with how we see ourselves and therefore how others see us and
it is one of my hopes that during my time, if I am so fortunate
as to be confirmed, that I am Secretary of State, we will begin
to get that balance, you know, more in the direction of putting
a civilian face on our power and sending the message that, you
know, yes, we have this huge military that we spend nearly $600
billion on, but we are much more than that. We are, you know, a
country with all kinds of political, cultural, economic and
other assets that we can offer the rest of the world.
It is not going to be easy because you serve on the two
committees, having served with you on Armed Services, where, on
one committee you can get practically anything you want, and on
the other committee you can't keep up with the demands that are
being put on diplomacy and development. There are more members
in military bands than there are Foreign Service officers
serving overseas.
So, I mean, when you think about that, it puts it into
perspective. We have so underresourced our diplomacy and our
development and it kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You know, the less resourced we are when we're given a task,
the harder it is to perform. So the military understandably
says, well, come on, get out of the way, we'll take care of
this, but, you know, you guys come along, you know the
languages, you've got some expertise, be our advisers. So that
just further enhances the military face.
You know, with the new AFRICOM, which I support, we have to
be very careful that it doesn't appear that our only real
government engagement throughout Africa is our new military
presence.
So I could not agree more with you, Senator, and I look
forward to getting your advice which I know will be unvarnished
and candid and well-informed about how we're going to do this
because that's one of the biggest items on my agenda.
Senator Webb. Well, thank you. Our military does great
things, and I think you and I both feel strongly about that. We
just want to make sure that it does the right things, and when
I look at the NATO situation right now, the United States
increasingly is viewed as the military guarantor to these new
protectorates, essentially in historical terms, that we brought
into the fold while the older countries of NATO are
reestablishing their traditional historic relationships with
Central and Eastern Europe. And there's nothing wrong with
that, but it is troublesome when we are simply viewed as the
military side of it.
I just came back, as you know, from an extensive trip in
Southeast Asia. It's the same thing. If you're talking with the
people in Singapore, if you're talking with people in Thailand,
they're very happy that the United States is there as a
military balance as they invigorate their relationships
economically with countries like China, but it's not to our
advantage that this occur and the best way to have sort of a
catalyst to bring the United States back in a stronger way
culturally and economically is through the State Department.
So I wish you well and I'm at your disposal, and I think
you're going to be a great Secretary of State.
Thank you.
Senator Clinton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Webb.
Senator Lugar. We're going to start the second round now
for Senator Lugar, the first round for Senator Shaheen, and
since the crowd is not clamoring for the second round, we may
be able to make some good progress here.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Clinton, in my statement this morning, I said the
core of the problem that I perceive with regard to the Clinton
Foundation is that it ``may be perceived as a means to gain
favor with the Secretary of State,'' and I stated the
``Foundation exists as a temptation to any foreign entity or
government that believes it could curry favor through a
donation. It sets up potential perception problems.''
Now, the bottom line is that even well-intentioned foreign
donations carry risk for United States foreign policy. The only
certain way to eliminate this risk going forward is for the
Clinton Foundation to forswear new foreign contributions when
you become Secretary of State.
Now, my purpose in stating it this candidly is simply that
being Secretary of State and directing the foreign policy of
our country involving all the countries in the world is an
awesome responsibility which you perceive and have testified,
as we all do.
The Foundation is very important to you and to President
Clinton and to many recipients who have benefited from this,
but this was bound to be a dilemma from the moment that the
President-elect asked you to become Secretary of State. You
have been the First Lady. You are married to a former President
of the United States. You've established a foundation that has
already received gifts.
There have been press accounts, fairly or unfairly, of
people who have given gifts in other countries, and clearly the
best solution to this would be during your tenure as Secretary
of State for the Foundation, which still exists there and can
receive gifts from everywhere else in the world, not to receive
gifts from people abroad, even though that would deny it some
revenues and the benefits that would come from those revenues.
Now, having said that, I indicated that I support your
nomination and plan to vote for your nomination in the Senate
business meeting and any floor vote we have on this because
your qualifications are remarkable and that is why reluctantly
I dwell, however, on this problem that will still follow you.
Now, the staffs have dealt with your people as well as with
perhaps President Clinton, or at least officials of the
Foundation, to try to think through the situations. So I've
suggested as a backup to that four conditions that were in an
attachment that was with the press release that I issued along
with my statement this morning, and I indicated that the answer
you have given as a part of the responses to questions
satisfied item 4 of those qualifications.
But at the same time, why, there remain the first three and
essentially we've asked that you have the Clinton Foundation
include information in its annual report that we have--let me--
if I can find the release now for a second.
Specifically, all donations of $50,000 or more should be
disclosed immediately upon receipt rather than waiting up to 12
months to list the annual disclosure and; second, pledges from
foreign entities to donate more than $50,000 in the future
should be disclosed at the time the pledge is made and when the
donation eventually occurs and; third, gifts of $50,000 or more
from any foreign source, including individuals, should be
submitted to the State Department-designated agency for the
same ethics review that would be applied to donations from
foreign governments.
In essence, the most timely reporting of gifts of $50,000
or more so that at least this is not something that waits for
an annual review or in any way could be accused of being less
transparent. If there's to be a dispute, somebody makes a gift,
let's have an upfront argument about it presently as opposed to
lingering and then somebody coming at you and saying clearly
something was happening throughout the months, not disclosed,
and you would respond, well, the agreement is an annual report,
and so forth. That really is less satisfying than the first
idea, no gifts, but, second, the most rapid response on the
part of the Foundation whenever a gift comes in.
So if we're going to have an argument, it happens right
then, and, therefore, if it's not a good idea, that it's
stopped and a compromise for the State Department, for foreign
policy, for you, is prevented as rapidly as possible, within
days, rather than in months or in years.
So I ask you to comment on this because it appears to me
that the press coverage of this hearing will be favorable to
the remarkable responses you have made, very fluent testimony,
obviously well prepared and touching the bases to the questions
we had, but it's less likely to be satisfying with regard to
the Clinton Foundation, and this is why I ask you to at least
give some further comment, assurance, if not pledge, to be
sensitive to this and to try to respond to the thoughts that
I've expressed.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Lugar, I know that you come
at this issue in good faith, as I do, and I agree that these
are matters that have to be handled with the greatest of care
and transparency.
I think it's important to give just a little context, if I
can. You know, the purpose of the agreement was to avoid even
the appearance of a conflict because all of the independent
professionals who do this for our government said there was no
conflict. So it's a kind of catch-as-catch-can problem.
I mean, when it was all submitted to the Office of
Government Ethics, they said there was no inherent conflict. My
husband doesn't take a salary. He has no financial interests in
any of this. I don't take a salary. I have no financial
interests.
So out of that abundance of caution and a desire to avoid
even the appearance, the President-elect's Transition Team
began working with the Foundation to try to craft an agreement
that would avoid the appearance of a conflict but would also
ensure that the Foundation can continue its work.
You know, I'm very proud of the work that the Foundation
did and when you look at why it received, for example, foreign
government money, it's because early on there wasn't the
support from our government until, frankly, the leadership of
President Bush and Members of this Congress created PEPFAR and
there was also a tremendous financial burden on poor states to
try to afford the pharmaceuticals, the antiretrovirals.
So my husband's Foundation worked with generic drug
manufacturers to help improve their systems of manufacturing
and get the costs down so that it would be affordable. So the
governments of countries, like Canada, Norway, and Ireland, the
U.N., said, well, this is the best deal ever. So this is all
pass-through money. None of this goes to or stays in the
Foundation.
This is used for the purchasing contracts in order to buy
the drugs to keep, you know, many people alive and particularly
1.4 million people, including many children. So the work of the
Foundation, the confidence that it has created with donors who
know that it has an extremely low percentage that goes to any
overhead, it has a very transparent way that it uses the money,
were very persuasive to the Transition Team, that we had to
work out something to keep the Foundation in business while I
did what I needed to do to be as transparent as possible.
So the kinds of concerns that were put forth were very
carefully considered and, you know, I do believe that the
agreement provides the kind of transparency. Under the
Memorandum of Understanding, foreign government pledges will be
submitted to the State Department for review. I don't know who
will be giving money. That will not influence. It will not be
in the atmosphere.
When the disclosure occurs, obviously it will be after the
fact, so it would be hard to make an argument that it
influenced anybody because we didn't know about it. So I think
that in the way that the President-elect's Transition Team saw
it, the agreement that has been worked out is actually in the
best interests of avoiding the appearance of conflict.
Now, I hasten to say that my career in public service is
hardly free of conflict, Senator. So I have no illusions about
the fact that no matter what we do, there will be those who
will raise conflicts, but I can absolutely guarantee you that I
will keep a very close look on how this is being implemented. I
will certainly do everything in my power to make sure that the
good work of the Foundation continues without there being any
untoward effects on me and my service and be very conscious of
any questions that are raised, but I think that the way that
this has been hammered out is probably as close as we can get
to doing something that is so unprecedented, that there is no
formula for it and we've tried to do the very best we could.
Senator Lugar. Well, my time has concluded. Let me just say
that the situation is unprecedented in which a First Lady and
her distinguished husband and a foundation come together with a
State Department hearing of this sort.
I am hopeful that, as we go through the history of this,
that people will not say, well, Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry
and others were prescient. They saw the problems and we'll get
full credit but that will not be helpful to our foreign policy,
to you, to your husband, to the Foundation, and this is why I
plea for you, plea to give even more consideration. It need not
be a decision made today because I appreciate the negotiations
have been sizable and you are a good negotiator, so is your
husband, so are those who have worked for you. I admire that;
it is a good thing for a State Department official and
particularly the Secretary of State, but this seems to me to be
so important at the outset, that this is why I've dwelled upon
it, trying your patience and that of the committee, because I
think it is very important, and I think you understand that.
Senator Clinton. I do, and I respect you so much, Senator,
and I can, you know, certainly guarantee to you that I will
remain very sensitive to this and I will work with you and the
chairman as we go forward.
Senator Lugar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Let me take a moment to welcome Senator Shaheen. This is
her first official formal appearance with the committee. We
just ratified the assignments at lunch today and so we're
delighted to have you here. I'm personally delighted because
you're a great friend and a good neighbor and we're really
happy to have you as a member of this committee.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
very honored to be able to serve on this prestigious committee
with you and Senator Lugar and as I'm sure you know, I have
been a big fan of your public service to the country for a very
long time as well as your broad knowledge and expertise in this
area and just as this country faces unprecedented economic
challenges, we also face the most complicated foreign relations
and national security challenges since the end of the cold war
and I know that under your leadership and the leadership of
Senator Lugar, that this committee will address these vital
issues in a bipartisan way, and I'm delighted to be able to
serve with you as we do that.
Senator Clinton, congratulations on your terrific
nomination. Your testimony this morning, I thought, reinforced
the fact that you have a breadth of knowledge and experience to
be an outstanding Secretary of State and I commend President-
elect Obama for choosing you. The two of you working in a
partnership will truly have the opportunity to change the world
and I have no doubt that you will do that.
On a personal note, I have to say that I am disappointed
that I won't be able to serve with you in the Senate but look
forward to working with you as a member of this committee.
I have two questions, since you have covered many of the
issues that I would have asked. One is a broader question and
the other is a little more parochial relative to New Hampshire.
The first has to do with the international economy and I
know that you and Senator Dodd discussed this a little bit
earlier today, but over one-fifth of the manufacturing workers
in my State of New Hampshire depend on exports for their jobs.
I was interested to see recent reports that you would like
to see the State Department take a more active role on
questions of international economics and I thought that would
certainly be a change from the Bush administration which has
placed the international economic agenda primarily in the
Department of Treasury.
So I wondered if you could speak a little bit to the role
that you see for the State Department in addressing these
economic--international economic issues.
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator Shaheen, welcome to the
Senate and welcome to this committee. I think your joining this
body will be an incredible addition and I look forward to
working with you in this new capacity.
I, too, regret that we won't serve together as Senators but
I'm glad you're on this committee so that we can continue our
friendship.
I think that's a really timely question and it is one of
the concerns that I have explored since being asked to take
this position.
How do we get our economic international agenda better
integrated into the State Department? Obviously, Treasury has a
huge role to play but so does the State Department and we're
going to be responsible for the climate change negotiations.
Well, you know, that has economic, environmental and energy-
related implications.
The questions earlier from Senator Lugar about energy
security, huge economic implications, and then the meltdown of
the international economic regulatory system means that our
foreign policy is impacted in so many ways in so many parts of
the world.
So there is a lot that we have to pay attention to and we
have a National Security Council but we also have a National
Economic Council and it will be part of the Obama
administration's plans that the State Department will
participate in both, not just one, that we will be very much
involved in the crafting of international economic efforts. The
G20, which will be coming up in April, hosted by Prime Minister
Gordon Brown in London, we're going to be playing a role in
helping to design the agenda for that.
So on all of these issues, I think it is important to have
a broader approach than just, you know, one agency because our
economic standing affects everything we're doing. You know,
dealing with Russia on START, some of that will be influenced
by the economic situation that we're confronting, trying to
deal with the modernization of the military in China. We've got
to have a strategic relationship, as Senator Webb said, but we
also have to make sure that they continue buying our debt.
I mean, we have a lot of very complicated international
economic issues that directly impact our foreign policy. So
we're going to be working on those and I welcome any and all
advice that you might have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. The second question is related
somewhat and it deals with trade.
We have a company in New Hampshire, and forgive me for
being parochial, called Goss International that makes large
printing presses. They had Japan come in and dump imports into
the market. They went to court and sued under our trade laws
and got a judgment in U.S. District Court and Japan retaliated
by passing a recovery provision or claw back that allowed the
company that was doing the dumping to actually appropriate
Goss's investments in Japan and the State Department really has
done very little to address this issue despite the court
judgment on behalf of the American company.
So what role do you see the State Department playing as
companies like Goss are dealing with this violation of U.S.
trade laws?
Senator Clinton. Well, I don't know anything about that
specific case. We will look into that and educate ourselves
about it, but more generally, I think this has to be part of
our broader trade discussion.
The President-elect is in favor of free and fair trade. He
wants to figure out how trade becomes more of a win-win for our
manufacturers, our businesses, you know, our citizens and
that's going to be part of what we look at. What are the rules
that we want to enforce in our country, and what do we expect
through reciprocal relations with other countries?
So I'm well familiar with the general nature of the problem
because I faced much of this in New York over the last 8 years,
but we're going to try to be more creative and substantive in
addressing what we can do to create a more favorable positive
atmosphere, so that if there are violations they can
immediately be taken care of within the global trading
framework and you don't face retaliation and you don't have to
worry about unfair competition.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations, Senator Clinton. We've worked together on the
Super Fund Committee you chaired and I was the ranking
Republican and I always found you to be very prepared, very
thorough, very thoughtful, and I'm sure you're going to bring
all of those same things to the State Department.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Shaheen was apologizing for being
parochial. I'll be a little parochial because the people of
Wyoming, as I travel around, want to make sure that the foreign
aid we spend, especially in light of the U.S. economy today, is
being used so that people are really getting value for their
money and that we are safeguarding U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Could you talk a little bit about how to balance allocating
foreign aid and making sure that American taxpayers are getting
value for their money?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, I appreciate very much your
interest in these issues and I have enjoyed my relationship
with you since you arrived in the Senate and look forward to
working with you.
I want to be able to go to Wyoming or go to New York or
Massachusetts or Indiana or New Hampshire, anywhere in America,
and explain why the relatively small but important amount of
money we do spend on foreign aid is in the best interests of
the American people, that it promotes our national security and
advances our interests and reflects our values.
To be able to do that, I have to make sure the State
Department and I in particular tell the story about what we do
and why. I mean, you and other members of this committee often
travel and see the results of the work, but it's very difficult
to convey that to the rest of our country and I will look for
better ways through public diplomacy in telling our story
overseas and better ways here at home through my own efforts to
explain what we do to our fellow Americans.
But I think it also has to be part of an overall review of
how we conduct foreign aid, how we fund it, who's responsible
for it, which is why I decided to have the second deputy, Jack
Lew, that will be responsible for resources and management,
because I want somebody to be able to come up and talk with you
about very specific ideas we have about how to make foreign aid
more effective.
It's pretty divided and I think we have degraded the
capacity of USAID over the last years to be our premier aid
development organization and a lot of what's been drifting
toward the Defense Department, as Senator Webb said, is foreign
aid in a traditional way.
When a young Army captain gets cash to go build a school
that's foreign aid. That's not war-fighting. That's something
that we always thought of as development assistance. So we've
just got to do a better job of trying to explain and justify
and rationalize and make efficient what we do, so that, you
know, if I'm fortunate enough to come to Wyoming and I can go
to some townhall or forum with you, you know, in a year or two,
I'll be able to explain what we're doing, why we're doing it,
and why it makes a difference to the people who are there.
Senator Barrasso. Well, consider yourself invited.
Senator Clinton. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Another issue people in Wyoming will ask
about when you come visit is management reform at the United
Nations and the money that American taxpayers are spending
there. Do you have some thoughts on that?
Senator Clinton. Well, this is another priority of the
President-elect and I know you'll be speaking with the
Permanent Representative to the U.N.-designee in a day or two.
The U.N. must reform. It has to be more transparent, more
efficient, and we are going to press for those kinds of
changes. At the same time, the United States has to be a good
partner with the U.N. so that if we use the U.N., as we do, for
peacekeeping or other actions that we believe are in the best
interests of the United States as well as the United Nations,
we're going to have to bear our burden.
So this is really a two-track commitment. We've got to work
with our partners at the United Nations as well as the
permanent bureaucracy there to do everything we can to try to
streamline the operations, modernize the systems, make them
more transparent, and then we have to be sure we do our part so
we don't lose credibility as we push that reform agenda.
Senator Barrasso. Moving on to Iran, and I know you've
addressed it earlier. In your article, ``Security and
Opportunity for the Twenty-First Century'' you said, ``If Iran
is in fact willing to end its nuclear program, renounce
sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a
constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should
be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of
incentives.''
Do you have a clear path in your mind of how to get from
where we are today, where Iran appears to be continuing toward
the development of nuclear weapons, and continues to spew forth
hatred of Israel, to get to a point where these things would
apply?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, there's a policy review
that is being undertaken by the incoming administration. We are
still being briefed by the outgoing administration. We don't
yet have a full picture of all of the information that the
current administration has within its control. So we will be
working together across government lines through the National
Security team to devise a new approach.
The President-elect called for such a new approach just
over the weekend in some interviews that he did and we are very
open to, you know, looking to find a positive, effective way of
engaging Iran.
However, as I said to the chairman, a nuclear-armed Iran is
not acceptable to the United States. It is our job to persuade
other countries that it should not be acceptable to them
either, to consult with our friends and allies in the gulf who
have as much or more at stake than anyone and certainly with
Israel that views a nuclear-armed Iran as a grave threat, so
that as we move forward with any new approach or effort at
engagement we are bringing our friends and allies along with
us.
We're not surprising anybody because Iran, with its litany
of terrorist sponsorship and interference with other countries'
internal affairs and certainly the role that it's played
destructively from our view in Iraq and so much else, as you
know, is a concern not just to the United States and Israel.
It's a deep concern to many other nations and so we want as
broad a base as possible as we try to devise a way forward.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I would like to shift to
discussing policy with Cuba.
As you know right now, we have strict laws and regulations
limiting economic transactions with Cuba, with relatives of
folks who are here. Any thought on lifting restrictions on
family visits and remittances to Cuba?
Senator Clinton. Well, Senator, the President-elect is
committed to lifting the family travel restrictions and the
remittance restrictions. He believes, and I think it's a very
wise insight, that Cuban Americans are the best ambassadors for
democracy, freedom, and a free market economy, and as they are
able to travel back to see their families that further makes
the case as to the failures of the Castro regime, the
repression, the political denial of freedom, the political
prisoners, all of the very unfortunate actions that have been
taken to hold the Cuban people back.
You know, our policy is, first and foremost, about the
freedom of the Cuban people and the bringing of democracy to
the island of Cuba. We hope that the regime in Cuba, both Fidel
and Raul Castro, will see this new administration as an
opportunity to change some of their typical approaches, let
those political prisoners out, be willing to, you know, open up
the economy and lift some of the oppressive strictures on the
people of Cuba, and I think they would see that there would be
an opportunity that could be perhaps exploited, but that's in
the future whether or not they decide to make those changes.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciated some of the comments you
made earlier about the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. I know
you're working with Senator Lugar and others on the committee.
You spoke strongly about verification and ongoing monitoring
provisions to make sure that these policies continue.
I wonder about differentials in terms of the negotiated
outcome regarding what the United States concedes and what
other countries give up in order for us to agree on signing
these treaties.
Could you talk a little bit about that and what standards
we will hold other countries to? Could you also address, How do
we make sure that one country's understanding of the terms and
conditions of a treaty is the same as our understanding?
Senator Clinton. Well, I think that's a very good point.
You know, the history of arms control with first the Soviet
Union and then Russia, I think it's fair to say and, of course,
Senator Lugar is the expert on this, has been a history of
success, by and large. Even in the midst of the cold war, there
were negotiations that led to arms control agreements and
certainly it is our hope that the United States can once again
be a leader using the number of warheads and the threat of or
making sure that we have no remnants of cold war command and
control issues and the like.
We are very serious about negotiating and are willing to go
lower, so long as the Russians are as well, and that the
deterrent that we have we always believe is adequate. We won't
really know, Senator, until we get into these negotiations, but
they're going to be on a fast track because the START
Agreement, as you know, expires at the end of this year. So
we've got to get serious and get involved and we will have a
negotiator named so that we can start almost immediately.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Clinton. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
I'll take a round now and then I see Senator Feingold is
here. I don't know if there are any other folks who are going
to look for a second round. If there aren't, then maybe I'll
let Senator Feingold go and then we'll just stay focused and
wrap up on a series of questions.
Senator Feingold. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for your patience, Senator Clinton. Just a couple other
topics.
You and I discussed Somalia and I've been long concerned
about the deepening crisis there, particularly its implications
for our national security.
Just this last month, several senior officials, including
CIA Director Hayden and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen said that
al-Qaeda is extending its reach in Somalia and engaging
extremists there to revitalize its operations.
As I told you, I met with many leading figures in Somalia
during a recent December trip to Djibouti. Those meetings
reinforced my belief that, while Somalis are a moderate people,
the situation is now far worse than it was 2 years ago and the
current administration's approach to Somalia is at least partly
to blame.
What's your view on what's gone wrong with that and how we
can fix it? Give me a little sense of what you think some of
the key components are, understanding you haven't had a chance
to get into all of this at this point.
Senator Clinton. Senator, as you and I discussed, Somalia
is strategically located. I think it was you who asked me if I
knew how far Yemen was from Somalia. If it wasn't you, it was
some smart person who asked me that.
Senator Feingold. I didn't know. I had asked my staff and I
was quite surprised to learn it was 20 miles.
Senator Clinton. Twenty miles, and so the idea that Somalia
is just a failed state somewhere over there where people are
fighting with one another over heaven knows what is a construct
that we adopt at our peril.
I don't know the most effective way forward. I have no
wisdom on this, Senator. I know you met in Djibouti over a
period of a couple of days with a number of the actors. As you
know, the Ethiopian troops are leaving. The African Union
commitment is questionable as to whether they will or will not
stay and what their mission description would be.
The internal conflict within the groups in Somalia is just
as intense as it's ever been, only now we have the added
ingredient of al-Qaeda and terrorists who are looking to take
advantage of the chaos and the failure of Somalia. There's a
lot of history here and I think we have to be very thoughtful
as we look at Somalia.
This is obviously an issue that will have to be worked
across the national security apparatus and I would welcome your
advice. You probably have as much firsthand knowledge of the
players and what they intend and who they are and what they're
really looking for as anyone, you know, in this body and so
we're going to seek your advice and counsel.
I mean, as the chairman well remembers, at the beginning of
the last Democratic administration there was a humanitarian
mission in Somalia that was handed off and the beginning of
this Democratic administration here we are once again with the
remnants of a humanitarian mission and certainly the
humanitarian crisis growing that is going to put this problem
in the lap of the new President.
Senator Feingold. Exactly.
Senator Clinton. So I think that this is going to require
an enormous amount of thought.
Now, complicating it, as you well know, is the piracy
issue.
Senator Feingold. Right.
Senator Clinton. There's been a number of consultations
about piracy. The current thinking is that pirates will be
intercepted and defended against as a kind of joint
responsibility between the private shippers who have to do
more, frankly, for their own--the security of their own
vessels, but also various navies that are, you know, coming
together, including China and India, who are willing to patrol
the waters.
There's also some talk about going ashore, this is a
problem Thomas Jefferson dealt with, along the Barbary Coast,
you know, just kind of going to prove that the more things
change the more they stay the same. There's some who advocate
going ashore on Somalia.
We have to give a lot of thought to this and there's an
enormous number of bad options that have to be sorted through.
So I am not at all able to give you the new administration's
policy because we're sorting it out ourselves.
Senator Feingold. I can tell you're eager and very ready to
take this on.
Senator Clinton. Yes, indeed.
Senator Feingold. I look forward to working with you. Let
me switch to something completely different.
There's widespread recognition of the need to build a more
robust and effective Diplomatic Development Corps and as a part
of that effort, of course, it makes sense to consider ways to
address challenges faced by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgendered employees, particularly relating to domestic
partner benefits and State Department policies that make it
difficult for the partners of Foreign Service officers to
travel and live in overseas posts.
What would you do as Secretary of State to address these
concerns? Will you support changes to existing personnel
policies in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and USAID
receive equal benefits and support?
Senator Clinton. Senator, this issue was brought to my
attention during the transition. I've asked to have more
briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look
at the existing policy.
As I understand it, but don't hold me to it because I don't
have the full briefing material, but my understanding is other
nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit and we
will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going
forward.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thanks, Senator.
Well, we're sort of getting to that point now where I think
we can address some loose ends and maybe even, you know, sort
of have some fun and dig into things a little bit here in ways
that we can't otherwise, but we promise not to prolong it and
we'll try and remain focused on those things that are really
salient here.
Let me begin with Afghanistan, if I may. I am deeply
concerned that at least thus far, our policy in Afghanistan has
kind of been on automatic and I made a promise to myself a long
time ago that I would not see all of our conflicts, ground
operations in the context of Vietnam. I really try hard. I have
an automatic check that says not everything is that.
But I have to tell you in the several visits I have now
made, escape it as I might, the parallels just really keep
leaping out in so many different ways. We are struggling to
fight with and for people of a different culture, different
language, different custom, different history, different
religion, if any, and all of those similarities exist.
We don't live there. We don't live in the community, in a
hamlet, in a small town--pocket--whatever you want to call it,
and so we're not there often at night, they are, and the night
often rules with insurgencies.
The complications are profound in both Pakistan and
Afghanistan and I went to both and to India immediately after
Mumbai and was really struck by the extraordinary distance we
have to travel in both places, Senator. That is the center of
the war on--I've got to check myself. I hope this
administration and all of us will begin to think differently in
this terminology of war on terror and think in terms of the
global counterinsurgency and the difference between
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism and the challenges that
we face in addressing both and understanding them both.
One person made a very interesting comment to me while I
was over there and said, ``You know, Pakistan is a government
without a country and Afghanistan is a country without a
government,'' and if you stop and think about sort of the real
application and no insult meant to anybody, President Karzai is
a friend, we've all met with him, we want his success, but
there are inherent contradictions in the structure that we have
been trying to impose in Afghanistan and more and more as I
travel that part of the world, I served most recently as chair
of the Subcommittee on Mideast, Southeast Asia, so I was
frequently there, it kept leaping out at me in ways that over a
number of years here I really, frankly, hadn't given enough
consideration to, but recently reading a wonderful book which I
commend to you by Rory Stewart, ``The Places In Between,'' and
another book, ``The Forever War,'' and there are a whole host
of them that really give you the flavor of this, if you really
wanted--I mean, Gertrude Bell, ``The Desert Queen'' is a
fascinating study of sort of the region and of tribalism and
that's really what I want to point to.
We have not--I think we honored tribalism when we dealt
with the Northern Alliance and initially went in to
Afghanistan. We really haven't adequately since and it strikes
me that if we just put troops, plunk them down, another 20-
30,000 in Afghanistan, without a very limited view of what they
can achieve and need to do, and the comprehensive view of other
things we need to do to build the successful structures of
governance, the police, the judiciary, which may be a pipe
dream, the construction programs, the ability of Hamid Karzai's
government, as well-intentioned as he may be and as much as we
like him, the ability to even get out of Kabul and be able to
do anything in the countryside, I think, Madam Secretary-
designate, we're on the wrong track and I think, unless we
rethink this very, very carefully, we could raise the stakes,
invest America's reputation in a greater way as well as our
Treasury and wind up pursuing the policy that is, frankly,
unpursuable, unachievable.
So I'd like to sort of elicit your thoughts on this. I was
in Peshawar a few weeks ago. I learned that, and some in
Pakistan would disagree with this and I'll probably hear from
some of my friends there, but many people believe that it would
not be hard for the Taliban to move in there if that's the
decision they decided to make.
It was so dangerous that we were not able to move into
downtown and other areas and we just saw last week 600 Taliban
cross the border from Afghanistan and came in and directly
attacked a frontier core military outpost.
I think anybody who has really traveled on the ground,
listened in the right ways and not just accepted the sort of
briefing culture will suggest to you, respectfully, Madam
Secretary, this really has to be rethought very, very
carefully.
Our original goal was to go in there and take on al-Qaeda.
It was to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It was not to adopt
the 51 States of the United States. It was not to try to impose
a form of government, no matter how much we believe in it and
support it, but that is the mission, at least as it is being
defined today.
So I'd like to ask for your thoughts on this as you engage
in what will obviously be a very hasty and important critical
review and some judgments that we need to make about our
policy.
Senator Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that your
cautions are extremely well taken.
There is, as you know, a review going on right now under
the direction of General Petraeus through CENTCOM. As I
understand it, he has approximately 300 people, some of them
detailees from the State Department, who are criss-crossing
Afghanistan trying to determine, as I understand it, what is
and isn't feasible.
We are in close communication with General Petraeus. We
intend to, when it's appropriate, on January 20, to begin our
own immediate review because I share your concern, as I know
the President-elect does. You know, his approach toward
Afghanistan, which has been more for more, you know, more
troops would go in but there would have to be more from NATO
and there'd have to be more from Afghanistan, you know,
presupposes that we have a set of discreet goals that we are
trying to achieve and that is in the process of being assessed
and analyzed right now.
As you're aware, President Bush had inside the White House
General Lute who was largely responsible for coordinating
policy with respect to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
So the Bush administration has put a lot of assets to work
on trying to determine what is the best way forward with
Afghanistan and how do we effect the future of Pakistan, the
decisions that they make, but I think that asking the hard
questions and raising the red flags is exactly what this
committee I know will do and should do.
Sitting here today, when I think about my trips to
Afghanistan, my flying over that terrain, my awareness of the
history going back to Alexander The Great and certainly the
Imperial British Military and Rudyard Kipling's memorable poems
about Afghanistan, the Soviet Union which put in more troops
than we're thinking about putting in, I mean, it calls for a
large dose of humility about what it is we are trying to
accomplish.
Having said that, I think that we will keep you informed as
we move forward and on the civilian side, I hope that we will
have the opportunity for more indepth conversations. I mean,
I've been both on both sides now of the table here and there is
so much to discuss and there's so much expertise on this
committee, people who have traveled widely, thought deeply,
know a lot of the players, and I hope that, you know, if I'm
confirmed, that I'll be able to have you and others literally
sitting down and talking with the people that we're going to be
tasking to come up with the civilian side of this strategy so
that we go in with our eyes open, whatever it is we're trying
to achieve.
The Chairman. Well, I really appreciate that. I don't
expect you to be able to lay out that strategy now.
I would say that I think it's important perhaps for the
administration, the incoming administration, to not just have
the review process that's been put in place be the only
standard for a baseline, and I think we need to make certain
that there's a subsequent expectation with regard to that. I
think it would be a mistake to just do that. I think you'd
probably agree with that.
Second, with respect to the current military operations, I
spent a lot of time in a couple of briefings that we're not
allowed to discuss in public here, but trying to really get at
this question of the targeting with respect to the Pakistan,
the Fatah, and our efforts to take out terrorists in that area.
There has been a considerable blow-back and, I think,
counterproductivity in the collateral damage that has been
occurring there and I hope that you would also agree to really
dig into that and take a look at whether or not all of that
targeting is in fact as purported to be and as important as
suggested because I think we're creating some terrorists and
losing some ground in the effort to win hearts and minds, as
they say.
Senator Clinton. Yes, sir. We will.
The Chairman. On the situation with Pakistan, they not only
face the challenge of the insurgency in the country, they have
a dire economic crisis, also, and in many ways the economic
crisis may be just as challenging.
After I went over with Senator Biden and Senator Hagel last
year, we came back and proposed a tripling of the aid to $1.5
billion a year over the course of a number of years, and I
wonder, can you say today that the administration remains
absolutely committed to that because we want to try to move
that as rapidly as we can?
Senator Clinton. Yes, the President-elect does support the
legislation that you were part of and Vice President-elect
Biden and I think Senator Lugar was, as well.
The Chairman. Correct.
Senator Clinton. And we want to try to begin to some extent
to separate our military aid from our non-military aid.
The tripling of the nonmilitary aid is intended to provide
resources that will both support the Pakistani people but also
give some tools to the democratically elected government to try
to start producing results for the people of Pakistan.
The military aid. We want to, you know, really look hard at
seeing whether we can condition some of that on the commitment
for the counterinsurgency/counterterrorism missions. So we
certainly are inclined to support, when appropriate, the
legislation that you are referring to.
The Chairman. And this is going to take a very significant
hands-on effort, as I think you know. We've been obviously
reading about, hearing about the potential of special envoys, a
series of them.
Do you want to address that at all today?
Senator Clinton. Well, no final decisions have been made.
That is a tool that I think you'll see more use of. I believe
that special envoys, particularly vis-a-vis military commands,
have a lot to recommend in order to make sure that we've got
the civilian presence well represented and in other areas that
are hot spots that will demand so much time that we need to put
someone well experienced and expert to work on it.
So we are working through that and again this is an area
that we will be coming back to you with.
The Chairman. You know, I just noticed Senator Vitter is
back. I don't want to--I've gone over my time a little bit
because we were sort of in a wrap-up. Did you----
[No response.]
The Chairman. OK. Fine. I was stunned in India, Pakistan,
and Afghanistan to learn that our principal diplomats in that
region do not get together to compare notes.
I was also shocked to learn that our Intel folks likewise
don't do the same. That is just to me absolutely mind-boggling.
Senator Clinton. Right, right. Well, Mr. Chairman, these
are among the challenges that we intend to take on. Trying to
create more of a regional perspective and a functional
approach, instead of being caught in the boxes that people
unfortunately too often feel imprisoned by, so that there are
certain lines preventing you from actually communicating with
your fellow American diplomat across that line or Intel or
whatever.
You know, I don't have the experience that you have over
the years on this committee and even before, but in my travels,
I did see the results of that kind of compartmentalization and
we're going to try to break that down. We're going to try to
use the bureaus more effectively.
The Chairman. Wonderful.
Senator Clinton. So that they can be encouraging that. I've
been--you know, George Marshall, who made it clear he didn't
ever want a memo longer than two pages, and others who have
advised me to begin to break down the kind of paper culture
that exists and try to get people more focused on action items
and one of those is more communication back and forth among
those who are American representatives in regions of interest
and concern to us.
The Chairman. Well, I'm delighted to hear you say that and
I think that's exactly--doing it through the bureaus is
precisely an easy way to do it and that way you'll know
ultimately what is happening, I think.
Senator Isakson raised a question about the Hamas political
strategy and compared it to Africa and I just--I want to flag
something for you because the history of the last years in the
Middle East and what's going on in Gaza today and the divisions
between Hamas and Fatah, the division in the West Bank, in my
judgment, reflects again a stunning consequence of a lack of
engagement and a lack of thinking about sort of common sense of
how things work.
I had the privilege of being in the West Bank the day, the
morning after President Abbas was elected in 2005 and I met
with him in Ramallah in that old headquarters and we spent some
time together and he looked at me and he said, ``You know,
Senator, I know exactly what you expect of me. I have to disarm
Hamas. Now you tell me how I'm supposed to do that. I have no
radios. I have no cars. I have no police and Hamas has the
ability to walk up to a door and deliver $20,000 value to
somebody who's blown up the widows or orphans of a family of a
suicide bomber.'' They delivered the services and we for years
have talked about the creation of a legitimate partner for
peace and yet we've done almost nothing to fundamentally help
them deliver that capacity.
So my hope is--I mean, I don't--I fear--I mean, Israel has
all the right in the world and we are totally supportive of the
patience they've shown, the forbearance over 10,500 rockets,
the fact that Hamas broke the cease-fire. We understand the
need to deal with Hamas, but we also have to recognize the
threat here that Hamas may in fact wind up being more powerful
than Fatah as a consequence, and the question is, Has this
further set back the ability to create that legitimate partner
for peace?
Would you comment perhaps on--you did a little bit in your
opening, but I think it would be worthwhile getting a better
sense of how you see the play there and the endgame, if you
will, with respect to Hamas.
Senator Clinton. Well, you know, we are at a point where
the current administration is working very hard behind the
scenes and in front of the scenes and we don't want to say or
do anything that might interrupt or undermine what they are
doing.
I think your point, though, is incredibly important and
that's why earlier I mentioned the work that General Jones had
done in which he was part of a bottoms-up approach, working
with Abbas, Fayed, and others in the West Bank, and there were
results. That's what's so tragic, is that more effort earlier,
more sustained, more targeted. It got to the point where the
Israeli Defense Force was willing to turn over security to
members of the Palestinian Force that had been under the
training of this team that General Jones put together.
The Chairman. General Dayton.
Senator Clinton. Yes, General Dayton was on the ground.
There's so much more we have to do and obviously we do support
Israel's right to defend itself and we do understand and
appreciate what it must be like to be subjected to rocket
attacks and Hamas did break the cease-fire and they have no
intention, at least so far as we can tell, of entering into
another cease-fire at this moment and the rockets are still
being launched.
So I think that working toward a durable cease-fire is
going to be an initial challenge, if it's not achieved by the
time that the President-elect takes office, but that's not the
answer. The answer is how do we begin to rebuild some sense of
cooperation and, dare I say, even trust and confidence-building
measures so we can get back to this work of the slow but steady
building of the capacity of the Palestinian Authority?
So I know that General Jones is very committed to that. I
share that commitment and we intend to look into that as soon
as we are able.
The Chairman. Well, I know that's going to be a high
priority. I know you've already been meeting on it and I don't
think we need to belabor it here now, but we wish you well with
that and obviously want to try to be as helpful as we can.
Just two quick last issues. Again, are there any other
questions?
[No response.]
The Chairman. No. Senator, one thing I do want to ask, if I
may, and I don't want to belabor it, but it's coming at us
enormously and that is the question of what we're really going
to be able to do here with respect to global climate change.
I was in the Pasdan meeting and I met with all of the
delegations that I met with in Kyoto and Rio in various years
and it is stunning to see the transformation in those meetings,
particularly with the Chinese and with the Low Islands, the
small islands representatives and with the Indonesians and
others, with Brazilians with respect to forests and so forth.
They are scared. They are serious, and what struck me is
the degree to which everybody is waiting for us to take the
lead. Now, I say that in one particular context. Recently, a
group of our top scientists have run computer models and it
shows that we are well ahead in terms of the effects of global
climate change of all of the IPC studies today.
Every single study shows that today our rate of increase of
emissions is way beyond what is supportable. In the last 10
years, we are increasing emissions, not decreasing them, four
times as fast as we were in the 1990s. More chilling is the
computer modeling they did against the current plans of every
single country that is planning to do anything and it's not
that big a group.
The European Community has a 2020 date of reductions. The
Chinese have a reduction of intensity, not a specific reduction
of emissions. The other countries individually have either set
a loose 2020 goal. Some, like us, have set a 2050 goal, but 80
percent reduction under the Obama plan but not yet implemented,
not yet real.
They took all of these current projections and ran the
computer models against what is currently happening in the
science and in every single case it showed that we are not just
marginally above a catastrophic tipping-point level, we are
hugely, significantly above it.
Scientists have now revised the levels of supportable
greenhouse gas emissions from 550 parts per million to 450 to
now 350. This had emissions at over 600. This had a temperature
increase of in the range of 3 to 5-6 degrees if we do business
as usual over the next few years.
The results, and I'm not going to go through them all now,
but the results are on every single level of sea ice, species,
forest migration, drought, storms, disease, refugees, I mean
you start adding it up, the consequences in terms of national
security, human condition on this planet, are simply
catastrophic. They're devastating.
So our challenge is going to be even greater than it was 5
months ago, Senator, or 2 months ago. The perception that we
can kind of creep at this and perhaps do something this year,
notwithstanding our economy, is foolhardy and so I hope, I just
flag it for you, I know that the President-elect has said he's
going to focus on it, but I'm not sure that everybody in the
coming administration is completely aware of what a big lift
this is going to be and how imperative it is that we make
Copenhagen a success and I simply want to ask your undivided
focus and leadership on this issue because it is that critical.
Senator Clinton. Well, Mr. Chairman, you will have it
because I share your deep concern. You are eloquent in
describing it and you've been a leader in trying to sound the
alarm on it for many years.
As I said, we will have a climate change envoy negotiator
because we want to elevate it and we want to have one person
who will lead our international efforts, but I agree completely
that our credibility leading internationally will depend in
large measure on what we're able to accomplish here at home,
and as we heard the President-elect earlier at lunch, he will
be putting forth a stimulus package that will have some energy,
renewable energy provisions. So I think that's a good start and
we have a lot of work to do.
The Chairman. Senator Menendez, did you have any additional
questions? You did.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was listening to some of the previous questions and I
just want to make sure, since I made a statement earlier today,
that I'm right, and if I'm not, I'm happy to be corrected for
the record.
It is my understanding that participants and contributors
to the Clinton Global Initiative have been publicly disclosed
since its inception and that that will continue to be
disclosed. Is that a factual statement or am I wrong?
Senator Clinton. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Menendez. And those contributors have been listed
at all times, from press releases to event materials to a whole
host of other ways in which the public has clearly been
informed, is that correct?
Senator Clinton. That is correct.
Senator Menendez. Now, it's my understanding, too, when I
looked at this, which is why I didn't dwell upon it in my first
round of questioning, that the determination has been made that
there is no conflict of interest, but notwithstanding that,
that you and President Clinton have been willing to go above
and beyond in voluntary actions, as relates to both law and
ethics, to make sure that there is no question. Is that a
statement of fact?
Senator Clinton. That is also correct.
Senator Menendez. Well, Mr. Chairman, what I would hate to
see is some who would put in doubt what I think it is an
incredibly important opportunity here and that is to have two
extraordinary public servants be able to meet the challenges
our country has in this world.
The Clinton Initiative has made a difference for people,
millions of people in this world--1.4 million people, Mr.
Chairman, now are living a safer life and living lives longer
and having their lives saved as a result of the HIV/AIDS
efforts that that Initiative created.
The cost of medicine to treat children with HIV/AIDS has
dropped by 89 percent over the last 2 years. Forty of the
world's largest cities are working with the Clinton Initiative
to eliminate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something
that the chairman is such a powerful advocate of. Nearly 3,000
schools are promoting healthier educational environments.
I would hate for what Nelson Mandela has said is a ``global
movement where every word spoken, where every partnership
discovered, where every promise made can have a direct impact
on the lives of millions of people across our planet for
generations to come,'' something President-elect, Barack Obama,
has said is that ``these initiatives help create a model for
individual responsibility and collective action to the Clinton
Global Initiative, bringing people together to take on tough
global challenges.'' In 4 years, you have made concrete
commitments that have affected over 200 million people in 150
countries.
I would hate for that incredible record and opportunity not
just of what was done in the past moving forward to be
blemished by some simply for purposes that are far less
substantive and, in my view, a lot more political, but I think
it's incredibly important.
I know that there are legitimate questions and I think that
those questions have been very well answered, but I can't sit
in my office watching what is going on and feel with myself
knowing what this Initiative has done for millions of people in
this country on things that I critically care about and so many
members of this committee have and let it go at that.
So I appreciate your willingness to go above and beyond
what is both the law and the ethics. I am sure you will
continue to do so. I have expectations as one member of this
committee that you will do so and I certainly hope that
President Clinton's works, while obviously conditioned by the
agreements that you have all set out, can still be able to move
forward in a way that those people will be able throughout the
world to know that America is great because it is good and one
of its goodnesses is in fact what we do through initiatives of
President Clinton, like President Carter, and others, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez.
Let me just say, I wasn't planning to comment on it, but in
light of your comment, I'd just close out pointing out, Senator
Lugar and I and all of us who've looked at this could not have
more respect for CGI, the Clinton Global Initiative and what it
does, has accomplished, and I couldn't agree with you more with
respect to the distinction between that and the questions asked
it by the Senator from Wyoming.
That initiative, I think we adequately set forward here, is
not at issue because there will not be fundraising, there will
be no foreign donors, and it really doesn't properly fit under
the questions asked by Senator Lugar.
In fairness to Senator Lugar and to the thinking of the
committee, and I think Senator Clinton understands this full
well, and I'm confident from her answers that she's articulated
a sensitivity to this which is going to have to be judged by
the practice and we're going to have to go forward and see, but
there is a legitimate question and I think, Senator, you'd
agree that it's hard to distinguish between a donation
currently made and an acknowledged publicly and a donation to
be made in the future, a commitment made to but not
acknowledged publicly and so the effort here is not to cast any
aspersion on anybody or to suggest any lack of integrity or
anything like that.
It is simply to deal with the complicated legal concept of
an appearance of a conflict of interest. If you are traveling
to some country and you meet with the foreign leadership and a
week later or 2 weeks later or 3 weeks later the President
travels there and solicits a donation and they pledge to give
at some point in the future but nobody knows, is there an
appearance of a conflict? Could there be an appearance of a
conflict?
That is what I think Senator Lugar is trying to get at. He
has determined that it is simpler simply to adopt one of the
options that he's articulated. For reasons you obviously feel
are important and we understand it, you feel otherwise. You
have gone beyond the law. You have done things to set up a
process and really we're going to have to make the process work
and we're confident that you have put yourself on the line
today to make that happen. So that's really where we are.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, if I may just very briefly,
my concerns, since you couched them in the context of Senator
Lugar's questions, is not so much with Senator Lugar. I think
he did it, as he always does, in a very balanced way. My
concern is other questions that were raised by other members
here.
The Chairman. That's what I was referring to.
Senator Menendez. Oh, OK.
The Chairman. Oh, no, no, no. I'm referring to that, but
I'm simply, as Chair, I want to share in the perceptions, as I
have from the beginning, that those are things that we make
judgments about and we honor that and we respect that.
So let me say that I think this has been a very positive
and constructive hearing. I think you have acquitted yourself
with great distinction today. I think people are impressed by
the versatility and the breadth that you have shown, both in
the preparation as well as in your own knowledge.
We really do anticipate trying to move this as rapidly as
we can and much more importantly, Senator Clinton, we really--
you know, this is an unbelievably important moment for our
country, for the world, that's waiting for this leadership.
President-elect Obama, you, the administration, all of us
are staring at a magnificent opportunity to be able to make
America what we believe it can be and should be and to bring it
back in a sense in terms of these global efforts and we are
excited about the prospect of working with you to make that
happen.
So thank you for your time today and good luck to you. We
look forward to working with you in the days ahead.
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Senator Lugar.
The Chairman. Thank you. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Responses of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Additional Questions
Submitted for the Record
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator John Kerry
role of secretary of state
Question 1. The new administration will take over at a time of
extraordinary challenges and opportunities for the country. What do you
see as the most significant challenges facing the United States,
immediately and over the longer term? What do you view as the most
urgent international priorities for the new administration? What do you
see as the most significant opportunities? What role will the Secretary
of State play in formulating and advancing U.S. policy objectives? What
would you seek to accomplish during your first 100 days and your first
year as Secretary of State?
Answer. I appreciate these vitally important questions, and I have
given them a great deal of thought. I have worked to address them in
the testimony that I will submit to the committee under a separate
cover. If you believe that submission does not address these issues
sufficiently, I would be happy to follow up.
afghanistan
Question 2. What is your assessment of the security situation in
Afghanistan? Has the Taliban gained or lost ground over the past year?
Has our strategy to date been effective? How can we strengthen our
efforts?
Answer. The security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and
the Taliban is gaining ground. President-elect Obama has proposed a new
strategy for Afghanistan with several elements: First, end the war in
Iraq responsibly and send additional troops to help complete the
mission in Afghanistan. Second, provide a major increase in nonmilitary
aid to Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs a government more able to take
care of its people's needs--something the President-elect has
communicated directly to President Karzai. We should help--and we
should demand accountability. Third, take on the drug trade, which is
funding al-Qaeda and the Taliban, including the development of
alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. Afghanistan has turned into
a narcostate. Fourth, develop a coherent Pakistan policy. First, that
means conditioning U.S. military aid on their efforts to close down
training camps, evict foreign fighters, and prevent the Taliban from
using Pakistan as a sanctuary. Second, it means tripling nonmilitary
aid to Pakistan, with a focus on the border regions, and improving the
lives of the Pakistani people, so that over the long term we are
reducing the pull of the extremists.
Question 3. Last February, Defense Secretary Gates acknowledged
that some NATO members tend to group the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
together, and do not share our views on the necessity of European
participation in ISAF. How does the administration plan to make a case
for renewed and reinvigorated commitments to Afghanistan, including at
NATO's 60th anniversary summit scheduled for this April?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I believe that Afghanistan and
the Pakistani border are the central front in the war on terror and we
will make the case to our allies that we must not let Afghanistan
return to a safe haven for al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Obama
administration will seek greater contributions from our NATO allies in
Afghanistan. We will ask our NATO allies to eliminate national
restrictions on NATO forces. The NATO force is short-staffed and some
countries contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their
troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. The
Obama administration will work with European allies to end these
burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force.
Question 4. Should we be prepared to participate in negotiations
with reconcilable elements of the Taliban that are willing to renounce
al-Qaeda and join the political process?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe that it is worth
exploring whether we can create opportunities for progress in
Afghanistan as we did in Iraq--as does General Petraeus. In Iraq, we
engaged with tribal leaders and regional leaders, which helped lead to
the Sunni Awakening that changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. We
should certainly explore whether similar opportunities exist for
engagement and collaboration with tribal and regional leaders in
Afghanistan, including leaders who at one time or another may have been
affiliated with, or joined forces with, the Taliban. Afghanistan and
Iraq are very different countries, though. We cannot expect to simply
export the Awakening strategy used with the tribes of al-Anbar to
Afghanistan. Any effort to separate moderate Afghans from radical
elements will have to begin--and be deeply rooted in--the efforts of
Afghans themselves.
Question 5. How effective have U.S. development efforts been in
Afghanistan? Do we need to increase United States economic assistance?
To what extent are internationally funded projects helping or hindering
the ability of the Afghan Government to realize an expanded role in
Afghanistan's development?
Answer. In December 2001, the Bonn Agreement between Afghans and
donors established an interim government, and donors were identified as
lead nations to accomplish specific objectives. Subsequent conferences
in Tokyo in 2002 and Berlin in 2004 saw donors pledge $4.5 billion and
$8.2 billion, respectively. Due to uneven commitment among the donors,
the 2006 London Conference discarded the lead-nation approach and
adopted the Afghanistan Compact, a contract between the international
community and the Afghan Government to support a comprehensive approach
to development. Donors pledged a total of $10.4 billion.
Since fiscal year 2001, the international community has pledged
approximately $60 billion in assistance to Afghanistan. The U.S.
Government has provided approximately $32.7 billion, or 57 percent, of
the international total.
We need to improve our development efforts in Afghanistan. The
President-elect has proposed a policy of ``more for more''--more troops
and assistance from the U.S. as we seek more from NATO allies, and more
from an Afghan Government that needs to focus on improving the lives of
its people. We will request additional nonmilitary aid each year--above
and beyond what is given now. That money will be focused on initiatives
dealing with education, infrastructure, human services, and alternative
livelihoods for poppy farmers and will be accompanied by tougher
anticorruption measures. We will make sure investments are made--not
just in Kabul--but out in Afghanistan's provinces. We will tie aid to
better performance by the Afghan national government, including
anticorruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across
the country.
Question 6. Versions of the Afghan Freedom Support Act passed the
House in the 110th Congress, but did not pass the Senate. Do you
support its passage?
Answer. The President-elect and I support the goal of providing
additional assistance to Afghanistan and if the legislation is
reintroduced in the 111th Congress, we look forward to reviewing the
legislative language and consulting on it with Congress.
Question 7. What are your expectations for the scheduled
Presidential and provincial elections in Afghanistan in 2009? What can
the United States do to help ensure those elections are free and fair?
Answer. The incoming administration hopes that the upcoming
elections go forth smoothly. The U.S. can assist the Afghan military
and security forces in efforts to prevent violence or disrupt the
elections.
Question 8. How do you assess the effectiveness of President Hamid
Karzai's government? What more should the United States do to try to
curb the widespread corruption in the Afghan Government?
Answer. Despite achievements such as the expansion of educational
opportunities, increased access to health care and improved subnational
governance, government effectiveness remains low. The Afghan Government
is plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption. Efforts to
improve the effectiveness of the Government of Afghanistan,
particularly at the subnational level, are a key element of Afghan and
international efforts to stabilize the country. We need to ensure that
investments are made not just in Kabul but in all of Afghanistan's
provinces. We will tie aid to better performance by the Afghan national
government, including anticorruption initiatives and efforts to extend
the rule of law across the country. A new strategy in Afghanistan will
enable us to take the initiative back from the Taliban.
Question 9. The Afghan National Police (ANP) are still widely
acknowledged to be plagued by problems that hinder Afghanistan's
capacity to improve security and development. What is your
understanding of the current goal for the ANP's end-strength? Do you
believe that is sufficient? What needs to be done to improve their
effectiveness, and how can we strengthen efforts to train and equip
them?
Answer. The President-elect has said that we must focus more
attention and resources on training Afghan Security Forces, including
more incentives for Americans who carry out this mission.
The end-strength for the Afghan National Police is 82,000, and as
of December 2008, there were fewer than 76,000 personnel. While it may
be necessary eventually to raise the ceiling to provide wider law
enforcement coverage, the immediate goal remains to staff fully the
police to the level of 82,000 with vetted, qualified, trained, and
equipped personnel. Once that benchmark has been reached and the
quality of the police has improved, the Government of Afghanistan and
the international community will be better able to assess whether to
increase the ceiling.
The development and professionalism of the Afghan police have
lagged behind the army's. Many police operate in extremely dangerous
environments on the front line of the war against the Taliban,
conducting missions that are not traditional policing. The Afghan
National Police has suffered a casualty rate three times that of the
Afghan National Army. There is no single or easy answer on how to
improve police effectiveness. Certainly, greater success in the core
military effort will help create a more permissive environment and
increase their chances for continued successful development. The Afghan
National Police are key players in the counterinsurgency equation and
their development and effectiveness are critically important to
Afghanistan's future.
As for specific programs, the Focused District Development and In
District Reform have shown positive results. These already in-place
programs provide training and mentoring by international police
advisers and U.S. military personnel in the police units' home
districts. Given competing missions, however, we alone cannot meet the
needs of the police. We must find increased roles for the European
Police Mission to Afghanistan, which recently announced it would
increase its staff to 400, and our NATO allies, especially, to act as
police mentors.
These initiatives have improved Afghan National Police
effectiveness and professionalism and I am hopeful that we have a
dedicated partner in Minister of Interior Atmar.
Question 10. How do you assess U.S. and Afghan counternarcotics
efforts to date? What can be done to improve these efforts?
Answer. The United States, Afghanistan, and other allies have made
limited progress in reducing opium cultivation, but overall the
counternarcotics strategy cannot be called a success by any measure. In
2008, the CIA Crime and Narcotics Center estimated that Afghanistan
cultivated approximately 116,365 hectares of opium poppy, down from
140,600 hectares in 2007. This quantity is believed to be enough to
produce over 1,100 tons of heroin, far exceeding the world demand of
approximately 400 tons per year. The glut of narcotics has fueled
increasing addiction rates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, and it
serves to fund the insurgency in Afghanistan. The narcotics trade
thrives in the anarchic conditions created by insurgents and warlords.
In return for a portion of the profits, either paid in cash by drug lab
operators and smugglers or paid in opium by farmers, the warlords
provide protection for the labs, trucks, and drug markets. Exact
figures for the black market economy are difficult to obtain, but the
U.N. estimates that over $100 million will flow from the narcotics
trade to warlords, drug lords, and insurgents during 2008.
Question 11. It will be difficult for U.S.-led efforts to stabilize
Afghanistan to succeed without the full commitment and support of
Pakistan's Government and security services, but such a high level of
cooperation may not be attainable as long as Pakistan's relations with
India reflect a significant element of tension and mistrust. What new
steps could the United States take to forward regionwide efforts at
conflict resolution, and which countries would that involve? Would you
favor the appointment of a special U.S. envoy to South Asia?
Answer. As the President-elect and I have stated, Afghanistan and
the Pakistani border are the central front in the war on terror. We
cannot succeed in Afghanistan without a new and comprehensive strategy
to deal with al-Qaeda and Taliban militants across the border, and a
Pakistan policy that conditions assistance to the government while
increasing direct support for the Pakistani people. Addressing the
border means implementing a sensible policy toward Pakistan. First,
that means conditioning U.S. military aid on their efforts to close
down training camps, evict foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban
and al-Qaeda from using Pakistan as a sanctuary. Second, it means
tripling nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, with a focus on the border
regions, and improving the lives of the Pakistani people, so that over
the long term we are reducing the pull of the extremists. The
President-elect and I have consistently supported bilateral dialogue
between India and Pakistan that seeks to resolve their longstanding
differences.
The United States should encourage India and Pakistan to work
toward a peaceful settlement of their differences. No final decisions
have been made on special envoys for South Asia.
pakistan
Question 12. There has been considerable discussion in the United
States and other Western governments about the ability of Pakistan's
new civilian government to crack down on extremism. How would you
characterize the efforts of the Zardari government to crack down on
extremists? Do you believe that Pakistan's intelligence services have
severed ties with extremists in the aftermath of this November's
attacks in Mumbai? To what extent do you believe that Pakistan's
security concerns vis-a-vis India color their government's policies
toward militancy in the tribal areas near Afghanistan?
Answer. President Zardari needs the support of the military to
improve relations with neighboring Pakistan and India--to include
addressing historical military ties to extremist groups--and the
military has sought politicians' support in defending military
operations in the tribal areas.
Question 13. It is a delicate balancing act between voicing our
concerns about the Pakistan Government's counterterrorism strategy,
while recognizing the many other challenges it faces and working to
ensure this democratically elected government has every chance to
succeed. What is our strategy for balancing these interests? How do
ongoing Predator strikes in the tribal areas figure into this equation?
Are current U.S. policies aimed at improving security and development
in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas succeeding? How would
you strengthen our efforts to combat the grave terrorist threat from
the FATA?
Answer. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO to secure the border, take out
terrorist camps, and crack down on cross-border insurgents. We cannot
tolerate a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists who threaten the American
people. Pakistan and the international community must commit to a more
comprehensive approach along the border--one that involves robust
economic investment and development, good governance and government
accountability, and enhanced security and law enforcement capacity. If
Pakistan is willing to go after high-level terrorist targets like Osama
bin Laden, we must give Pakistan all of the support it needs. The
United States must also provide more assistance to benefit the
Pakistani people directly, so that our nations forge a deeper and more
sustainable partnership.
Question 14. In September, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan
Act of 2008 was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
by a unanimous vote. The bill calls for building a long-term
relationship with Pakistan, in part by tripling nonmilitary U.S.
assistance to $1.5 billion per year. It also would condition certain
further military assistance and arms transfers to Pakistan on annual
certifications by the Secretary of State related to Pakistan's
performance in combating terrorism and strengthening democratic
institutions. Do you favor such an approach to dealing with Pakistan?
What can be done to assist Pakistan in dealing with its present
economic crisis?
Answer. The President-elect, the Vice-President-elect and I
supported the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008 as
Senators. But this is not a blank check. We should condition some
military aid on ensuring that Pakistan is taking on the extremists.
Should the 111th Congress choose to reintroduce a new version of the
legislation, we look forward to working with this committee and the
Congress on legislation to help build a long-term relationship with
Pakistan that combats extremism and supports Pakistan's people and
democratically elected government.
Question 15. The congressionally appointed Commission on the
Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism
recently issued a report in which Pakistan was singled out as a
potential source of a terrorist attack on the United States involving
weapons of mass destruction. What is your assessment of the safety and
security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons materials and technologies? Do
you feel confident that the A.Q. Khan proliferation case is closed, as
Pakistani officials claim?
Answer. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen has
indicated, we ``don't see any indication right now that security of
those weapons is in jeopardy, but clearly we are very watchful as we
should be.'' Pakistan's security forces are professional and highly
motivated. They understand the importance of nuclear security and we
understand that they have taken significant steps to enhance it. But
given the political situation in Pakistan, this is clearly something
that we must closely monitor as is the commitment of Pakistan to
nonproliferation efforts. I have not yet been briefed on the A.Q. Khan
issue that you raise.
india
Question 16. Supporters of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement
with India saw the potential to leverage this deal into broader
cooperation with India. How might the United States make best use of
its strategic partnership with India to address global and regional
problems of shared concern, such as international terrorism, poverty,
and environmental degradation? Is United States-India counterterrorism
cooperation an urgent and potentially fruitful priority, as many
suggest?
Answer. India is our friend and our relations with it are
deepening. As the world's oldest democracy, we have much in common with
the world's largest democracy. While the civil nuclear agreement is
important to both countries, our relationship is and must be bigger
than one deal. If confirmed, as Secretary of State, I will work to
fulfill the commitment of the President-elect to establish a true
strategic partnership with India, increasing our military cooperation,
trade, and support for democracies around the world. As our
relationship deepens, the United States and India can work together to
address global and regional problems of shared concern including
counterterrorism, poverty, and environmental degradation.
Question 17. Advocates of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement
with India frequently argued that it would bring New Delhi into the
``mainstream'' of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.
Does the new administration intend to strengthen nonproliferation
cooperation with the Indian Government, including by encouraging India
to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Are there other
nonproliferation initiatives in South Asia that you might have in mind?
Answer. The U.S. and India should look ahead to working together to
meet global proliferation challenges. Although exempting India from
existing nonproliferation rules carries some risks, we can minimize
those risks by intensifying our cooperation on nonproliferation
efforts. The Obama administration will seek ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and encourage India to become a party as
well.
Question 18. To what extent do you perceive the disputed territory
of Jammu and Kashmir to be a central cause of regionwide insecurity?
Taking into account Indian sensitivities, would you favor a more active
U.S. Government role in helping find solutions to this issue?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I are very concerned about rising
tensions in Kashmir: The situation is dangerous for India, for
Pakistan, for the people of Kashmir, and the peace and stability of the
world. We must encourage all parties to work toward peaceful
settlement. The U.S. role in this administration is the same as in
previous ones: Facilitate settlement, but do not mediate. India and
Pakistan must work harder to establish greater economic and social
cooperation in Kashmir. Kashmiris themselves should be the linchpin.
Kashmir tensions must not divert Pakistan from focus on fighting
terrorism and rising insurgency along Afghan border.
iraq
Question 19. Most experts agree that while the level of violence in
Iraq has declined dramatically in the last 18-24 months, the political
situation remains far more tenuous. Please provide the committee with
information on the status of the following reconciliation issues:
Negotiations over Iraq's petrochemical laws, the implementation of the
amnesty and de-Baathification laws, U.N. efforts to resolve the status
of Kirkuk and other disputed territories, and the integration of the
Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi Security Forces.
Answer. The President-elect has made it clear that Iraq must do
more to reconcile its political differences. National hydrocarbons
legislation continues to languish for numerous reasons, one of which
remains the differences between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) over the development and management of oil and gas
resources. Prior to enactment of national oil laws, the United States
has discouraged companies from signing oil contracts with the KRG
without Iraqi central government approval.
The Amnesty Law provides for the release of detainees who did not
commit violent crimes. Review committees have granted approximately
20,000 detainees amnesty, but only 6,000-7,000 have been released. Iraq
has enacted, but not implemented, legislation on de-Baathification
reform. Disagreement between Sunni and Shia continues on whether this
legislation adequately addresses de-Baathification reform.
The United States supports the role the United Nations Assistance
Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) is playing in the process to resolve Disputed
Internal Boundaries, including Kirkuk. UNAMI is expected to release its
proposals in February.
The Sons of Iraq (SOI) program remains an important element of
security efforts in Iraq. Successfully transitioning the SOI into the
Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and other employment remains critically
important to sustaining recent security gains. In late summer 2008, the
GOI agreed to transition 20 percent of the approximately 95,000 active
SOI into the ISF and to facilitate alternative employment for the
remainder. Prior to this, approximately 20,000 SOI had already
transitioned into the ISF, other ministries, or other nonsecurity
education, training, and jobs programs. Of the 95,000, the GOI has
transitioned over 3,000 into the Iraqi police and over 1,600 into
private employment.
Question 20. As the United States changes our mission in Iraq to
bring our troops home in meaningful numbers and allow for the
redeployment of additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, renewed
diplomatic efforts will be crucial to ensuring this transition occurs
with the least disruption to stability in Iraq as possible. What
diplomatic initiatives are you considering to help ensure a peaceful
transition? Do you support the creation of a Standing Conference that
includes all of Iraq's neighbors?
Answer. The Obama administration will pursue a diplomatic
initiative with all of Iraq's neighbors--including Iran and Syria--and
the U.N. to secure Iraq's borders, isolate al-Qaeda, address Iraqi
refugee flows, and support national reconciliation within Iraq. It is
in the interest of Iraq's neighbors and the international community to
have a stable Iraq that does not become a battleground for sectarian
tensions and animosities. And we will communicate that. More broadly,
we have a range of diplomatic tools at our disposal that we can deploy
to persuade and press Iraq's neighbors to play a constructive role. We
have let these tools languish in recent years, but they have served us
well in advancing our interests in other difficult conflicts. They can
serve us well in Iraq.
Question 21. Since 2003, it is well known that American efforts in
Iraq have been hampered by coordination gaps between civilian and
military efforts, though these gaps have been significantly reduced
under the leadership of Secretary Bob Gates, Ambassador Ryan Crocker,
and Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. Please describe the steps
you and Secretary Gates will take to ensure that the efforts of the
State and Defense Departments will be as closely integrated as
possible.
Answer. The President-elect has repeatedly asserted that we must
more effectively integrate our military and civilian tools of national
power in order to have a successful and sustainable national security
strategy. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I am committed to
coordinating efforts closely with the Department of Defense in Iraq and
elsewhere and to instill that culture of cooperation in the Department.
Secretary Gates and I worked well together during my service on the
Senate Armed Services Committee and I am confident that we can work
together to ensure that we continue to close coordination gaps between
the Department of State and the Department of Defense. In order to
facilitate that coordination, we must strengthen our civilian capacity
to operate alongside our military.
Question 22. Article 24 of the recently approved United States-
Iraqi Status of Force Agreement (SOFA) stipulates that all U.S. combat
forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by June 30, 2009, and
that all U.S. forces shall withdraw from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
There are about 30 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and Embedded
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (ePRTs) in Iraq. How will the removal
of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi towns and cities later this year
affect the location and functionality of these PRTs and ePRTs, as well
as the ability of the U.S. military to provide for their security? How
viable is the PRT model after December 2011, or even June 30, 2009? By
what other means can our diplomats engage in provincial and regional
issues in Iraq?
Answer. The civilians who are serving in Iraq are making great
sacrifices for the country and often serve in harm's way. The
President-elect and I are very mindful of the challenges that will come
with a drawdown of U.S. troops, and the President-elect has
consistently said that protection for our civilians in Iraq will
continue to be a mission for a residual force after a drawdown of our
combat brigades. But there are no easy solutions to the security issues
you are describing. Right now, much of the rebuilding is taking place
under a security umbrella provided by the brave young men and women of
our Armed Forces. Their departure from critical areas in Iraq will
certainly change the security calculus. How we deal with this
challenge--both generally and specifically with respect to PRTs--has
been and will continue to be the subject of discussions among the
national security team and with the President-elect.
The incoming administration will proceed with the following overall
strategy and core principles, which we will bring to this set of
security challenges. First, as we all know, Iraq is a sovereign
country, and the steps we take on security matters moving forward will
have to be taken in consultation with the Iraqis. We will certainly do
our best to press the Iraqi Government to combat sectarianism in their
security forces--and we will tie future training and equipping
resources to progress on this front. Improved Iraqi security forces
cannot fully replace U.S. forces in protecting reconstruction
personnel, but they can certainly help, if the Iraqis step up. And our
residual force will play a continued force protection role. Second, we
will take additional steps to help the Iraqi Government consolidate the
security gains that have been made in the past 2 years--gains that have
facilitated more intensive and effective rebuilding and aid efforts.
That will include an intensive diplomatic and political strategy,
including an effort to forge a comprehensive compact with Iraq's
neighbors. Third, we will pay particular attention to the humanitarian
crisis in Iraq, which risks destabilizing parts of the country,
including an aggressive effort to assist displaced Iraqis. But these
are serious challenges, and much of this turns on the capacity and
willingness of the Iraqis themselves.
Question 23. Article 12 of the SOFA gives Iraq primary jurisdiction
over U.S. contractors. However, Article 5 of the SOFA defines U.S.
contractors as persons who ``are citizens of the United States or a
third country and who are in Iraq to supply goods, services, and
security in Iraq to or on behalf of the United States Forces.'' Are
State Department contractors covered by the United States-Iraqi SOFA?
What impact do you expect the SOFA to have on your Department's use of
private security contractors?
Answer. I have forwarded your question to the SOFA negotiators so
as to be certain that we have the exact right answer.
Question 24. As a result of the war in Iraq, at least 4 million
Iraqis have been displaced from their homes as refugees in neighboring
countries or internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Iraq.
President-elect Obama has committed to provide $2 billion in
humanitarian assistance for these refugees and IDPs. Please provide the
committee information on how the State Department will support Iraqi
refugees and IDPs under your leadership.
Answer. America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility
for security that demands we confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis--there
may be more than 5 million Iraqis who are refugees or are displaced
inside their own country. The new administration will seek to form an
international working group to address this crisis. We will also make
it a top priority to secure greater regional contributions to
humanitarian relief, refugee care and integration, and economic
assistance, and we will make this an important subject on the agenda
for regional diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors. Further, we will
also fill all of the pledged slots for admission of Iraqi refugees to
the United States, and we will be open to accept additional Iraqis, who
took risks to support American efforts in Iraq.
Question 25. During the three post-Saddam elections, the U.S.
military was instrumental in providing both security and logistical
support. What is your assessment of the Iraqi election commissions'
related capacity at the national and provincial levels? What role will
the U.S. military play in providing security and logistical support for
the provincial elections scheduled for the end of January?
Answer. Unlike prior elections in post-Saddam Iraq, logistics and
security for the January 31 Provincial Council elections will be Iraqi-
planned, managed, and led. Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission
(IHEC), with significant technical support from the United Nations
Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI), manages elections planning and
logistics. This includes voter, candidate, and coalition registration;
ballot design and printing; election center and polling place staffing;
observer certification; and voter education.
The IHEC is on schedule to carry out elections on January 31. The
IHEC's ability to meet its announced February 23 deadline for
certifying elections results will depend in part on the number of
elections-related complaints that it must review. The seat allocation
formula that IHEC has devised, with UNAMI assistance, is complex.
Ballots are also complicated, with nearly 2,500 candidates appearing on
the Baghdad Governorate ballot for the 57 council seats there.
According to State Department reporting from Iraq, despite these
challenges, the mechanics for a credible election appear to be moving
ahead reasonably well.
Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) will provide the lead for all security
measures required for elections, and the U.S. military will provide
``outer ring'' and emergency support as needed, as well as any
necessary support to the ISF for the transportation and security of
voting materials. The elections High Security Committee, comprising
senior security officials from the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and
Defense, the office of the Iraqi National Security Advisor, and the
U.S. military, has been planning for and advising the IHEC Board of
Commissioners on security measures.
Question 26. The Embassy of the United States in Baghdad is, by a
considerable margin, the largest in the world. About how many
Americans--diplomats and nondiplomats--are currently working in the New
Embassy Compound (NEC)? How many diplomats of ambassadorial rank are
currently assigned there? Are these staffing levels appropriate, given
the declining military presence in Iraq and the plethora of foreign
policy challenges facing the United States in the region and beyond?
Answer. There are approximately 12,500 U.S. diplomats, staff,
contractors, and grant implementers from State and other civilian
agencies serving under Chief of Mission authority in Iraq.
Approximately 1,300 of these individuals are direct-hire USG employees.
One U.S. Ambassador, Ryan Crocker, is accredited in Iraq. Some of
the senior mission staff have formerly held ambassadorial appointments
at other posts. One member of the mission on temporary duty until May
is accredited as Ambassador to Bahrain.
If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will work with the President-
elect and other administration officials to determine what the
appropriate staffing levels should be to pursue the President-elect's
policies and priorities.
iran
Question 27. There is deep concern among the United States and its
key allies about Iran's nuclear program. Some have argued that Iran
will soon have, if it does not already, the capability to enrich enough
uranium to create a nuclear weapon. The Bush administration's approach
has not worked to date. What would the new administration do
differently? What role do you envision for yourself in this process?
Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for you or President-
elect Obama to engage in related talks?
Answer. The new administration will present the Iranian regime with
a clear choice: Abandon your nuclear weapons program and support for
terror and threats to Israel and there will be meaningful incentives--
refuse, and we will ratchet up the pressure with stronger unilateral
sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council; and
sustained action outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime. A
nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, and all elements of American power
are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--that
must begin with the power of aggressive and direct American diplomacy.
The Obama administration will support tough, aggressive, and direct
diplomacy, without preconditions, with our adversaries. Note that there
is a distinction between preparations and preconditions. For possible
negotiations with Iran, there must be careful preparation--including
low-level talks, coordination with allies, the establishment of an
agenda, and an evaluation of the potential for progress. The President-
elect has said that he is willing to engage in diplomacy with any
leader, at a time and place of his choosing, if he believes that it can
advance America's interests.
Question 28. The U.S. should support and participate in ongoing
efforts with our European allies and assemble an international
coalition that will exert a collective will on Iran so that it is in
their own interest to verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons efforts.
We will carefully prepare for any negotiations--open up lines of
communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and
evaluate the potential for progress.
Does the administration intend to push for a new round of
P5+1 negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program early on?
What factors will inform the timing of these negotiations? When
these talks occur, how would you seek to structure them to
ensure Iran does not use them to stall for time as it continues
its uranium enrichment activities? Would you seek to expand
negotiations to include other issues of mutual interest,
including Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. We will not sit down with Iran just for the sake of
talking. But we are willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with
the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of our choosing--if,
and only if--it can advance the interests of the United States. No
decisions have been made regarding the timing, configuration, and scope
of any discussions with Iran, but we will certainly coordinate closely
with our allies as we move forward.
Through aggressive diplomacy, we can create new opportunities for
progress. Even if diplomacy is unsuccessful, we will be better able to
rally the world to our side, strengthen multilateral sanctions, and to
convince the Iranian people that their own government is the author of
its isolation.
Question 29. In 2007, the U.S. and Iranian Ambassadors to Iraq met
for three rounds of talks; they have not met since. Would you be
supportive of continuing these talks? If so, should the dialogue focus
on Iraq security issues, or be expanded to include other topics, as
well?
Answer. As noted above, the incoming administration will support
tough negotiations with Iran and will be evaluating the best forums and
interlocutors for that engagement. We have also supported direct
engagement with Iran as a part of a diplomatic initiative involving all
of Iraq's neighbors.
No decision has yet been made on the continuation of the specific
talks that you identify.
Question 30. Earlier this year, I and six of my colleagues wrote to
President Bush, to encourage the establishment of a U.S. interests
section in Iran. In November, Secretary Rice announced that although
President Bush had made a decision ``in principle'' last summer to open
an interests section, the decision would be left to the incoming
administration. Have you made a decision regarding whether to open a
U.S. interests section in Tehran?
Answer. The decision regarding whether to open a U.S. interests
section in Tehran is under review and no decision has been made yet.
israeli-palestinian peace process
Question 31. The November 2007 Annapolis peace conference did not
meet its stated goal of concluding a two-state solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict by the end of 2008. How do you assess the
prospects for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in light of recent,
ongoing, and future events? Do you think hopes for quick progress on
the peace process have been dashed, as some suggest, by the recent
crisis in Gaza? What has been achieved by the Annapolis process and how
do you see your role in pushing those efforts forward? Does the April
2003 Road Map remain the operative mechanism for a two-state outcome?
Answer. President-elect Obama has pledged to work actively from the
beginning of his administration to help Israel and the Palestinians
achieve peace and security through a two-state solution, because this
is in both parties' interests and because it is the United States
interests. Throughout 2008, he urged Israel and the Palestinian
Authority to make as much progress as possible in their negotiations
that arose out of the Annapolis conference, so that a functioning
process could be continued in 2009. And indeed, the parties report that
progress has been made in these talks, which they hope to build upon.
Our commitment is to help them build on that progress and achieve their
goal of two states living side by side in peace and security. That
commitment remains, even in the face of very difficult and challenging
events, such as the recent events in Gaza and southern Israel. The
roadmap, with the mutual obligations it places on the parties, remains
one of the important bases for working toward a two-state solution.
Question 32. By most accounts, the American-funded training efforts
of Palestinian security forces have borne some fruit, particularly in
Jenin and Hebron. Roughly 1,000 Palestinian National Security Force
(NSF) and Presidential Guard (PG) members have been trained and several
hundred more are currently undergoing training in Jordan. How do you
assess the performance of the units that have received American-
supported training? What additional resources are required to continue
making progress?
Answer. The Palestinian National Security Force and Presidential
Guard members who have been trained in Jordan under the auspices of the
United States Security Coordinator have performed well in early tests
in Jenin and Hebron. This is an important element of strengthening
Palestinian capabilities to enable the Palestinian Authority to meet
its commitments to combat terrorism and maintain law and order, which
are crucial to ensuring security for Israelis and improving daily life
for Palestinians. The Congress has provided approximately $161 million
in funding for this successful program in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
If confirmed, I will be consulting with GEN Keith Dayton and others to
determine appropriate funding levels for this program to continue to
achieve positive results.
Question 33. In 2008, there have been a number of high-profile
missions in support of the Annapolis Peace Process: GEN Jim Jones, GEN
Paul Selva, and GEN Keith Dayton have served respectively as special
envoys for Middle East security, roadmap monitoring, and Palestinian
security coordination, with separate reporting channels to the
administration. Additionally, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
serves as the Quartet's special envoy. Is the current architecture in
support of the Annapolis process appropriately coordinated, or would it
make more sense to streamline the various security missions under a
single full-time high-level envoy?
Answer. General Jones, General Selva, and General Dayton have each
played important and constructive roles in advancing U.S. efforts to
promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Former Prime
Minister Blair has also made an excellent contribution as the Quartet's
special envoy, promoting economic development and institution-building
in the Palestinian areas. No decisions have been made about the
personnel structure we will use to implement our Middle East peace
efforts, but each of the important functions carried forward by the
generals and Prime Minister Blair will need to be continued in whatever
structure we ultimately decide upon.
arab peace initiative
Question 34. Many believe that real progress on the peace process
will require greater participation and the support of Arab countries in
the region, many of which attended the Annapolis conference. What role
do you envision for the Arab states in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy
going forward? Do you believe that the Arab Peace Initiative can
provide a framework for future negotiations?
Answer. I believe the Arab states have an important role to play in
advancing efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Their chief means to do so are providing political and economic support
to the Palestinian Authority, and taking steps toward normalization
with Israel. The Arab Peace Initiative contains some constructive
elements which could be important bases for negotiations and for
proactive steps to give the initiative a more operational character. I
look forward to discussing these opportunities with Israeli,
Palestinian, and Arab leaders and encouraging progress in these
efforts.
syria
Question 35. Until September, Israel and Syria were talking
indirectly through Turkish mediation. Many observers believe that the
talks proceeded as far as they could without direct American
engagement. Do you believe that a U.S. role in facilitating Israeli-
Syrian negotiations could move those talks forward? Do you support
direct U.S. engagement if that would facilitate further progress? What
is the likelihood that the parties will reach an agreement?
Answer. The United States and Syria have profound differences on
important issues, and the President-elect and I believe that engaging
directly with Syria increases the possibility of making progress on
changing Syrian behavior. In these talks, we should insist on our core
demands: Cooperation in stabilizing Iraq; ending support for terrorist
groups; stopping the flow of weapons to Hezbollah, and respect for
Lebanon's sovereignty and independence.
The President-elect believes that we must never force Israel to the
negotiating table with Syria, but neither should we ever block
negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli
interests. We should engage directly to help Israel and Syria succeed
in their peace efforts, which both parties have indicated could help
advance the talks. The prospects of success in these talks are unknown,
but we are committed to making every effort to help them succeed.
Question 36. The last U.S. Ambassador to Syria was recalled for
``urgent consultations'' in the aftermath of the February 2005
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Since
that time, the United States has not had an ambassador to Syria. Do you
support sending an American ambassador to Damascus?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe strongly that direct U.S.
engagement with Syria will advance United States interests. At this
time, no decisions have been made regarding returning a U.S. ambassador
to Damascus.
Question 37. Although the U.S. Embassy in Damascus remains open,
American diplomats have been heavily restricted since February 2005 in
their ability to interact with Syrian Government officials, except on a
narrow range of issues, such as Iraqi refugees. Do you support allowing
U.S. diplomats more latitude in engaging with Syrian officials unless/
until an ambassador is appointed?
Answer. We believe that direct U.S. engagement with Syria will
advance United States interests. I plan to consult with our Chief of
Mission in Damascus to determine how best to carry out this principle
in the context of the Embassy's current structure.
Question 38. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-
moon, announced recently that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon,
established by the United Nations to try suspects in the assassinations
of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and other Lebanese
politicians, would begin operations on March 1, 2009. How soon do you
expect indictments to be issued and trials to begin? There has been
speculation among some observers that Syria hopes to leverage peace
negotiations with Israel to earn a reprieve from prosecutions of top
Syrian officials by the tribunal. What steps have been and should be
taken to ensure the tribunal is insulated from political interference?
Answer. The United States should continue to support efforts to
uncover the truth about the assassinations, and to insulate these
efforts from political interference. I am encouraged to see that the
Tribunal will officially begin operations on March 1, but as the head
prosecutor recently stated, it is unclear when the Tribunal will bring
indictments. The Security Council established various safeguards to
ensure an objective and expeditious judicial process. First, it
includes provisions on enhanced powers, so the Tribunal may take
independent measures to prevent unreasonable delays. Second, it
mandated a transparent appointment process of international officials,
including the judges and prosecutor. Third, it includes provisions on
the rights of victims to present their views. The Security Council
explicitly requested that the Tribunal be based on ``the highest
international standards of criminal justice,'' and I will work with our
international allies to ensure this pledge is fulfilled.
global climate change
Question 39. At the climate change negotiations last year in Bali,
and again this year in Poznan, one of the greatest points of
disagreement between industrialized and developing countries was the
format and structure of funding mechanisms to support mitigation,
adaptation, and technology transfer. What do you believe are the most
useful entities and structures for directing funds to build capacity in
developing countries to reduce their emissions and manage the impacts
of climate change?
Answer. President-elect Obama spoke throughout the campaign about
the need to develop partnerships and capacity in developing countries
as a part of a global effort to combat climate change. He believes that
technology transfer, adaptation assistance, and support for mitigation
in developing countries are key components of a global climate change
deal. His administration will pursue mechanisms to achieve these goals
that are effective, transparent, and provide accountability.
Question 40. In 1997, the debate over the Byrd-Hagel resolution
clarified the sense of the Senate that any global climate change treaty
must secure the participation of both developed and developing
countries. That sentiment has not changed, and it will guide our debate
as we approach the Copenhagen climate change negotiations next year. Is
it the position of the Obama administration that any global deal on
climate change must secure some type of measurable, reportable, and
verifiable actions from China, India, and the other rapidly
industrializing countries?
Answer. President-elect Obama believes that climate change is a
global problem that requires a global solution. The Bali Action Plan
2007 states that the post-Kyoto agreement should include measurable,
reportable, and verifiable actions by developing countries. The Obama
administration will pursue such commitments during upcoming
negotiations.
Question 41. A number of prominent national security officials and
organizations have highlighted the security implications of climate
change, culminating in a November report from the National Intelligence
Council emphasizing that climate change will intensity food and water
scarcity, serving as a threat multiplier around the globe. For its
part, the U.N. has estimated that there may be as many as 50 million
``climate refugees'' by 2010. How will the Obama administration
integrate climate change into its national security planning and
response operations?
Answer. President-elect Obama agrees that global climate change is
likely to impact U.S. national security. He has warned that competition
over resources could lead to conflict and population movements, and has
called our dependence on foreign oil and gas a national security
crisis. He plans to fulfill existing legal requirements to integrate
such considerations into national security planning, and will work with
Congress to identify and define additional measures as appropriate.
terrorism
Question 42. In July 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated
that ``military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be
subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government
and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to
understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of
insurgencies.'' Many have called for a new approach to terrorism that
would reconceptualize the ``war on terror'' as a ``global
counterinsurgency'' that places military action in its proper context
alongside our moral authority, diplomatic persuasion and development
assistance. What are your views as to how we can craft a more effective
worldwide strategy that takes our military operations to capture and
kill terrorists and folds them into a larger ``information war''
designed to win hearts and minds and prevent possible terrorists from
ever being recruited?
Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates' assessment. President-elect
Obama has made it clear that we need a comprehensive strategy to fight
terrorism that balances and integrates military force, diplomacy,
intelligence, law enforcement, financial action, economic might, and
moral suasion. He has also stressed that our capacity must be driven by
this strategy, saying that while the finest military in the world is
adapting to the challenges of the 21st century, it cannot counter
insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can
carry out economic and political reconstruction missions--sometimes in
dangerous places. He promised to strengthen these civilian capacities,
recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge by
increasing both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats,
development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our
military. This new construct will integrate all aspects of American
might.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will also work with the President in
launching a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort
across his administration. And as others learn about America's ways
through their conversations with Americans, American citizens will
listen and learn about people of other cultures and countries.
Question 43. President-elect Obama has called nuclear terrorism
``the gravest danger we face.'' The State Department, along with
several other agencies, has a critical role to play to address this
threat. In your view, has the United States done enough in its
diplomatic relations with other countries to demonstrate the priority
it attaches to nuclear security and the prevention of nuclear
terrorism? What additional steps would you take to convey a sense of
urgency and convince political leaders around the world that the threat
of nuclear terrorism is real and that immediate steps are needed by
every government to reduce this danger?
Answer. Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, especially
nuclear weapons, is indeed the gravest security threat we face today.
The most effective way of preventing nuclear terrorism is to secure
weapons-usable nuclear materials at their source so that they are not
vulnerable to theft or seizure by terrorist groups. The Obama
administration plans to secure all nuclear weapons and materials at
vulnerable sites worldwide within 4 years. It will also work to phase
out the use of highly enriched uranium in the civil nuclear sector,
strengthen international intelligence and police cooperation to prevent
WMD terrorism, and help build the capacity of governments around the
world to prevent the theft or diversion of nuclear materials.
Question 44. During the campaign, President-elect Obama said he
would appoint a White House coordinator for nuclear security,
specifically a deputy national security adviser to be in charge of
coordinating all U.S. programs aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear
terrorism and weapons proliferation. What are your views on such an
appointment? Should that position be Senate-confirmed as required by an
existing statute? Should it cover all weapons of mass destruction or
only nuclear terrorism?
Answer. The Obama administration will follow through on the
President-elect's campaign pledge to appoint a White House Coordinator
to address the threat of nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. Among the Coordinator's responsibilities
will be to exercise budgetary oversight over all U.S. programs related
to nuclear security and biosecurity.
nuclear weapons and the start treaty
Question 45. As you know, the START Treaty is due to expire on
December 5, 2009. This treaty has served as a vital mechanism of
stability and transparency in post-cold-war relations between the
United States and Russia. The 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions
Treaty, or Moscow Treaty, has no separate verification measures, and
limits deployed U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads to a range
of 1,700-2,200 for only a single day, December 31, 2012. The Bush
administration has reportedly shared with Russia a START proposal that
would, like the Moscow Treaty, limit operationally deployed strategic
warheads, and would maintain some of the START Treaty's verification
mechanisms. Do you plan to seek a legally binding replacement for the
START Treaty that will enter into force by December 5, 2009?
Answer. The Obama administration will seek deep, verifiable
reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons--whether deployed or
nondeployed, strategic or nonstrategic. As a first step, we will seek a
legally binding agreement to replace the current START Treaty which, as
you point out, expires in December 2009.
Question 46. If a replacement cannot be ratified and brought into
force by that time, what options will you consider? Should the United
States, Russia, and the other States Parties to the START Treaty (e.g.,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine) extend the treaty for 5 years, as
permitted under Article XVII of the treaty, while negotiations for a
substitute treaty continue?
Answer. If an agreement cannot be reached, a mutually acceptable
means should be found to give the negotiators more time, without
allowing key measures, including essential monitoring and verification
provisions, to lapse. Ending the cold war practice of keeping nuclear
weapons ready for launch on a moment's notice should also be a
priority, if it can be done in a mutual and credible manner.
Question 47. In your view, how important is it for a follow-on to
the START Treaty to lead to further reductions in the numbers of
deployed and reserve U.S. and Russian warheads? Should those reductions
go below Moscow Treaty numbers? Should negotiations on a substantial
follow-on to the START Treaty be delayed until the legally required
Nuclear Posture Review is completed?
Answer. The Obama administration plans to set a new direction in
nuclear weapons policy, one that reflects the changed security
conditions of the 21st century and that shows the world that the U.S.
takes seriously its existing commitment under the nonproliferation
treaty to pursue nuclear disarmament. Such a new direction should be
fully explored and elaborated in the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) that is mandated by statute. While some of the key elements of
the revised approach may not take shape until the NPR is completed,
negotiations on the next step in the arms reduction process--replacing
the current START Treaty--can begin even while the posture review is
underway.
comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty
Question 48. Both you and the President-elect have expressed your
intention to work with the Senate to win its advice and consent to U.S.
ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In
preparing for such an effort, what are the most important lessons that
you take from the Senate's 1999 rejection of a resolution of
ratification on the Treaty? How do you plan to address the substantive
concerns that were raised in that debate?
Answer. The President-elect and I are both strongly committed to
Senate approval of the CTBT and to launching a diplomatic effort to
bring on board other states whose ratifications are required for the
treaty to enter into force. A lesson learned from 1999 is that we need
to ensure that the administration work intensively with Senators so
they are fully briefed on key technical issues on which their CTBT
votes will depend, especially the issues of how well the treaty can be
verified and how well the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile can
be maintained without nuclear testing. Substantial progress has been
made in the last decade in our ability to verify a CTBT and ensure
stockpile reliability. It will be crucial to make sure that the Senate
receives the best scientific evidence available on these two issues as
well as on other questions relevant to the merits of the CTBT.
Question 49. For the last several years, the State Department has
requested insufficient funding to pay all of our voluntary
contributions to the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test-
Ban Treaty Organization (Preparatory Commission). While congressional
actions have restored some of the funding, this shortfall has impaired
construction of the International Monitoring System and has jeopardized
U.S. voting rights at the Preparatory Commission. What are your views
with regard to allowing sufficient and timely funding to make effective
contributions to the Preparatory Commission?
Answer. The Obama administration will fully support the CTBT's
International Monitoring System, which gives the United States better
capability to detect and identify very low-yield nuclear tests than we
would have on our own. We will also support the work of the
Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty Organization's Preparatory Commission and
will want to ensure that it is adequately funded. On specific questions
regarding the timing and level of U.S. funding, the new administration
will want to review the situation and consult with Congress on how to
proceed.
fissile material cutoff treaty
Question 50. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Terrorism recommends that the United States should work
``to build international support for the negotiation of a treaty
halting the production of fissile materials for military purposes.''
The Conference on Disarmament for several years has been unable to
achieve a consensus to allow negotiations to proceed. What importance
do you attach to finding a way for negotiations on a Fissile Material
Cutoff Treaty to proceed? What are the roadblocks to progress, as you
see them, and how might we address them?
Answer. The President-elect made it clear during the campaign that
he supports the negotiation of a treaty banning the production of
fissile material for use in nuclear weapons. Such a treaty could help
avoid destabilizing arms races in regions such as South Asia and, by
limiting the amount of fissile material worldwide, could facilitate the
task of securing such weapons-usable materials against theft or seizure
by terrorist groups. It would also demonstrate the willingness of the
NPT nuclear weapon states to fulfill their obligation under NPT Article
VI to pursue nuclear disarmament. However, for over a decade, the
Conference on Disarmament has been unable to achieve a consensus to
allow negotiations to proceed--in part because of the difficulty of
reaching agreement on a work program but, more fundamentally, because
some key states wish to continue producing fissile materials for
nuclear weapons or at least keep open the option for such production in
the future. The Obama administration will work to build the necessary
support to get negotiations underway. One step it will take is to
return to the policy of previous Republican and Democratic
administrations and end the current policy of declaring that a fissile
material cutoff treaty should not contain international verification
provisions.
nuclear nonproliferation/2010 npt review conference
Question 51. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Terrorism recently recommended that the United States
``should work internationally toward strengthening the nonproliferation
regime, reaffirming the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.''
The 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), which is scheduled for April and May 2010, provides one
opportunity to pursue that goal. The 2000 Review Conference reached a
consensus that 13 practical steps should be taken in order to
demonstrate progress on the arms control and disarmament obligations
set out in Article VI of the NPT. The 2005 Review Conference ended
without reaching substantive consensus on next steps. What importance
do you attach to the 2010 Review Conference, and what steps will you
take in order to avoid the outcome of the 2005 Review Conference?
Answer. The President-elect said during the campaign that he
supports the goal of working toward a world without nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration will place great importance on strengthening
the NPT and the nonproliferation regime in general. It will encourage
all states to support more rigorous IAEA verification measures, tighter
restrictions on transfers of sensitive technologies, and stronger means
of enforcing compliance.
Question 52. Though some of the conditions surrounding many of the
13 practical steps agreed to at the 2000 Review Conference have changed
in the intervening years, do you see value in pursuing a comparable set
of actions at the 2010 Review Conference?
Answer. The 2010 NPT Review Conference will provide an opportunity
to reach agreement on such steps. But gaining the necessary support
among NPT parties will require the United States and the other nuclear
powers to demonstrate that they take seriously their obligations to
pursue nuclear disarmament. While the conditions surrounding agreement
on the so-called ``thirteen steps'' at the 2000 NPT Review Conference
have changed, support for a similar package of measures at the 2010
conference could help build the wide support needed to bolster the NPT
regime.
iaea
Question 53. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Terrorism recently concluded that the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ``is constrained in serving as the world's
nuclear watchdog because its staff is aging and its budget has
increased little over the past decade.'' The Commission called on the
United States to ``lead an international effort to update and improve
IAEA capabilities.'' What steps do you envision taking to address the
resource constraints facing the IAEA?
Answer. Especially if the world's reliance on nuclear power
increases substantially in coming decades, a huge burden will be placed
on the IAEA to ensure that civil nuclear facilities and activities are
not diverted to military uses and that nuclear facilities and materials
are secure against theft or seizure by terrorist groups. The IAEA is
understaffed and underresourced for the current and growing
responsibilities placed on it by the international community. That is
why the President-elect has called for doubling the IAEA's budget over
the next 4 years. We also favor strengthening the Agency's verification
capabilities by promoting universal adherence to the Additional
Protocol and by expanding the Agency's verification authorities beyond
those contained in the Additional Protocol to provide more effective
means of detecting clandestine facilities and activities.
nuclear fuel bank
Question 54. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Terrorism has recommended that the United States should
lead the international effort to create a bank that would guarantee
countries a supply of nuclear reactor fuel. The United States has
already transferred $50 million to the IAEA to support the creation of
a fuel bank, and the European Union recently agreed to contribute up to
=25 million to support the effort. But the IAEA Board of Governors has
not agreed on the mechanisms and rules under which the fuel bank will
actually operate. What importance do you attach to actually expending
the funds pledged and bringing the fuel bank into reality? Should there
be a parallel effort to assure countries of affordable spent fuel
services?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I strongly supported legislation
providing $50 million to the IAEA for the creation of an international
nuclear fuel bank. We believe the United States should work with other
countries and the IAEA to put in place new mechanisms, including an
international fuel bank that would allow countries to benefit from the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy without increasing the risks of nuclear
proliferation. An international fuel bank could reassure countries
embarking on or expanding nuclear power programs that, as long as they
comply with their nonproliferation obligations, they could reliably
purchase reactor fuel in the event that their existing fuel supplies
were cut off. This would reduce any incentives a country genuinely
interested in nuclear energy might have for going to the trouble and
expense of building its own enrichment or reprocessing facilities.
Assuring countries of reliable spent fuel services (e.g., long-term
storage) would serve the same goal of reducing incentives for acquiring
indigenous fuel-cycle facilities.
organization of the state department for arms control and
nonproliferation
Question 55. The Bureaus of the State Department that report to the
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
have undergone numerous organizational and personnel changes in the
last decade. Do you envision taking any major steps early in your
tenure as Secretary to further alter the organization of the Bureaus
reporting to this Under Secretary? What steps will you take to ensure
that, in particular, the Political-Military Affairs Bureau and the
Verification, Compliance, and Implementation Bureau have the people and
the resources they need to carry out their important missions?
Answer. Because President-elect Obama and I place such high
importance on arms control, nonproliferation, and other political-
military issues, I am giving special attention to the three Bureaus of
the State Department that report to the Under Secretary for Arms
Control and International Security. It is essential that those Bureaus
be well organized and well staffed with first-rate professionals, both
from the Civil Service and Foreign Service. I am currently reviewing
the situation and am determined to take whatever steps may be necessary
to ensure that those bureaus are fully capable of doing the crucial
work we will be expecting of them in coming years. I will keep Congress
fully apprised of my plans in this area.
u.n. convention on the law of the sea
Question 56. In 1994, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(the Convention) was submitted to the U.S. Senate for accession and
ratification. While the Foreign Relations Committee has favorably
reported this treaty in prior years, the full Senate has not yet taken
it up. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote to this committee that
the State Department supported ``early Senate action'' on the
Convention. At the time, the administration's Treaty Priority List
expressed an ``urgent need'' for Senate approval of the Convention.
More recently, President Obama stated in September 2008 that he will
``work actively to ensure that the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea
Convention.'' If confirmed, do you intend to make ratification of the
Convention your top treaty priority at State?
Answer. The President-elect and I both supported ratification of
the Law of the Sea Convention as Senators and, as the question notes,
he has publicly committed to working actively to ensure that the U.S.
ratifies the Convention.
The Convention remains an important piece of unfinished treaty
business. If confirmed, its ratification will be one of my top treaty
priorities at State, and the new administration will work with the
Senate to secure approval.
Question 57. If the Foreign Relations Committee were to report out
the Convention in the 111th Congress, how would the administration plan
to work with the Senate to help bring the Convention and Implementing
Agreement to a successful floor vote?
Answer. As in the case of any treaty that the President supports,
the administration would work closely with this committee and the
Senate leadership on devising and implementing a strategy for
successful approval of the treaty by the full Senate.
Question 58. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and Admiral Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations,
support approval of the Convention. Admiral Roughead stated to the
Senate Armed Services Committee that ``accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention is in our national security interests.'' Do you agree with
him, and if so, why? What effect, if any, would accession have on the
U.S. military's ability to conduct ongoing or future operations? Would
accession in any way restrict efforts to prevent the shipment of
weapons of mass destruction or any other nonproliferation programs,
such as the Proliferation Security Initiative?
Answer. The incoming administration agrees with the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of
whom endorsed the Convention during the 110th Congress. Joining the
Convention will advance the interests of the U.S. military. As the
world's leading maritime power, the United States benefits more than
any other nation from the navigation provisions of the Convention.
Those provisions, which establish international consensus on the extent
of jurisdiction that States may exercise off their coasts, preserve and
elaborate the rights of the U.S. military to use the world's oceans to
meet national security requirements.
Joining the Convention will enhance, not restrict, our ability to
interdict shipment of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean. The
Convention's navigation provisions derive from the 1958 law of the sea
conventions, to which the United States is a party, and also reflect
customary international law accepted by the United States. As such, the
Convention will not affect applicable maritime law or policy regarding
interdiction of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery,
and related materials.
Like the 1958 conventions, the LOS Convention recognizes numerous
legal bases for taking enforcement action against vessels and aircraft
suspected of engaging in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
including exclusive port and coastal State jurisdiction in internal
waters and national airspace; coastal State jurisdiction in the
territorial sea and contiguous zone; exclusive flag State jurisdiction
over vessels on the high seas (which the flag State may, either by
general agreement in advance or approval in response to a specific
request, waive in favor of other States); and universal jurisdiction
over stateless vessels,
Nor will the Convention undermine the Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI). PSI requires participating countries to act
consistent with national legal authorities and ``relevant international
law and frameworks,'' which includes the law reflected in the Law of
the Sea Convention. Finally, nothing in the Convention impairs the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense (a point which
is reaffirmed in the Resolution of Advice and Consent proposed by the
committee in the 110th Congress).
national security reform
Question 59. Last November, a prominent group of experts and
practitioners from the congressionally mandated Project on National
Security Reform (PNSR) released a report that called for significant
improvements in how the U.S. coordinates and implements national
security strategy and programs. Do you agree that fundamental reform of
our national security system, structures, and processes is needed so
that this country can anticipate, prepare for, and respond to the kinds
of complex and diffuse threats we face in the 21st century? What types
of reform are required?
[NO RESPONSE RECEIVED ON THIS QUESTION]
Question 60. National security missions increasingly require inputs
from multiple departments to be successful. The PNSR report has
concluded that existing interagency mechanisms are insufficient to
achieve unity of purpose, effort, and command. Instead, PNSR has
recommended that we provide interagency mechanisms backed by specific
legal authorities related to the U.S. Government's capabilities to
accomplish particular missions. Would you support such efforts? Would
you be willing to cede authority over some of the assets and resources
of your Department so that an interagency team can accomplish its
mission?
Answer. The President-elect has made it clear that the United
States must enhance our ability to use, balance, and integrate all
elements of national power--
military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, economic, and
moral--to achieve our national security goals. He has called for the
process of preparing the National Security Strategy (required by the
Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986)to determine the appropriate interagency
infrastructure to maximize the use of all elements of our national
power. This exhaustive review will include an examination of force
sizing, intelligence agencies, and weapons systems, as well as the
development of long-term plans to deal with emerging threats like
cyberterrorism. We are aware of the effort of the Project on National
Security Reform report and we look forward to consulting with Congress
on the appropriate structure for our national security agencies.
foreign aid reform and rewriting the foreign assistance act
Question 61. Many are calling for substantial reform of U.S.
foreign assistance programs, which have been criticized as fragmented
and uncoordinated, failing to match resource allocations with strategic
objectives, inefficient, and lacking capacity to ensure appropriate
accountability, oversight, and implementation. To what degree are you
in support of such reform efforts? What would you identify as the
highest priority areas in need of reform?
Answer. The President-elect is committed to a strengthened and
enhanced role for foreign assistance and development in our foreign
policy, as am I. It is both right and smart for the United States to
renew its leadership as a nation that seeks to promote opportunity and
security around the world. To that end, the President-elect has
committed to doubling U.S. foreign assistance over his first term, and
I look forward to working closely with the Congress to fulfill this
goal. The President-elect has said that the current economic crisis
could slow increases in foreign assistance.
Our foreign assistance infrastructure must be able to meet the
challenges we face today while anticipating those in the months and
years ahead. We should look at areas which can be better coordinated
and streamlined, and would look forward to engaging the committee on
ideas for reform. The President-elect has stressed the need for clearer
leadership and coordination in Washington, and continued efforts to
prevent abuses and corruption among recipient countries. Similarly, we
should look at those areas which have proved effective and build on
those successes, while determining if poorly performing initiatives are
able to be improved.
Question 62. Many argue that to increase effectiveness, it is
important to establish a strengthened and independent development
agency separate from direct control and budgetary oversight of the
State Department--a ``USAID 2.0.'' Some would even elevate this
development agency to a Cabinet-level department. To what extent would
you support these proposals? Do you believe U.S. foreign assistance
would be better served operating in an independent capacity? Is it
worth revisiting the existing USAID operational model in favor of
something significantly different?
Answer. USAID, like almost every Federal agency, can be improved.
President-elect Obama shares the concerns that many members of this
committee have expressed about the ability of USAID and the other
government aid agencies to provide help effectively and in a manner
where foreign nations can sustain the progress that the United States
helps to bring about. While there have been lifesaving and life-
changing acts brought about by USAID, supporters and critics alike
believe that the agency can do a better job at fulfilling its mission.
The President-elect's commitment to a strengthened and enhanced
role for development in our foreign policy means a reinvigorated USAID,
playing a central role in the formulation and implementation of
critical development strategies. We have to make sure that we rebuild
USAID so that is more nimble in the face of change, less reliant on
contractors doing work that ought to be carried out by our own
government professionals, and uses tax dollars responsibly. We are
still in the process of thinking through the precise organizational
design--and I look forward to the advice of the committee and the
Congress as we consider our approach. In moving forward with this
process, the goal of the President-elect--and my goal--is to enhance
USAID's capacity and standing to carry out its vital missions.
Question 63. Others contend that U.S. foreign assistance should be
closely linked to U.S. foreign policy priorities and should be
integrated into the State Department's operations to ensure close
coordination. To what degree should the State Department exert policy
oversight and control over U.S. foreign assistance programs? How would
you ensure that development programs retained their distinctiveness and
were not relegated to second priority status?
Answer. Efforts to modernize U.S. development and foreign
assistance programs will require a substantial investment of time and
effort. But the President-elect believes that these efforts can pay
significant returns in global stability, security, and prosperity. In
addition, this modernization will increase accountability,
transparency, and innovation. During the campaign, President-elect
Obama pledged to take a look at ways to improve the distribution of
U.S. foreign assistance, including the possibility of consolidating key
foreign assistance programs in an elevated and empowered USAID. I can
assure this committee that, if confirmed as Secretary of State, I will
look to you for ideas and input. I also look forward to working closely
with Secretary Gates, General Jones, and other members of the new
administration on this challenge.
As for the possible relegation of development programs to a second-
priority status, let me be clear: The Obama administration is committed
to a robust foreign assistance program.
Question 64. What can Congress do to support foreign assistance
reform efforts? Many have called for the Congress to rewrite the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Do you think this step is warranted? If
so, what priority areas would you identify in need of legislative
reform?
Answer. Congress--and particularly this committee--will play an
indispensable role in providing advice and guidance about the future of
U.S. foreign assistance programs. As Secretary, I look forward to
consulting with the committee about foreign assistance priorities, and
the implementation of those priorities. No decision has been made about
the need for legislative reform.
Question 65. There are at least 26 agencies variously responsible
for different elements of foreign aid. How would you suggest reducing
fragmentation and strengthening coordination? Should USAID's mandate be
broadened to encompass all U.S. development programs (including those
currently housed in other departments and agencies), as well as all
humanitarian and post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization
programs? Should the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and the
President's Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief be placed under the
umbrella of a strengthened U.S. development agency?
Answer. The President-elect has committed to coordinate and
consolidate programs currently housed in more than 20 executive
agencies so as to enhance effectiveness and accountability. He and I
are also committed to a restructured, empowered, and streamlined USAID.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the Congress as we
review the best way to maximize the impact of these essential programs.
The administration will review what programs can be consolidated to
elevate the importance of development in our overall foreign policy,
and improving budget planning, coordination, and execution.
Question 66. President-elect Obama has articulated a far-reaching
and detailed platform to elevate and strengthen U.S. diplomacy and
development assistance as critical tools for foreign policy and
national security. His commitments include: Doubling foreign assistance
to $50 billion by 2012, investing at least $2 billion in a global
education fund, increasing funding to combat HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria
to $50 billion over 5 years and ending all deaths from malaria by 2015.
Do you believe that U.S. foreign assistance is underresourced? What
priority areas require more resources? How do you intend to advocate
for these commitments in the current budgetary environment?
Answer. President-elect Obama said during the campaign that he
would double foreign assistance to $50 billion during his first term in
office. After the onset of the economic crisis, he said it could take
slightly longer to phase in this increase by the end of his first term
due to the budgetary restrictions created by the need to confront the
economic crisis. We will ensure that these new resources are invested
wisely with strong accountability measures and directed toward
strategic goals.
President-elect Obama identified key priorities for any development
program in his administration, including: Fighting extreme global
poverty; achieving the Millennium Development Goals; fighting
corruption; eliminating the global education deficit; enhancing U.S.
leadership in the effort to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
and improving global health infrastructure; providing sustainable debt
relief to developing countries; expanding prosperity through training,
partnerships, and expanded opportunities for small and medium
enterprise; supporting developing countries in adapting to the
challenges of a changing climate; reforming the IMF and World Bank; and
supporting effective, accountable, democratic institutions and
governments. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I look forward to
working with this committee and your colleagues in the House of
Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs to achieve these
priorities.
Question 67. The MCC has been one of President Bush's signature
development programs. It has been both praised as encompassing
innovative and creative ideas, as well as criticized for being too slow
to disburse funds once a compact has been signed, not demonstrating
results on the ground quickly enough, and being inadequately
coordinated with other U.S. foreign assistance programs. What reforms
would you advocate to strengthen the MCC?
Answer. President-elect Obama supports the MCC, and the principle
of greater accountability in our foreign assistance programs. It
represents a worthy new approach to poverty reduction and combating
corruption. However, there are challenges within the MCC. Pace of
implementation is certainly one challenge, as is the danger of a lack
of coordination with overall U.S. foreign assistance. The Obama
administration looks forward to working to build on the promise of the
MCC as we move forward with modernizing U.S. foreign assistance
programs.
budget issues
Question 68. The U.S. National Security Strategies for 2002 and
2006 divide our national security apparatus into three components:
Defense, diplomacy, and development. However, the International Affairs
Budget represents less than 7 percent of our Nation's national security
budget. In July 2008, Secretary Gates stated: ``Our diplomatic leaders
. . . must have the resources and political support needed to fully
exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading America's foreign
policy.'' What efforts do you plan to undertake to secure greater
funding of the International Affairs Budget?
Answer. America's national security interests require a vigorous
and well-funded State Department. I am concerned that the Department's
funding is insufficient to the task.
Both President-elect Obama and I believe that our diplomacy needs
to be more robust. In keeping with that goal, he has called for a 25-
percent increase in Foreign Service staffing, opening more consulates,
and a doubling of our foreign assistance levels during his first term
in office. We clearly also need to invest urgently in the Department's
technological and other infrastructure platform, so that our diplomacy
can be both efficient and effective.
The Obama administration plans to put forward a robust FY 2010
budget request. I look forward to working closely with you and your
colleagues to ensure that the Department is funded to achieve its goals
on behalf of the American people.
Question 69. State has recently been short positions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, areas of emerging importance, and in new language and
functional requirements, among other areas. What is the nature and
scope of existing shortfalls in these and other high-priority areas for
your Department?
Answer. All of us should be proud of what the men and women of our
Foreign Service do each day to advance America's interests abroad. They
and their families also deserve our gratitude for stepping up to the
demands of war-zone service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Department's personnel system has been strained by staffing
needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, leaving positions at many other
important posts unfilled. We also need increased personnel to support a
stronger diplomatic presence in countries of emerging importance to
America's security and economic interests, and to tackle stabilization
and humanitarian needs around the world. A training float is also
essential if our diplomats are to learn the critical language and
project management skills needed for success.
The 25-percent increase in Foreign Service staffing that President-
elect Obama has called for would do much to address these needs. That
request is very much in line with the Department's own internal
analysis, and with recommendations made by outside observers.
I look forward to working closely with the Congress in order to
obtain the funding needed to realize this personnel increase as a high
priority.
role of military in foreign policy
Question 70. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that ``the
United States military has become more involved in a range of
activities that in the past were perceived to be the exclusive province
of civilian agencies and organizations . . . This has led to concern
among many organizations . . . about what's seen as a creeping
`militarization' of some aspects of America's foreign policy. This is
not an entirely unreasonable sentiment.'' Are you concerned about this
supposed trend toward the militarization of our foreign policy?
Answer. Improving the State Department's civilian capacity to
respond to international crises will be a top priority for the Obama
administration--and the Department. We need to better integrate the
military, the State Department, and other civilian agencies in
stabilization and aid efforts. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with Defense Secretary Gates and other members of the national security
team to strike the right balance.
Question 71. The Defense Department has been surprisingly vocal
about calling for more civilian resources and capacity. Secretary
Gates: ``It has become clear that America's civilian institutions of
diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and
underfunded for far too long--relative to what we spend on the
military, and more important, relative to the responsibilities and
challenges our nation has around the world.'' What do you think it will
take to bring civilian institutions up to the task? What reforms,
investments, and changes need to occur so civilians can be effective
counterparts to the military? What is preventing these reforms from
taking place currently? If the leaders of the State and Defense
Departments are in such close agreement about the need for more
resources for civilian national security agencies, do you see any
possibility of reducing DOD's share of the budget to make resources
available? Or do we need to simply accept that America's national
security requires much larger State Department and USAID budgets, along
with large military budgets?
Answer. The President-elect has said that we cannot counter
insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can
carry out economic and political reconstruction missions--sometimes in
dangerous places. He has pledged to strengthen these civilian
capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this
challenge, and to increase both the numbers and capabilities of our
diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work
alongside our military.
I agree with Secretary Gates that ``America's civilian institutions
of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and
underfunded for far too long.'' In order to equip the State Department
with the tools that it needs to address today's challenges, we will
need to invest additional resources in the Department. President-elect
Obama has also called for better integration of Federal agencies and
the military in stabilization and aid efforts. Specifically, he has
called for the creation of Mobile Development Teams (MDTs) that bring
together personnel from the military, the Pentagon, the State
Department, and USAID, fully integrating U.S. Government efforts in
counterterror, state-building, and post-conflict operations. He has
also called for the establishment of an expeditionary capability within
non-Pentagon agencies (State Department, U.S. Agency for International
Development, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, and
Health and Human Services, etc.) to deploy personnel where they are
needed. These civilians will be integrated with, and sometimes operate
independently from, our military expeditionary capabilities.
Question 72. The dominant mode of cooperation among the State
Department, USAID, and the U.S. military on development operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan has been the PRT model. Do you view this model as
successful, and will you recommend continuing to use PRTs in other
places as the need arises?
Answer. The President-elect believes that we need to learn from the
use of PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan to build upon their successes while
addressing any shortcomings.
The PRTs across Iraq and Afghanistan confront different conditions
and challenges, and consequently differ in structure, focus, and
results. As new situations arise, the Obama administration will
carefully consider what tools will best accomplish our goals including
the future use of PRTs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
the national security team in reviewing the PRT model, considering its
applications elsewhere, and consulting with this committee and the
Congress as we make decisions.
stabilization and reconstruction
Question 73. A key lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq is that
stabilization and reconstruction efforts are as important as war-
fighting in achieving our national security priorities. The U.S.
Government lacks capacity and coherence in its efforts to assist
stabilization and reconstruction in countries transitioning from war to
peace. There is currently no entity within the U.S. Government that has
the mandate and means to lead stabilization and reconstruction efforts.
International cooperation, essential to success, is ad hoc and poorly
managed. What steps should we take to address these deficiencies?
[NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FOR THIS QUESTION]
Question 74. What do you believe is the appropriate role for the
Office of Stabilization and Reconstruction (S/CRS)? Is it best served
working out of the State Department? Or would it improve operational
effectiveness if S/CRS and the Civilian Response Corps were relocated
into USAID and consolidated with several other USAID offices? Will the
administration be requesting additional funding for the Office in the
upcoming supplemental or in the FY 2010 budget?
Answer. As the committee knows, the Office of Stabilization and
Reconstruction was created several years ago, and its functions were
codified last year by legislation sponsored by Senator Lugar and Vice-
President-elect Biden. Their legislation is consistent with the
President-elect's goal to build civilian capacity that can be deployed
on short notice to help stabilize countries in urgent need.
Stabilization and reconstruction is a mission that is of growing
importance to our national security, and it is also important that the
State Department have the resources and authorities to carry out this
function effectively. An effective stabilization and reconstruction
function within State will both reduce the burden on our Armed Forces
and lead to better coordination among our civilian agencies and with
the Pentagon to act effectively to stabilize and rebuild societies at
risk of, or emerging from, conflict. I believe that the Office of the
Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the State
Department has made a lot of progress despite a number of challenges it
faced in implementing its mandate. If confirmed, I look forward to
enhancing its capacity and to working closely with the committee to
ensure the State Department has the means and the organization to carry
out these important duties effectively.
state department operations
Question 75. A recent study by the American Academy of Diplomacy
calls for a rapid increase in resources, training, and personnel for
the State Department and related civilian agencies. It proposes adding
4,735 new hires at an annual cost of $2 billion, as a minimum needed
increase. It also calls for expanding public diplomacy programs at a
cost of $445 million by 2014. Do you support these proposals? Would you
go further? What do you see as the priorities for increasing America's
civilian capacity to more effectively execute U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. Current Foreign Service staffing clearly is insufficient to
America's diplomatic needs in today's challenging world. The Academy's
staffing recommendation is broadly in line with President-elect Obama's
call for a 25-percent Foreign Service staffing increase. If confirmed,
obtaining the funds needed to realize this staffing increase will be
one of my highest management goals.
The Academy is, of course, correct in calling for a more effective
public diplomacy effort to improve America's image and advance critical
policy goals. We also need to do more to train our personnel for new
demands, including those associated with reconstruction and
stabilization missions.
I look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the
Department of State is staffed and equipped to meet the many challenges
that America faces abroad.
Question 76. Do we need to rethink the current personnel system,
including the Foreign Service system, which forms the backbone of the
State Department and USAID? As the HELP Commission Report on Foreign
Assistance Reform pointed out, the current human resource management
practice is still based on the expectation that individuals will remain
with a single government agency until retirement. Does such a system
make sense given present-day workforce realities? Does it hinder
creativity, innovation, and flexibility?
Answer. This is an issue facing the Federal Government as a whole.
I am sure that the President-elect's nominee to head the Office of
Personnel Management will be looking closely at this matter.
For my part, I certainly want the Department to do everything
possible to keep the talented men and women it works so hard to
attract. If confirmed, we will evaluate how the Department's personnel
policies stack up against those of America's best private sector
companies and work to see that our training, assignment, and promotion
policies are geared toward ensuring that our workforce is as creative,
innovative, and flexible as it needs to be in today's challenging
world.
Finally, minorities remain underrepresented at the Department. As
Secretary, I will ask the Director General and the Office of Civil
Rights to work vigorously to ensure that our diplomatic corps reflects
the diversity of American society.
foreign service pay reform
Question 77. Under existing law, Foreign Service (FS) personnel
stationed in the United States receive a salary adjustment that is
based on comparable private sector salaries in their locality (e.g.,
Washington, DC). Although armed services personnel receive a similar
comparability adjustment while stationed overseas, FS personnel do not,
despite typically serving two-thirds of their careers abroad. Some have
argued that the resulting pay disparity in 2008 effectively amounted to
a 20.89-percent pay cut for FS members serving overseas. In 2009, that
disparity is expected to grow to 23.10 percent. Do you intend to make
correction of the FS pay disparity a top management priority at State?
If so, how?
Answer. Rectifying this pay disparity will indeed be a high
priority for me.
At heart, this is an issue of fairness. As you have noted, Foreign
Service officers are required to spend significant portions of their
careers abroad. The loss of salary income they incur is grossly unfair,
all the more so given that they are compensated less than colleagues at
other agencies with whom they work side by side in service to our
country. We cannot expect to retain the best talent in these
conditions.
I know that this issue has been put before the Congress in previous
years. I hope that we can work together to redress this matter on a
priority basis.
georgia
Question 78. How has the United States recalibrated its policy
toward Russia in the aftermath of the country's disproportionate
military response in Georgia? Now that we have had a few months to
digest recent developments in Georgia, how do the salient facts of the
Russian-Georgian conflict inform your view of our policy toward Russia
and Georgia?
Answer. Whatever sequence of events precipitated conflict within
Georgia's borders in August 2008, the Russian military response was
disproportionate and illegal, a fact recognized widely within the
international community. Russia's decision to recognize Abkhazia and
South Ossetia as independent states was also disturbing. The United
States must work closely with our allies and friends throughout the
world to ensure that the Russian Government's decision to undermine
Georgia sovereignty does not gain international legitimacy.
As we have begun to go through a multiyear $1 billion assistance
package assembled by the Bush administration and approved by Congress
last fall, the United States and our allies must help to rebuild
Georgia. Collapse of Georgia's economy or democracy would embolden
those inside Russia who support the use of military force to achieve
Russian goals and would weaken democratic forces throughout the region.
The Georgian Government's recent pledges to strengthen democratic
institutions are a positive sign, a demonstration of the learning and
recalibration that can occur in democracies.
The United States can support Georgian territorial integrity,
economic recovery, and democratic development and also work with Russia
on issues of common strategic interest. The United States and Russia
have many mutual interests, including countering nuclear proliferation,
reducing our nuclear arsenals, expanding trade and investment
opportunities, and fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Russia's recent
choices--not our decisions--threaten this future and remind us that
peace and security in Europe cannot be taken for granted. At the same
time, I look forward to working with my Russian counterparts on those
issues of common interest even when we disagree about other issues.
Question 79. Do you believe that Russian leaders view democratic
government in Georgia or any other country within what President
Medvedev has called Russia's ``sphere of influence'' as a threat? How
should the West respond?
Answer. The United States and our allies must remain unequivocal in
rejecting the principle of spheres of interests and affirming the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries in Russia's
neighborhood. Helping these countries strengthen their sovereignty will
include not only diplomatic and economic support but also developing a
strategy for reducing their dependence on Russian energy exports. In
parallel, we also must seek a more constructive relationship with
Russia, as improved relations between the West and Russia might help to
demonstrate to the Russian leadership that their long-term interests
are best served by becoming a stakeholder in the international
community and not served as well by using coercive instruments to
assert Russian power abroad.
Question 80. The United States has made a significant investment in
the future of Georgia as an independent, democratic nation. What
dividends are we seeing? How would you assess the status of Georgia's
democracy? What are the country's most pressing challenges? Are you
satisfied with the safeguards that have been put in place to assure
U.S. assistance to Georgia is spent appropriately? In your view, has
the United States coordinated effectively with other donor countries to
assure that assistance is used wisely?
Answer. Over the long haul, there is no question that American
assistance to Georgia has yielded dividends regarding both Georgia's
democracy and independence. In the last few years, however, independent
evaluators such as Freedom House have recorded a decline in Georgian
democratic practices. Obviously, Georgia's territorial integrity also
has been weakened by the war last August.
The response to these setbacks should not be retreat but a better,
smarter policy. The American aid package approved last year, coupled
with the pledges of assistance made at the donors' conference last
October, will help to begin rebuilding Georgia's infrastructure, which
in turn will serve as an economic stimulus package to help jump-start
the Georgian economy.
Transparency regarding the spending of these resources is
essential. Because democratic institutions facilitate oversight and
accountability, deepening Georgian democratic practices must be a
critical objective of our assistance. It is encouraging that Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili and many other senior Georgian officials
have expressed a similar recommitment to strengthening Georgian
democratic institutions.
Question 81. Georgia has expressed an interest in negotiating a
free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. Would you support an
FTA with Georgia?
Answer. The United States has an interest in expanding export
opportunities for American companies and securing the benefits of
increased imports for the American consumer. The United States and our
allies also have an interest in integrating Georgia into the Western
community of democratic states, and trade can facilitate this process.
I look forward to working together with Congress to create the proper
legal framework for expanding trade between the United States and
Georgia.
russia
Question 82. Which areas of our relationship with Russia offer the
best prospects for cooperation going forward? Are there points of
convergent interest where we can work to improve relations? What
incentives could we offer Russia to act more responsibly at home, in
its neighborhood and on issues of common concern like arms control,
counterterrorism, and Iran? What leverage do we have to change Russian
behavior if incentives do not work?
Answer. President-elect Obama seeks a future of cooperative
engagement with the Russian Government on matters of strategic
importance, while standing up strongly for American values and
international norms. That is my view as well. Some of Russia's recent
actions have been reprehensible and they have disrupted its relations
with the West. As we confront those actions, we must not shy away from
pushing for more democracy, transparency, and accountability. Still,
there can be no return to the cold war. Russia is not the old Soviet
Union, and this is not the 20th century. The new administration will
work with Russia on areas of common strategic interest like
counterterrorism and counterproliferation, while pressuring Russia when
it interferes with its neighbors and abuses power at home--for example,
on Georgia, where the President-elect condemned Russia's escalation of
the conflict and clear invasion of Georgia's territory and illegal
recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Real
pressure on Russia will not come from rhetoric alone--it will come from
a unified transatlantic alliance, and forging that unity will be one of
my top priorities. If Russia refuses to abide by international norms,
its standing in the international community will diminish.
The Obama administration will seek deep, verifiable reductions in
all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons--whether deployed or nondeployed,
strategic, or nonstrategic. As a first step, we will seek a legally
binding agreement to replace the current START Treaty which expires in
December 2009. It is important that we not allow essential monitoring
and verification provisions, which give us a better understanding of
Russian strategic capabilities than we would have without them, to
lapse. The administration will also work with Russia in a mutual and
verifiable manner to increase warning and decision time prior to launch
of nuclear weapons.
Question 83. For the last several years, the Russians have proven
adept at dividing traditional allies within the Euro-Atlantic
community. What steps would you take to develop a joint strategy for
managing relations with Russia in cooperation with our European allies?
Going forward, what are the prospects for forging a common approach to
Russia given the arrival of a new administration?
Answer. America's national security interests require improved ties
with our European allies and stronger Euro-Atlantic institutions.
Russia's actions in Georgia last August highlight how important it is
to work closely and effectively with our European allies to develop a
unified approach to Russia, pursue energy security, and stand up for
the rights of sovereign nations in Europe and Eurasia. The President-
elect has made it clear that a strong trans-Atlantic alliance is
critical to our ability to encourage Russia to abide by international
norms.
Question 84. A number of observers have commented with increasing
alarm on Russia's backsliding on democracy and human rights. How would
you address this trend?
Answer. Democratic backsliding in Russia is real and disturbing.
Yet, Russia's political system is not monolithic and pockets of
pluralism, critical thinking, and independent actions exist in Russia
today. Without any illusions about short-term fixes, our administration
must do what we can to support these democratic elements.
President-elect Obama has made clear that we will not turn a blind
eye to violations of human rights and democratic practices in the false
belief that doing so will help us to secure Russian cooperation on
other issues. At the same time, berating Russian leaders about
democracy abuses also has not worked. Our administration must rise
above ineffectual bluster and empty threats on the one hand and
business as usual on the other. We can cooperate with our Russian
counterparts without pretending to be personal friends and without
checking our values at the door.
To support democracy, transparent government, and the rule of law
in Russia and the region, our administration will strongly support
funding for the Freedom Support Act (FSA) programs and ensure robust
funding for the National Endowment for Democracy.
eastern europe and eurasia
Question 85. During the last several years, Russia utilized control
over scarce energy resources--and an associated financial windfall--to
pursue foreign policy goals that were often at odds with those of the
United States. The recent reduction in global oil and gas prices along
with increasing instability in Russia's own economy might now erode
Russia's ability to apply pressure on neighboring countries that seek
independence from Moscow. Given these changing dynamics, what
principles should guide U.S. policy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia? In
particular, how can we work with our allies to decrease their
dependence on Russia's energy supplies? How can we ensure that the
region will be more hospitable to the development of independent,
democratic governments?
Answer. United States-Russia relations have been becoming
increasingly strained over the last several years. Russia's
antidemocratic drift, threats, and pressure against some of its
neighbors, gas cutoffs to Ukraine and others, and especially the
invasion and dismemberment of Georgia last summer have made it
impossible for the United States to pursue business-as-usual with
Moscow. That said, there has not been, and will not be, a return to the
cold war. The President-elect and I both seek to engage the Russian
Government on matters of strategic importance, while also standing up
strongly for American values and international norms.
If confirmed, I will seek to engage Russia directly on a wide range
of issues of potential cooperation, including strategic arms control,
nuclear nonproliferation, terrorism, the environment, Afghanistan, and
economic relations. I will make clear that we will not accept ``spheres
of influence'' in Europe, but also that our two countries have many
common interests that the Obama administration stands ready to pursue
with our counterparts in Moscow.
Question 86. How do you assess the impact of the Russian military
action against Georgia on neighboring countries? Do you believe it has
caused them to revaluate their strategic calculus?
Answer. Yes. Our NATO allies want to make sure that our Article 5
commitments to them are robust and we should signal that they are
through contingency planning. Other non-NATO countries in the region
with close ties to the West also have expressed new worries about their
security. Developing a comprehensive new strategy for the entire
region, which fosters stable peaceful relations between states and
respect for sovereignty of all states in the region, is a central
strategic challenge for our administration and our partners in Europe.
Question 87. At last year's summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO did
not issue Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia, but it did
agree to a communique which establishes a firm commitment to eventual
membership. At this December's NATO ministerial, the U.S. agreed not to
put the MAP issue on the summit's agenda. Is NATO's door still open to
Ukraine and Georgia, and if so, what does the likely road ahead look
like for Ukraine's and Georgia's candidacies?
Answer. While there are different views among allies on the best
way to promote eventual NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, it is
essential that we work closely with our allies to develop a common
approach on alliance enlargement. The NATO-Ukraine Commission and the
NATO-Georgia Commission (established last summer) are other avenues
available for deepening relations between the alliance and Georgia and
Ukraine. NATO's door must remain open to European democracies that meet
membership criteria and can contribute to our common security. How and
when new countries might join must be determined together with all our
allies in the alliance.
ukraine
Question 88. Ukraine is a country of tremendous strategic and
political importance, but it has struggled to develop a stable,
functional government since the Orange Revolution brought democracy to
the nation 4 years ago. If confirmed, what steps will you take to help
Ukraine fully realize its democratic potential?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I understand the importance of
helping to consolidate democracy in Ukraine. The failure of democracy
in Ukraine would deliver a blow to the democratic forces throughout the
entire region, including inside Russia.
We will need to work with our partners in Ukraine to develop an
anticrisis strategy, including a solution to the current standoff
between Ukraine and Russia regarding gas prices. Today, an even more
dramatic economic meltdown is the greatest threat to Ukrainian
democracy.
In the long run, a Ukraine firmly imbedded in Europe's
institutional architecture will have the greatest chance at stability
and prosperity. Our administration will encourage our European Union
partners to strengthen their links with Ukraine, including creating a
membership perspective.
transatlantic relations
Question 89. The United States alliance with the democracies of
Europe ranks among our country's most valuable strategic assets.
However, during the last 8 years, relations with our European allies
have frequently been strained and occasionally dysfunctional. What are
your expectations for the Euro-Atlantic alliance going forward? If
confirmed, what concrete steps would you take to revitalize the United
States partnership with the members of NATO and the European Union?
What should our allies expect from the new administration--and what
should we expect from them?
Answer. The U.S. alliance with the democracies of Europe is a
valuable strategic asset. Indeed, of the many global challenges we will
face in the coming 4 years--from the financial crisis to global
warming, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism and nonproliferation--there
is not a single one on which we are not stronger when we benefit from
the cooperation of our European allies. The President-elect has pledged
to reestablish America's strong partnership with our European allies
and I intend to support him in that critical task. As the President-
elect has said, we will ``treat allies with respect, repair America's
damaged moral authority, and recreate a mutually beneficial partnership
with our European friends.'' At the same time, ``we will ask more of
our European friends. A more responsible and cooperative America will
look to Europe to uphold its own responsibilities on issues such as
Afghanistan, Iran, terrorism, Africa, and the environment.''
Question 90. There are numerous mechanisms available to the United
States when engaging the countries of Europe--NATO, the European Union,
the Organization for Security and Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, and our bilateral relationships are four of the
most prominent. If confirmed, which of these mechanisms do you plan to
rely on most heavily? Would you propose firmer guidelines designating
specific forums for the discussion of specific issues or prefer to rely
upon a more ad hoe approach?
Answer. NATO, the EU, the OSCE, and our bilateral relationships in
Europe all serve U.S. interests in different ways. I do not believe we
should favor any one mechanism over the others but rather consider all
of them potential tools in helping achieve our goals of peace,
prosperity, and stability not just in Europe but around the world.
There are, of course, differences among these forums--NATO includes a
collective defense commitment while the EU has a much greater economic
role, for example--but in a world in which defense, security, and
prosperity are closely linked all of these institutions must form part
of a coherent overall strategy.
Question 91. In your view, is it time for NATO to adopt a new
strategic concept? If so, when and how should the process of
formulating that concept occur? What should we expect when that process
is over?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the President, the Secretary
of Defense, and the rest of our national security team to explore the
potential need for a new NATO Strategic Concept. NATO last updated its
Strategic Concept in 1999, before threats like terrorism, energy
insecurity, cyber attacks, and climate change were as apparent as they
are today, and before NATO was engaged in global missions such as
Afghanistan. A new Strategic Concept would provide an opportunity for
NATO allies, among other things, to reiterate their commitment to
Article 5; reconsider and address new and emerging threats to allied
security; clarify NATO's relationship to the United Nations and other
multilateral bodies; clarify the NATO-EU relationship; and address the
issue of global partnerships and missions. The April 2009 NATO summit
will provide a useful forum for discussing this issue with our key
alliance partners and forging a consensus on whether to draft a new
Strategic Concept and, if so, on the timetable for doing so.
bosnia-herzegovina
Question 92. The United States made significant investments to help
bring peace to Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s, but the situation in
the country has received too little high-level attention in the
intervening 8 years. Bosnia-Herzegovina is currently facing a serious
political crisis that threatens much of what the country has achieved
since the signing of the Dayton Accords. What plans do you have to
address this crisis?
Answer. More than a decade after the United States led the effort
to bring peace to Bosnia-Herzegovina, the situation in that country is
still not satisfactory. We should be proud of the fact that, along with
our NATO allies, we stopped a devastating civil war and gave the
citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina the opportunity to build a stable peace
and functioning institutions, but much progress remains to be made.
With the parties to the Dayton agreement at odds over a range of
issues, and with the international community uncertain about how to
move forward, the situation requires urgent attention. If confirmed, I
will ensure that Bosnia-Herzegovina receives the enhanced and sustained
U.S. engagement its needs to overcome the divisions that prevent it
from fulfilling its potential.
china
Question 93. China's growing economic strength and global power
presents the U.S. Congress with an extremely complicated set of policy
issues. On the one hand, many see China as an essential partner for the
United States on global issues such as the international financial
system, alternative energy sources, climate change, public health and
many others. On the other, many argue that China's size, international
engagement, and growing confidence mean it is increasingly able to
compete with--or even to challenge--the United States more directly and
more effectively in economic, political, and military terms. What is
the administration's view of China's role in the world? Is China a
threat to U.S. interests, is it a ``responsible stakeholder,'' or at
times both? What does your assessment mean for the future of U.S. China
policy, and how does it guide a U.S. strategy that can help shape
China's choices?
Answer. China is a critically important actor in a changing global
landscape. We cannot put a simple label on a complex relationship. We
want a positive and cooperative relationship with China, one where we
deepen and strengthen our ties on a number of issues, and manage our
differences where they persist. But this is not a one-way effort--much
of what we do depends on the choices China makes. We can encourage them
to become a full and responsible participant in the international
community--to join the world in addressing common challenges like
climate change and nuclear proliferation--and to make greater progress
toward a more open and market-based society. But it is ultimately up to
them. As we engage with China, we also have to maintain and enhance our
strong relationships with our allies in the region--Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and others--who will help us meet the opportunities and
challenges we are facing in Asia. The global financial crisis has
demonstrated once again the need to think about common challenges in a
new way. There are a number of emerging powers that will be critical
players in this new century. With American leadership and their
responsible engagement, we can improve the common good and confront
common threats. That is the approach that I will take into my job if I
am fortunate enough to be confirmed.
Question 94. During the Bush administration, the United States
initiated several new high-level dialogues with China: The Senior
Dialogue under the auspices of the State Department and the Strategic
Economic Dialogue administered by the Treasury Department. How does the
Obama administration intend to continue or expand these efforts?
Answer. It is important to have high-level discussions to discuss
economic issues with the Chinese Government. We are looking carefully
at the question of how to develop this important engagement with China.
We expect high-level engagement to continue in some form.
Question 95. China has been the world's fastest growing economy in
recent years and is now the largest holder of U.S. Treasury Securities.
What role does the administration see for China in dealing with the
current global financial and economic crisis?
Answer. Our economic policy toward China has to be closely
coordinated with our foreign policy. They cannot be pursued in
isolation to one another. China is a critically important actor in a
changing global landscape. We want a positive and cooperative
relationship with China, one where we deepen and strengthen our ties on
a number of issues, and manage our differences where they persist. But
this is not a one-way effort--much of what we do depends on the choices
China makes. The global financial crisis has demonstrated once again
the need to think about common challenges in a new way.
Question 96. Last year, China surpassed the United States as the
world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. While Prime Minister Hu
Jintao has advanced and is implementing important clean energy
policies, China continues to build one pulverized coal-fired power
plant every week, and the country's primary energy demand is projected
to double by 2030. This trend is unsustainable, in light of the urgent
need to stabilize and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. What
steps will you personally--and the Obama administration more broadly--
take to improve United States-China collaboration on climate change and
clean energy technologies?
Answer. Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges
facing the United States and the global community. The United States
will take a leadership role in combating the threat of global climate
change from the beginning of the new administration. The President-
elect has specifically pledged to set a goal of an 80-percent reduction
in U.S. emissions and a 50-percent reduction in global emissions by
2050--a policy goal I am committed to as well. In pursuit of that goal,
we will ask the biggest carbon emitting nations to join a new Global
Energy Forum to lay the foundation for the next generation of climate
protocols.
Question 97. Taiwan remains the most sensitive issue in United
States-China relations. Does the Obama administration plan to hold
another Taiwan Policy Review along the lines of that conducted in 1994
by the Clinton administration?
Answer. The administration's policy will be to help Taiwan and
China resolve their differences peacefully while making clear that any
unilateral change in the status quo is unacceptable. We will maintain
our ``one China'' policy, our adherence to the three United States-PRC
Joint Communiques concerning Taiwan, and observance of the Taiwan
Relations Act, which lays out the legal basis for our relationship.
Question 98. The Government of China and the Dalai Lama of Tibet
disagree on the issue of greater autonomy for the Tibetan Autonomous
Region, which has been a stumbling block in their ongoing dialogue.
Meanwhile, many Tibetans have lost faith in the possibility of a
negotiated compromise, while Chinese leaders have expressed a deep
distrust of the Dalai Lama's intentions and foreign contacts. What
options may be acceptable to both sides? What kinds of international
pressure, if any, would be helpful in promoting a resolution?
Answer. The Obama administration will speak out for the human
rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet. If Tibetans are to
live in harmony with the rest of China's people, their religion and
culture must be respected and protected. Tibet should enjoy genuine and
meaningful autonomy. The Dalai Lama should be invited to visit China,
as part of a process leading to his return. We will condemn the use of
violence to put down peaceful protests, and call on the Chinese
Government to respect the basic human rights of the people of Tibet,
and to account for the whereabouts of detained Buddhist monks. We will
also continue to press China on our concerns about human rights issues
at every opportunity and at all levels, publicly and privately, both
through our mission in China and in Washington.
japan
Question 99. Some analysts have suggested that the U.S. alliance
with Japan, a linchpin of stability in Asia, has become overly focused
on military issues controversial among the Japanese public. Do you
think that the United States should continue to press Japan to step up
its global engagement using its military resources, or instead
concentrate on other shared interests like energy efficiency, climate
change measures, and coordination on African development assistance? Is
this an either/or choice?
Answer. The United States-Japan alliance has been one of the great
successes of the postwar era. Japan's achievements and global
leadership in world affairs over the past 60 years are a great
testament to the Japanese people. A strong and enduring United States-
Japan alliance, based on common interests and shared values, is the
centerpiece for both American and Japanese policy in the Asia-Pacific
region. Japan today plays a vital role in working alongside the United
States to maintain regional security and stability, promote prosperity,
and meet the new security challenges of the 21st century. As the
world's two wealthiest democracies, the United States and Japan have
shared interests that cut across a range of challenging issues: Nuclear
proliferation, terrorism, financial instability, poverty, and climate
change, to name but a few.
As the United States-Japan alliance continues to evolve into a
truly global alliance, it must also develop truly global and
complementary capacities across a broad range of issues, capacities
that will allow us together to address the range of pressing issues on
the regional and global agenda. We must strive, for close cooperation,
communication, and coordination, at every level. If confirmed as
Secretary of State, I will look forward to building on our longstanding
friendship to forge an even stronger alliance and partnership in the
years ahead.
south korea/korus fta
Question 100. President-elect Obama has stated that he cannot
support the KORUS FTA as it currently stands. What specific changes to
the agreement will the Obama administration be seeking? How can we work
to ensure that the agreement does not affect South Korean perceptions
of the United States and the United States-South Korean alliance?
Answer. South Korea is an important friend and ally and if
confirmed I look forward to building an even stronger bilateral
relationship in the years to come. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the United States Trade Representative, the Treasury
Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, and others on the President-
elect's economic team on these issues. We will communicate forthrightly
and fairly with South Korea, explaining that our concerns with the FTA
are discrete and specific and have no bearing on the many collaborative
dimensions of our alliance and friendship. We will also work to resolve
these concerns to the satisfaction of both parties.
President-elect Obama has opposed and continues to oppose the KORUS
FTA that the Bush administration negotiated because although it
included some useful improvements for U.S. service and technology
industries in South Korea, U.S. negotiators did not do a good job of
obtaining a deal that provided for fair treatment for American cars and
trucks and other manufactured goods. There are also concerns over U.S.
beef exports that we are told are close to resolution.
Despite decades of bipartisan concern over the nontransparent
practices used to block U.S. access to South Korea's market, this FTA
failed to obtain a deal that provided genuine improvements in this
area. Because the FTA gives South Korean auto exports essentially
untrammeled access to the U.S. market, ratification of the agreement in
its present form would mean the United States would lose its remaining
leverage to counteract these nontariff barriers. The result will be a
competitive handicap for one of our most important industries.
If the South Koreans are willing to reengage negotiations on these
vital provisions of the agreement, we will work with them to get to
resolution.
north korea
Question 101. What are your views on the recent State Department
announcement that the United States and its partners would halt
deliveries of heavy fuel oil to North Korea due to Pyongyang's refusal
to agree, in writing, on a plan for verifying its nuclear program?
Would the new administration be in a better position to take up the
nuclear issue with North Korea if the formal verification plan was
deferred into the future? Would you be prepared to travel to Pyongyang
or to another capital to meet with North Korea's Foreign Minister or
other appropriate official?
Answer. The Obama administration will confirm the full extent of
North Korea's past plutonium production and its uranium enrichment
activities, and get answers to disturbing questions about its
proliferation activities with other countries, including Syria. The
North Koreans must live up to their commitments and fully and
verifiably dismantle all of their nuclear weapons programs and
proliferation activities. If they do not, there must be strong
sanctions. We will only lift sanctions based on North Korean
performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we
should move quickly to reimpose sanctions that have been waived, and
consider new restrictions going forward. The objective must be clear:
The complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear
weapons programs, which only expanded while we refused to talk. As we
move forward, we must not cede our leverage in these negotiations
unless it is clear that North Korea is living up to its obligations.
As to the question about the HFO shipments, the President-elect has
made clear his view that North Korea is not entitled to international
support. He said that if North Korea did not live up to its obligations
we may in fact reinstate some sanctions. We are going to take a hard
look at where the Bush administration and our allies in East Asia ended
up on the verification protocols, but we are very much open to
maintaining the suspension of the HFO shipments.
As to the questions of any potential travel and meetings, no
decisions have been made. Like the President-elect, I would be willing
to meet with any foreign leader at a time and place of my choosing if
it can advance America's interests.
Question 102. Would you support appointing a special ambassador to
deal directly with the North Korean nuclear issue as the United States
chief negotiator?
Answer. No decisions have been made on whether to appoint a special
ambassador to deal directly with the North Korean nuclear issue.
Question 103. It is generally understood that the U.S. has a dearth
of information about events inside North Korea. The State Department
sent an official to Pyongyang this year to be located there
permanently. Would you favor expanding that initiative into a proposal
to North Korea to exchange interest sections (similar to the U.S.
arrangement with Cuba)?
Answer. No decisions have been made about whether to exchange
interest sections with North Korea. The new administration will
carefully consider its diplomatic options with North Korea.
Question 104. Will the United States pursue the normalization of
diplomatic relations with North Korea without some progress on human
rights measures, including opening up the country's reported labor
camps?
Answer. We remain concerned about improving the lives of the North
Korean people, including the lives of refugees. The United States is
now the largest provider of food aid to the DPRK through the World Food
Program and U.S. NGOs under a May 2008 agreement. This administration
will continue to address North Korea's human rights abuses, including
as part of any normalization process.
burma
Question 105. Well over a year has past since Burma's military
junta violently dispersed peaceful demonstrators, including unarmed
Buddhist monks and students, who were protesting the repressive
policies and widespread human rights violations of the ruling State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC). In the interim, conditions inside
Burma have hardly improved. What do you see as the proper way forward
for U.S. policy in Burma? Are existing sanctions working? What over
levers are available to pressure Burma's leaders to pursue policies
that respect human rights, permit the release of political prisoners
like Aung San Suu Kyi and allow for national reconciliation and a
return of democracy? Given that existing approaches have not produced
tangible results, are you considering alternative strategies?
[NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FOR THIS QUESTION]
Question 106. Burma's neighbors--China, India, and Thailand--and
Russia could play an important role in convincing Burma's military
junta to engage in dialogue with opposition leaders and ethnic
minorities toward national reconciliation. Do you intend to raise this
issue with these countries and encourage them to modify their current
positions?
[NO RESPONSE RECEIVED FOR THIS QUESTION]
Question 107. Burma's people have endured tremendous hardships over
the years and continue to face dire humanitarian conditions in the
aftermath of Cyclone Nargis. What steps do you propose taking to ease
their suffering? Would you support the provision of funds for
humanitarian purposes to groups that are not affiliated with the
Burmese regime beyond existing emergency International Disaster
Assistance resources?
Answer. The continuing dire situation in Burma requires urgent
attention. Burma's military junta is one of the most repressive regimes
in the world. Its odious behavior not only is harmful to the long-
suffering Burmese people, but also threatens the stability of
neighboring states, since Burma is a breeding ground for HIV/AIDS,
narcotics, and human trafficking. The Obama administration will support
U.S. trade and investment sanctions against Burma to demonstrate our
strong, principled condemnation of the regime's oppressive rule and our
solidarity with the Burmese people. The regime must release,
unconditionally, all of the nation's political prisoners, including the
symbol and leader of Burma's democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi.
But our sanctions, if they are to be effective, must be smart,
tough, and targeted. They must be crafted, as in the Lantos bill, to
bring pressure to bear on the regime itself, and seek, as best as we
can, to spare the people of Burma further suffering. So I strongly
believe that we should more fully explore possible modalities for
humanitarian assistance that will reach the suffering people of Burma
and that do not empower the military junta.
Also if confirmed, I look forward to working with the Senate to
fill the important position of Special Envoy for Burma as soon as
possible.
hiv/aids
Question 108. One of President Bush's most notable achievements was
the creation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief which
has made great strides in the fight against HIV/AIDS, particularly in
helping to support treatment for over 2 million people. While the
United States has created a new paradigm in demonstrating the
capability to provide HIV/AIDS treatment on a wide scale in some of the
poorest countries of the world, the spread of the disease continues to
outpace treatment efforts. How can the United States assist partner
countries in more effective HIV prevention efforts?
Answer. The President-elect has applauded President Bush's efforts
to combat HIV/AIDS, and pledged to continue and enhance PEPFAR. There
are an estimated 33 million people across the planet infected with HIV/
AIDS. We must do more to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as
malaria and tuberculosis. The President-elect is committed to fully
implementing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and to
ensuring that best practices, not ideology, drive funding. He has
committed to investing $50 billion over 5 years to strengthen the
program and expand it to new regions of the world, including Southeast
Asia, India, and parts of Europe. At the same time, the new
administration will work to more effectively coordinate PEPFAR with
programs to strengthen health care delivery and address other global
health challenges. The new administration will also increase U.S.
contributions to the Global Fund to ensure that global efforts to fight
endemic disease continue to move ahead through multilateral
institutions as well. As part of these efforts, the new administration
will work with drug companies to reduce the costs of generic
antiretroviral drugs. And it will work with developing nations to help
them build the health infrastructure necessary to get sick people
treated--more money for hospitals and medical equipment, and more
training for nurses and doctors.
public diplomacy
Question 109. What measures do you think are necessary to improve
U.S. public diplomacy efforts and restore America's image in the world?
Answer. The President-elect intends to launch a coordinated,
multiagency program of public diplomacy. And I am committed to
restoring the strength and vision of the State Department's public
diplomacy mission. As the President-elect has noted, this is not a
peripheral enterprise, disconnected from the rest of our foreign
policy. It is an important component of our overall counterterrorism
strategy, and it is a vital part of our effort to restore American
leadership and reassert American values.
With that in mind, the administration will pursue concrete
objectives, including opening ``America Houses'' in cities across the
Arab world, which will be modeled on the successful program the United
States launched following World War II. We will launch a new
``America's Voice Corps,'' to rapidly recruit and train fluent speakers
of local languages and public diplomacy skills. We will offer
alternatives to madrassas through the Global Education Fund. In our own
hemisphere, we will pursue vigorous diplomacy to rebuild the ties with
our friends and neighbors in the Americas.
Question 110. Many are critical of the decision to fold the U.S.
Information Agency into the State Department in 1999, observing that
the long-term efforts of public diplomacy have been subordinated to the
short-term rapid-reaction goals emphasized by public affairs. Several
have proposed reestablishing a U.S. agency responsible for public
diplomacy and strategic communications that would be separate from the
State Department. What is your assessment of the relative strengths/
weaknesses of how we conduct public diplomacy? Are you open to
considering some of the bolder proposals to restructure U.S. public
diplomacy and outreach?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working to ensure that the
State Department's mission of public diplomacy is matched by the
personnel, resources, and organizational structure we need to carry out
this critical mission. USIA was an effective, single purpose agency in
many ways, but it is more practical at this time to improve the
functioning of the public diplomacy in the Department than to recreate
an independent entity. If confirmed, I look forward to a full
assessment of public diplomacy at the State Department and will look to
this committee and the Congress for its counsel as we consider how to
make improvements.
Question 111. The 2008 Pew Global Attitudes poll found that anti-
Americanism remains extremely strong in the Muslim world. Overwhelming
majorities of every predominantly Muslim country surveyed except
Lebanon, including Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Jordan, had
negative views of the United States. What can be done to stem the tide
of anti-Americanism in the Middle East? What role do you see for the
State Department in these efforts?
Answer. The President-elect has made clear his determination to
enhance our relations with the world's Muslims. As indicated above, no
public diplomacy task is more important for the Obama administration
than restoring the respect for America around the world, but more
importantly, among the world's Muslim populations. In addition to the
opening of America Houses, discussed above, the President-elect has
pledged to give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days
of his administration. He will make clear, as will I, that we are not
at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to
stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat
those who proffer only hate and violence.
genocide prevention
Question 112. The recently released report of the Genocide
Prevention Task Force, cochaired by former Secretaries Albright and
Cohen, concluded that preventing genocide must be a national priority.
The task force concluded that the United States and the international
community currently lack critical tools to identify the early warning
signs of impending mass atrocities and respond to them to prevent the
escalation of violence. ``Gaps remain . . . in the strategic
understanding of the challenges that genocide and mass atrocities pose
and in developing appropriate ways to anticipate and address civilian
protection.'' What steps would you take to address potential acts of
mass atrocity or genocide from occurring or to broaden the range of
tools that could be brought to bear? How could these steps be applied
to the current crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Darfur?
Answer. The President-elect is committed to strengthening U.S.
leadership and international efforts to prevent and respond to genocide
and other humanitarian crises. He has welcomed this fine bipartisan
report cochaired by two distinguished Americans, has pledged to review
its recommendations carefully, and has met with Secretaries Albright
and Cohen to discuss the contents of their report.
The President-elect has said, and I agree, that we are diminished
when genocide or ethnic cleaning is taking place and we stand idly by.
I anticipate that the administration will review how the United
States, working with our allies, partners, and international
organizations, can build greater capacity and resolve to deter,
prevent, and, when necessary, take action to stop mass atrocities. And
I look forward to consulting with the committee and other Members of
Congress as we consider how best to organize to address this challenge
so that there is a process in place to anticipate and address any
concerns as early as possible.
darfur
Question 113. The situation in Darfur today is far more complex
than it was in 2004. Two rebel groups have splintered into over two
dozen and these rebels frequently prey upon civilians and aid workers.
What are the administration's goals in Darfur and what is its strategy
to achieve them in light of this complexity?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I have been very clear and
forceful in our condemnation of the genocide in Sudan and in our
commitment to far more robust actions to end the genocide and maximize
protection for civilians. We have also made very clear our intent to
pursue more effective diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict that
underlies the genocide. Today the most immediate and urgent means of
providing protection as swiftly as possible to the civilians at risk is
the rapid and full implementation of the United Nations-African Union
peacekeeping force, which is half its authorized strength.
Question 114. More than 4 years after then-Secretary of State
Powell's declaration that genocide was taking place in Darfur, the
death toll has climbed still higher, the camps for displaced persons
have grown more crowded, and humanitarian access to help people in need
has diminished in many areas. The United Nations has not made good on
its pledge to send 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, and has not provided
them with the helicopters, vehicles, and other tools to fulfill their
mission. Why has this process been so slow to date? What more should
the U.S. Government do to strengthen UNAMID so that it can effectively
fulfill its mandate to protect civilians?
Answer. First, we need to send a clear message to Khartoum that
they must end obstruction of the U.N. force, including through endless
bureaucratic hurdles and delays. We also need to address some of the
U.N.'s own requirements that have inadvertently slowed UNAMID's
deployment thus far. I expect that the questions of Sudan and Darfur
will be subject to an early policy review. The administration will take
the opportunity to look at all of the steps that it can take most
effectively and urgently to maximize protection for civilians, and help
to bring this conflict to an end.
Question 115. One of the critical gaps that peacekeepers face is
the lack of attack and utility helicopters that are desperately needed
to cover vast stretches of roadless territory in Darfur. What would you
do, if confirmed as Secretary of State, to help secure these badly
needed helicopters?
Answer. The administration will, as part of its review, actively
pursue options to fill such critical gaps. The President-elect is
committed to find ways to help move needed troops and equipment into
place on an urgent basis.
southern sudan
Question 116. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between North
and South Sudan calls for elections in 2009 and a referendum in 2011 in
which the South will vote on the question of remaining a unified
country. What will your objectives be in regard to Southern Sudan and
what potential pitfalls do you see in the implementation of the CPA?
Answer. As a guarantor of the CPA, the United States has a special
responsibility to ensure that implementation of this landmark agreement
remains a priority even in the midst of the Darfur crisis. We will work
bilaterally to increase support to the Government of Southern Sudan to
bolster capacity and good governance, and multilaterally to assure
appropriate donor coordination and ongoing political and financial
support for CPA implementation.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement aims to give the Sudanese people
greater voice in their political future, and this will remain a
priority. National elections that were supposed to be held by July 2009
will clearly be delayed, but the United States will work to ensure that
the delay is not protracted, and that free, fair, safe elections are
held before the year is out. Preparations for the 2011 referendum must
remain on track as well to retain the confidence of the South.
Question 117. In April 2008, then-Senator Obama said that ``the
U.S. needs to work with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to ramp
up the pace of indictments of those responsible for war crimes and
crimes against humanity, while Khartoum must feel increased pressure to
hand over those individuals already indicted by the Court.'' On July
14, 2008, the ICC requested a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for his role in the genocide in Darfur.
Many observers expect the ICC to formally indict President Bashir on
genocide and possibly other charges in early 2009. Does the
administration intend to support the ICC's efforts to hold Bashir and
others in Sudan accountable for genocide and other heinous crimes, and,
if so, how?
Answer. Yes. Without prejudging the outcome of the ICC prosecutor's
recommendation to indict President Bashir, the President-elect
believes, as do I, that we should support the ICC's investigations,
including its pursuit of perpetrators of genocide in Darfur. The Bush
administration has indicated publicly a willingness to cooperate with
the ICC in the Darfur investigation. I commend them for this position,
which we also support. We can provide assistance in the investigation;
we can and should work with our allies in this effort. This is
important because it would send a sign of seriousness about Darfur and
our determination to end the killings and bring those responsible for
war crimes to justice.
international criminal court
Question 118. President-elect Obama has said that the United States
should cooperate with the ICC on many activities, including Darfur. He
has not, however, indicated that he will sign the Rome treaty and join
the ICC. Questions linger over the scope of the ICC's activities and,
in particular, whether U.S. servicemembers would have the necessary
legal protections given their disproportionate burden in preserving
international peace and security. What concerns, if any, need to be
resolved before the administration would consider supporting
ratification of the Rome statute? How will the administration work with
our military commanders, Congress, and the ICC to address such
concerns?
Answer. Now that it is operational, we are learning more about how
the ICC functions. Thus far, the ICC has operated with professionalism
and fairness-pursuing perpetrators of truly serious crimes, like
genocide in Darfur, and atrocities in the Congo and Uganda. The
President-elect believes as do I that we should support the ICC's
investigations, including its pursuit of perpetrators of genocide in
Darfur. Along these lines, the Bush administration has indicated a
willingness to cooperate with the ICC in the Darfur investigation, a
position which the new administration will support.
But at the same time, we must also keep in mind that the U.S. has
more troops deployed overseas than any nation. As Commander in Chief,
the President-elect will want to make sure they continue to have
maximum protection. Therefore, we intend to consult thoroughly within
the government, including the military, as well as nongovernmental
experts, and examine the full track record of the ICC before reaching
decisions on how to move forward. I also look forward to working
closely with the members of the committee. Whether we work toward
joining or not, we will end hostility toward the ICC, and look for
opportunities to encourage effective ICC action in ways that promote
U.S. interests by bringing war criminals to justice.
zimbabwe
Question 119. The Mugabe government's brutality and mismanagement
in Zimbabwe have ruined the country's economy, destroyed its health
system, and deprived its citizens of basic rights and freedoms. Last
March the people of Zimbabwe were brave enough to vote for change, but
Mugabe continues his hold on power. A massive cholera epidemic is just
the latest symptom of the government's failure to provide for its
people. What tools can the United States bring to bear to promote
democratic change in Zimbabwe?
Answer. The people of Zimbabwe have suffered for far too long under
a corrupt leadership that does not serve the needs of its people. The
destruction of Zimbabwe's economy and repeated abuses of power have
been a catastrophe for Zimbabweans, and threaten the stability of the
region.
The United States and the world must take steps to address this
growing crisis.
Widened U.S. sanctions are appropriate. It was the right policy to
have supported a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for targeted
sanctions and an arms embargo.
As Zimbabwe's crisis continues and becomes even more destabilizing
to the southern African region, South Africa, the African Union, and
the SADC must play a stronger role in pressuring the Mugabe regime.
It will require concerted and sustained diplomacy to try to get the
international community to acknowledge the need to act to apply more
pressure to the illegitimate government of Robert Mugabe, and to bring
an end to the man-made humanitarian crisis that grips Zimbabwe today.
The Zimbabwean people are suffering and the U.S. will push for more
efforts, including having humanitarian NGOs resume activity in
Zimbabwe.
We will need to consider incentives for reform, and work closely
with the EU and other international donors to create a very generous
aid and recovery package for Zimbabwe once it has a legitimate
government. We would make very clear the specific and practical steps
that any Zimbabwean Government can take to qualify for this package.
Question 120. Mugabe and his government are responsible for the
deaths of untold numbers of people in Zimbabwe. Is this an appropriate
matter for the International Criminal Court?
Answer. This is a question that the new administration will review
and consider carefully. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
the national security team to determine how best to confront and
address the extreme abuses in Zimbabwe.
The suffering inflicted on the Zimbabwean people by the
illegitimate government of Robert Mugabe is appalling. Ideally, the
people of Zimbabwe will decide for themselves how best to address the
issues of accountability and justice for crimes committed by Robert
Mugabe and his inner circle in ZANU-PF.
As discussed in other responses, I believe that as a general rule
we should support the ICC's investigations, including its pursuit of
perpetrators of genocide in Darfur. And we should work with our allies
in shaping this court for years to come. Whether the ICC is the best
vehicle to address the situation in Zimbabwe will be the subject of
discussions within the new administration, and if confirmed I would
also look forward to hearing the views of this committee.
somalia
Question 121. Somalia today embodies the principles of failed
statehood. The recent increase in the number, range, and impact of acts
of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and beyond are only the latest
consequence of the lack of government and rule of law in the country.
As Secretary of State, what will govern your strategy toward Somalia
and the Horn of Africa as a region? What steps can the United States
and the international community take to promote prospects for
democracy, stability, and security in the region?
Answer. We need to take a very careful look at this set of
questions. There are no simple solutions. First and foremost, we have a
serious counterterrorism challenge in the context of Somalia. Second,
we have a serious humanitarian concern and imperative. Third, we have
an interest in trying to facilitate national reconciliation and long-
term stability in Somalia. In this context, the question is what tools
and initiatives will best advance our efforts along all three of our
objectives? If confirmed, I expect to consider this issue in the near
future with the President-elect and my colleagues in the Cabinet. As a
starting point, an important effort should be finding ways to increase
support for and build the capacity of the African Union force.
africom
Question 122. The creation of the new unified command for Africa,
AFRICOM, may represent sound policy from the standpoint of efficiency
and management. The new command also has the potential both to elevate
and improve U.S. relations with many African countries, particularly in
critical areas such as the training of peacekeepers and the
professionalization of forces. However, the presentation and rollout of
the new command raised diplomatic concerns. The creation of AFRICOM has
also raised questions about the role of the Department of Defense in
U.S. development efforts. What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in
U.S. Africa policy and in development and humanitarian engagement?
Answer. The President-elect supports the concept of AFRICOM, but
has concerns about how it is being implemented. The new administration
will review AFRICOM and consult with African nations. The original
concept behind AFRICOM was that our engagement with Africa will be
improved by streamlining our command structure so that there is a
single unified command responsible for Africa, rather than three
separate commands as has been the case. A well-conceived AFRICOM,
playing the traditional role of a combatant command rather than
supplanting the State Department's traditional role, can enhance U.S.
Government efforts to foster peace and stability on the continent. The
President-elect has cautioned that we must be very careful not to
overmilitarize our relations with African nations. On the other hand,
there is a role to play for AFRICOM in helping train and equip African
rapid response forces for peacekeeping operations. AFRICOM can also
contribute to an enhanced capability of African nations to patrol their
own waters.
us. policy toward latin america
Question 123. Many observers believe that the United States has not
dedicated adequate attention and resources to Latin America, allowing
other countries with hostile ideologies to fill the vacuum. Would you
agree with this assessment? What is your agenda for the Americas? What
are the most significant challenges confronting U.S. interests in the
region?
Answer. Too often, U.S. policy toward the Americas in recent years
has been negligent to our friends, ineffective with our adversaries,
and disinterested in the challenges that matter to peoples' lives
throughout the region. The vacuum created by the lack of sustained U.S.
engagement with the region has been filled, in part, by others--
including Hugo Chavez, who has tried to use this opportunity to advance
outmoded and anti-American ideologies.
As President-elect Obama has stated, administration policy toward
the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what is good
for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. We will
work in partnership with countries throughout the region to promote an
agenda that helps advance democratic governance, opportunity, and
security from the bottom up. It is time to focus on working to overcome
the common challenges we face in the Western Hemisphere, including
economic development, climate change, energy security, and the battle
against transnational illicit networks. We must also provide support
for democracy that includes strong legislatures, independent
judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces,
religious freedom, and the rule of law.
I look forward to working with members of this committee, as well
as other Members of Congress to do exactly that and to help create the
new partnership in the Americas described by President-elect Obama.
brazil
Question 124. In recent years, the U.S. and Brazil have worked more
closely together on several important issues, including peacekeeping
efforts in Haiti and promoting the use and production of biofuels. At
the same time, Brazil has taken a leading role in trade and political
forums, such as MERCOSUR, the Rio Group, and the newly established
Union of South American Nations, which have at times been at odds with
U.S. interests in the region. How would you assess the current state of
bilateral cooperation between the United States and Brazil? What are
possible areas where we might strengthen our relationship? What is your
view of the United States-Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact?
Answer. The current United States-Brazil relationship provides a
foundation for a deeper, more comprehensive partnership between our two
countries. We welcome the important leadership role Brazil has played
in the United Nations stabilization force in Haiti. We look forward to
ensuring that continued United States-Brazil energy cooperation is
environmentally sustainable and spreads the benefits of alternative
fuels. The expansion of renewable energy production throughout the
Americas that promotes self-sufficiency and creates more markets for
U.S. green energy manufacturers and producers is vitally important.
There are a number of areas in which the United States and Brazil
can work together. In partnership we can work to help advance
democratic governance, opportunity, and security from the bottom up
throughout the Americas. Brazil has an important voice on the global
stage where we can work together on climate change, energy security,
and the global financial crisis, among other important issues.
The March 2007 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Biofuels
Cooperation and the work that has been done since then are an important
feature of the United States-Brazil relationship. We look forward to
ensuring that continued United States-Brazil energy cooperation is
carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner and in a manner
that spreads the benefits of alternative energy development throughout
the region while expanding the market for U.S. green energy
manufacturers and producers. It is also important that U.S. biofuel
producers not be prejudiced by efforts to increase United States-Brazil
cooperation. We must also ensure that all stakeholders, including those
from the labor, environmental and business sectors, are adequately
represented in the biofuels cooperation process.
colombia
Question 125. An October 2008 report by the GAO concluded that,
although Plan Colombia improved security conditions in Colombia, it has
not significantly reduced the amount of illicit drugs entering the
United States. What lessons can be drawn from Plan Colombia, not only
to improve its effectiveness, but to improve other U.S.
counternarcotics policies, including the Merida Initiative, in Latin
America?
Answer. The President-elect has supported the Andean Counter-Drug
Program, and believes that it must be updated to meet evolving
challenges.
The security situation in Colombia has improved, but very
significant quantities of illicit narcotics continue to flow from
Colombia to the United States. I look forward to working with Congress
and our friends and partners in Colombia to ensure that future
investments help staunch the flow of illegal drugs and help consolidate
security gains to contribute to a durable peace in Colombia. To do so,
we must learn from the successes and failures of the past.
We will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC, and work
with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing
paramilitaries.
As we continue our struggle against the scourge of illegal drugs in
our society and throughout the Americas, we must ensure that we are
doing what is necessary here at home to reduce demand, enforce our laws
through effective policing, and disrupt the southbound flow of money
and weapons that are an essential element of the transnational illicit
networks that operate in Colombia and elsewhere in the Americas. It is
important that we work together with countries throughout the region to
find the best practices that work across the hemisphere and to tailor
approaches to fit each country.
Question 126. In light of the concerns previously expressed by
President Obama and others, including members of this committee,
related to violence against labor unions and other abuses in Colombia,
what are your views on the United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement?
How can we work to minimize the impact that disagreements over trade
have over other aspects of our bilateral relationship?
Answer. It is important that we not lose sight of the many aspects
of the important, dynamic, and complex bilateral relationship that the
United States and Colombia have when we discuss the United States-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. I look forward to working to
maintain the across-the-board vibrancy of the relationship.
With regard to the trade agreement, it is essential that trade
spread the benefits of globalization. Without adequate labor
protections, trade cannot do that. Although levels of violence have
dropped, continued violence and impunity in Colombia directed at labor
and other civic leaders makes labor protections impossible to guarantee
in Colombia today.
Colombia must improve its efforts. I look forward to working with
members of this committee, as well as other Members of the Senate and
House of Representatives to see what the United States can do to help
contribute to an end to further violence and continued impunity
directed against labor and other civic leaders in Colombia.
The United States and Colombia have long enjoyed a close, mutually
beneficial relationship. I am confident that through continued
cooperation on the full array of bilateral issues, we can maintain and
deepen that relationship. Active engagement with Colombia will be an
important part of this administration's approach to hemispheric
relations.
cuba
Question 127. As you know, Cuban Americans currently must obtain a
U.S. Treasury Department license to visit family in Cuba. Even if
issued such a license, they are permitted to visit immediate family in
Cuba only once in a 3-year period. Similarly, Cuban Americans are
allowed only to send up to $300 to their family in any
3-month period. Will the new administration ease these burdensome
restrictions so that the Cuban people have to rely less on their
repressive government for assistance, as President-elect Obama called
for during the election? If so, what is the likely timing of this
announcement? Are there other ways that we can send a message to the
Cuban people that the United States intends to play a positive role in
their future and support their democratic aspirations?
Answer. There are many ways to that we can send a message to the
Cuban people that the United States intends to play a positive role in
their future. President-elect Obama believes that Cuban-Americans
especially can be important ambassadors for change in Cuba. As such, he
believes that it makes both moral and strategic sense to lift the
restrictions on family visits and family cash remittances to Cuba. We
do not currently have a timeline for the announcement of such a new
policy, and the Obama-Biden administration will consult closely with
Congress as we prepare the change.
President-elect Obama also believes that it is not time to lift the
embargo on Cuba, especially since it provides an important source of
leverage for further change on the island.
venezuela
Question 128. United States-Venezuelan relations have been marked
by considerable friction under the rule of President Hugo Chavez. There
are a number of areas of U.S. concern: Chavez's concerted efforts to
export his brand of populism throughout the region; declining
Venezuelan cooperation on counternarcotics and counterterrorism;
Venezuela's relations with Cuba, Iran, and Russia; its recent military
exercises and arms purchases; and the state of democracy in Venezuela.
How do you view recent developments in Venezuela? What approach will
you recommend to start to reverse some of these negative trends? Do you
see any opportunities for direct engagement over these issues? Would
you or President-elect Obama participate in any discussions that occur?
Under what circumstances?
Answer. For too long, we have ceded the playing field to Hugo
Chavez--a democratically elected leader who does not govern
democratically, and whose actions and vision for the region do not
serve his citizens or people throughout Latin America. While we should
be concerned about Chavez's actions and posture, we should not
exaggerate the threat he poses. It's time for the United States to fill
that void with strong and sustained U.S. leadership in the region, and
tough and direct diplomacy with Venezuela and Bolivia. We should have a
positive agenda for the hemisphere in response to the fear-mongering
propagated by Chavez and Evo Morales. We believe that bilateral
cooperation with Venezuela and Bolivia on a range of issues would be in
the mutual interest of our respective countries--for example,
counterterrorism, counternarcotics, energy, and commerce.
The pursuit of tough, principled, direct diplomacy has been and
must again be a hallmark of effective U.S. foreign policy. We should
not take any tool off the table that may help promote our interests and
values throughout the hemisphere. Direct, high-level diplomatic
engagement with Venezuela, of course, also requires careful preparation
and a partner willing to engage in meaningful dialogue. It remains to
be seen whether there is any tangible sign that Venezuela actually
wants an improved relationship with the United States.
No decision has been taken with regard to the appropriate manner
and level at which to engage with the Venezuelan Government.
democracy promotion and human rights
Question 129. What role will democracy promotion and human rights
have as part of the broader U.S. foreign policy agenda? What lessons do
you take away from the Bush administration's efforts to promote
democracy and human rights?
Answer. The President-elect has pledged to be a strong advocate for
democratic change around the world. And I wholeheartedly support this
policy. Under his leadership, we will support new democracies and help
them build sustainable democratic institutions. Democracy must mean
more than elections--it must mean support for strong legislatures,
independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest
police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law.
We must not allow the war in Iraq to continue to give democracy
promotion a bad name. Supporting democracy, economic development, and
the rule of law is critical for U.S. interests around the world.
Democracies are our best trading partners, our most valuable allies,
and the nations with which we share our deepest values. But democracy
must be nurtured with moderates on the inside by building democratic
institutions; it cannot be imposed by force from the outside.
Question 130. Although the Bush administration made the ``freedom
agenda'' a centerpiece of its second term, by most objective measures
these efforts have not been successful in the Middle East. The Middle
East remains arguably the world's least democratized region; regimes
like Iran and Syria have been emboldened; Hezbollah and Hamas have been
empowered at the ballot boxes; and prominent democracy and human rights
activists are jailed throughout the region, including in countries
enjoying close relations with the United States. How can the United
States best promote democratization and political reform in the Middle
East? Which aspects of the United States recent democracy promotion
policies in the region need to change and which aspects have been
effective?
Answer. There is no doubt that democracy has been slower to take
root in the Middle East than it has in some other parts of the world.
Promoting democratization and political reform in the Middle East will
require skill, patience, and a clear commitment to our principles. It
will involve engaging with leaders and with the region's people to find
opportunities to advance reforms that can benefit both. We need to
understand that these changes happen over time, not overnight, and that
they are most successful when they are homegrown, and not perceived to
be imposed from outside. Elections are important, but they are not
sufficient, and often fail when they precede the establishment of
institutions that bolster democratic society-strong legislatures,
independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest
police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. In addition to
standing for democracy in the region, we must also stand for
opportunity for the region's people--including greater access to
education.
Public diplomacy, assistance to reformers, and dialogue with
leaderships will all be crucial elements of our approach, but as
President-elect Obama has said, our greatest tool in advancing
democracy is our own example. That is why closing the detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay and following through on a commitment to end
torture will not only strengthen our values at home, but will bolster
our national interests overseas.
Question 131. President Bush and Secretary Rice often met with
foreign dissidents and victims of human rights abuses, apparently as a
way to signal the importance of these issues to him and his
administration. Do you intend to continue this practice?
Answer. Yes. Throughout my career, I have met with and championed
the causes of those who have fought for their own rights and the rights
of their fellow citizens, and I will continue to do so, if confirmed,
in my role as Secretary of State.
global financial crisis
Question 132. What role can and should the State Department play in
facilitating a recovery from the global financial crisis? What steps do
you intend to take consistent with this role?
Answer. The President-elect and I understand the connection between
our economy and our strength in the world. We often hear about two
debates--one on national security and one on the economy--but that is a
false distinction. We must be strong at home to be strong abroad. It is
close to an iron law of history that great nations owe their greatness
to their economic strength--and that nations decline if they let their
economy decline. Our economy supports our military power, it increases
our diplomatic leverage, and it is a foundation of America's leadership
in the world.
As the new administration develops new policy approaches and
implements new initiatives to deal with the financial crisis, I intend
to collaborate with my colleagues at Treasury and the White House to
enhance international cooperation in support of our efforts. State will
deploy our embassies worldwide to update foreign governments on U.S.
policy responses, to encourage appropriate policies in other countries,
and to discourage counterproductive or protectionist reactions to the
crisis. And we will seek to address the broader implications of the
crisis for economic growth, development, and security around the world.
It has become clear that this crisis, concentrated initially in the
United States and Western Europe, is undermining both economic progress
and stability in many developing and emerging economies, with adverse
repercussions for U.S. economic and security interests.
global poverty
Question 133. Today, more than 1 billion people live in slums
around the word, with that number expected to grow to 2 billion within
a couple decades. It is now estimated that for the first time in
history more people live in urban areas than in rural areas. Yet, U.S.
foreign assistance has almost zero capacity to deal with complex issues
related to the concentration of poverty in slums. Furthermore, neither
USAID nor the Department of State has an office devoted to addressing
urban development issues, either from a programmatic or policy
perspective. How do you intend to place greater emphasis on supporting
those who live in extreme poverty and slums?
Answer. America must renew its effort to bring security and
development to the disconnected corners of our interconnected world.
These efforts must strengthen the capacity of weak and failing states,
while expanding education and opportunity for the world's people. As we
seek to lead the world, the United States has a significant stake in
ensuring that those who live in fear and want today, can live with
dignity and opportunity tomorrow. That is why President-elect Obama and
I have embraced the Millennium Development Goals to cut global poverty
in half by 2015. He has also pledged to double our foreign assistance
budget over time--a pledge that I agree with and will help him
implement.
The challenges posed by the rise of mega-cities, of the global
youth bulge, of increasing resource scarcity, and of the growing gap
between rich and poor are challenges we must face in order to uphold
our common humanity and ensure our common security. The sharp rise in
urban poverty--whether manifested in the growth of slums, an increase
in youth violence, rampant unemployment, or gross shortfalls in health
and education services--threatens the stability and well-being of
literally billions of the world's people.
The good news is that there are clear steps we can take. We have
seen in India, for example, that by investing in organizations that can
create employment opportunities for women and their communities, we can
create jobs and foster dignity--even in slums. We also know that by
helping to strengthen government institutions, build economic and trade
linkages, and support the private sector--starting with small
enterprises and building up--we can help to change the economic
environment that generates urban poverty. And finally, we know that if
we invest in agriculture, we can ease the global food crisis and help
farmers to stay on their land.
global food crisis
Question 134. The global food crisis is a triple threat--
humanitarian, economic, and strategic. It is pushing an additional 100
million people into poverty, and high prices have caused unrest and
riots in dozens of countries, including Egypt, Indonesia, the
Philippines, and Haiti. This crisis can be explained by a convergence
of factors--a dearth of investment and inattention to long-term
agricultural development, high growth in demand, rising energy prices,
overreliance on corn-based bio-fuels, restrictive trade policies, and
climate change. What steps would you advocate as Secretary of State to
address some of the root causes of the global food crisis?
Answer. Although a long-simmering problem, the sharp increases in
global food prices last year, combined with supply constraints in many
parts of the world, created a severe humanitarian and economic crisis,
particularly for countries least able to cope with these developments.
A food crisis of this magnitude poses a threat to both prosperity and
security in many developing countries. Millions of people are at risk
of being pushed back into poverty, jeopardizing achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals. Moreover, states that cannot feed their
people are inherently fragile ones. The United States therefore has not
only a moral responsibility but also a strong practical interest in
doing its part to address a food crisis of this scope and severity.
The underlying causes of the food crisis that erupted last year
were both cyclical and structural. The more immediate causes included
poor harvests in key grain-producing nations, sharply higher oil
prices, and a surge in demand for meat in high-growth Asian countries.
Longer term factors include inadequate investment in enhanced
agricultural productivity, inappropriate trade and subsidy programs,
and climate change.
Similarly, responses to the crisis must include both short- and
long-term measures. In the near term, the United States must work with
its partners in the international community to address immediate
humanitarian needs and make seeds and fertilizers available in
critically affected nations. Key long-term steps include putting more
focus on efforts to enhance agricultural productivity in the world's
poorest nations, including agricultural research and development, and
investment in improved seeds and irrigation methods.
I also fully support and will work to implement President-elect
Obama's pledge to launch an ``Add Value to Agriculture'' (AVTA)
initiative, which aims to increase the incomes of subsistence farmers,
decrease the pressure on shrinking arable lands, and minimize the
vulnerability of commodity exports to global price shocks.
treaties
Question 135. Does the administration intend to submit a Treaty
Priority List during the 111th Congress? If so, when does the
administration expect to submit the list?
Answer. We are still considering whether and when to submit a
Treaty Priority List.
Question 136. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the bipartisan
Senate Arms Control Observer Group gave members of the Senate an
opportunity to observe arms control negotiations and to better
understand the treaties that would ultimately be submitted to the
Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. As Secretary, what
consultative measures, prior to submittal of a treaty for Senate advice
and consent to ratification, do you envision taking to ensure that the
Senate is fully prepared to understand and evaluate such treaty? Will
you restore regular prior consultation with our committee on treaties
and invite Senators to directly observe arms control negotiations?
Answer. I will direct Department officials to closely consult with
this committee on treaty negotiations. Members of the committee and the
Senate must be kept well informed of the process of developing and
negotiating arms control and nonproliferation agreements so that they
have a better basis for evaluating such agreements when and if they are
completed and brought before the Senate for review or approval. Various
arrangements could be used to keep the Senate well informed, including
a mechanism similar to the Senate Arms Control Observer Group. I and my
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security will want
to consult with members to figure out which approach or approaches
would be practical and effective.
______
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the William J. Clinton
Foundation and the Obama Presidential Transition Foundation dated
December 12, 2008; Letter Agreements with James H. Thessin Executed by
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (``Clinton Letter Agreement'') and David
E. Kendall (``Kendall Letter Agreement'' dated January 5, 2009.
Question 1. What compensation, if any, does President Clinton
personally derive from the William J. Clinton Foundation
(``Foundation'')?
Answer. President Clinton receives no compensation from the Clinton
Foundation, which is a 501(c)3 charitable foundation.
Question 2. Are all of the contributions made to the Foundation
used for purposes that fall within the Foundation's missions?
Answer. Yes, contributions are used to further the Foundation's
charitable mission, including management and administrative costs. The
Foundation strives to keep its overhead costs low; for example in 2007,
only 2.7 percent of the Foundation's expenses were used for management
and administrative purposes.
Question 3. Please explain the timing of the recent disclosure of
contributions to the Foundation. Please confirm that this represents
all contributions made to the Foundation to date.
Answer. President Clinton and the Foundation are committed to
ensuring that the Foundation's charitable work does not affect the work
of the Secretary of State, should I be confirmed for that position. In
that spirit, the Foundation sought its contributors' support in going
above and beyond the requirements of the law and ethics rules by
publishing their names. The Foundation published all contributions that
were made prior to the date of publication.
Question 4. Were you ever personally involved in soliciting
contributions to the Foundation?
Answer. While I have participated in events that celebrate the
charitable Foundation and raise funds such as the President's 60th
Birthday Celebration, which raised funds for initiatives that provide
medicine to those living with HIV/AIDS, combat the threat of global
climate change, and address the barriers to sustainable economic
development in America, Africa, and Latin America, I have not
personally solicited contributions for the Foundation.
Question 5. What are the criteria the Foundation uses in making
determinations as to the countries in which it will conduct its
activities?
Answer. The Clinton Foundation works with governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and other partners on some of the
world's most intractable problems--HIV/AIDS, climate change,
sustainable economic development. Its work is based on the premise that
these problems can be overcome through collaborative and systematic
efforts, using business-oriented approaches. The Foundation seeks areas
where its involvement can ``add value'' on projects that are scalable
and sustainable. It works at the invitation of governments and in
cooperation with them.
Question 6. Will all future contributions to the Foundation be
disclosed to the public? If so, when and how will these disclosures be
made?
Answer. As I understand from the MOU, should I be confirmed, the
Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that
year.
Question 7. Will all pledges for future contributions to the
Foundation be publicly disclosed? If so, when and how? If not, please
provide an explanation as to why such pledges for future contributions
should not trigger the same disclosure process applied to current
contributions.
Answer. As I understand from the MOU, should I be confirmed, the
Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that
year, but it will not publish mere promises to contribute as they are
not realized unless and until they are paid.
Question 8. Will pledges for future contributions to the Foundation
be subject to the same review process as current contributions from
foreign governments? If not, please provide an explanation as to why
such pledges for future contributions would not raise the same issues,
and should not trigger the same review process applied to current
contributions under the MOU.
Answer. Pledges from foreign governments are proposed contributions
which under the MOU will be presented to the State Department for
review.
Question 9. What will formally trigger the review process
contemplated under section 2 of the MOU?
Answer. The Clinton Foundation will provide the State Department's
designated agency ethics official with information about proposed
contributions that are covered by the MOU.
Question 10. Please describe the standard of review that will be
applied by the State Department's designated agency ethics official to
contributions from foreign governments pursuant to section 2 of the
MOU. If concerns are raised in such a review, how will such concerns be
conveyed to you and the Foundation?
Answer. The State Department has determined that the appropriate
standard when reviewing certain contributions to the Clinton HIV/AIDS
Initiative, the Clinton Climate Initiative, the Clinton Giustra
Sustainable Growth Initiative, and the Clinton Hunter Development
Initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation is the existing
standard for impartiality in performing official duties, which is found
in the section of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch that encompasses the standards and procedures for
consideration of appearances of conflicts of interest [5 CFR 2635.502].
In the event the State Department or White House has concerns about
a proposed business relationship, speech, or contribution, those
concerns will be conveyed to me and to President Clinton's office for
appropriate action.
Question 11. Under what circumstances will the State Department
refer matters to the White House Counsel's office pursuant to section 2
of the MOU? How will any concerns be conveyed to you and the
Foundation?
Answer. The State Department has determined that the appropriate
standard when reviewing certain contributions to the Clinton HIV/AIDS
Initiative, the Clinton Climate Initiative, the Clinton Giustra
Sustainable Growth Initiative, and the Clinton Hunter Development
Initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation is the existing
standard for impartiality in performing official duties, which is found
in the section of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch that encompasses the standards and procedures for
consideration of appearances of conflicts of interest [5 CFR 2635.502].
The State Department's professional career ethics officials will
determine when to consult the White House Counsel's office. In the
event the State Department or White House has concerns about a proposed
business relationship, speech, or contribution, those concerns will be
conveyed to me and to President Clinton's office for appropriate
action.
Question 12. What do you anticipate could constitute the
``appropriate action'' contemplated in section 2 of the MOU in response
to these concerns? Would such ``appropriate action'' by you or the
Foundation be voluntary or mandatory?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, President Clinton and I are
committed to ensuring that his work does not present a conflict of
interest with the duties of Secretary of State. Appropriate action
means that decisions will be made based on consideration of all the
facts and guidance from the professional career ethics officials. In
many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation or President
Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict. The
State Department's professional career ethics officials, however, may
recommend recusal, or taking other appropriate actions to mitigate any
perceived conflict and I will be guided by such advice.
Question 13. How would you respond to concerns that donations from
individuals who may have ties to foreign governments or matters of
possible relevance to your official duties could potentially raise
similar questions as contributions from foreign governments?
Answer. First, I think it is important to observe that the Office
of Government Ethics (OGE) and the professional career ethics officials
have advised that neither the law nor the ethics regulations require my
husband or the Foundation to take the voluntary steps they have. The
Foundation is a 501(c)3--neither my husband nor I has any financial
interest. The Presidential Transition Team and the Foundation
determined that further steps were not necessary.
Ultimately, there is no conflict between the foreign policy of the
United States and the efforts of the Clinton Foundation seeking to
reduce human suffering and increase opportunity for people in need.
That has been demonstrated quite clearly in President Clinton's and
former President Bush's efforts to raise relief funds after Katrina and
the Tsunami.
The Clinton Foundation has helped save and extend the lives of more
than a million people, many of them children. It is combating climate
change and childhood obesity. It is bringing economic opportunity to
struggling people in America and around the world. Governments acting
alone are not equipped to solve all the world's problems, and as I have
said for years, we need NGOs to bridge the gap between what government
can do and what is needed to be done.
The agreement that has been reached between the Clinton Foundation
and the President-elect's transition team will allow the Foundation's
charitable work to continue while providing for an unprecedented level
of transparency and ethical review of its activities.
Question 14. Please describe the differences, if any, between the
review process under section 2 of the MOU for foreign government
contributions and the review process contemplated for President
Clinton's speech and consulting income under the Kendall Letter
Agreement.
Answer. The State Department's professional career ethics officials
will review both foreign government contributions under section 2 of
the MOU and speech and consulting incoming under the Kendall Letter
Agreement. In many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation
or President Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a
conflict. The State Department's professional career ethics officials,
however, may recommend recusal, or taking other appropriate actions to
mitigate any perceived conflict. President Clinton and I will be guided
by such advice.
______
Responses to Supplemental Questions Submitted by Senator John Kerry
Question. A September 1992 letter from Janet Mullins, then-
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, to the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East expressed State
Department policy on the definition of a political prisoner. In that
letter and on many other occasions, the State Department has
characterized a person to be a political prisoner if the person is
prosecuted for political reasons and the charges are trumped up or the
trial unfair.
Does the Department still apply this standard in determining
whether an individual should be considered a political
prisoner?
Recent reports on human rights in Russia prepared by the Department
and others consider the official treatment of politically active
businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky to constitute a politically motivated
case of selective arrest and prosecution. To date, the Department has
not labeled Khodorkovsky a political prisoner, although it applies this
label to others subject to politically motivated arrests and
prosecutions. As chairman of this committee, Vice-President-elect Joe
Biden described Russian actions against Khodorkovsky as part of a
pattern by which, in his words, ``[th]e Putin government has
selectively and ruthlessly utilized its prosecutorial powers to silence
incipient rivals and thereby intimidate other potential opponents,''
stating that ``[t]he imprisonment and legal proceedings against
Khodorkovsky have violated virtually every canon of fairness and
legality.''
Do you agree with Vice-President-elect Biden that the
treatment of Mr. Khodorkovsky may be politically motivated?
What steps will you take, as Secretary of State, to work for
the release of Russian political prisoners?
Answer. The Department looks to a variety of factors in deciding
whether to report that an individual may have been the subject of a
politically motivated arrest and/or prosecution, such as whether the
prosecution is based on the individual's political beliefs and whether
the charges and trial are unfair. However, the Department does not
routinely make determinations as to whether an individual is a
political prisoner.
As the recent report on human rights prepared by the Department
indicated, some human rights groups consider the official treatment of
politically active businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky to constitute a
politically motivated case of selective arrest and prosecution.
There are many troubling aspects to the case. The original trial,
the continued prosecutions, and the dismantlement of Yukos raise
serious questions about the rule of law and due process in Russia. Some
aspects of the way the case has been conducted do indeed appear to be
politically motivated.
This case reveals broader issues at stake for Russia, namely:
respect for rule of law, sanctity of contracts, property rights,
independence of the courts, and Russia's commitment to political
development.
The Obama administration will continue to raise concerns about the
lack of due process in this and other cases that may be politically
motivated.
education
Question. In the 110th Congress, you introduced the Education for
All Act, an important piece of legislation that seeks to invest up to
$10 billion over 5 years as part of an international effort to enroll
in school the 75 million children living in impoverished and conflict-
affected countries. During the campaign, President-elect Obama
committed to erasing the global primary education gap by 2015 and
capitalizing a ``Global Education Fund'' with at least $2 billion in
funding toward the goal of universal access to education.
As Secretary of State, will international basic education
remain a priority for you? If so, please describe what policies
you will design and implement to support this goal, how you
envision Congress supporting your efforts, and how significant
investment in global education would benefit the recipients and
the United States?
Answer. The United Nations developed the Millennium Development
Goals (MDG) to help reduce the crippling burden of global poverty. One
of those goals is to achieve universal primary education by the year
2015. The United States joined other U.N. Member States in adopting the
MDGs in 2000, and I applaud our government's commitment to reaching all
of these goals, including universal primary education. I look forward
to implementing President Obama's vision and ensuring that the United
States remains a leader in efforts to help all girls and boys access
quality basic education. We should coordinate our efforts with others,
including the World Bank's Fast Track Initiative, in order to maximize
our investment in global education.
I know there are many ideas as to how the United States can best
contribute to the global efforts to achieve universal basic education,
and I look forward to working with the Congress and with education
experts to develop a comprehensive strategy for education assistance.
I believe that any strategy should include the following
components:
--Adequate access to at-risk children: Our efforts to achieve universal
education must reach all children, particularly those who are most
likely to be out of school. We must ensure that children in
conflict areas or disaster sites have the opportunity to continue
their education. We must ensure that often-marginalized
populations, such as children with disabilities, and indigenous or
minority ethnic groups, have access to education. And it is
imperative that our global education efforts include increasing
enrollment of girls, who currently account for a majority of
children that lack access to education.
--Quality education: Our efforts to achieve universal basic education
cannot simply be measured by enrollment figures. Rather, we must
ensure that every child has access to a quality education, and is
in an environment that is conducive to learning. Specifically, we
must ensure that we have adequate resources, including a trained
teacher workforce and educational materials, and an environment
that is free from violence.
--Accountability: We must ensure that our increased investment comes
with a plan for coordination, so that we are complementing, not
duplicating, other efforts. It is also important to have a strong
management within our government to oversee these efforts,
facilitate cooperation among agencies and our other partners, and
ensure that we are making continued progress toward universal basic
education.
malaria
Question. Fortunately, malaria is presently little known in the
United States, but before the 1950s, some foreign ambassadors serving
in the United States received hardship pay because of the risk of
catching the disease while serving in Washington due to mosquito
infestation in the Potomac. Through a concerted effort, the United
States eradicated this concern. However, in 2009, nearly 1 million
people, mostly children in Africa under 5 years old, are expected to
die as a result of malaria. Senator Clinton, as a candidate for
President, you introduced a bold plan to eliminate deaths in Africa
from malaria. As a candidate, President-elect Obama shared this vision,
and it might be practicable given the existence of low-tech
interventions, including bed nets, treatments and environmentally
sustainable spraying. Using such interventions, malarial deaths have
been reduced by half in Ethiopia and two-thirds in Rwanda.
Last year, as part of the PEPFAR reauthorization, Congress
authorized up to $5 billion over the next 5 years to combat malaria.
Can you give us your thoughts on this issue and what plans you have to
wipe out this disease that affects many of the world's poorest people?
Answer. I share your concern about the critical need to address
malaria, which has 300 million cases globally and causes 900,000 deaths
annually. Our programs are achieving the ambitious objective set in
2005 of reducing malaria-related deaths in the 15 priority countries by
50 percent by the end of 2010. I plan to build upon that success,
especially the program's emphasis on strengthening local health systems
to ensure that our successes are sustained. The Tom Lantos and Henry J.
Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 authorized funding of $5
billion over 5 years. If these funds are appropriated, our malaria
control and prevention programs will expand to benefit approximately 70
percent of the vulnerable populations in sub-Saharan Africa. With full
funding of the Hyde/Lantos Authorization, it will be possible to
achieve dramatic reductions in the burden of malaria across Africa by
2013.
agriculture
Question. In 2000, the United States joined a worldwide commitment
to halving poverty by 2015. Although we are about halfway to this goal,
nearly 1.4 billion people continue to live on just over $1 per day and
about 900 million people in developing countries currently go hungry.
The past year has witnessed food crisis that in some instances resulted
in political instability in countries such as Haiti, Senegal, Egypt,
Pakistan, and the Philippines. Jacques Diouf, the Director General of
the Food and Agriculture Organization, stated that ``[a]ll indications
we have is that this is not a short-term effect.'' Many experts predict
that the cost of food will remain high in the near future and possibly
until 2013. Although the United States is a global leader in providing
emergency food and disaster aid, such assistance, while critical, is
not a sustainable solution to improving the lives of the millions of
people who are vulnerable to food insecurity. To use an old adage, we
need to teach people how to fish. The EU has committed about 1 billion
euros in aid to help increase agricultural production in developing
countries and to enable them to feed their populations. As Secretary of
State, what commitment and role will you seek for the United States to
strengthen our efforts on this important issue?
Answer. President Obama has made clear that alleviating hunger
worldwide is a top priority of his administration. As he said on the
first day of his Presidency, ``to the people of poor nations, we pledge
to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters
flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.'' The President
and I intend to focus new attention on food security so that developing
nations can invest in food production, affordability, accessibility,
education and technology. We are committed to building a new
partnership among donor states, developing nations, U.N. agencies,
NGO's, the private sector and others to better coordinate policies to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals agreed to in 2000. As
Secretary of State I will use all of the means available to me to
support President Obama's Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA).
I believe there are three areas which require action. First, we
must invest in agricultural research to improve potential crop
production. Second, we must also invest in infrastructure related to
agriculture in order to spread the benefits of new technology to all
farmers, and improve the efficient delivery of food to markets. And
third, we have to make markets themselves more efficient, both locally
and globally.
Question. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security
Advisor Jim Jones have publicly stated that in the interest of long-
term U.S. national security, policymakers should take a three-pronged
approach to U.S. foreign policy that emphasizes defense, diplomacy, and
development. While defense and diplomacy are prioritized, the
development component of U.S. foreign policy is not only outdated, but
is significantly undervalued, underfunded, and in several areas, it
underperforms. In order to compliment the other two areas of focus, the
U.S. development regime should be reformed and appropriately elevated
in terms of its profile and resource allocation.
Do you agree that development should be elevated as a
foreign policy tool? What role do you think economic
development and poverty reduction in poor countries play in
enhancing U.S. national security?
Nearly 1.4 billion people currently struggle to survive on about
one dollar per day. There are estimated to be about 963 million hungry
people worldwide, 907 million of whom live in developing countries.
Some of these countries have become unstable and, consequently, over
the last 10 years, have presented serious security implications for the
United States. These countries include Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan,
where terrorists groups such as al-Qaeda have threatened weak
governments, set up training camps to recruit and train operative to
attack the United States and our allies, and influenced many of their
people to despise America.
Could you describe how you view the relationship between
poverty and U.S. national security and how you would address it
as Secretary of State?
A poor international image makes it easier for enemies of America
to spread negative propaganda and recruit supporters at both the
individual and national level. Over the last 2 years, you and
President-elect Obama have asserted that America's image worldwide is
badly damaged and stated your intention to take bold and immediate
steps to repair it.
Do you believe the promotion of development is a necessary
component of this effort? If so, what development efforts could
be enhanced to help repair our tarnished image and restore the
United States status as a moral leader in the global community?
Answer. President Obama is committed to elevating the importance of
development assistance to America's foreign policy and national
security. As Secretary of State, I can assure you that the State
Department and USAID will stand ready to more fully integrate
development as one of three pillars of a new security strategy, with
defense and diplomacy standing as the other two pillars. I believe that
development is an equal partner, along with defense and diplomacy, in
the furtherance of America's national security. To that end, President
Obama and I have committed to increasing foreign assistance, although
the economic downturn may affect the pace at which this is possible.
President Obama has also called for modernization of U.S. development
and foreign assistance programs. While this will require a significant
investment of time and effort, we believe that these efforts can pay
significant returns in global stability, security, and prosperity.
Meeting the expressed goals of this Congress and the priorities
that the President has established, including the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals, will require more resources. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates believes that future success in foreign policy
and the fight against terrorism will be ``less a matter of imposing
one's will and more a function of shaping behavior--of friends,
adversaries, and, most importantly, the people in between.'' He is
absolutely right. Considering the importance of the work ahead, we
cannot fail simply for a lack of will or resources. There are few other
places in the budget where dollars invested literally means lives
saved.
Positive feelings toward the United States in sub-Sahara Africa in
part reflect the work that is being done through PEPFAR, through the
Malaria Initiative, through our economic growth programs, and through
our basic education programs. These programs boast tangible results
that make a difference in people's lives. As we look toward the future,
it is essential that the role of USAID and our other foreign assistance
programs are strengthened, adequately funded and coordinated in a way
that makes clear that the United States understands and supports
development assistance.
Question. PEPFAR and the Millennium Challenge Account were two key
initiatives passed during the last administration, with strong
bipartisan support in Congress. They have succeeded in saving and
improving the lives of millions of people, and took innovative
approaches to helping reduce global poverty. President-elect Obama has
committed to coordinate and consolidate PEPFAR, the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) and other foreign assistance programs into
a streamlined U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in
order to reduce duplication of efforts and inefficiencies created by
the fragmentation of U.S. foreign assistance.
As Secretary of State, will you make this an urgent task?
How can the best features of PEPFAR and MCC be preserved and
translated into a broader framework?
In difficult economic times there is a strong yet dangerous
temptation for government to cut funding to foreign assistance
programs. There could also be the temptation to focus on reforming our
aid regime at the expense of funding. However, even the best
development strategy or agenda might fail to meet its objectives if it
is not adequately funded to meet its mandate.
Do you agree that if we are to achieve our foreign policy
and national security goals, increased resources for
development is a corequirement, and not a substitute, for
comprehensive aid reform?
What do you think are the best elements of U.S. foreign
assistance and how do you plan to preserve them in any
restructuring of the U.S. foreign aid regime?
Key elements of U.S foreign assistance reside within the
jurisdiction of other government departments. These include
multilateral debt relief, which is a critical issue in development that
is negotiated by the Treasury Department, trade quotas by the Commerce
Department, and infrastructure development that is often undertaken by
the Defense Department. President-elect Obama has stated his intention
to taking steps to consolidate and reform the U.S. aid regime.
As Secretary of State, would you seek greater administrative
control or coordinating authority for our development agency
over these areas?
Answer. President Obama is committed to elevating development in
U.S. foreign policy. The administration will review promptly whether
fulfilling that objective will necessitate organizational changes.
PEPFAR has experienced much success, and the MCC represents a worthy
new approach to poverty reduction and combating corruption; we intend
to quickly review how these programs can best be managed.
I agree that if we are to achieve our foreign policy and national
security goals, increased resources for development is essential. I
hope the Congress will work with the new administration in increasing
resources for development, and fully fund the President's budget
request. These resources will be invested wisely with strong
accountability measures and to ensure they are directed toward
strategic goals.
Our foreign assistance infrastructure must be able to meet the
challenges we face today while anticipating those in the months and
years ahead. We should look at areas which we can be better coordinated
and streamlined, and look forward to engaging the committee and the
Congress on these matters. I will ask my Deputy, Jack Lew, to conduct a
review of the entire range of foreign assistance, how it is conducted,
and how it is funded and managed. We will look at those areas which
have proved effective and build on those successes, while determining
if poorly performing initiatives are able to be improved.
President Obama has committed to coordinate and consolidate
programs currently housed in more than 20 executive agencies so as to
enhance effectiveness and accountability. If confirmed, I look forward
to working closely with the Congress as we review what programs can be
consolidated and other new ways to elevate the importance of
development and the full range of foreign assistance in our overall
foreign policy, and improve budget planning, coordination, and
execution, while seeking greater resources to be used with maximum
flexibility. I look forward to consulting with the committee, and the
Congress, on these issues as we move forward.
Question. In 2000, the international community agreed to a set of
goals that includes halving poverty by 2015, putting every child in
school, tackling preventable diseases, and other critical development
objectives. While significant progress has been made in several
countries, the Africa region continues to lag behind on most
indicators. President-elect Obama has stated that he would make the
MDGs U.S. policy. As Secretary of State, how will you harmonize U.S.
development assistance with the Millennium Development Goals? Will you
seek to prioritize the African Continent, where there is the highest
concentration of low income countries?
Answer. President Obama and I have embraced the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) to cut global poverty in half by 2015. This
administration is committed to elevating development in U.S. foreign
policy and increasing foreign assistance. The totals have to grow. I
also urge Congress to fully fund the President's budget request which
will support the U.S. commitment to achieving the MDGs.
Clearly, Africa has been and will remain a key priority for U.S.
assistance. Africa is a region of extreme need and great promise.
Africa offers rich development potential, along with huge challenges,
including widespread poverty, illiteracy, hunger, disease,
environmental degradation, conflict and poor governance. Our
responsibility is to marshal the resources at our disposal and use them
in partnership with Africans who must bear ultimate responsibility for
solving the problems of Africa.
Question. The United States has implemented some trade and economic
growth programs, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)
and the Millennium Challenge Account, that have begun to create
opportunities for poor countries to prioritize growth and take
advantage of greater trading opportunities with the United States.
However, trade and economic growth has not been integrated adequately
into U.S. development policy. As Secretary of State, how do you plan to
better integrate these policy objectives to ensure that we are creating
poverty alleviation opportunities through trade and economic
development?
Answer. Sustainable economic growth in poor countries must be a
core U.S. development policy objective. This is the force that empowers
families to lift themselves out of poverty, take care of their own
long-term needs, and maintain a productive and dignified standard of
living. Sustained growth is also essential in generating the resources
needed to support critical public services and regulatory oversight,
including for public security, health, education, and infrastructure.
Particularly in light of the financial crisis, I would like to see a
more comprehensive and coherent strategy in which our many different
assistance programs work together to establish the building blocks
needed to sustain long-term, broad-based economic growth and poverty
reduction.
U.S. development policy must include more than just official
development assistance. We must work with developing countries to make
the most of all the public and private tools in the development
financing toolbox, including trade and investment, the work of our many
charitable foundations, and debt management.
Trade and openness to the global economy play a crucial role in
creating jobs and boosting economic growth in developing countries. Our
experience with Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compacts
suggests that trade capacity-building is a high priority for developing
countries. There is broad demand for expanded trade capacity-building
beyond the small number of MCC compact countries. The recent food
crisis demonstrates the importance of facilitating expanded ``south-
south'' trade.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act's full impact is limited by
numerous, long-term capacity constraints in Africa. Infrastructure,
technology, and capital are needed, but to be effective they must be
accompanied by policy and institutional reforms--in areas such as
customs and state price controls--that provide incentives and empower
African farmers and entrepreneurs to participate in trade that
contributes to long-term, broad-based growth and poverty reduction.
Question. During the Presidential campaign, President-elect Obama
endorsed U.S. diplomatic initiatives to improve the security of
satellites we depend upon for our economic and national security. One
of the initiatives he specifically endorsed is an international code of
conduct that, among other things, would bar destructive testing of
antisatellite weapons and other methods in space that would use
satellites for target practice. Do you support this step?
Answer. As space becomes an increasingly congested, complex, and
contested domain, the United States will take an active leadership role
in identifying and implementing cooperative efforts with established
and emerging members of the international spacefaring community to
ensure the safety of the space assets of all nations.
We also must play a leading role in advancing transparency and
confidence-building measures (TCBMs) relating to space activities. Such
TCBMs can help increase transparency regarding governmental space
policies, strategies, and potentially hazardous activities--thus
reducing uncertainty over intentions and decreasing the risk of
misinterpretation or miscalculation. In this regard, the administration
will continue to work closely with our friends and allies to develop
voluntary TCBMs that all spacefaring nations can support and actively
participate in for the benefit of all nations.
Further, building upon recent progress at the United Nations on
international guidelines for orbital debris mitigation, the United
States will sustain its global leadership in spaceflight safety and in
the formulation of practical guidelines to preserve the space
environment for future generations.
It is a part of longstanding U.S. space policy that the United
States will maintain and strengthen the established principle of free
access to, and use of, outer space by all nations in support of
legitimate economic and security interests. In support of this
principle in today's environment, it is important that the United
States work closely with its allies to implement the diplomatic or
military measures that may be necessary both to ensure the continued
operation (and responsible use) of military, intelligence, civil, and
commercial satellites and to respond appropriately if these satellites
are targeted in a hostile manner.
Question. In your prepared statement, you indicated your intent to
pursue a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. The Bush
administration, by contrast, has argued that a truly verifiable treaty
is not technically feasible and would risk the loss of sensitive
classified information.
Do you believe that a verifiable treaty is, in fact, feasible
without compromising sensitive U.S. national security information? Or
do you think that, even though a verifiable treaty may not be feasible,
the United States should be willing to begin negotiations on such a
treaty and see how much verification can be agreed to without
compromising sensitive national security information?
Answer. The United States has strongly supported achieving a ban on
the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices. Such a ban would serve important
nonproliferation goals and has commanded broad international support
for many years. One way to accomplish this ban would be through the
negotiation of a legally binding treaty. The United States supports the
rapid start of negotiations on an FMCT, and such negotiations would
certainly include discussions of verification.
A well-crafted, robust verification regime should not have to put
sensitive information at risk and the United States will not support an
FMCT that compromises national security information. It is worth
noting, however, that the United States has entered into arms control
treaties, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, containing robust
verification provisions, without placing sensitive national security
information at risk. Once my team is in place, they will review the
U.S. position with a view to determining if and how verification can be
incorporated in an FMCT without compromising sensitive information.
Question. Congress and previous administrations have long urged
China to respect the religious freedoms of Tibetan Buddhists and to
grant Tibetans ``meaningful autonomy'' as part of a comprehensive
resolution of the Tibetan issue. Last year, Congress awarded the Dalai
Lama the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his courageous
advocacy of genuine reconciliation through peaceful dialogue.
Unfortunately, eight rounds of dialogue between China and
representatives of the Dalai Lama have so far yielded little progress.
Chinese religious and ethnic persecution of Tibetans persists. How can
we help the Tibetans and Chinese achieve forward movement toward a just
and lasting solution to this longstanding problem?
The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 established the position of Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues in the State Department. It is currently
posted at the Under Secretary Level (G). Do you intend to appoint a
Special Coordinator at a high level, with adequate resources and
access, to signal the Tibet issue's importance to the U.S. Government?
Will you personally champion the cause of Tibetan human rights as
part of your larger dialogue with Chinese leaders on human rights
issues?
Answer. I can assure you that I take Tibetan issues seriously and
plan to appoint a well-qualified coordinator. I will ensure the
coordinator has the resources to do the job.
We are disappointed with China's human rights record and the lack
of progress during eight rounds of talks between the Chinese Government
and the Dalai Lama's representatives. We are also very concerned about
the increased repression in Tibetan areas over the past year. We will
raise our concerns about these issues at the highest levels with the
Chinese Government and press for progress. The Special Coordinator for
Tibetan issues will sustain our focus on promoting substantive
dialogue, directed at achieving meaningful results, between the Dalai
Lama and his representatives and the Chinese Government. We believe
such talks provide the best hope for resolving longstanding tensions in
Tibetan areas of China and for safeguarding the distinct ethnic,
cultural, and religious identity of the Tibetan people.
Question. On January 1, 2009, the Government of Azerbaijan abruptly
terminated broadcasts of Radio Free Europe (RFE) on its domestic
airwaves. This termination effectively ended broadcasts to 80-90
percent of RFE Azeri service's listeners. The position of the Azeri
government is that Russian and Iranian radio broadcasts were also
terminated. Both of these countries share long borders with Azerbaijan,
which regularly broadcast in Russian and Azeri. Needless to say RFE and
the BBC do not enjoy similar geographic advantages. U.S. funds RFE in
order to increase the plurality of information in relevant countries.
What can and should the Secretary of State, who sits on the
Broadcasting Board of Governors and has responsibility for RFE, do to
ensure that listeners in Azerbaijan and other countries can continue to
receive these broadcasts?
Answer. Radio Liberty and Voice of America--alongside the BBC--are,
indeed, a much-needed source of information for Azerbaijani citizens to
participate in a pluralistic debate. We have been clear in our
communications from Washington and the Embassy in Baku that removal of
the broadcasts from domestic radio and television frequencies
constituted a serious setback to freedom of speech in Azerbaijan.
Without distribution on these popular domestic channels, VOA and RFE/
RL's substantial audiences in Azerbaijan will be lost. The U.S.
Ambassador in Baku made it clear that continuing this course will
fundamentally alter the relationship between our governments.
Representatives of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the
Embassy have requested that talks begin in early February aimed at
restoring VOA and RFE/RL access to the same frequencies they were
licensed to use prior to January 1, 2009, where they can continue to
inform public discourse as Azerbaijan moves forward with its democratic
debate. We remain committed to working with the Government of
Azerbaijan to ensure that these broadcasts can continue on the radio
and television networks where they enjoyed a substantial audience.
Unfettered access to information across international borders is
fundamental, and the Department will be vigorous in defending this
right wherever it is threatened.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Richard G. Lugar
foreign affairs management issues
Question 1. President-elect Obama has nominated two Deputy
Secretaries of State. What roles do you envision each playing in the
work of the Department?
Answer. The opportunities and challenges in front of all of us are
both promising and daunting. The objectives that the President-elect
has set forth are compelling, demanding, and necessary to meet our
interests. To meet these goals, I am seeking to recruit strong,
experienced professionals to join the Department. I am using every
position available to maximize the possibility for success and to
manage an unprecedented number of responsibilities for our Nation's
security and prosperity.
I intend to use both Deputy positions that are available in law--to
manage the overall foreign policy agenda and to manage the operations
and resources needed for success. Jim Steinberg, if confirmed, will be
responsible for assisting me in the formulation and conduct of our
foreign policy; Jack Lew, if confirmed, will be responsible for
assisting me in the management of the operations and resources of the
Department.
I also will recommend to the President-elect under secretaries and
assistant secretaries who are at the top of their fields, who think
strategically and are strong diplomats and managers of talent. And, I
will employ a time-honored tradition to make use of special envoys who
will work in a focused fashion to address some of our most difficult
challenges.
Question 2. During the Presidential campaign you offered the
following critique of the Bush administration's foreign policy
management:
One of my criticisms of the Bush administration is that they
have such a narrow circle of people advising the President.
Apparently there is only one diplomat the President will send
anywhere and that is Secretary Rice. So if Secretary Rice can't
get to the Middle East or get to Pakistan or get to Africa or
get anywhere, you don't get the feeling that the President is
engaged. I think that is a terrible failure. The President
needs to have a broad circle of advisers calling upon
distinguished Americans both in and out of government to serve
as Presidential envoys, something that I urged when I came back
from Pakistan and Afghanistan last January.
a. Does the Obama administration intend to use Presidential
or other special envoys to address particular foreign policy
issues in the manner described above?
Answer. I agree that special envoys can play a useful role in
addressing foreign policy issues that require intense attention. If
confirmed, I will be consulting with the President-elect and other
members of the national security team about where special envoys can be
most effective. However, no final decisions have been made yet
regarding the appointment of special envoys.
b. Will you commit to making such envoys available to
testify before the Foreign Relations Committee on issues
related to their duties?
Answer. As Secretary, it will be a top priority for me to insure
that the committee is closely consulted and informed about the
Department's diplomatic efforts and the Department will make available
the appropriate person to answer the committee's questions.
Question 3. During the Presidential campaign, you stated: ``[W]hen
I become President, Bill Clinton, my dear husband, will be one of the
people who will be sent around the world as a roving ambassador to make
it very clear to the rest of the world that we're back to a policy of
reaching out and working and trying to make friends and allies and
stopping the alienation of the rest of the world.''
Do you expect President Clinton to serve as a roving ambassador on
behalf of the Obama administration or the Department of State? If so,
what will his specific role and mandate be?
Answer. Any role that President Clinton plays with the incoming
administration is for President-elect Obama to decide.
resources for state department programs
At the end of the Bush administration, Secretary of Defense Gates
advocated, strongly, for additional personnel and resources for the
Department of State, lamenting that the total number of Foreign Service
officers was less than the number of sailors on a single aircraft
carrier group, and allegedly, less than the number of active military
band members.
Question 4. Do you believe the State Department currently has
sufficient numbers of personnel, with appropriate training, skill sets,
and resources to effectively perform the necessary work of advancing
U.S. interests around the globe?
Answer. Based on the briefings I have received so far, I do not
believe the Department has an adequate number of personnel. The men and
women of the Foreign Service and Civil Service also need additional
training opportunities, as well as resources, to carry out the many
responsibilities assigned to the Department. If confirmed, I intend to
work closely with the President and the Congress to secure the
necessary resources for the Department.
Question 5. You have signed several letters during your Senate
service advocating either that the Function 150 Account should receive
a substantial increase or that the President's proposed 150 Account
increase should not be reduced. One such delegation letter sent on
April 20, 2004, to the Appropriations chairman and ranking member said
``we urge you to allocate at least the President's request for the
civilian foreign affairs agencies and their programs.'' Another
delegation letter that you signed was sent on December 15, 2004, to
President Bush. It called for ``a robust increase in the FY06 150
International Affairs Budget as an essential investment in America's
fight against terrorism and efforts to build global stability . . .''
On March 16, 2005, during the FY 2006 Budget Resolution debate, you
voted along with most Senators to cut the 150 Account by $410 million
and transfer the funding to Veterans Health Care.
a. As Secretary of State, would you actively advocate
against the use of the 150 Account as an offset for other
budgetary priorities, regardless of what those priorities are?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work to increase the 150 Account,
and I intend to work with the Congress to fully fund the President's
budget requests.
b. What role will you play as an advocate for resources for
State Department programs in the Obama administration and what
do you see as the most pressing needs for the State Department
at this time?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to be a strong advocate for
resources for the Department. I also hope the Senate will promptly
consider the nomination of Jack Lew, who the President will nominate
for the new post of Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. As a
former OMB Director, Jack is well equipped to assist me in ensuring
that additional resources are used effectively and efficiently. Any
organization is only as strong as its people, and as strong as the
Foreign Service and Civil Service are, I believe that the most pressing
need, in the near term, is for the Department to have additional
Foreign and Civil Service officers to meet requirements.
foreign assistance
Foreign Assistance Resources
Question 6. Do you believe that the current budget for the State
Department's foreign assistance programs provides adequate resources
for these programs? Do you intend to advocate for increased resources
for the State Department's foreign assistance programs within the Obama
administration?
Answer. Throughout the campaign, President-elect Obama stated many
times the importance of development assistance to America's foreign
policy and national security. And he pledged to double foreign
assistance. I hope that the Congress will work with the new
administration in meeting this goal, and I can assure you that the
State Department will stand ready to implement these programs and more
fully integrate development as one of three pillars to a new security
strategy, with defense and diplomacy standing as the other two pillars.
To meet the expressed goals of this Congress and the priorities that
the President-elect will establish, including the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals, will require more resources. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates believes that future success in foreign policy
and the fight against terrorism will be ``less a matter of imposing
one's will and more a function of shaping behavior--of friends,
adversaries, and, most importantly, the people in between.'' He's
absolutely right. Considering the importance of the work ahead, we
cannot fail simply for a lack of will or resources. There are few other
places in the budget where dollars invested literally mean lives saved.
Question 7. Given the expected constraints of a growing Federal
budget deficit, a global financial crisis, continued commitments to
conflict and crises overseas, what priorities will you establish in
assistance areas to guide difficult tradeoff decisions as Secretary?
Answer. Without question, funding will be a major challenge, not
only for fiscal year 2010 but for the next several years. President-
elect Obama and this Congress will evaluate every spending priority
based on what works and what doesn't, and what fits best with America's
national security and economic interests. Among other things, we know
that U.S. investments targeting preventable diseases like AIDS and
malaria are affordable, effective, and proven. We know that taking on
extreme poverty with sustainable, smart, innovative solutions is
working. And this work increases our security here at home and our
influence around the world. Working in partnership, Congress and the
Obama administration will have to make smart, strategic budget choices
that deal with our problems here at home while also continuing to
support effective initiatives that save lives, strengthen our security,
and restore America's position in the world.
Coordination with DOD Security Assistance Programs
There has been a recent migration of State Department authorities to
the Department of Defense. Some are temporary measures such as the
responsibility for training and equipping police forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Others appear intended to become permanent, including
section 1206 of the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Act that grants the
Defense Department authority to train and equip foreign militaries, a
function traditionally performed by State Department programs under
longstanding authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act.
Question 8. Do you believe the State Department should continue to
have the lead role within the U.S. Government in implementing U.S.
security assistance programs? If so, what specific steps do you plan to
take as Secretary to address this issue?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I plan to consult with Secretary Gates
and other members of the President-elect's national security team to
develop the optimum structure for security assistance programs. In this
constrained budget environment, it is an imprudent use of taxpayer
resources to duplicate assistance structures throughout the government.
Question 9. Are there areas where you believe an expanded role for
the Department of Defense in implementing security assistance programs
is appropriate and useful?
Answer. As stated above, if confirmed, I plan to consult with
Secretary Gates and other members of the President-elect's national
security team to develop the optimum structure for security assistance
programs.
Question 10. What steps do you intend to take as Secretary to
ensure that adequate resources are allocated to security assistance
programs implemented by the State Department?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my priorities as Secretary will be to
work with Congress to increase resources of the Department as well as
to make better use of the resources the Department already has. As part
of that process, I will be reviewing the current authorities and
resources for security assistance and look forward to consulting with
Congress on insuring that the appropriate level of resources is
allocated for security assistance programs.
State Department Management of Foreign Assistance Programs
In a 2007 committee report entitled ``Embassies Grapple to Guide
Foreign Aid,'' Foreign Relations Committee staff identified short-
comings of a Washington-centric foreign assistance strategy. The report
also highlighted the value of the new Office of the Director of Foreign
Assistance at the Deputy Secretary level in the State Department. Other
recommendations included: That the assistance planning process should
be more inclusive of ambassadors and mission directors and their teams
in the field; continuing to make transparent the budget process within
the executive and with Congress; further consolidation of budget
planning and reporting capabilities.
Question 11. Will you retain the position of Director of Foreign
Assistance as a confirmable position at the Deputy Secretary of State
level?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to closely review this question soon
after taking office.
Question 12. What if any changes will you institute with regard to
the role and purpose of the position of Director of Foreign Assistance?
How will you ensure that the positive consolidation of budget reporting
that has taken place in this nascent foreign assistance reform process
be sustained?
Answer. I understand that the creation of this position has had,
led to an improvement in the reporting of budget data to the Department
management and the Congress. Under any circumstance, these improvements
must be maintained.
Question 13. Whereas less than 60 percent of total U.S. foreign
assistance falls under the jurisdiction of the State Department and
USAID, what steps would you recommend to develop a more comprehensive
and whole-of-government approach to U.S. foreign assistance programs?
Is there a role for the DFA to play in this effort?
Answer. As I indicated, I have not made any decision on whether to
retain the position of Director of Foreign Assistance. I do believe
that close coordination between State and USAID is essential. The
administration will also review whether other programs can be
consolidated to improve budget planning, coordination, and execution.
Question 14. Various studies have recommended that the new
administration reorganize how foreign assistance is managed, including
calls for elevating development to a Cabinet-level department. Other
options include a strengthened aid agency or consolidating aid programs
under the State Department.
a. What are your views on how to elevate development as a
component of U.S. foreign policy?
b. What organizational changes would you recommend?
c. Where do you believe the Millennium Challenge Corporation
fits into any new restructuring?
Answer. During the campaign, the President-elect promised to
elevate development in U.S. foreign policy. The administration will
promptly review whether fulfilling that objective will necessitate
organizational changes. The MCC has been innovative in foreign
assistance and we intend to review how its programs can best be
managed.
middle east issues
Israel/Gaza
Question 15. With recent renewed violence in southern Israel and
Gaza, and the expiration of the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire agreement,
what should be the role of the United States in seeking to achieve an
end to the violence, and the creation of a durable peace, not simply a
return to a long stalemate? What role do you expect to play as
Secretary on this issue?
Answer. We are obviously very concerned about the serious situation
in Gaza. President-elect Obama has spoken about his deep concern for
the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel, and we all agree that it
is very important that a durable cease-fire be achieved. That will
require an end to Hamas rocket fire at Israeli civilians, an effective
mechanism to prevent smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and an effective
border regime. We will work hard with our international partners to
make sure all these elements are achieved.
The cease-fire should be accompanied by a serious effort to address
the immediate humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and a longer
term reconstruction and development effort. The Bush administration is
in the middle of sensitive diplomatic negotiations on behalf of the
United States, so it is best that I not comment specifically on the
negotiations underway.
The administration plans to be actively engaged on diplomacy in the
Middle East in pursuit of peace agreements to resolve conflicts. The
administration is committed to helping Israel and the Palestinians
achieve their goal of two states living side by side in peace and
security, and will work toward this goal from the beginning of the
administration.
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
Question 16. To what extent will the Road Map for Middle East Peace
remain a guiding document for Obama administration policy with respect
to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process? What changes, if any, to the
roadmap do you believe are necessary for it to be a viable framework
for future peace efforts?
Answer. The roadmap, with the mutual obligations it places on the
parties, remains one of the important bases for working toward a two-
state solution. There are other important bases, including the
negotiations that grew out of the 2007 Annapolis conference, and which
the parties report have made progress. Our commitment is to help them
build on that progress and achieve their goal of two states living side
by side in peace and security.
Question 17. Given President-elect Obama's repeated comments about
making peace between Israel and the Palestinians a top priority issue
early in his administration, what would you do specifically to build on
the work done last year through the Annapolis process and where would
the issue of Israeli-Palestinian peace fall among your priorities as
Secretary of State? Do you expect to be personally involved in peace
efforts or do you expect the primary work to fall to another Department
official or a special envoy?
Answer. If confirmed, there is no doubt that helping Israelis and
Palestinians achieve peace and security through a two-state solution
will be one of the priority issues to which I will devote time and
attention. Success in this effort is in our national security
interests, just as it is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians.
So I certainly intend to be personally involved in these efforts,
together with other officials in the State Department. No decisions
have been made about the personnel structure we will use to implement
our Middle East peace efforts.
Question 18. In view of comments you made in June 2008 that the
United States will never ``impose a made-in-America solution'' to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what role do you think the United States
should take in helping to bridge the gaps between the two parties on
sensitive issues like Jerusalem, refugees and borders? If the two
parties continue to be unable to reach a comprehensive agreement on the
final status issues, would you be prepared to have the United States
offer ``bridging proposals''?
Answer. The specific role the administration would play in helping
Israel and the Palestinians reach agreements, including on final status
issues, would very much be determined as an outgrowth of consultations
with the parties. We have not held these discussions, or any
discussions with foreign governments, during the transition because of
the principle that the United States has one President at a time.
Question 19. I met this fall with Lieutenant General Dayton, who
has made painstaking gains in the arena of Palestinian security sector
reform.
a. What would you do as Secretary of State to continue these
efforts, as well as those of special envoy and now National
Security Advisor-designate, Jim Jones?
b. What specific actions would you take to continue U.S.
support for Palestinian efforts to end terror?
c. Do you believe progress can be made on the negotiating
track if Palestinian security forces are unable or unwilling to
sufficiently crack down on extremists?
Answer. General Jones, General Selva, and General Dayton have each
played important and constructive roles in advancing U.S. efforts to
promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian
National Security Force and Presidential Guard members who have been
trained in Jordan under the auspices of the United States Security
Coordinator have performed well in early tests in Jenin and Hebron.
This is an important element of strengthening Palestinian capabilities
to enable the Palestinian Authority to meet its commitments to combat
terrorism and maintain law and order, which are crucial to improving
daily life of Palestinians and ensuring security for Israelis. The
Congress has provided $143 million in funding for this successful
program. I will be consulting with GEN Keith Dayton and with the
Congress to determine appropriate funding levels for this program to
continue to achieve positive results.
Question 20. In June 2008, you noted a link between ``security and
opportunity'' and how providing children with hope can ``help dry up
the swamp of fear and pessimism that breeds terrorism.'' What would you
to do to bolster support for Palestinian efforts to develop a
sustainable economy--a key component of the Annapolis process--
including addressing key movement and access impediments and Israeli
security concerns?
Answer. There is no doubt that improving economic conditions and
daily life for Palestinians are key elements of achieving success in
Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. This is, in fact, a point of
consensus between Israelis and Palestinians, and they have reached a
series of agreements over it.
Some of these agreements have not been fully implemented, either on
the side of improving the Palestinian economy and easing movement and
access side, or on the side of dealing with Israel's security concerns.
So the first task is likely to be to working with the parties to try to
get these agreements implemented. From that basis, it will be easier to
promote additional investment in the Palestinian economy.
Egypt
Question 21. The United States-Egyptian relationship, despite
strains, differences of view, and minicrises, has been one of the most
profound and productive bilateral interactions our country has enjoyed
over these years. Nevertheless, it is often criticized for lack of
progress on human rights issues, political liberalization and
democratization. Recognizing that Egypt has often chosen stability over
change, what tools will you use to coax Egypt toward greater political
transparency, pluralism, and freedoms?
Answer. Egypt is an important ally, which retains an important
leadership position in the Arab world, and a key to the security of the
region. Bilateral cooperation between the United States and Egypt
remains strong, and we recognize Egyptian attempts to mediate a cease-
fire between Hamas and Israel. At the same time, we will work to
support greater political freedom in Egypt and throughout the Arab
world, through a mature dialogue with the leadership, and direct
engagement with the people. Our role is not to impose reform from the
outside, but to help Egyptians at all levels develop and pursue a
dialogue about the reforms that they seek for their society. And we
will always stand up for our principles and speak out in support of
human rights.
Lebanon
Question 22. What do you see as the key U.S. strategic priorities
in Lebanon and how to you propose to accomplish these goals?
Answer. Key strategic priorities include Lebanese sovereignty and
political stability, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and security on the
Israeli-Syrian border. President-elect Obama is committed to the full
implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions that reinforce
Lebanon's sovereignty and end the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah. We
need to work with our partners on the Security Council to consider
additional measures to strengthen enforcement tools and toughen
penalties for violators. We are also committed to ensuring the
international tribunal investigating the assassination of former Prime
Minister Hariri is based on the highest standards of criminal justice
and international law.
Question 23. What can the United States do further to ensure the
success of Lebanon's Qatar-brokered political compromise between the
governing March 14 coalition and the Hezbollah-led opposition?
Answer. Efforts to promote compromise among Lebanon's disparate
political groups should be conducted with a view toward strengthening
the institutions of the central government, including the courts and
the Lebanese Armed Forces. Helping the Lebanese build an economic
infrastructure that provides for a fair distribution of services,
opportunities, and employment is also important. And we need to stand
with the government and people of Lebanon against those who would
undermine Lebanon's sovereignty, threaten Lebanon's political
stability, and seek conflict between Lebanon and its neighbors.
Question 24. How will the Obama administration respond should
Hezbollah do well in Lebanon's upcoming parliamentary elections and
serve in a unity government or potentially even be called to form a
government?
Answer. Without speculating about the outcome of another country's
elections, I would say that the administration will always stand with
those in Lebanon who seek peace with their neighbors, stability and
equality of opportunity at home, and a strong central government
dedicated to these principles and to meeting the needs of all Lebanese.
Question 25. What would you recommend be done to accomplish
Hezbollah disarmament while preserving Lebanese stability? To what
extent does U.S. military assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces play
a role? What are the broader strategic implications for U.S. military
aid to Lebanon?
Answer. President-elect Obama is committed to implementing U.N.
Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty by
requiring the disarming of militias and preventing their rearmament. We
need to work with our partners on the Security Council to consider
additional measures to toughen penalties for violators, and strengthen
enforcement tools. Strengthening the institutions of the central
government, including the Lebanese Armed Forces, is a key element of
this strategy. As with any assistance to a foreign military,
appropriate safeguards are necessary to ensure that our assistance is
only used in ways that advance our interests.
Syria
Question 26. Do you believe that continuing to isolate Syria is in
our best interests or in the best interests of peace in the region?
Answer. The United States and Syria have profound differences on
important issues, and the President-elect and I believe that engaging
directly with Syria increases the possibility of making progress on
changing Syrian behavior. In these talks, we should insist on our core
demands: Cooperation in stabilizing Iraq; ending support for terrorist
groups; stopping the flow of weapons to Hezbollah; and respect for
Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. We should engage directly to
help Israel and Syria succeed in their peace efforts, which both
parties have indicated could help advance the talks. The prospects of
success in these talks are unknown, but we are committed to making
every effort to help them succeed.
Question 27. Will the administration be actively supporting Israel-
Syria proximity talks?
Answer. Yes.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
Question 28. During the Presidential campaign, you stated that the
United States ``need[s] to be moving quickly toward a coming to terms
with our oil companies and our oil producing country allies. We need to
demonstrate our commitment to home-grown energy. We can't do that, I
know, until the two oil men leave the White House but as soon as they
do, we have to be ready aggressively.''
a. Is it the view of the Obama administration that such a
``coming to terms'' is necessary with countries that produce
oil?
Answer. The United States must free itself from dependence on
foreign oil. Our addiction to foreign oil doesn't just undermine our
national security and wreak havoc on our environment--it also cripples
our economy and strains the budgets of working families. This is why
President-elect Obama has proposed an investment of $15 billion a year
over 10 years to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy.
This plan will help to create millions of jobs, protect our
environment, and move America in the direction of energy independence
and away from foreign oil.
b. If so, what specific changes will such an approach
involve in U.S. policy toward oil producing states?
Answer. Our principal goal will be to reduce our reliance on oil-
producing countries. The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for
America plan proposes strategically investing $150 billion over the
next 10 years, which will help create millions of jobs and catalyze
private efforts to build a clean energy future. The goal is to expand
the use of American-made hybrid cars, ensure that 10 percent of our
electricity comes from renewable energy sources by 2012, and 25 percent
comes from renewable sources by 2025. We will implement an economywide
cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by
2050, and strive to make America a global leader when it comes to
energy efficiency and the environment.
Question 29. What will your objectives be with respect to policy
toward Saudi Arabia?
Answer. Saudi Arabia can be a key partner in helping the United
States achieve many of our foreign policy priorities. Foreign policy
priorities of the Obama administration include ending the war in lraq
responsibly, finishing the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, combating
international terrorism, and renewing American diplomacy to support
strong alliances, and to seek a lasting peace in the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. We will work with our international partners,
including Saudi Arabia, to meet these goals. We will also work to
promote reform and democratization, women's rights, and success in the
struggle against extremism inside Saudi Arabia.
Iran
Question 30. What steps to you intend to take as Secretary to
address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program? How can additional
pressure on Iran be mobilized most effectively? What prospects do you
see in this regard for further measures in the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. The new administration will present the Iranian regime with
a clear choice: Abandon your nuclear weapons program, support for
terror and threats to Israel and there will be meaningful incentives;
refuse, and we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral
sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council; and
sustained action outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime. A
nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, and all elements of American power
are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--that
must begin with the power of aggressive American diplomacy.
Question 31. During the Presidential campaign, President-elect
Obama expressed support for direct diplomacy with Iran.
a. What steps does the administration intend to take to
pursue such direct diplomacy with Iran?
b. Do you support the opening of a U.S. interests section in
Iran as a means for increased United States-Iranian dialogue?
Answer. The Obama administration will support tough, aggressive,
and direct diplomacy, without preconditions, with our adversaries. Note
that there is a distinction between preparations and preconditions. For
possible negotiations with Iran, there must be careful preparation--
including low-level talks, coordination with allies, the establishment
of an agenda, and an evaluation of the potential for progress.
The U.S. should support and participate in ongoing efforts with our
European allies and assemble an international coalition that will exert
a collective will on Iran so that it is in their own interest to
verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons efforts.
We will carefully prepare for any negotiations--open up lines of
communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and
evaluate the potential for progress.
We will not sit down with Iran just for the sake of talking. But we
are willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate
Iranian leader at a time and place of our choosing if--and only if--it
can advance the interests of the United States.
We should be careful not to let our engagement with Iran be used by
the Iranian regime in the runup to the June Presidential election--but
the elections should not prevent us from starting a dialogue if we
determine that there is a genuine intent to engage.
By exhausting diplomacy, we will be better able to rally the world
to our side, strengthen multilateral sanctions, and to convince the
Iranian people that their own government is the author of its
isolation.
The decision regarding whether to open a U.S. interests section in
Tehran is under review and no decision has been made yet.
Question 32. Would you agree that Iran is in a position to impede
as well as advance Israeli-Palestinian peace through its influence with
Hezbollah and Hamas? How can we modify their behavior toward these
regional issues?
Answer. Iran poses a serious threat to Israel, as demonstrated by
its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran
has been a source of regional instability and an impediment to peace,
and we intend to use all tools at our disposal to prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon and end its support of terror. This begins
with direct, aggressive, and principled diplomacy and may include an
expansion of sanctions.
lraq
Question 33. What do you see as the top national security interests
that remain for the United States with respect to Iraq?
Answer. I would define our security interests in Iraq the same as
how the President-elect has defined it: A transition to an Iraqi
Government that can take responsibility for its future and that leads a
country at peace with itself and its neighbors--a peace that prevents
sectarian conflict, protects Iraq's sovereignty, and ensures that an
al-Qaeda threat does not reemerge.
Question 34. What opportunities do you see for the broader
international community to become more involved in Iraq? Do you sense a
willingness on the part of the EU or other organizations to engage more
robustly?
Answer. The Obama administration will pursue a diplomatic
initiative with all of Iraq's neighbors--including Iran and Syria--and
the U.N. to secure Iraq's borders, isolate al-Qaeda, and support
national reconciliation within Iraq. It is in the interest of Iraq's
neighbors and the international community to have a stable Iraq that
does not become a battleground for sectarian tensions and animosities.
And we will communicate that. More broadly, we have a range of
diplomatic tools at our disposal that we can deploy to persuade and
press Iraq's neighbors to play a constructive role. We have let these
tools languish in recent years, but they have served us well in
advancing our interests in other difficult conflicts. They can serve us
well in Iraq.
As for our European allies, they too have an interest in a stable
Iraq, and I look forward to working with them to see how they might
engage diplomatically or otherwise to make that possible.
Question 35. The Bush administration suggested that one of the
objectives of the surge was, to tamp down violence to provide the space
for political actors to make the concessions necessary to bring about
lasting peace and reconciliation. In your estimation, has that
happened? What will you do to bring that reconciliation about?
Answer. There have been security gains in Iraq, but political
progress toward lasting peace and reconciliation has been less
successful. The Obama administration will proceed with the following
overall strategy and core principles we will bring to this set of
security and political challenges.
First, as we all know, Iraq is a sovereign country, and any steps
we take on security matters moving forward will have to be taken in
consultation with the Iraqis. We will certainly do our best to press
the Iraqi Government to combat sectarianism in their security forces--
and we'll tie future training resources to progress on this front.
Improved Iraqi security forces cannot fully replace U.S. forces, but
they can certainly help, if the Iraqis step up.
Second, we will take additional steps to help the Iraqi Government
consolidate the security gains that have been made in the past 2
years--gains that have facilitated more intensive and effective
rebuilding and aid efforts. That will include an intensive diplomatic
and political strategy, including an effort to forge a comprehensive
compact with Iraq's neighbors.
Third, we will pay particular attention to the humanitarian crisis
in Iraq, which risks destabilizing parts of the country. We are
committed to an aggressive effort to assist displaced Iraqis. But these
are serious challenges, and much of this turns on the capacity and
willingness of the Iraqis themselves.
Question 36. Iran continues to be the most problematic of Iraq's
neighbors from the U.S. perspective. How do you assess Iranian
interests with respect to Iraq? What will your priorities be in seeking
to manage Iran's impact on Iraq?
Answer. Iran has been the largest beneficiary of the policy
failures in Iraq. It has strengthened its position in the Middle East
and continues to pursue nuclear weapons, issue threats against Israel,
support terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas, and it
continues to meddle in Iraq, where it seeks a Shia-dominated government
that is too weak to challenge Iran's dominant regional position.
President-elect Obama intends to use tough, principled diplomacy to
mitigate the threats posed by Iran against its neighbors, including
Iraq.
Iraq is an independent, sovereign state and we wish to see it
develop and flourish. Iraq will determine the character of its ties
with its neighbors, including Iran. Having normal relations with trade
is surely what Iraq seeks. Our interests are in supporting Iraqi
independence. To the extent that Iran threatens that or seeks to
destabilize Iraq out of a desire to build its leverage over Iraq and
its future, our priorities will be geared to supporting Iraq's ability
to shape its own destiny.
Question 37. Do you believe current arrangements for the security
of U.S. diplomatic personnel and facilities in Iraq are appropriate? Do
you believe the Department can continue to rely on contractors such as
Blackwater to provide security for its operations? Should the
Department of State develop the capability to transport and guard
diplomats in challenging environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. Ensuring security for U.S. diplomatic personnel and
facilities in Iraq is essential. Right now, much of the rebuilding is
taking place under a security umbrella provided by the brave young men
and women of our Armed Forces. Their departure from critical areas in
Iraq will certainly change the security calculus. How we deal with this
challenge--both generally and specifically with respect to Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)--has been and will continue to be the
subject of discussions among the national security team and with the
President-elect.
Both the President-elect and I have been outspoken in calling for
more oversight and accountability for private contractors and more
tools to stop abuses in Iraq. I have been highly skeptical of heavily
armed military contractors who have operated in Iraq without any law or
court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These contractors have
at times been reckless and have at times compromised our mission in
Iraq.
I look forward to working with the President-elect and the Congress
to establish the legal status of contractor personnel, so that we can
prosecute any abuses committed by private military contractors. In
addition, our experience in Iraq has shown that there must be serious
oversight and effective program management--and that starts at the
State Department. I will be especially vigilant about this. Finally, it
is important to remember that there are many private contractors in
Iraq and elsewhere who are honorable, hardworking, and patriotic. But
we have seen too many abuses in the past few years to do anything less
than impose a new legal regime to hold security firms and individual
personnel accountable when they act outside the law.
The protection of State Department personnel operating in areas
like Afghanistan and Iraq is an important issue and I look forward to
working, along with other members of the President's national security
team, to exploring the best way to address that issue if confirmed.
Question 38. What impact do you anticipate the drawdown of U.S.
forces in Iraq to have on the State Department's ability to carry out
its operations there? What steps will you take as Secretary to ensure
that State Department undertakes appropriate transition planning in
connection with the military drawdown?
Answer. As explained in my answer to the question above, much of
the rebuilding in Iraq is taking place under a security umbrella
provided by the brave young men and women of our Armed Forces. Their
departure from critical areas in Iraq will certainly change the
security calculus. How we deal with this challenge--both generally and
specifically with respect to PRTs--has been and will continue to be the
subject of discussions among the national security team and with the
President-elect. But if confirmed as Secretary, I will ensure that the
State Department undertakes all appropriate transition planning to deal
with all contingencies concerning our diplomatic security that might
arise from a reduction of military personnel.
africa
Sudan/Darfur
Question 39. During your campaign for President, you were critical
of the U.N.'s response to the crisis in Darfur. What specific steps do
you intend to take as Secretary to improve the effectiveness of U.N.
efforts to address the situation in Darfur, including the United
Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)?
Answer. Today, the most immediate and urgent means of providing
protection as swiftly as possible to the civilians at risk is the rapid
and full implementations of the deployment of the United Nations-
African Union peacekeeping force, UNAMID. The pace of UNAMID's
deployment needs to be accelerated, combined with sufficient logistical
support to protect civilians on the ground. If confirmed I will work
with my colleagues and the President-elect to send a clear message to
Khartoum that they must end obstruction of the U.N. force (UNAMID),
including through endless bureaucratic hurdles and delays. We also need
to address some of the U.N.'s own requirements that have inadvertently
slowed UNAMID's deployment thus far. If necessary, the Obama
administration will take steps to help move needed troops and equipment
into place on an urgent basis.
Question 40. Many have been critical of China's role in the
Security Council in opposing stronger and more effective U.N. action on
Darfur. What specific steps do you intend to take as Secretary to gain
greater cooperation from China in efforts to address Darfur?
Answer. Cooperation in the Security Council must be at the center
of our efforts to build an effective and responsive U.N. With its fast
growing economy, ever-growing global interests, and expanding
population, China should be expected to assume a more active role on
the Security Council, on Sudan and Darfur and elsewhere. The Council's
capacity to effectively address key issues derives directly from the
ability of its members to identify shared objectives and build
pragmatic working relationships. This will be particularly true for the
United States and China. Prospects for such collaboration on the
Council improve when there are effective, sustained, direct, and
serious consultations and negotiations among the Council Members. There
are, and will continue to be, times when, despite best efforts,
effective Council action is not possible.
Question 41. During the Presidential campaign, you urged
consideration of a greater role for NATO in addressing the situation in
Darfur, including a potential NATO role in enforcing a no-fly zone.
a. Is it the position of the Obama administration that NATO
forces or assets should be deployed to Darfur?
b. Does the Obama administration believe that NATO forces
could play such a role without diminishing the effectiveness of
ongoing NATO operations in Afghanistan?
c. Current U.N. Security Council resolutions do not
authorize individual states operating independently from the
United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) to
enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur. Would the Obama
administration support the enforcement of a no-fly zone over
Darfur by individual states in the absence of additional
authority from the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. President-elect Obama and Vice-President-elect Biden and I
have been very clear and forceful in our condemnation of the genocide
in Sudan and in our commitment to far more robust actions to try to end
the genocide and maximize protection for civilians. We have made very
clear our intent to pursue more effective diplomatic efforts to resolve
the conflict that underlies the genocide.
We have all also advocated the implementation of a no-fly zone as
well as far more robust sanctions on the Government of Sudan, both of
which Congress has also endorsed.
We've made no final decisions on a no-fly zone, or on the
deployment of NATO assets to Darfur. I would anticipate that the
questions of Sudan and Darfur would be subject to early policy review
of all steps that the U.S. can take to most effectively and urgently
maximize protection for civilians. The impact of any actions on our
interests elsewhere--including Afghanistan--would be part of that
review.
Sudan/CPA
Question 42. How will the Obama administration help sustain the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan which reaches a pivotal point
with the referendum on secession in the next 2 years?
Answer. As a guarantor of the CPA, the United States has a special
responsibility to ensure that implementation of this landmark agreement
remains a priority even in the midst of the Darfur crisis. We will work
bilaterally to increase support to the Government of Southern Sudan to
bolster capacity and good governance, and multilaterally to assure
appropriate donor coordination and ongoing political and financial
support for CPA implementation. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement aims
to give the Sudanese people greater voice in their political future,
and this will remain a priority. National elections that were supposed
to be held by July 2009 will clearly by delayed, but the United States
will work to ensure that the delay is not protracted, and that free,
fair, safe elections are held before the year is out. Preparations for
the 2011 referendum must remain on track as well to retain the
confidence of the South.
Somalia
Question 43. What steps do you believe should be taken to stabilize
the security situation in Somalia?
Answer. Somalia's complex emergency is daunting, and U.S.
leadership is desperately needed to help address this multifaceted
emergency. Failed states like Somalia provide dangerous opportunities
to terrorist organizations and international criminals, and they
destabilize entire regions.
The U.S. will work with other donors and with Somalis to improve
the security conditions for humanitarian operations on the ground. The
United States will continue to work with allies and with the shipping
industry to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden and along the East
African coast. Ultimately, Somalia can be stabilized only by ensuring
that a competent, consensus-based government is in place with the
capacity to provide order for the Somali people. We continue to look
for diplomatic opportunities to stabilize the security situation in
Somalia.
Question 44. The Bush administration has advocated the
establishment of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. Do you support
this idea? If so, what do you believe the appropriate size and mandate
for such a mission would be?
Answer. I believe we need to take a very careful look at this
issue. There are no good solutions in Somalia. The question is whether
a U.N. peacekeeping force, assuming it is successfully stoodup and
deployed, advances our efforts to confront terrorism, address the
humanitarian crisis, and promote reconciliation in Somalia. I expect to
consider this issue in the near future with the President-elect and my
colleagues in the Cabinet.
Zimbabwe
Question 45. What actions will you take as Secretary of State to
address the ongoing human rights and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe?
Answer. The people of Zimbabwe have suffered for far too long under
a corrupt leadership that does not serve the needs of its people. The
destruction of Zimbabwe's economy and repeated abuses of power have
been a catastrophe for Zimbabweans, and threaten the stability of the
region. The United States and the world must take steps to address this
growing crisis. Widened U.S. sanctions are appropriate. It was the
right policy to have supported a U.N. Security Council resolution
calling for targeted sanctions and an arms embargo. As Zimbabwe's
crisis continues and becomes even more destabilizing to the Southern
African region, South Africa, the African Union, and the SADC must play
a stronger role in pressuring the Mugabe regime.
It will require concerted and sustained diplomacy to try to get the
international community to acknowledge the need to act to apply more
pressure to the illegitimate government of Robert Mugabe, and to bring
an end to the man-made humanitarian crisis that grips Zimbabwe today.
The Zimbabwean people are suffering and the U.S. will push for more
efforts, including having humanitarian NGOs resume activity in
Zimbabwe. We will need to consider incentives for reform, and work
closely with the EU and other international donors to create a very
generous aid and recovery package for Zimbabwe. We would make very
clear the specific and practical steps that any Zimbabwean Government
can take to qualify for this package.
Eastern Congo
Question 46. The conflict in Eastern Congo has brought human rights
violations and humanitarian deprivation on a large scale, in the same
region and involving some of the same actors that produced the Rwandan
genocide. What actions will you take to help resolve this regional
crisis?
Answer. The situation in Congo is deeply disturbing. The President-
elect and I have both supported efforts on behalf of a lasting solution
to Congo's political disputes. The United States can encourage all
parties in Congo and in the region to pursue a negotiated solution and
refrain from fueling additional conflict. Ending the crisis and
preventing a return to widespread conflict will be a multilateral
effort. The Security Council was right to take steps to strengthen
MONUC, and the U.S. should support former Nigerian President Obasanjo's
diplomatic efforts.
AFRICOM
Question 47. What role do you foresee for the newly created Africa
Combatant Command with regard to foreign policy and foreign assistance
resources?
Answer. The President-elect supports the concept of AFRICOM, as do
I, but we want to make sure that it is implemented properly. I look
forward to working on behalf of the President-elect, with Secretary
Gates and General Jones, and with African nations on this issue. The
original concept behind AFRICOM was that our engagement with Africa
will be improved by streamlining our command structure so that there is
a single unified command responsible for Africa, rather than three
separate commands as has been the case. The President-elect has warned
that we must be very careful not to overmilitarize our relations with
African nations. On the other hand, there is a role to play for AFRICOM
in helping train and equip African rapid response forces for
peacekeeping operations. AFRICOM can also contribute to an enhanced
capability of African nations to patrol their own waters.
Question 48. How will the State Department and USAID interact with
AFRICOM within Africa?
Answer. A well-conceived AFRICOM--one that plays the traditional
role of a combatant command rather than supplants the State
Department's traditional role--can enhance U.S. Government efforts to
foster peace and stability on the continent. I look forward to working
with Secretary Gates and others to ensure that AFRICOM complements the
efforts of State Department and USAID.
afghanistan
Question 49. What steps do you believe the United States should
take to promote Afghanistan's stability and development? How can we
most effectively mobilize international support for such efforts? What
role do you intend to play as Secretary on these issues?
Answer. If I am confirmed, designing and implementing a more
effective strategy in Afghanistan will be one of my highest priorities
at the State Department. We have lost ground in Afghanistan over the
past 7 years. Our strategy has to acknowledge Afghanistan as it is, not
as we hoped it would be 7 years ago. We also have to acknowledge that
we will not see progress in Afghanistan overnight. The President-elect
and the entire national security team understand Afghanistan and
northwest Pakistan are the central front in the war on terror, and we
know that it is critical that we make progress there.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement a new set
of strategies that will help us confront the resurgence of the Taliban
and the persistent threat of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Additional troops
are certainly a part of that--though Secretary Gates can better speak
to the military dimensions of our efforts in Afghanistan.
The President-elect and I have consistently said that our strategy
in Afghanistan cannot simply be about adding more troops. He has
enunciated an approach that we call ``more for more''--more troops and
assistance from the U.S. as we seek more from NATO allies, and more
from an Afghan Government that needs to focus on improving the lives of
its people. We also have to implement a coherent Pakistan strategy, one
that involves more nonmilitary aid and more pressure on Pakistan to
fight terror. With this set of principles, and with the resources,
focus, and diplomatic effort that Afghanistan deserves--and has been
denied because of our entanglement in Iraq--we believe that we can make
progress in supporting the people of Afghanistan and preventing al-
Qaeda from staging future attacks.
Question 50. Do you agree that the economic development aspect of
stabilization and reconstruction in Afghanistan is as important as
security sector reform and how will you assure it is properly
resourced?
Answer. Economic development is absolutely essential to
Afghanistan's stabilization and reconstruction. It is inextricably
linked to security. The President-elect has proposed a ``more-for-
more'' strategy which will provide additional nonmilitary aid each
year--above and beyond what is given now. That money will be focused on
initiatives dealing with education, infrastructure, human services, and
alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And it will be accompanied
by tougher anticorruption measures. We will tie aid to better
performance by the Afghan national government, including anticorruption
initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country.
We will also work to ensure that investments are made not just in Kabul
but out in Afghanistan's provinces.
Question 51. How will you ensure that U.S. assistance to
Afghanistan produces results and uses funds efficiently?
Answer. As explained above, any U.S. assistance to Afghanistan will
be accompanied by tougher anticorruption measures. We will tie aid to
better performance by the Afghan national government, including
anticorruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across
the country. We will also work to ensure that investments are made not
just in Kabul but out in Afghanistan's provinces. And, of course, I
welcome congressional oversight and ongoing consultation with this
committee as key tools in ensuring efficient and effective investment
of American taxpayer resources.
Question 52. How will you ensure our efforts in Afghanistan are
based upon a regional strategic approach by the United States and its
partners?
Answer. Afghanistan is not just a challenge for the United States--
it is a critical security issue for our allies in NATO and for all
countries in the region. Afghanistan's considerable problems will not
be resolved without the cooperation of these countries, which requires
a regional strategic approach. That is what I will seek to implement if
confirmed.
That is why we believe our NATO allies must do more. The Obama
administration will seek greater contributions from them in
Afghanistan. We will ask our NATO allies to reconsider national
restrictions on NATO forces. The NATO force is short-staffed and some
countries' contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their
troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. The
Obama administration will work with European allies to end these
burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force.
Question 53. There is a consensus that the Afghan judiciary is both
ineffective and corrupt, and has been neglected for years by the
international community. Property rights, human rights, and sovereign
rights are at constant risk. Prosecution of criminals including
narcotics traffickers and corrupt officials is severely hampered. This
opens up space for the Taliban's version of arbitration and dispute
settlement among the people. How will you prioritize the reform and
reestablishment of an effective judiciary and rule of law sector that
is responsive to Afghanistan's Constitution and its people?
Answer. Legal reform is absolutely vital for Afghanistan's future,
and working with our partners, this is an issue that we must make a
higher priority. As mentioned in a previous question, we will tie aid
to better performance by the Afghan national government, including
anticorruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across
the country.
pakistan
Question 54. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of
current U.S. security sector cooperation with Pakistan? Is money for
such programs being well spent, and is it helping Pakistan to become a
more effective partner in fighting terrorism and in cooperating on
other important U.S. interests? Are there ways in which this assistance
can be made more effective?
Answer. Since 2001, the U.S. assistance program to Pakistan has
lacked strategic focus. The President-elect, the Vice-President-elect
and I supported the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2008 as
Senators--and I know I speak for each of us when I commend the ranking
member for his leadership on this vital issue. But this is not a blank
check. We should condition military aid on ensuring that Pakistan is
taking on the extremists. Should the 111th Congress choose to
reintroduce a new version of the legislation, we look forward to
working with this committee and the Congress on legislation to help
build a long-term relationship with Pakistan.
Question 55. Do you believe that current levels of economic
assistance to Pakistan are sufficient to achieve U.S. objectives in
helping Pakistan to achieve political and economic stability? How
should U.S. economic assistance be most effectively targeted to meet
these objectives?
Answer. No.
Question 56. How will you engage a civilian government that is
often at odds with powerful military and intelligence institutions?
Answer. We need to ensure that we do as much as possible to engage
a wide range of Pakistan's democratically elected civilian leaders. In
addition, President Zardari needs the support of the military to
improve relations with India--to include addressing historical military
ties to extremist groups--and the military has sought politicians'
support in defending military operations in the tribal areas.
Question 57. Following the most recent Mumbai attacks and evidence
pointing toward groups supported by Pakistan's intelligence services,
what action will you take to ensure U.S. assistance does not provide
the means to maintain those military and intelligence elements contrary
to our interests?
Answer. U.S. military assistance to Pakistan must be conditioned on
Pakistan's efforts to close down training camps, evict foreign
fighters, and preventing the Taliban and al-Qaeda from using Pakistan
as a terrorist sanctuary. Nonmilitary assistance should be tripled,
with a focus on the border regions, so that over the long term we are
reducing the pull of the extremists.
Question 58. Where do you rank the resolution of Kashmir in U.S.
priorities for Pakistan? What role do you believe the United States can
play to assist in the resolution of the Kashmir region?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I are very concerned about rising
tensions in Kashmir: The situation is dangerous for India, for
Pakistan, and for the people of Kashmir. We must encourage all parties
to work toward peaceful settlement.
india
The Mumbai attacks in November 2008 are yet another attack in India
suspected of emanating from groups in Pakistan that have support among
Pakistan military and intelligence agencies. These attacks take place
at moments of increasing cooperation between the Indian and Pakistan
Government and are clearly intended to destabilize relations.
Question 59. What actions will you take to ensure progress in
political and economic development in the region despite this spoiler
role of terrorist organizations?
Answer. We are committed to do as much as possible throughout this
critical region to promote political and economic development, and to
shut down terrorist networks. In Pakistan, that means increasing
nonmilitary assistance, making our military assistance accountable and
conditional on Pakistani actions, and doing more to improve the lives
of everyday people. In India, it means continuing to deepen our close
partnership on a wide range of economic and development issues. We
cannot, and will not, allow terrorists to stand in the way of progress.
Question 60. What is your assessment of the reaction India has made
to the attack to date?
Answer. The Indian people--as well as victims from many other
countries, including the United States--suffered a terrible tragedy
with the Mumbai attacks. We should support its efforts to pursue a full
investigation of who organized and plotted the attack, ultimately
bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Question 61. What is your assessment of the response Pakistan has
taken since it provided information regarding the attackers?
Answer. The Pakistani Government must do all it can to find out who
perpetrated these horrible attacks and bring these terrorists to
justice.
Question 62. What support will you give to the recent civilian
nuclear cooperation agreement with India and how will the U.S. ensure
such cooperation is limited to civilian purposes?
Answer. The Obama administration will favor a closer relationship
between the U.S. and India and believes that civil nuclear cooperation
will help build a better relationship. We need to explore how we can
take advantage of nuclear agreement to build a wider and deeper
relationship with India as well as to work together to cement progress
on proliferation goals, including ratification of the Comprehensive
Test-Ban Treaty. As the relationship deepens, the U.S. and India can
work together to address global and regional problems of shared concern
including proliferation, counterterrorism, poverty, and climate change.
Question 63. In a 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, you wrote ``As
cochair of the Senate India Caucus, I recognize the tremendous
opportunity presented by India's rise and the need to give the country
an augmented voice in regional and international institutions, such as
the U.N.'' In what ways specifically do you believe India's voice at
the U.N. should be augmented? Do you support India's desire to become a
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. The United States has an enduring interest in a maximally
efficient and effective United Nations Security Council. Any expansion
would need to preserve both those elements. We recognize that the
Council was created many years ago at a time when there were very
different international realities and that there is a strongly felt
sentiment among many Member States that the Security Council should
better reflect changing circumstances. The administration will support
expansion of the Security Council in ways that would not impede its
effectiveness and its efficiency. We need to make a serious, deliberate
effort, consulting closely with key allies and capitals, as well as
with the committee and the Congress, to find a way forward.
east asia
Japan and China
During the Bush administration, we witnessed an expansion of the United
States-Japan relationship to new levels of cooperation on regional and
global issues, including our respective national security concerns and
areas of economic cooperation. Japan is eager to partner and closely
collaborate with the United States to address present and future
challenges within Asia. With the reemergence of China on a global and
regional basis, there is elevated tension between China and Japan, and
a return to debate on events of history involving both countries.
Question 64. How can the United States most effectively nurture our
important relationship with Japan while pursuing constructive
engagement with China?
Answer. Maintaining both a strong partnership with Japan and a
constructive relationship with China are not contradictory; they are
entirely consistent with U.S. interests.
A strong and enduring United States-Japan alliance, based on common
interests and shared values, is the centerpiece for both American and
Japanese policy in the Asia-Pacific region. As the world's two
wealthiest democracies, the United States and Japan have shared
interests that cut across a range of challenging issues: Nuclear
proliferation, terrorism, financial instability, poverty, and climate
change, to name a few. As the relationship continues to broaden and
deepen, we must strive to enhance communication and consultation
between our two countries, and seek closer coordination on critical
issues where we have shared interests and goals, such as how to best
resolve the abductee issue in the context of efforts to achieve the
complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons
programs. This will ensure that the alliance continues to play its
critical role of ensuring security, stability, and prosperity in the
Asia-Pacific region.
In our relationship with China, we should work where possible to
expand the areas of cooperation while managing the areas of
competition. It is essential that China's rise be peaceful. The United
States cannot by itself ensure that result, but it can help create an
environment in which China makes the right choices--choices such as
contributing to global economic stability, ensuring fair trade,
supporting international efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, ending
support for repressive regimes such as those in Zimbabwe and Burma,
protecting human rights, and combating global warming. The Obama
administration will work to promote these and other important
objectives in its interaction with China.
Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement
Last fall, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab announced the
beginning of talks on a regional trade agreement with Singapore, Chile,
New Zealand, and Brunei, known as the Transpacific Trade Talks. An
eventual Transpacific agreement could be an important doorway for
further U.S. economic engagement in Asia. Other countries, including
Australia, are considering participation as well.
Question 65. Do you favor continued U.S. participation in the
Transpacific Trade Talks?
Answer. The Asia-Pacific region as a whole accounts for nearly 60
percent of global GDP and nearly half of world trade. U.S. trade with
Asian countries totals nearly $1 trillion annually. Our economic
interaction with Asia underpins our overall relationship with that
vital region and enhances both American prosperity and security. I
support further expansion of trade with Asia, provided that it is safe,
fair, and beneficial to American workers and consumers.
Any trade agreements the Obama administration pursues will ensure
the greatest possible benefits for American exporters, workers, and
consumers; contain binding standards of labor and environmental
protections; and be rigorously monitored and enforced. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with Congress to review the status of the
Transpacific Trade Talks and determine whether they will advance these
objectives.
Question 66. What are specific steps you will propose to increase
U.S. trade interaction with East Asia?
Answer. As the President-elect and I have said, strengthening economic
ties with Asia enhances both our prosperity and security. I support
expanded trade with East Asia provided that it is safe, fair, and
beneficial to American workers and consumers. The Obama administration
will use all the tools at its disposal to expand market access in Asia
for U.S. exporters, end unfair trade practices, and ensure that imports
into the United States are safe. It is our shared belief that trade in
low carbon energy technologies is a win-win for the United States:
Providing growth in innovative industries in the United States while
helping our friends in Asia meet their growing energy needs in a manner
consistent with our shared climate goals. Ensuring that the United
States will be a technology leader in this innovative field is a
priority of the Obama administration.
ASEAN
The 10 nations comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
represent the fourth largest export market for the United States. Since
its inception in 1967, with the original five nations of Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, ASEAN has been an
important contributor to stability throughout Southeast and East Asia.
Unfortunately, among ASEAN leaders, there has been a lingering
perception that the region is not of significant interest to the United
States. This impression has been reinforced by Secretary Rice's
infrequency of visits to the region, and Assistant Secretary Hill being
necessarily occupied with the North Korean nuclear issue.
Over 2 years ago, I introduced, and the Senate passed legislation
establishing the position of U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs.
President Bush eventually proceeded to appoint Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State, Scot Marciel, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN.
The United States was the first country to make such an appointment.
Japan, China, Vietnam, and other countries have followed the U.S.
example and appointed Ambassadors to ASEAN.
Question 67. If confirmed, will you recommend continued appointment
of a U.S. ambassador to ASEAN?
Answer. I share your assessment of the critical importance of ASEAN
and the need for the United States to enhance and elevate its relations
with the region. In 2006, President-elect Obama was one of the
cosponsors of your legislation, S. 2697, to establish the position of
U.S. Ambassador for ASEAN Affairs, and both he and I were proud to
support both that bill and your resolution in the last Congress
commemorating the 30th anniversary of United States-ASEAN relations and
encouraging President Bush to make this important appointment. If
confirmed, I would recommend to the President the continued appointment
of a U.S. ambassador for ASEAN affairs, and look forward to working
with you and other Members of Congress to assure that this position
continues to play an important role in advancing U.S. relations with
the region.
Question 68. Will you be prepared to travel to Southeast Asia early
in your term of office?
Answer. While it would be premature of me to comment on my future
travel schedule if I am confirmed as Secretary of State, I understand
the importance of consistent high-level U.S. diplomatic engagement with
Southeast Asia and, if confirmed, would seek to explore all the options
for early travel to the region.
Question 69. What are additional ways of reinforcing the United
States-ASEAN relationship?
Answer. I believe that it is critical that the United States
maintain a strong presence in the region, and that our diplomacy be
active, forward-leaning, and engaged at every level. That includes, of
course, the participation of the Secretary of State in such gatherings
as the ASEAN Regional Forum meetings, but also consideration, when and
as appropriate, of a Presidential-level summit with ASEAN. Also, if
confirmed I would look forward to working with the President and with
this committee to explore the desirability and feasibility of the
United States signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN.
Six-Party Talks
The six-party talks focusing on the North Korea nuclear issue have
provided a helpful forum in bringing together diplomats from Northeast
Asia to consider the way forward to eliminate North Korea's nuclear
program. While progress has been modest and incremental, the venue has
provided opportunity for U.S. and other diplomats to compare notes on
matters related to North Korea's nuclear program and other regional
issues.
Question 70. What do you view as the prospect for the six-party
talks becoming a model, or perhaps the basis to establish a regular
forum for multilateral discussion related to other issues of
significance to the region?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to pursuing vigorous and
creative diplomacy to tackle a wide range of issues in Asia, working
with other countries through existing international institutions and
established diplomatic mechanisms or, if necessary, fashioning new
ones. The six-party talks are one model of fashioning a multilateral
discussion, but the particular framework will depend on the specifics
of the goal we are trying to meet.
indonesia--peace corps
Indonesia has made remarkable progress in its move to democracy, with
legislative and Presidential elections set for later this year. The
United States-Indonesia partnership continues to expand with enhanced
collaboration in areas of mutual interest including trade, education,
and military matters. The United States has a window of opportunity to
contribute to Indonesia's development, thereby also supporting regional
stability. Indonesian officials have repeatedly expressed to the
Foreign Relations Committee and to the executive branch, their interest
in welcoming the Peace Corps to Indonesia.
Question 71. Do you see this as a possibility, and will you
encourage the Peace Corps to establish a presence in Indonesia?
Answer. With close to 240 million people, the world's largest
Muslim majority country, and the world's third largest democracy,
Indonesia is the giant of Southeast Asia and a crucial and valued U.S.
partner in Asia. Over the past several years--and in the face of
economic and social turmoil as well as an unprecedented natural
disaster in the December 2004 tsunami--Indonesia has made impressive
progress on key reforms, human security, pursuing militant extremists,
growing its economy, and reestablishing its role in ASEAN. Although
there are of course areas where increased accountability and
transparency are still needed, the Indonesian people have every reason
to be proud of their accomplishments.
Indonesia plays a central role in the region, and I look forward to
working with the committee and others in Congress to explore
appropriate ways to continue to develop and deepen cooperation between
our two nations. If confirmed, I would encourage the Peace Corps to
establish a presence in Indonesia as part of an enhanced United States-
Indonesia partnership that promotes democracy, leads to increased
transparency and accountability, encourages economic growth and
development, and enhances human rights and human security.
north korea
Question 72. How do you assess the situation in North Korea
regarding prospects for elimination of that country's nuclear program?
Answer. North Korea's nuclear ambitions are a deep concern. The
Obama administration will confirm the full extent of North Korea's past
plutonium production and its uranium enrichment activities, and get
answers to disturbing questions about its proliferation activities with
other countries, including Syria. The North Koreans must live up to
their commitments and fully and verifiably dismantle all of their
nuclear weapons programs and proliferation activities. The objective
must be clear: The complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's
nuclear weapons programs, which only expanded while we refused to talk.
As we move forward, we must not cede our leverage in these negotiations
unless it is clear that North Korea is living up to its obligations.
Question 73. In your view, what is the best way forward, and will
you be recommending elimination of North Korea's nuclear program in its
entirety, or elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program and
inventory?
Answer. The new administration will pursue direct diplomacy
bilaterally and within the six-party talks to achieve the complete and
verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, and
an accounting for North Korea's past plutonium production, uranium
enrichment activities, and proliferation activities.
Sanctions should only be lifted based on North Korean performance.
If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we should move
quickly to reimpose sanctions that have been waived, and consider new
restrictions going forward.
Question 74. Under what circumstances would you envision normalized
relations between North Korea and the United States?
Answer. Normalized relations will not be possible without the
complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons
programs, and an accounting for North Korea's past plutonium
production, uranium enrichment activities, and proliferation
activities. We must also continue to address North Korea's human rights
abuses, which must be part of any normalization process.
Question 75. Should the United States encourage continuation of the
six-party talks, and under what conditions, if any, are you open to
direct bilateral discussions between the United States and North Korea?
Answer. The six-party framework has provided flexibility through
which to pursue multilateral and bilateral approaches. We have the most
leverage when presenting united positions supported by China, Japan,
the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Russia. At the same time, the United
States will continue to engage the DPRK bilaterally within the six-
party framework.
Question 76. How will addressing North Korean human rights issues
be configured in the administration's overall North Korea strategy?
Answer. We remain concerned about improving the lives of the North
Korean people, including the lives of refugees. The United States is
now the largest provider of food aid to the DPRK through the World Food
Program and U.S. NGOs under a May 2008 agreement. An Obama
administration will continue to address North Korea's human rights
abuses, including as part of any normalization process.
Question 77. The North Korea-Burma relationship continues to grow.
In addition to normalizing diplomatic relations, North Korea is among
those countries exporting conventional weapons to Buma. As North Korean
planes and ships continue to arrive in Burma, there are questions about
possible collaboration between those two countries toward the
development of Burma's nuclear program. North Korean officials have
neither confirmed nor denied multiple committee inquiries as to whether
their country is providing nuclear materials and technology to Burma
for weaponization purposes. What will be your recommendation to the
President in the event information is received confirming North Korean
collaboration with Burma to develop nuclear weapons?
Answer. The military regime in Burma is one of the most repressive
regimes in the world, and is at the epicenter of a range of
transnational threats, from narcotics to avian flu. Any information
suggesting that North Korea is collaborating with Burma on a nuclear
program would be very troubling and treated with the seriousness it
demands.
china
Vital Interests of China and the United States
In the November/December 2007 issue of ``Foreign Affairs,'' you wrote,
``We must persuade China to join global institutions and support
international rules by building on areas where our interests converge
and working to narrow our differences. Although the United States must
stand ready to challenge China when its conduct is at odds with U.S.
vital interests, we should work for a cooperative future.''
Question 78. In what ways today is China's conduct at odds with our
vital interests, and how specifically would you propose to ``challenge
China?''
Answer. The Obama administration will seek to expand areas of
cooperation with China, while also managing our differences and
strengthening our ability to compete in the 21st century. We need to
engage China on common interests like climate change, North Korea, and
Iran, even as we continue to encourage its shift to a more open and
market-based society. But to protect our interests and strengthen our
economy, and to enforce the principles of our international trading
system, this administration will seek a level playing field and stand
firm on piracy of American intellectual property and illegal tariffs
against U.S. firms. We have ceded too much leverage to China because of
our debt and our singular focus on Iraq.
Strategic Economic Dialogue with China
During the last year, China and the U.S. held numerous formal and
informal meetings, including sessions under the auspices of the United
States-China Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) and the United States-
China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson was the leading administration interlocutor with China, as he
represented the United States in SED sessions.
Question 79. What is your perspective on the Strategic Economic
Dialogue? Has it been a constructive forum with which to convey U.S.
interests and engage with the Chinese?
Answer. It is important to have high-level discussions to discuss
economic issues with the Chinese Government. We are looking carefully
at the question of how to develop this important engagement with China.
We expect high-level engagement to continue in some form.
Question 80. Will you be recommending continuation of the SED, and
if so, whom should serve as the U.S. point person, the Secretary of the
Treasury, yourself if confirmed by the Senate, or perhaps someone else?
Answer. As explained above, if confirmed, I look forward to working
with the President-elect and my colleagues at Treasury, Defense, and
throughout the government to structure our diplomatic and political
engagement with China.
China--Energy
In its 2008 report to Congress, the United States-China Economic and
Security Review Commission observed that China's economy, energy use
and environment ``are inextricably linked'' and that the linkages are
not unique to China. ``China and the United States face similar
challenges in devising energy policy, securing sufficient energy
supplies to support the national economy and the desired standard of
living, and addressing such related issues as climate change.'' You
also have repeatedly pointed to the importance of cooperation on energy
and environmental issues with China.
Question 81. What is your perspective on the current ``United
States-China Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework?''
Answer. The ``United States-China Ten Year Energy and Environment
Cooperation Framework'' demonstrates the shared recognition of the
energy and environmental challenges facing the United States and China.
The Framework is aimed at developing new ideas for energy security,
economic sustainability, and environmental sustainability. It works to
identify, develop, and implement energy and environmental innovations
for the future. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work
on these critical issues as part of this Framework as well as other
diplomatic means that we might establish.
Question 82. What role should the State Department have in energy
cooperation with the Government of China? Given the rapidity with which
China's energy consumption is expanding, how can U.S. efforts to
promote clean energy and improved efficiency be expanded and pursued
with more urgency?
Answer. Our economic policy toward China has to be closely
coordinated with our foreign policy. They cannot be pursued in
isolation to one another. We will press China to live up to its
commitments in trade agreements and to meet its international
responsibilities. We must vigorously defend U.S. trade interests with
China by ensuring we operate on a level playing field.
Energy security and climate change is one of the most pressing
challenges facing the United States and the global community. The
United States will take a leadership role in combating the threat of
global climate change from the beginning of the new administration. The
President-elect has specifically pledged to set a goal of an 80-percent
reduction in global emissions by 2050--a policy goal I am committed to
as well. In pursuit of that goal, we will ask the biggest carbon-
emitting nations to join a new Global Energy Forum to lay the
foundation for the next generation of climate protocols.
It is also our shared belief that trade in low carbon energy
technologies is a win-win for the United States: Providing growth in
innovative industries in the United States while helping our friends in
Asia meet their growing energy needs in a manner consistent with our
shared climate goals. Ensuring that the United States will be a
technology leader in this innovative field is a priority of the Obama
administration.
Question 83. Given your concern for volatility and vulnerability of
global oil supplies, what actions would you recommend to work with
China in reducing growth of its dependence on oil?
Answer. We need to work with China on agreeing to a global carbon
cap. We also need to work closely with China and other countries on the
development on low carbon energy technologies to reduce our shared
reliance on carbon intensive energy.
China and Currency
Question 84. In your opinion, is Chinese currency now being fairly
valued against the U.S. dollar, and if not, what measures do you favor
or oppose to bring the yuan into proper alignment?
Answer. It is critical that China plays by the rules and acts as a
positive force for balanced world growth. President-elect Obama has
indicated his strong concerns with China's behavior on its currency. I
will work with the other members of the economic team to forge an
integrated strategy on how best to achieve our goals in our bilateral
relationship with China in the current economic environment.
Question 85. During the Presidential campaign, both you and Senator
Obama supported legislation that would punish China for currency
manipulation. Would the Obama administration favor similar legislation
today?
Answer. As described above, President-elect Obama has indicated his
strong concerns with China's behavior on its currency. The incoming
administration looks forward to working with Congress regarding the
best strategy for addressing this behavior.
russia
Question 86. After 10 years of sharp disputes over Kosovo, NATO
enlargement, democracy, missile defense, and now Georgia, our political
relationship with Russia is in difficulty. How do you intend to reverse
the downward spiral that threatens vital security and foreign policy
interests, including reducing nuclear stockpiles, preventing WMD
proliferation, and fighting terrorism?
Answer. President-elect Obama seeks a future of cooperative
engagement with the Russian Government on matters of strategic
importance, while standing up strongly for American values and
international norms. That is my view as well. Some of Russia's recent
actions have been reprehensible and they have disrupted its relations
with the West. As we confront those actions, we must not shy away from
pushing for more democracy, transparency, and accountability. Still,
there can be no return to the cold war. Russia is not the old Soviet
Union, and this is not the 20th century. The new administration will
work with Russia on areas of common strategic interest like
counterterrorism and counterproliferation, while pressuring Russia when
it interferes with its neighbors and abuses power at home--for example,
on Georgia, where the President-elect condemned Russia's escalation of
the conflict and clear invasion of Georgia's territory and illegal
recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Real
pressure on Russia will not come from rhetoric alone--it will come from
a unified transatlantic alliance, and forging that unity will be one of
my top priorities. If Russia refuses to abide by international norms,
its standing in the international community will diminish.
Question 87. Last year the administration submitted a Peaceful
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, or 123 Agreement, between the United
States and Russia to the Senate for approval. After the Russian
invasion of Georgia President Bush asked the Senate to suspend its
consideration. Will President-elect Obama ask the Senate to approve the
United States-Russia Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the President-elect and I will seek to
cooperate with Russia on issues that are in our mutual interest--
including in our efforts to halt and reverse nuclear proliferation. The
123 Agreement can be an asset to those efforts. But the Agreement's
passage cannot be decided in isolation from the larger question of our
relationship with Russia. If confirmed, I will look forward to working
with the committee on charting the best way forward.
nato
Question 88. Early in 2009, NATO will hold a summit of the heads of
state of each of the member governments. What will the U.S. position be
on extending Membership Action Plans to Georgia and Ukraine?
Answer. While there are different views among allies on the best
way to promote eventual NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, it is
essential that we work closely with our allies to develop a common
approach on alliance enlargement. The NATO-Ukraine Commission and the
NATO-Georgia Commission (established last summer) are other avenues
available for deepening relations between the alliance and Georgia and
Ukraine. NATO's door must remain open to European democracies that meet
membership criteria and can contribute to our common security. How and
when new countries might join must be determined together with all our
allies in the alliance.
Question 89. In 2006, I delivered a speech at a conference prior to
the start of the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia. I urged leaders to
identify the response to an energy cutoff as an Article V commitment
and develop an action plan to respond to such attacks. I pointed out
that my recommendation did not mean that I favored a military response
to energy cutoffs. What steps will the administration take to develop a
strategy for the alliance to prepare for, and respond to, the use of
energy as a weapon or political tool against fellow members?
Answer. Russia's decision to use energy as leverage against Ukraine
and other countries in Europe demonstrates the urgency of developing a
more coherent transatlantic energy strategy. You have been a leader in
the efforts to develop such a strategy. The question of how the
alliance guarantees security in the 21st century--not only against
military threats but against a much broader array of threat, including
to energy and cyber security--should be a major topic of discussion at
the NATO summit in April. The discussion of potentially updating NATO's
Strategic Concept must address the question of the nonmilitary aspects
of allies' security, including energy security.
kazakhstan
Question 90. What U.S. interests do you believe are most important
in our relationship with Kazakhstan, and what do you believe the
objectives of our policy toward Kazakhstan should be?
Answer. The United States has been working to develop an effective
and cooperative relationship with Kazakhstan since its independence in
1991. Kazakhstan participates in the U.S.-led coalition against
terrorism, shares information with the United States on mutual threats,
and provides support for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The
United States has played an important role in building a more modern
Kazakh military that can both meet Kazakhstan defense needs and help
Kazakhstan fulfill its international responsibilities. Kazakhstan is
also a key regional player in Central Asia and an important energy
producer. The United States has an interest in helping Kazakhstan in
its efforts to diversify its export routes and expand its energy trade
with its neighbors.
In 2010, Kazakhstan will become the first former Soviet state to
hold the chairmanship of the OSCE. To carry out that important role
effectively, Kazakhstan must improve its human rights record and do
more to support democratic norms. The country's leadership has pledged
to implement political reforms before assuming the OSCE chairmanship
and the United States should hold them to that pledge.
western hemisphere
General
Question 91. The United States remains the strongest outside power
in Latin America by most measures, including trade and military
cooperation. Yet U.S. influence has sunk to perhaps the lowest point in
decades. Does improving the U.S. role in Latin America and the
Caribbean require changes of policy or does it simply require a change
in the way we communicate our current policy? What specific policy
changes would you make that depart from the policies enacted during the
last 8 years?
Answer. President-elect Obama has made clear that after decades of
pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda in the Americas that
works to advance democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom
up. There are aspects of existing policy that should be retained,
albeit updated to meet evolving challenges. There must, however, be
more of an emphasis on helping respond to the basic desires of the
people throughout the Western Hemisphere in a way that advances U.S.
interests and values.
Mexico
Question 92. Is the Merida Initiative enough to combat the threat
of widespread corruption in Mexico?
Answer. The Merida Initiative is an important step in helping our
partners in Mexico address rising security challenges that pose a
threat to Mexico and the United States. The President-elect suggested
during the campaign that he appreciated the vision you laid out,
Senator, of an expanded Merida Initiative that incorporates our friends
in Central America. I look forward to working with you, members of the
committee, and other Members of Congress, in determining how we can
most effectively support the rule of law in this important
neighborhood.
Question 93. There has been criticism in Mexico that a 2004
decision by President Bush to allow a ban on U.S. sales of
semiautomatic assault weapons to lapse has led to an increase in the
number of such weapons in the hands of Mexican drug gangs, weapons
trafficking from the United States to Mexico, and a growing level of
violence that affects our societies on both sides of the border. Please
provide your views regarding measures to ensure more cooperation among
border officials to stem the movement of firearms across the border,
such as e-trace and Project Gunrunner. Please provide your views
regarding the presence of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) in Mexico--do we need more ATF agents in U.S.
consulates in Mexico to stem the movement of firearms across the
border?
Answer. As the President-elect has made clear, we must do our part
in helping staunch southbound flows that are crucial to the drug
trafficking cartels, including the flow of guns, cash, and stolen
vehicles from the United States to Mexico. Doing so will require
cooperation across numerous federal agencies, between federal and state
authorities and with Mexican counterparts. If confirmed, I look forward
to ensuring that the State Department plays an important and effective
role in such efforts. I also look forward to working with you, members
of the committee, and other Members of Congress to determine the most
effective means of achieving these goals.
Question 94. The collapse of oil prices and the growing effect of
the recession in the United States have compounded Mexico's problems.
Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, the provider of 37 percent of the
government's income, is expected to produce less oil and generate fewer
pesos for the government in 2009. U.S. manufacturers in northern
Mexico, especially those connected to the auto industry, are cutting
their workforces and some are even asking employees to accept pay cuts.
Rising unemployment in Mexico could create instability, expand illegal
immigration, and drive desperate Mexicans into participating in the
drug trade. Given the importance of Mexico's ``oil income,'' please
provide your views on working with the Mexican Government on a closer
energy partnership.
Answer. The interrelated challenges of inequality and insecurity
pose significant challenges for Mexico and countries throughout the
Americas. To help address these challenges and advance our interests
and values, the United States has a strong interest in supporting
bottom-up development in Mexico and throughout the region. President-
elect Obama's proposed Energy Partnership for the Americas, in which we
hope Mexico would play an important role, could serve as a vehicle for
working together to forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean
energy. I look forward to working with you, members of the committee,
and other Members of Congress as we flesh out how best to proceed in
this and other areas of the bilateral United States-Mexico
relationship.
Brazil
Question 95. The committee passed the ``Western Hemisphere Energy
Compact'' in September 2008 and will be reintroducing this legislation
during the next Congress. Building on the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) on biofuels signed in March 2006, this bill would create the
framework for greater cooperation between Brazil and the United States
in the sharing, research, and development of renewable energy
technologies. Please provide your views regarding the MOU and if you
will be continuing this initiative. Please provide your views regarding
the ``Western Hemisphere Energy Compact.''
Answer. The March 2007 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance
Biofuels Cooperation and the work that has been done since then are an
important feature of the United States-Brazil relationship. We look
forward to ensuring that continued United States-Brazil energy
cooperation is carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner and
in a manner that spreads the benefits of alternative energy development
throughout the region while expanding the market for U.S. green energy
manufacturers and producers. It is also important that U.S. biofuel
producers not be prejudiced by efforts to increase United States-Brazil
cooperation. We must also ensure that all stakeholders, including those
from the labor, environmental, and business sectors, are adequately
represented in the biofuels cooperation process.
I look forward to examining the specifics of the ``Western
Hemisphere Energy Compact'' legislation in the coming weeks and months
and working with you and other members of the committee to ensure that
we work together to advance U.S. interests and value in the Americas
through enhanced energy cooperation.
Question 96. Please provide your views regarding the viability of
devising MOUs with Brazil on food security and HIV prevention
throughout Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa.
Answer. The current United States-Brazil relationship provides a
foundation for a deeper, more comprehensive relationship between our
two countries. There are a wide range of issues on which we hope to
work closely with our Brazilian partners to help advance democratic
governance, opportunity and security from the bottom up throughout the
Americas. I look forward to your counsel, as well as that from other
members of this committee and Congress, as a whole, regarding
particular areas of potential focus as we endeavor to deepen the
bilateral relationship.
Question 97. President Lula has advocated the goal of opening
Brazil's economy through trade liberalization. Lowering barriers to
international trade is an important way to raise productivity growth.
The benefits from greater trade include improved access to needed
capital imports and technology to raise productivity and improve living
standards. Please assess the feasibility of negotiating a Bilateral
Investment Treaty (BIT) between the United States Government (USG) and
the Government of Brazil (GOB). Please provide your views regarding the
viability of negotiating a Tax Treaty with Brazil.
Answer. As noted in response to Question 96, we believe there are a
wide range of issues on which we hope to work closely with our
Brazilian partners to deepen the bilateral relationship. I look forward
to your counsel, as well as that from other members of this committee
and Congress, as a whole, regarding particular areas of potential focus
in that endeavor.
Colombia
Question 98. Please provide your views regarding President Alvaro
Uribe's desire to continue in power for a third consecutive term.
Answer. As you are aware, the Colombian Congress is in the process
of addressing the question of reelection. I do not believe it is proper
for the United States to attempt to dictate the result of any internal
democratic process in the region.
Question 99. Despite the best effort and funding from the U.S.,
cocaine production continues unabated in Colombia. Please provide your
views on the success or failure of Plan Colombia, on funding for
alternative development efforts in Colombia, and on military assistance
for Plan Colombia.
Answer. The security situation in Colombia has improved, but very
significant quantities of illicit narcotics continue to flow in
significant quantities from Colombia to the United States. I look
forward to working with Congress and our friends and partners in
Colombia to ensure that future investments help staunch the flow of
illegal drugs and help consolidate security gains to contribute to a
durable peace in Colombia. To do so, we must learn from the successes
and failures of the past. Continued support for Colombia through the
Andean Counterdrug Initiative is important. That assistance must be
updated to meet evolving challenges. We must provide meaningful support
for Colombia's democratic, civilian institutions, and the rule of law.
As we continue our struggle against the scourge of illegal drugs in
our society and throughout the Americas, we must ensure that we are
doing what is necessary here at home to reduce demand, enforce our laws
through effective policing, and disrupt the southbound flow of money
and weapons that are an essential element of the transnational illicit
networks that operate in Colombia and elsewhere in the Americas. It is
important that we work together with countries throughout the region to
find the best practices that work across the hemisphere and to tailor
approaches to fit each country.
Question 100. Please provide your views on the Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) with Colombia. Will you oppose the FTA in its current form? What
changes need to be included in the current agreement to gain the
administration's support?
Answer. It is important that we not lose sight of the many aspects
of the important, dynamic, and complex bilateral relationship that the
United States and Colombia have when we discuss the United States-
Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. I look forward to working to
maintain the across-the-board vibrancy of the relationship.
With regard to the trade agreement, it is essential that trade
spread the benefits of globalization. Without adequate labor
protections, trade cannot do that. Although levels of violence have
dropped, continued violence and impunity in Colombia directed at labor
and other civic leaders make labor protections impossible to guarantee
in Colombia today.
Colombia must improve its efforts. I look forward to working with
members of this committee, as well as other Members of the Senate and
House of Representatives to see what the United States can do to help
contribute to an end to further violence and continued impunity
directed against labor and other civic leaders in Colombia.
The United States and Colombia have long enjoyed a close, mutually
beneficial relationship. I am confident that through continued
cooperation on the full array of bilateral issues, we can maintain and
deepen that relationship. Active engagement with Colombia will be an
important part of this administration's approach to hemispheric
relations.
Cuba
Question 101. The 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution on
January 1, 2009, presents an auspicious moment to reexamine the
contentious United States-Cuban relationship. Please provide your views
on reviewing all elements of Cuba policy.
Answer. There are many ways that we can send a message to the Cuban
people that the United States intends to play a positive role in their
future. President-elect Obama believes that Cuban-Americans especially
can be important ambassadors for change in Cuba. As such, he believes
that it makes both moral and strategic sense to lift the restrictions
on family visits and family cash remittances to Cuba. We do not
currently have a timeline for the announcement of such a new policy,
and the Obama-Biden administration will consult closely with Congress
as we prepare the change.
President-elect Obama also believes that it is not time to lift the
embargo on Cuba, especially since it provides an important source of
leverage for further change on the island.
Question 102. Despite the official embargo, agricultural trade
represents a significant area of interaction between the United States
and Cuba. Since the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act
(TSRA) of 2000 lifted sanctions on sales of agricultural commodities
and medicine, the U.S. has become Cuba's most important food provider,
although many restrictions and licensing requirements remain in place.
Please provide your views on expanding trade with Cuba.
Answer. We anticipate a review of U.S. policy regarding sales of
agricultural commodities to Cuba and look forward to working with
members of the committee and other Members of Congress as we move
forward in the consideration of appropriate steps to take to help
advance U.S. interests and values in the context of relations with
Cuba.
Question 103. The United States has pursued cooperation with Cuba
in drug interdiction on a very limited case-by-case basis. Please
provide your views on a broad formalized agreement or Memorandum of
Understanding between the U.S. and Cuba in order to improve
coordination of antidrug efforts and provide for exchange of
information.
Answer. Given the threat posed by narcotics trafficking, it is
important to cooperate with Cuba where such cooperation is effective is
stopping trafficking.
Question 104. Cuba has been on the State Department's State
Sponsors of Terrorism list since 1982. Please provide your views
regarding why Cuba should or should not remain on the State
Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
Answer. We anticipate a review of U.S. policy regarding Cuba and
look forward to working with members of the committee and other Members
of Congress as we move forward in the consideration of appropriate
steps to take to help advance U.S. interests and values in the context
of relations with Cuba,
Question 105. Please provide your views on United States-Cuban
cooperation on energy security and environmentally sustainable resource
management, especially as Cuba begins deep-water exploration for
potentially significant oil reserves.
Answer. We anticipate a review of U.S. policy regarding Cuba and
look forward to working with members of the committee and other Members
of Congress as we move forward in the consideration of appropriate
steps to take to help advance U.S. interests and values in the context
of relations with Cuba.
Bolivia
Question 106. Under the Bush administration benefits from the
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) were suspended
for Bolivia. This is a challenging topic and relationship for the U.S.,
but one in which the door to a more positive engagement needs to remain
open for the sake of our broader interests in the region. Please
provide your views on reinstating ATPDEA benefits.
Answer. The unjustified expulsion of Ambassador Phillip Goldberg as
well as other actions taken by the Bolivian Government against U.S.
personnel and programs raises significant questions regarding Bolivia's
desire for a constructive bilateral relationship. The future of ATPDEA
benefits is one of the issues in the United States-Bolivia relationship
that merits careful consideration as we move forward, particularly
given our interest in helping promote economic opportunity from the
bottom up throughout the Americas. I look forward to working with you,
members of the committee and Members of Congress to ensure that U.S.
policy in Bolivia helps advance our interests and values.
united nations
U.N. Security Council
Question 107. Effective action by the U.N. Security Council to
address threats to peace and security requires building support among
Council members, including Russia and China. Difficulty in winning such
support has hampered efforts in recent years to address a number of
U.S. priorities in the Council, including stronger action to address
the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program, the crises in Darfur and
Zimbabwe, and human rights abuses in Burma. As Secretary, what steps
would you take to increase the effectiveness of U.S. engagement in the
Security Council?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe that it is important for
the United States to lead in strengthening the effectiveness of the
United Nations, in modernizing it, so that it can be more capable of
meeting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that in light of
the global challenges we face in the new century, the value and
potential of the U.N. is as great if not more so today, than at its
founding 60 years ago. Clearly, cooperation at the Security Council
must be at the center of our efforts to build an effective and
responsive U.N. on the challenges you cite, from Burma to Darfur to
Iran to Zimbabwe. In this regard I am struck by the findings of the
2005 congressionally mandated task force on the U.N., cochaired by
Senator Mitchell and Speaker Gingrich, which said with respect to
inaction to prevent mass atrocities, ``On stopping genocide, all too
often `the United Nations failed' should actually read `members of the
United Nations blocked or undermined action by the United Nations.' ''
That is why working intensively and aggressively to secure Security
Council cooperation is critical. We must both build pragmatic working
relationships, while making our priorities clear. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with Dr. Rice who is also committed to the principle
that the Security Council should not be an obstacle to advancing
critical foreign policy goals and interests. In this regard, it is also
essential that our permanent representative in New York have the full
backing of American diplomacy, including the full support of the
Department of State to engage capitals in order to reinforce our
diplomacy in New York.
Question 108. There have been a number of proposals to increase the
size of the U.N. Security Council and to expand the number of permanent
members of the Council.
a. How do you believe U.S. interests would be affected by
the expansion of the Council's size or by the addition of more
permanent members?
Answer. The President-elect and I agree that the Security Council
was created many years ago at a time when there were very different
international realities. Our administration will make a serious,
deliberate effort, consulting with key allies and capitals, to find a
way forward that enhances the ability of the Security Council to carry
out its mandate and effectively meet the challenges of the new century.
Obviously, this will not happen over night.
b. What factors do you believe most important in evaluating
any such proposals?
Answer. We will support reforms that would not impede the Security
Council's effectiveness and its efficiency. We would also consider how
to enhance the standing of the Council in the eyes of those nations
that seek a greater voice in international fora.
c. Changes in the composition of the Security Council would
require an amendment to the U.N. Charter, which in turn would
require the advice and consent of the Senate. Do you commit to
consulting with the Foreign Relations Committee in advance of
any future international discussions of proposals to change the
composition of the Council?
Answer. If confirmed, not only would I commit to such
consultations, I will actively seek out the Foreign Relations
Committee's counsel and expertise on this important and challenging
issue.
U.N. Human Rights Council
Critics contend that the new U.N. Human Rights Council is a marginal
improvement at best over the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission
it replaced. The Bush administration decided not to seek membership to
the Council and in June 2008 all but completely withdrew the United
States from observer status, declaring that we would only engage with
the Council when it involves ``matters of deep national interest.''
Question 109. What is the position of the administration regarding
the U.N. Human Rights Council?
Answer. Unfortunately, the new Human Rights Council has strayed far
from the principles of the authors of the U.N. Declaration of Human
Rights. It has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy
with higher standards of human rights than its accusers, but it is only
with difficulty that it adopted resolutions pressing Sudan and Myanmar.
The United States should seek to reform the U.N. Human Rights Council.
We need our voice to be heard loud and clear to call attention to the
world's most repressive regimes, end the despicable obsession with
Israel, and improve human rights policies around the globe.
Question 110. Will the Obama administration seek to become a member
of the Council at the next opportunity?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President-
elect and the U.N. Permanent Representative and consulting with this
committee as we review whether and when to run for election to a seat
on the Council. Whether or not we seek election, we will certainly
fully engage to make reform of the human rights system a priority of
the United States.
Question 111. What role does the administration see the Council
playing in the field of human rights?
Answer. American leadership on human rights is essential to making
the world safer, more just, and more humane. As the President-elect has
said, leadership begins at home, and we must lead by example, by ending
torture, official cruelty, and by closing Guantanamo. But we also must
go much further. We should work with others to shape human rights
institutions and instruments tailored to the 21st century. We must work
to make the U.N.'s human rights institutions more effective voices for
those who are subjected to human rights violations. The President-elect
has committed to champion accountability for genocide and war crimes,
ending the scourge of impunity for massive human rights abuses. We will
stand up for oppressed people from Cuba to North Korea and from Burma
to Zimbabwe and Sudan. We will accord greater weight to human rights,
including the rights of women and children, in our relationships with
global powers, recognizing that America's long-term strategic interests
are more likely to be advanced when our partners are rights-respecting.
We will address human trafficking, both labor and sex trafficking,
through strong legislation and enforcement to ensure that trafficking
victims are protected and traffickers are brought to justice.
Question 112. Does the administration believe the Council spends a
disproportionate amount of attention criticizing Israel while ignoring
more pressing human rights crises?
Answer. Yes. There is no question that the Human Rights Council has
been seriously flawed. Rather than focus its efforts and energies on
the most egregious instances of human rights abuses around the world,
in places like Burma, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and elsewhere, it has, as I said
earlier, passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy with
higher standards of human rights than its accusers, but it is only with
difficulty that it adopted resolutions pressing Sudan and Myanmar.
U.N. Peacekeeping
In the 1990s, United Nations peacekeepers often found themselves sent
without adequate political or military support to complete missions
that were ill-designed. The United Nations seems to have learned the
painful and tragic lessons of those events and has recently avoided
inserting blue-helmeted troops in such ``no-win'' type operations.
Question 113. Do you believe U.N. peacekeepers can effectively
perform stabilizing or ``peace enforcement'' roles in situations, such
as Somalia, where there is an ongoing conflict and no peace agreement
among the parties?
Answer. It is certainly the case, that the Security Council is
indeed levying more requirements and mandates on U.N. peacekeepers than
ever before. In Somalia, there are no good solutions. We have a serious
counterterrorism challenge; a serious humanitarian concern and
imperative; and an interest in trying to facilitate national
reconciliation and long-term stability in Somalia. In this context, the
question is whether a U.N. peacekeeping force, assuming it can be
successfully established and deployed, would advance our efforts along
all three of our objectives. If confirmed, I expect to consider this
issue in the near future with the President-elect and my colleagues in
the Cabinet.
Question 114. Do you believe the consent of the parties is a
necessary precondition to effective peacekeeping? Do you believe there
are situations where U.N. peacekeepers should be authorized to deploy
to a country without the consent of the host government?
Answer. There are many different kinds of peacekeeping operations.
The ideal circumstance is when the parties consent to the deployment of
the peacekeeping mission. But there are times when the Security Council
will authorize the use of force when the parties do not consent or
oppose outside intervention. One thing we can no longer tolerate,
however, is a circumstance such as in Sudan, when the government, in an
effort to block full deployment of the African Union-United Nations
mission, picks and chooses which troop contributions it is prepared to
accept.
U.N. Peacekeeping Budget
For many years, the level of funding requested in the Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account was significantly
below known requirement levels. Deficiencies were then routinely made
up via supplemental appropriations. Many in Congress view this ``low-
balling'' as either shoddy bookkeeping or a disingenuous attempt to
dodge difficult political issues.
Question 115. Does the Obama administration intend to request funds
for the CIPA account sufficient to meet the anticipated U.S. assessed
dues for U.N. peacekeeping operations?
Answer. It is the intention of the President-elect and my intention
to meet our U.N. obligations in full and on time, and that requires us
to make a determined effort to budget for peacekeeping operations as
accurately as we can.
Question 116. Are there any specific steps you believe the United
Nations should take to reduce the overall size of the U.N. peacekeeping
budget? If so, what are they?
Answer. Over the last several years, U.N. peacekeeping has seen its
greatest growth both in numbers and scales. A large portion of the
U.N.'s budget is devoted to peacekeeping. It will be important that, as
peacekeeping mandates come up for renewal, we appropriately scrutinize
the objectives, mandate, and deployment of these peacekeeping forces.
Any new peacekeeping mandate must also be evaluated to ensure that the
U.N. has the capacity and resources to fulfill the added
responsibility.
Question 117. Are there any specific U.N. peacekeeping missions you
would support reducing or terminating in order to reduce the costs of
U.N. peacekeeping? If so, which missions do you believe should be
reduced or terminated?
Answer. The administration will review each peacekeeping operation
as it comes up for renewal at the Security Council. The administration
does not have a position about reducing supporting or terminating
specific peacekeeping operations at this time.
Responsibility to Protect
In 2005, the United Nations World Summit endorsed the concept of a
responsibility of states to protect populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The concept as
endorsed by the United Nations provides that where states manifestly
fail to protect their populations from such atrocities, the
international community, acting through the U.N. Security Council, is
prepared to take collective action in a timely and effective manner to
provide such protection. The U.N. statement is silent on the question
of intervention by individual states without authorization from the
U.N. Security Council to protect populations in such situations.
Question 118. Do you believe that individual states may
legitimately use force to protect other states' populations from
atrocities without U.N. Security Council authorization? Do you believe
such a right is recognized in international law?
Answer. I believe we must begin by making every effort to persuade
those who might be inclined to use their veto to block action to stop
or prevent mass atrocities from doing so. Our preference is to obtain
Security Council approval because this enhances our ability to bring
others along, shares the cost of the burdens, and increases the
likelihood of success. Yet there may well be current and future
instances in which despite our best efforts to obtain Security Council
support we are unable to do so, as was the case with Kosovo, where the
United States and its NATO allies took action initially without U.N.
Security Council approval. That was the right thing to do at the time,
and it must remain an option. As the President-elect has said, we are
diminished if we fail to act in the face of mass atrocities and
genocide.
Question 119. If you believe in such a right, what principles
should govern such interventions? What impact would such a doctrine
have on the general prohibition in international law against the use of
force between states except in cases of self-defense? How could states
be prevented from using such a doctrine as a pretext to justify uses of
force undertaken for ulterior political motives?
Answer. The responsibility to protect is a norm that was supported
by the United States, by the U.N. 2005 World Summit, and subsequently
by the Security Council. The responsibility to protect is a doctrine
that begins with prevention and encompasses the full range of policy
options. The emphasis is on prevention, though we cannot and must not
rule out the use of force if other options fail. My main concern about
the responsibility to protect is not overuse, but the gap that exists
between what the norm promises and the failure of the international
community to live up to that norm with strong action in places like
Darfur.
Question 120. Some commentators have advocated that the five
perrnanent members of the U.N. Security Council should forswear the use
of the veto in the Council in cases where international intervention is
proposed for ostensibly humanitarian reasons.
Do you support the United States announcing a policy that it will
not use its veto in the Security Council in some category of future
cases involving proposals for humanitarian intervention?
Answer. Our preference should be to obtain Security Council
approval for an action because this enhances our ability to bring
others along with us, shares the cost of the burdens, and increases
legitimacy. This should not be a binary choice of foregoing our right
as a Permanent Member of the Security Council or sacrificing a
principle of a commitment to the protection of civilians. It is also
unrealistic to believe that all possible future hypothetical scenarios
can be identified in an evaluation of the use of the Security Council
veto.
Question 121. If so, would such a position preclude the United
States from vetoing a hypothetical proposal for intervention in Gaza if
some Council members asserted that such intervention was required for
humanitarian reasons?
Answer. No. The United States maintains an unwavering commitment to
Israel, and will oppose efforts by the Security Council and elsewhere
to put forward resolutions and other statements that seek to unfairly
target the State of Israel.
Question 122. Some commentators have advocated more frequent
recourse to the U.N. General Assembly to authorize interventions for
humanitarian reasons in cases where the Security Council fails to
authorize such interventions.
Do you support an expanded role for the U.N. General Assembly in
authorizing humanitarian interventions in cases where the Security
Council declines to do so?
Answer. The United States should pursue those avenues,
opportunities, and strategies that represent the best possibility of
achieving our national objectives. This is not about the General
Assembly versus the Security Council. President-elect Obama's
overarching objective is advancing America's interests and values,
protecting our security, and ensuring our prosperity.
arms control
Question 123. In 2003, when administration officials testified
before this committee in support of the Moscow Treaty, they pointed out
that the agreement would be buttressed by the START Treaty's
verification regime. The START verification regime is due to expire in
December of this year. In other words, the underpinning of the START
and Moscow Treaties and our strategic relationship depends upon
something which is about to expire. What is your opinion on the
importance of extending the START Treaty and what steps do you plan to
take to address this matter?
Answer. The Obama administration will seek deep, verifiable
reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons--whether deployed or
nondeployed, strategic or nonstrategic. As a first step, we will seek a
legally binding agreement to replace the current START Treaty which, as
you point out, expires in December 2009.
Question 124. I have been concerned by reports that the efficacy of
the Chemical Weapons Convention is in doubt due to U.S. funding
shortfalls. I understand that not all of the funding for this work
comes from the State Department--some comes from the Department of
Commerce. What steps will you take to ensure that U.S. treaty
commitments are met?
Answer. Uncertainty about when, or even whether, the U.S. will pay
its bill has created problems each year for the OPCW in carrying out
its inspection program, especially because the U.S. assessment
constitutes 22 percent of OPCW's budget. Given the Obama
administration's strong support for the Chemical Weapons Convention and
the OPCW, the State Department will review this issue to see whether
there are practical ways to address the problem of adequate funding for
international organizations.
Question 125. In 2006, I visited the headquarters of the
International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, and its
Safeguards Analytical Laboratory located a few miles away. Samples
collected by IAEA inspectors during inspections are brought there to
verify that there are no undeclared nuclear materials and activities.
Unfortunately the laboratory's aging equipment and dangerous working
conditions hamper the important work done there. This situation will
likely worsen as more samples arrive there and as more states expand
their nuclear power infrastructure. Such a situation could, in the
future, shut down this critical nonproliferation facility. What steps
will you take to ensure that the IAEA has the resources and leadership
it needs to continue its important safeguards mission?
Answer. The Obama administration will give strong support to the
IAEA, especially its safeguards system which plays the crucial role of
monitoring compliance with the nonproliferation treaty. At the urging
of the United States and many other IAEA members, the Agency's
responsibilities and workload have expanded rapidly in recent years,
including in implementing Additional Protocols to members' safeguards
agreements, assisting members to enhance the physical protection of
their nuclear installations and materials, and, hopefully in the
future, helping create and administer a nuclear fuel bank that can
reduce incentives for countries to acquire their own fuel-cycle
facilities. Yet the IAEA's budget has not kept pace with its growing
responsibilities. It needs to strengthen its talented workforce and
ensure that its monitoring equipment and facilities, such as its
laboratory at Seibersdorf, are fully up to date. That is why President-
elect Obama has called for doubling the IAEA's budget over the next 4
years.
Question 126. When President-elect Obama was in the Senate we
worked together to fashion legislation to dramatically increase funding
for conventional weapons dismantlement and weapons and materials of
mass destruction detection and interdiction assistance. Unfortunately,
these efforts did not translate into an increased financial or
leadership commitment from the Department of State. What plans do you
have to revitalize State Department efforts in this area?
Answer. I strongly support implementation of the Lugar-Obama
legislation that was designed to strengthen U.S. efforts to assist
other countries to dismantle conventional weapons as well as to detect
and interdict materials and weapons of mass destruction. While some of
the U.S. programs to address these problems are funded by other
agencies, the State Department has responsibility for significant
programs of its own, including the Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction
Fund and the Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Program.
It is my understanding that funding for conventional weapons
destruction rose from $8.6 million in FY06 to $16 million in FY07 (when
the Lugar-Obama legislation was adopted) to over $44 million in FY08.
In FY07, $42 million was obligated to the EXBS program, which assists
the capabilities of other states to detect and interdict WMD smuggling.
The Lugar-Obama legislation requires that not less than 25 percent of
the funds provided in the nonproliferation chapter of the Foreign
Assistance Act be devoted to enhancing the capabilities of other
countries to detect and interdict WMD materials. In FY07, EXBS spending
was well over that threshold. So my understanding is that the
legislation has had a significant impact. The Obama administration will
review these and other assistance programs and decide what more may be
needed to meet the requirements of the legislation and to support the
important policy goals of conventional weapons destruction and the
detection and interdiction of materials and weapons of mass
destruction.
counterterrorism
Question 127. In the 109th Congress you proposed legislation (S.
1705) that among other things would designate an individual in the NSC
to serve as the Senior Advisor to the President for the Prevention of
Nuclear Terrorism, who would direct and coordinate U.S. policies for
preventing nuclear terrorism. Would you continue to advocate such a
position, or do you believe that this job can be handled by the Under
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism?
Answer. Yes, I continue to advocate such a position. The
possibility of terrorists acquiring and using weapons of mass
destruction, especially nuclear weapons, is the gravest national
security threat we face today. The Obama administration will therefore
follow through on the President-elect's campaign pledge to appoint a
White House Coordinator to address the threat of nuclear terrorism and
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Among the
Coordinator's responsibilities will be to exercise budgetary oversight
over all U.S. programs designed to address the WMD threat.
Question 128. One of the keys to international counterterrorism is
the cooperation among states, especially in several ungoverned tri-
border regions. Do you see greater role for the Department of State in
this respect? What will be your counterterrorism philosophy?
Answer. Our ability to contain and diminish the threat of
international terrorism depends heavily on our ability to build
partnerships among nations and deepen cooperation across a range of
areas, including law enforcement, intelligence sharing, border
controls, and safeguarding of hazardous materials. The United States--
and the State Department in particular--has historically played a
central role in this area. I strongly believe that keeping terrorists
on the defensive, reducing their room for maneuver, and preventing them
from striking at us and our allies will require that the Department act
energetically to build the international cooperation that is essential
for confronting a transnational threat that no one country can
successfully fight alone.
energy
Question 129. At a Presidential campaign debate on April 16, 2008,
you stated: ``We are so much more dependent on foreign oil today than
we were on 9/11, and that is a real indictment of our leadership.'' You
have also repeatedly pointed to a concern that the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations has also warned of: The degree to which energy
security issues--particularly dependence on foreign oil supplies--harm
U.S. foreign policy and security. While growing attention has been
given to the need to reform domestic energy policy to reduce oil usage,
comparatively little attention has been given to the need for U.S.
diplomatic engagement on energy.
a. What priority would you assign to energy security in U.S.
foreign policy? Is this an issue on which you would personally
engage? How would you ensure that energy security is integrated
into State Department activities?
b. As Secretary of State, what role will you play in
explaining to Americans the national security, economic and
humanitarian costs of our current domestic and global energy
portfolio?
Answer. The President-elect identifies energy security as one of
his top national security priorities during the campaign. I have long
believed that energy security--and the twin challenge of climate
change--are among the most pressing challenges facing the United States
and the global community and must be among the top national security
priorities. These are issues on which I will personally engage, and
they will consistently receive high-level attention at the Department.
I will work with our friends and partners around the world, who are
facing the same challenges. I also intend to ensure that the Department
works vigorously through the interagency process on these issues. I am
still reviewing whether to make any organizational changes in the
Department on these issues--I will certainly consult with the committee
as we work to ensure that energy security plays a prominent role in
State Department activities.
If confirmed as Secretary, I will be active in making the case that
the United States must free itself from dependence on foreign oil. Our
addiction to foreign oil does not just undermine our national security
and wreak havoc on the environment--it also cripples our economy and
strains the budgets of working families. The United States and our
friends and partners throughout the world are facing a protracted
period of major energy challenges. Overdependence on individual
countries or fuels creates vulnerabilities by permitting market
distortions and opportunities for political blackmail. Along with the
President-elect and my colleagues, I will urge a swift and effective
response that focuses on improving energy efficiency, developing energy
technologies that do not contribute to global warming, and for the
near-term future, securing stable and diverse supplies of conventional
energy.
Question 130. Signed into law in December 2007, the Energy
Independence and Security Act required the creation of a Department of
State Coordinator for International Energy Affairs. This position,
originally proposed in legislation offered on March 16, 2006,
originated from my judgment that the myriad threats posed by global
energy concerns require devoted attention by an individual with
significant stature placed within the office of the Secretary of State,
and with the political experience necessary to communicate and pursue
our diplomatic energy priorities to a broad audience. The Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously approved legislation
mandating of the Coordinator position in a bill offered by myself with
Senators Biden, Craig, Salazar, Landrieu, Coleman, Lieberman, Hagel,
and Thune.
Rather than appointing a full-time Coordinator as per congressional
expectation, the current Secretary of State chose to ``dual-hat'' the
Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs--a
position that has also required, among other issues, responsibility for
leading State Department engagement on the global financial crisis.
Thus, the highest ranking State Department official exclusively devoted
to energy issues remains at the level of Office Director.
a. Do you believe that energy security concerns warrant a
high-level, full-time State Department official?
b. What role will the Coordinator for International Energy
Affairs play in State Department activities if you are
confirmed as Secretary of State?
c. What staff support will be made available to the
Coordinator? What budgetary support will be available for the
Coordinator?
d. Do you intend to seek additional authorities or budgetary
support for the Coordinator and other energy security
activities within the 150 Account?
Answer. I very much appreciate and agree with your initiative to
elevate energy diplomacy as a key function in the Department of State,
and do believe that energy security warrants high-level attention in
the Department. Energy security must be an important and integrated
element of our foreign policy. I am still reviewing whether to make any
organizational changes in the Department, but of course I will
implement the statutory requirement to have a Coordinator. If
confirmed, I will also soon be working with OMB on the President's
budget request for FY 2010, so it is premature for me to comment on
issues involving budgetary support. I will be happy to consult with you
further about this issue, if confirmed.
Question 131. On March 31, 2008, a Presidential Envoy for Eurasian
Energy was appointed. This position is not unlike that established
under President Clinton, which was crucial in establishing energy
cooperation amongst Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. The appointment of
the current envoy position, made with the encouragement of Senators
Lugar and Biden, came at a time when new opportunities for United
States engagement in Central Asia are possible and while Russian
authorities have made a strong effort to further their control of
energy supplies in the greater Caspian region.
a. What level of U.S. engagement do you believe is helpful
to promote opening of trans-Caspian energy trade and
investment?
Answer. Vigorous U.S. engagement to promote opening of trans-
Caspian energy trade and investment is an important priority for U.S.
interests. Russia's cutoff of gas shipments to Ukraine (and by
extension to much of the rest of Europe) in early 2009 (following a
similar move in 2006) served as a sharp reminder of how dependent
Europe is on energy imports from Russia. That energy dependence can
create a degree of political dependence that we should seek to help the
Europeans avoid. Just as the Clinton administration helped promote the
Baku-Ceyhan-Tbilisi pipeline in the 1990s, the United States today
should be heavily engaged in helping to promote stable and transparent
energy trade in Europe--including between Russia and Ukraine--and
energy diversification for Europe, a goal that requires more energy
trade with producers in the Caspian region.
b. Do you intend to appoint, or encourage the President to
appoint, a full-time envoy for Eurasian energy?
Answer. The complex issue of Eurasian energy requires high-level
U.S. attention and engagement. If confirmed, I will consult with the
President and with our energy and national security teams to determine
the best way to devote that attention. The appointment of a strong,
full-time envoy is one option worth serious consideration. No matter
what staffing approach is employed, it will be essential to have a
focused, well-elaborated strategy.
Question 132. The proposed Nabucco natural gas pipeline project is
intended to be the final link connecting Caspian region energy
resources with European consumers that could substantially contribute
to diversification of Europe's natural gas imports, but it is being
challenged by the Russian-backed alternatives Nordstream and South
Stream. The United States has been supportive of the Nabucco project,
and numerous North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union
Member States have attempted to make the Nabucco pipeline a reality.
Unfortunately, their efforts have been stymied by other influential
European governments that have more actively pursued independent deals
with Russia for gas supplies. Failure to complete the Nabucco pipeline
would be significant blow to European security, and challenge unity in
the trans-Atlantic community.
a. If confirmed, what steps would you take to conclude
necessary political agreements for Nabucco to be constructed?
Answer. The Nabucco pipeline could prove to be a critical element
in the necessary efforts to diversity European energy supplies.
Completing such an expensive, complicated, multinational project,
however, will require painstaking alignment between commercial and
governmental actors. An essential element of such a project will be the
commercial fundamentals. A successful strategy to promote Nabucco or
other pipelines along the Southern Corridor to European markets will
require consistent, high-level political engagement, including by the
United States. If confirmed, I and my team would strongly encourage our
European allies to make the political agreements necessary to
facilitate the construction of Nabucco or other pipeline capacity that
can help Europe diversify its gas supply.
b. The Republic of Turkey has indicated a desire to
participate in the Nabucco project, but it has expressed
concerns for first meeting its projected domestic energy needs.
What is your perspective on steps the United States bilaterally
with Turkey, and multilaterally, can take to accelerate
progress on the necessary intergovernmental agreements?
Answer. The President-elect has said that ``a close relationship
with a stable, democratic, Western-oriented Republic of Turkey is an
important U.S. national interest.'' I could not agree more. Turkey is a
critical U.S. partner not only on energy issues but on a wide range of
critical national security issues. Its cooperation is certainly
critical to the success of gas diversification projects such as the
Nabucco pipeline and the Turkey-Greece-Italy pipeline. If confirmed, I
will seek to restore and develop the longstanding U.S. strategic
partnership with Turkey--which has come under strain in recent years.
Supporting Turkey's effort to develop and implement sound and
sustainable energy policies is in the interest of Turkey, all of
Europe, and the United States because it will help Turkey to be a
reliable partner and transit country for gas flowing to other European
markets.
Question 133. The United States Senate, as part of its amendment to
H.R. 6 in 2007, approved legislation I authored promoting enhanced ties
between the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Governments of
the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India. One central
component of such cooperation would be formal coordination of strategic
petroleum reserves as those countries construct their domestic
reserves. United States diplomats have encouraged such enhanced
cooperation. You have repeatedly recognized the importance of enhanced
formal ties with China and India on energy, including with the IEA.
a. What benefit and risks do you see to formal inclusion of
China and India in membership in the IEA?
Answer. The IEA should be laying the groundwork now for eventual
Chinese and Indian membership in order to achieve the benefits of: (1)
Increasing energy policy coordination with rapidly growing energy
consumers like China and India; (2) maximizing the opportunity for
agreeing on energy standards and principles like transparent energy
markets; (3) ensuring the coordinated release of strategic petroleum
reserves during a major oil market disruption; and (4) maintaining its
position as the voice of the world's major energy consuming nations.
The center of energy demand growth is shifting away from the OECD
countries to many of the world's developing countries. The IEA was
created as an institution that represents the interest of the major
energy consuming nations. If its membership does not change to reflect
who those nations are today, its authority and effectiveness will
erode.
b. Would you promote more formal inclusion of China and
India in the International Energy Agency, including in
coordination of strategic petroleum reserve usage?
Answer. The great majority of increased global energy demand in
coming years will come from emerging economies, in particular China and
India. Both are also building strategic petroleum reserves. Given their
growing weight in international energy markets it is in our interest to
include them as members of the International Energy Agency and to
coordinate closely with them on usage of strategic petroleum reserves
in case of an oil supply emergency. Global energy security will benefit
from the integration of their potentially large strategic reserves into
the IEA system.
c. If necessary, would you promote revisions to the IEA's
underlying treaty if necessary to include China and India?
Answer. Full membership would likely require the modification of
the original 1974 International Energy Program treaty agreement that
created the International Energy Agency (IEA), but the range of options
potentially available to integrate China and India into the IEA have
not yet been explored. The IEA makes decisions by consensus among the
Member States, and consensus can and will be reached on how to prepare
the IEA for eventual Chinese and Indian membership, even as China and
India must also commit themselves to and prepare for IEA membership.
The State Department will support these efforts, up to and including
revision of the International Energy Program.
Question 134. Access to reliable and affordable energy is vital to
economic development, and the threat of global climate change
underscores a common interest for developing countries to not build
extensive infrastructure based around carbon-intensive power generation
and usage. Likewise, production of renewable energy, particularly
biofuels, offers a value-added product for rural areas in the
developing world. In a Foreign Affairs article, you commented, ``We
must also help developing nations build efficient and environmentally
sustainable domestic energy infrastructures. Two-thirds of the growth
in energy demand over the next 25 years will come from countries with
little existing infrastructure.''
a. What role do you see for United States foreign assistance
in promotion of access to energy in developing countries?
Answer. As developing countries address energy poverty, the United
States should do all it can to promote the adoption of clean energy
technology and best practices. The full suite of energy sources--oil,
gas, coal, nuclear, and all renewables, in tandem with conservation and
efficiency improvements--will be necessary to meet projected global and
domestic energy demand over the next 25 years.
U.S. foreign assistance that promotes energy access in the
developing world should focus on clean energy technology--which
includes renewable energy, energy efficiency, as well as clean coal
technology. The United States leads in research, development and
deployment of renewable energy.
b. What budgetary changes would be needed to increase U.S.
assistance in promoting energy access?
Answer. Were the United States to give priority to the elimination
of energy poverty, with a focus on enabling reliable, affordable, clean
energy, we would need a very substantial increase in U.S. assistance.
Most of the required investment, however, must come from the
private sector. In order to mobilize that investment, major policy and
regulatory reforms are needed in many countries. Neither public nor
private utilities and their investors can generate the capital required
to expand access to clean, sustainable energy supply, for example, when
regulatory regimes prevent them from recovering their direct and
indirect operating costs.
Developing countries must bear primary responsibility for moving
the reform process forward. When they do, U.S. assistance can support
them in two major ways. First, our technical assistance can help to
establish the overall regulatory and policy environment needed to
stimulate large new public and private investments. And, second, our
project-based financial guarantees and other support can help to reduce
the perceived risks and costs of mobilizing the much larger flows of
private sector financing required.
c. What is your perspective on how the United States can
promote global development of advanced biofuels from diverse
feedstocks such as specialty energy crops, agricultural waste,
and municipal waste?
Answer. Sustainable biofuels is an area where the State Department
can continue to foster global cooperation. The United States works both
multilaterally and bilaterally to advance sustainable biofuels. If
confirmed, I will review this ongoing work with an eye toward expanding
this focus. Examples of work which could be expanded included the G-8-
launched Global Bioenergy Partnership as well as the United States-
Brazil Memorandum of Understanding on Biofuels Cooperation, which
includes both research and development work on advanced biofuels, as
well as broader efforts to establish common technical standards to
foster a global market for these products.
Question 135. As a United States Senator, you cosponsored S. 879
``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007'' and S. 2976
``OPEC Accountability Act.'' What repercussions do you believe legal
actions against OPEC nations would have on United States economic
interests, trade and security relationships, and U.S. companies
operating in affected countries? If confirmed as Secretary of State,
how do you intend to balance U.S. and global market dependence on
reliable supplies of oil from OPEC nations with encouraging them to
undertake more open-market behavior?
Answer. Given ongoing U.S. court cases concerning these matters, as
a potential administration official I need to respect the judicial
process and not comment on these matters specifically at this time.
If confirmed, I will support the President's efforts to promote
U.S. energy security. This will include maintaining a strong dialogue
with the major oil producing countries--both OPEC and non-OPEC
members--to impress upon them the need to ensure adequate energy
supplies to meet global energy demand.
climate change
During the Presidential campaign, you said that you would ``engage in
high level meetings with leaders around the world every 3 months, if
that's what it takes to hammer out a new agreement'' on climate change.
You further indicated that ``my goal will be to secure a new agreement
by 2010.''
Question 136. What role do you intend to play in the Obama
administration with respect to international negotiations on climate
change? As Secretary, do you expect to meet with foreign leaders every
3 months to discuss climate change?
Answer. President-elect Obama has made it clear that the United
States must reassert leadership in international negotiations on
climate change. If confirmed, I will play a leading role as Secretary
of State in the Obama administration's efforts in that regard. Given
the urgency of the problem and the timeframe set out in the UNFCCC
process, this issue would be a key priority for me and for the
Department.
Question 137. Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change agreed on a work plan aimed at producing a new climate change
agreement by the end of 2009. Do you support this goal, or do you
believe more time will be necessary to reach such an agreement?
Answer. As President-elect Obama has emphasized, few challenges
facing America--and the world--are more urgent than climate change. The
science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are
rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We have seen record drought,
spreading famine, and storms that grow stronger year after year.
President-elect Obama has made it clear that his administration
will mark a new chapter in U.S. leadership on climate change. Under
President Obama, the U.S. will once again engage vigorously in the
U.N.-sponsored climate negotiations. The U.S. will also pursue progress
on climate change in subglobal, regional, and bilateral settings. The
U.S. is fully prepared to agree to binding caps as part of the
international climate negotiations. It is also apparent that, to solve
this problem, all major emitting nations must join in the solution.
Major developing nations such as China and India must not be far behind
in making their own commitments. The precise nature of commitments
sought from these countries will be shaped in the course of
negotiations.
We are committed to working with all nations to make the 2009
Copenhagen conference under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change a success. The world must move forward without delay to address
this urgent problem.
Question 138. Committee staff following the climate change
negotiations have recommended that in addition to showing leadership in
the forthcoming climate talks, the U.S. should engage China, India, and
Brazil in high level bilateral discussions on a number of issues
including climate change and energy security. Secretary Paulson has
done that with China. Do you support holding similar discussions with
Brazil and India?
Answer. President-elect Obama has stated that he plans to pursue
international agreements on climate change through a number of avenues
in addition to the UNFCCC process, including multilateral discussions
that include China, Brazil, and India.
public diplomacy
As Secretary Gates noted in 2007: ``Public relations was invented in
the United States, yet we are miserable at communicating to the rest of
the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom
and democracy, about our policies and our goals. It is just plain
embarrassing that al-Qaeda is better at communicating its message on
the Internet than America. As one foreign diplomat asked a couple of
years ago, `How has one man in a cave managed to out-communicate the
world's greatest communication society?' Speed, agility, and cultural
relevance are not terms that come readily to mind when discussing U.S.
strategic communications.''
Question 139. How does the Obama administration intend to reverse
this course of events? Additionally, does the administration believe
the problem rests, as Secretary Gates said, with the method of
communications, or rather with the message?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe strongly that the
challenge of restoring America's leadership in the world community
hinges on improving the content of our policies; in altering the
strategic approaches we employ in our dealings with the world
(especially moving from unilateralism to a more balanced diplomatic and
consultative strategic orientation); and third, we must have effective
and respected traditional and public diplomatic capabilities. We can do
a better job of attracting the best and the brightest. We must do a
better job of giving our talented women and men the resources they need
to guarantee that our strategy and our policies can be pursued
successfully. All three elements are essential--policies, strategy, and
instruments--and I, if confirmed by the Senate, intend to assure that
each is strong, and that they all work together to be mutually
reenforcing.
Question 140. Does the Obama administration support the idea that
there needs to be a collocation waiver for public diplomacy facilities
that would enable them to remain outside of new embassy facilities
where the security environment permits it?
Answer. Ensuring the security and safety of U.S. Government
employees overseas is very important to President-elect Obama. So too
is the imperative for our people to get outside the guarded perimeters
of embassy compounds to get to know the local populations, and to be
known by them. If confirmed by the Senate, I intend to work closely
with the professionals in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to review
collocation issues for public diplomacy. Another alternative that I
would like to review is expanding the use of binational commissions to
create welcoming and secure spaces for public diplomacy. I would be
happy to keep you abreast of these actions as we move forward.
broadcasting
Many have criticized the Bush administration's decision to try to reach
broader audiences in the Middle East through efforts such as Radio Sawa
and Al Hurra TV. Critics argue that Sawa--which relies primarily on a
pop-radio format with a smattering of news--fails to deliver sufficient
information to serious listeners who desire to hear unfiltered news
about their country and the rest of the world. Opponents of Al Hurra--
which attempts to serve as a counter to Al Jazeera--claim that it often
fails to provide sufficient counterpoints to radical and inaccurate
claims made by participants on many of its programs.
Question 141. Does the Obama administration intend to continue
funding Radio Sawa in its current, mostly music, format? Similarly,
what changes does the administration intend for Al Hurra?
Question 142. Does the Obama administration believe that the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees both Al Hurra and Radio
Sawa as well as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free
Asia, is the appropriate vehicle to provide managerial and policy
guidance to the disparate broadcasting entities? Does the
administration seek to alter or even replace the BBG?
Answer. Let me answer these two questions together. For the most
part, the performance of America's international broadcast entities has
been quite successful in telling America's story (largely the task of
the VOA), and in serving as important surrogates for missing
independent media in countries where a free press and independent media
have been repressed, such as Afghanistan and Burma, where RFE/RL and
Radio Free Asia respectively operate. Beyond the precise content of the
news, our international broadcast services demonstrate an essential
lesson of free societies--the requirement of an independent media for a
robust democracy.
A robust and effective BBG in turn requires a strong and
unambiguous firewall between the professional journalists and editors
at BBG, and others in the U.S. Government whether at the White House or
the State Department. I recognize this to be a fundamental requirement
of effective international broadcasting.
The BBG is an independent agency but the Secretary of State holds a
seat on the Board, through which the Department can express its views.
State also clears editorials for the VOA broadcasts. But the most
effective BBG will be one at arms length from these and other
government agencies.
Now is the time to review the Arab language services--they have
grown in listenership in recent years, and we should review their
performance and impact to determine whether Al Hurra and Radio Sawa are
achieving their full potential.
We recognize that our biggest challenge is to ensure that our
messages are listened to, considered and, we hope, acted upon by people
in the Middle East, and Muslim societies around the world. To do this
effectively, the BBG has learned that it must rely on the best market
analysis to understand the unique listening habits and attitudes of the
populations we seek to inform, and these conditions differ
substantially from one country to its neighbor. So we must start with
the market, and then devise our message accordingly, which more and
more will include new digital platforms.
international law and treaties
Law of the Sea
During the 110th Congress, the Foreign Relations Committee reported the
Law of the Sea Convention to the the Senate with the recommendation
that the Senate provide its advice and consent to ratification of the
Convention. The full Senate did not consider the Convention prior to
its adjournment.
Question 143. Do you support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention? If so, what U.S. interests do you believe U.S. accession to
the Convention would advance?
Answer. Yes. The President-elect has expressed his support for the
Convention, and voted in favor of it as a member of this committee in
the 110th Congress, and I strongly support it as well.
I agree with the Chief of Naval Operations, and the other members
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of whom endorsed the Convention
during the 110th Congress. Joining the Convention will advance the
interests of the U.S. military and the United States more broadly. As
the world's leading maritime power, a nation with the world's largest
Navy, an extensive coastline, an expansive continental shelf, and
substantial commercial shipping and marine environmental interests, the
United States has as much as any nation to gain from joining the
Convention.
Question 144. Do you urge Senate action on the Convention during
the 111th Congress? If so, what steps would you plan to take as
Secretary to promote Senate action?
Answer. As I said above, the President-elect and I have expressed
our support for the Convention. When the administration takes office,
it will promptly initiate a review of all treaties pending in the
Senate and provide the committee with a Treaty Priority List as
expeditiously as possible.
ICC
Question 145. Does the Obama administration support the United
States becoming a party to the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court?
Answer. Now that it is operational, we are learning more about how
the ICC functions. Thus far, it has acted with professionalism and
fairness--pursuing perpetrators of truly serious crimes, like genocide
in Darfur, and atrocities in the Congo and Uganda. At the same time, we
must also keep in mind that the United States has more troops deployed
overseas than any nation. We need to make sure that they have maximum
protection.
I will work with the President-elect and other members of the
Cabinet to consult thoroughly with our military commanders and other
experts. We will examine the full record of the ICC before making any
recommendations or reaching any decision on joining. If confirmed, I
look forward to consulting closely with this committee as we consider
our approach. Whether we work toward joining or not, we will end
hostility toward the ICC and look for opportunities to encourage
effective action in the ICC in ways that promote our interests by
bringing war criminals to justice.
Question 146. Do you believe the United States should seek to
assist the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of crimes under the
Rome Statute? If so, what sorts of assistance do you support and what
principles should govern decisions about providing such assistance?
Answer. I commend the Bush administration for its announced
willingness to cooperate with the ICC in the Darfur investigation. The
President-elect and I believe we should support the ICC's
investigations, including its pursuit of perpetrators of genocide in
Darfur.
Trade Agreements
Question 147. During the Presidential campaign you advocated
efforts to renegotiate aspects of NAFTA, and ``telling Mexico and
Canada that we will opt out'' of the agreement unless it is revised.
a. Does the Obama administration intend to seek to
renegotiate NAFTA? If so, what changes in the agreement does it
intend to seek?
b. What changes to other aspects of NAFTA would you expect
Mexico and Canada to seek in any such negotiations?
c. Apart from NAFTA, will the Obama administration seek to
renegotiate other Free Trade Agreements to which the United
States is currently a party? If so, please indicate any such
agreements and what changes the administration intends to seek.
d. Given that NAFTA and other Free Trade agreements have
been approved by the Congress will you commit to consult with
the Congress in advance of any negotiations to change the terms
of such agreements, and to submit any changes to Congress for
its approval?
Answer. I cannot speak to specific aspects of the new
administration's trade policy, but I can provide my general views on
the questions presented about NAFTA. President-elect Obama and I
consider Mexico and Canada among our closest allies and friends and we
approach the issue from that perspective. We have consistently
supported modernizing NAFTA so that it works for Americans and working
people and the environment for our partners in North America. The Obama
administration will work with the governments of Canada and Mexico to
achieve this objective. Improving the agreement will benefit workers
and the environment in all three North American countries by ensuring
that workers are not mistreated and the environment not despoiled by
firms seeking a trade advantage. President-elect Obama also believes
that there is also a broader cooperative agenda that the three NAFTA
countries should pursue in the economic area, including such matters as
energy management, improved border infrastructure and environmental
cooperation.
Question 148. What effects would the failure of pending Free Trade
Agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea have on relations
with those nations? How would successful ratification impact relations
with those nations?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to building even stronger
bilateral relationships with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea in the
years to come. If confirmed, I also look forward to working with the
United States Trade Representative, the Treasury Secretary, the
Secretary of Commerce, and others on the President-elect's economic
team on these issues. All of these nations have expressed a strong
desire to see these FTAs ratified. We will communicate forthrightly
with each of them, explaining that our past and present concerns with
the FTAs are discrete and specific and have no bearing on the many
collaborative dimensions of our alliance and friendship. We will also
work to resolve these concerns to the satisfaction of all parties.
Obviously, these nations would be pleased by ratification, but I
believe that we have--and can continue to have--productive friendships
even without FTAs in force.
Question 149. What in your view will be the impact of the recent
collapse of the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Round of
trade negotiations? As Secretary, will you support efforts to revive
the Doha Round?
Answer. We still do not know the prospects for the Doha Round. They
depend in part on the impacts of last-second decisions of the Bush
administration concerning the December WTO Ministerial--impacts that
are still playing out globally. I know that the new administration will
assess those impacts carefully. As a general principle, the President-
elect believes that U.S. negotiators must not accept a bad deal just
for the sake of an agreement. But it would certainly be disappointing
if the WTO cannot make progress toward a successful Doha Round
agreement that would increase American exports, support American jobs,
strengthen the rules-based multilateral system, and advance development
of the world's poorest countries. President-elect Obama supports, and
as Secretary I would support, a successful conclusion of Doha--one that
comports with his trade priorities and objectives.
ILO
In a 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, you wrote ``We can strengthen the
International Labor Organization in order to enforce labor standards,
just as we strengthened the World Trade Organization to enforce trade
agreements.''
Question 150. Is it the position of the Obama administration to
pursue a binding mechanism under the auspices of the International
Labor Organization to resolve disputes related to labor standards?
Answer. The position of the Obama administration is to ensure that
basic international labor standards are respected and enforced in the
countries with which we establish our closest commercial relationships.
We need to construct a process for evaluating and bringing to dispute
resolution cases where producers abroad are violating these basic
worker protections in order to gain an unfair advantage in trade. There
is an interagency process at USTR that can access the resources and
partnership of the Department of Labor and the State Department to
initiate a new level of attention to labor issues in trade agreements
and to enforcement of the agreements we have signed. And we will work
closely with the ILO on the best mechanism for resolving disputes.
There are numerous questions by labor experts about the adequacy of the
current interagency process. We intend to have close cooperation of
USTR, State, and Labor to assess and respond to these questions.
Question 151. Will you commit to consult with the Foreign Relations
Committee about the details of any proposal for such a mechanism before
engaging in discussions of such a proposal internationally?
Answer. Yes.
Medellin
On February 28, 2005, President Bush determined that the United States
would comply with the judgment of the International Court of Justice in
the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United
States). To achieve such compliance President Bush issued a memorandum
directing state courts to review and reconsider the convictions and
sentences of the Mexican nationals at issue in the case, who were not
advised in a timely fashion of their rights under the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations to have Mexican consular officials notified of
their arrests in the United States on state criminal charges. In March,
2008 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Medellin v. Texas that President
Bush lacked the authority to compel the States to take such actions.
Question 152. What further actions, if any, do you believe the
federal and/or state governments should take to give effect to the
ICJ's Avena judgment? As Secretary, what steps would you plan to take
with respect to this issue?
Answer. All nine justices on the Supreme Court recognized in the
Medellin case that the United States had an international legal
obligation under the Avena judgment. The question is how to achieve
that. I understand that the Governor of Texas has indicated in a letter
to Secretary Rice and Attorney General Mukasey that he would be willing
to support review and reconsideration in the cases of those Mexican
nationals affected by the Avena decision if the sentence and conviction
has not already been reviewed. We will work with the State of Texas,
and the other states involved, on a way forward in these cases that
gives effect to the Avena judgment. I would also support an interagency
review of how the United States can best give effect to the Avena
judgment.
Question 153. How would you plan to address Mexican concerns in the
event that death sentences are carried out for any individuals at issue
in the Avena case whose convictions and sentences had not been reviewed
and reconsidered?
Answer. The United States has an obligation under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations to provide consular notification
whenever a foreign national is arrested in the United States. Foreign
governments likewise have a reciprocal obligation to provide
notification to U.S. citizens detained overseas. We must comply with
our obligations if we expect other countries to comply with theirs. We
will redouble our efforts to work with state and local law enforcement
to ensure that the United States fully implements the Vienna
Convention's consular notification provisions.
global health and related matters
Question 154. Worldwide, it is estimated that 132 million children
are orphaned due to AIDS and other causes and millions more are highly
vulnerable. Without protection and support, these children are
susceptible to HIV and other diseases, recruitment by militias and
violent extremist groups, sex trafficking, and other abuses. The
Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing
Countries Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-95), required our government to devise
a single, comprehensive strategy for addressing critical needs among
the developing world's highly vulnerable children. Even though the bill
was signed into law over 3 years ago, up to now, there has been no
clear strategy of how to the U.S. Government should ensure programs to
address the needs of orphans and vulnerable children are administered
as Congress intended. Will you ensure that the plight of orphans and
vulnerable children be a priority for the U.S. Government and the
Department of State in particular?
Answer. Addressing the plight of orphans and vulnerable children is
a priority of the U.S. Government. Under the USG Strategy for Orphans
and Other Vulnerable Children (submitted to Congress in June 2006), in
2007-08 the USG spent almost $6 billion on foreign assistance programs
to improve the lives of children and their families.
If confirmed, I will ensure that orphans and vulnerable children
continue to be a priority during the Obama administration. Six U.S.
Government agencies and departments currently manage a range of
programs that help children in dire need due to natural disasters,
conflict, orphanhood, disease, abandonment, displacement, exploitation,
abuse, or deep poverty. An interagency group is currently updating and
refining the strategy to refocus our programs in light of the current
global economic crisis that is making more children more vulnerable.
Question 155. Last summer, Congress enacted the Tom Lantos and
Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. This legislation
authorizes up to $48 billion over the next 5 years for HIV/AIDS
prevention, treatment, and care programs, and includes $5 billion for
malaria and $4 billion for tuberculosis. Given the current budget
situation, should these programs be fully funded at the authorized
levels?
Answer. Congress sent a clear message to our partners around the
world that the United States would remain committed to combating these
three diseases by reauthorizing our programs to address them. As you
noted, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership
Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008
authorizes up to $48 billion to combat the three diseases. The bill was
passed with strong bipartisan majorities in both houses.
Each year beginning with FY 2010, we will assess our progress
toward our goals for each program and the larger budget context, and of
course we will consult with Congress in formulating the President's
budget request.
Question 156. The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization
Act of 2008, includes language directing the United States to
participate in negotiations for future Advanced Market Commitments for
the purchase of futures vaccines to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis,
malaria, and other infectious diseases. The first advance market
commitment (AMC) of $1.5 billion, funded by Canada, Italy, Norway,
Russia, the United Kingdom, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
was announced on February 9, 2007, and is scheduled to launch later
this year. This AMC will go to purchasing a vaccine for pneumococcal
disease, an illness that kills around 1.6 million people--most of them
children. The commitment itself has no cost unless and until a vaccine
is developed. It is estimated that by 2030, a successful AMC project
will prevent 5.4 million deaths. However, the United States did not
participate in these negotiations and is not a part of this lifesaving
initiative. Are you committed to upholding the Tom Lantos and Henry J.
Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 by directing the U.S. to show
leadership by participating in future Advanced Market Commitments
negotiations?
Answer. It is my understanding that while the U.S. Government did
not provide funding for the AMC pilot for pneumococcal disease, the
outgoing administration supported the concept of the AMC pilot for
pneumococcal disease. I will work closely with the Treasury Department,
which the legislation tasks with leading negotiations on establishment
of advanced market commitments, and other appropriate U.S. Government
agencies, in monitoring the results of the AMC pilot for pneumococcal
disease and discussing next steps with respect to AMCs for other
infectious diseases.
Question 157. Last Congress, I was the lead cosponsor of Vice-
President-elect Biden's legislation to address and combat international
violence against women. It includes language to create a coordinator at
the U.S. Department of State, with the rank of ambassador, to oversee
all U.S. Government programs that pertain to combat violence against
women and girls internationally, and to integrate programs that address
gender-based violence already in existence. Do you support this bill,
and how can the U.S. Government improve its ability to address the
issue of gender-based violence?
Answer. As you know, I was a cosponsor of the International
Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA) in the last Congress. The
advancement of women's concerns and issues has always been a high
priority for me throughout my career. If confirmed by the Senate, that
commitment will continue as I begin my work as Secretary of State. I
will direct my staff to review the IVAWA and will work cooperatively
with the Senate to ensure that we move quickly and diligently to end
violence against women and girls around the globe.
I know that within the State Department the office that addresses
violence against women (VAW) also promotes the economic and political
empowerment of women and the education of girls. It advocates for the
mainstreaming of gender issues into broader policy concerns, against
harmful traditional practices, and it opposes the social attitudes that
hinder women's full equality. These efforts, too, are a crucial part of
fighting the root causes and perpetuation of VAW. I will welcome the
opportunity to discuss ways to improve and expand our work.
transparency in extractive industries and related issues
Question 158. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report
entitled ``The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and
International Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse''
recommended that ``the Secretary of State should exercise more effort
on transparency issues, and build on international momentum for
extractive industry transparency at the United Nations, at the EITI
(Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) secretariat and through
our embassies.''
a. Do you agree with this statement? If so, what steps to
you expect to take to support extractive industry transparency?
Answer. I support a lead role for the State Department in advancing
resource transparency at the United Nations, and through our leadership
role in the EITI process. Our embassies continue to play an active part
in promoting resource transparency and good governance in their host
countries.
b. Do you agree with those who say that one of the most
effective ways for the U.S. to show its commitment to
extractive industries transparency, and to encourage more
transparency by developing countries, would be for the United
States to sign on as an EITI implementing country and submit
its oil and gas revenues to independent audit? If so, would you
commit to taking this step early in the administration?
Answer. Domestic agencies, including many at the state and local
levels of government, would have to examine this issue before the U.S.
Government could make such a commitment. U.S. markets and systems for
reporting revenues from resource extraction are already among the most
transparent in the world. Oil and gas and minerals revenues from
domestic production are subject to oversight by national, state, and
local levels of government as well as the scrutiny of financial markets
and our free media.
Question 159. How can the administration better engage with China,
India, and other emerging markets on issues around extractive industry
transparency?
Answer. The U.S. Government has been engaging with China, India,
and a number of other governments on the benefits of supporting the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Increased
transparency will lead to more reliable suppliers of energy and other
raw materials. As the countries with the fastest-growing energy
consumption, China and India have an interest in expanding global
energy supplies and raw materials access from stable countries. If
confirmed I will direct State Department staff to continue to engage
with China, India, and other emerging economies on EITI bilaterally and
multilaterally, including through the United Nations.
Question 160. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, ``The
Petroleum and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International
Community Efforts to Fight the Resource Curse,'' asserts that ``U.S.
bilateral assistance in extractive countries should be focused on good
governance, transparency and building civil society.'' How do you think
U.S. bilateral assistance, through USAID, OPIC, MCC, the U.S. Export
Import Bank, and other agencies, should be prioritized in extractive
countries?
Answer. In economies dominated by extractive industries, good
governance, transparency, and building civil society are critical to
providing an environment conducive to sustained poverty reduction and
democratic development. The United States and other donors should and
do support those efforts with a range of assistance programs, including
rule of law and governance reforms, public sector capacity-building,
and strengthening of independent media and civil society checks and
balances. For these efforts to be successful, the countries themselves
must bear primary responsibility for leading this process.
U.S. assistance programs rarely provide direct support to the
development of extractive industries. When they do, it is important
that we promote and support transparency and accountability in the
public sector oversight, revenue collection, and other critical areas
of good governance. I am committed to working with my colleagues at
OPIC, MCC, the U.S. Export Import Bank, and other relevant agencies to
ensure that the United States provides consistent, constructive policy
leadership on this issue.
Question 161. During the Presidential campaign, you expressed the
view that sovereign wealth funds need to be more transparent and that
``we need to have a lot more control over what they do and how they do
it.''
c. Will the Obama administration seek to expand transparency
of sovereign wealth funds?
Answer. The IMF, in conjunction with the OECD, and other relevant
international bodies has articulated the Santiago Principles, which lay
out the current thinking on the standards of best practice with regards
to sovereign wealth funds. Increasing transparency is a central aim of
the Principles. Accordingly, we will seek to increase transparency of
sovereign wealth funds.
d. What role do you expect to have as Secretary with respect
to sovereign wealth funds and what steps do you intend to take
in this area?
Answer. As Secretary, I will work with the President-elect and the
economic team to ensure that U.S. workers reap the benefits of foreign
investment while making sure that the investment goals of these funds
are transparent and in the broader national interest.
international financial institutions
Question 162. The United States provides foreign assistance
directly through bilateral agencies and programs as well as
multilaterally through the development banks and international
organizations. How would you describe oversight of U.S. bilateral and
multilateral development funds? Are there steps that should be taken to
better monitor U.S. development financing thereby ensuring that our
money reaches the intended recipients?
Answer. It is critically important that we put in place a mechanism
for transparency and accountability for bilateral and multilateral
development funds.
Question 163. The United States has committed to promoting
transparency at the G-8 and other international venues. What part of
the administration should have the lead on promoting transparency? What
should be the role of the State Department?
Answer. President-elect Obama has put a high priority on promoting
transparency in government more broadly. I look forward to working with
the President-elect and the Treasury Department to promote greater
transparency at the G-8 and now G-20 as well.
Question 164. The United States has participated in multilateral
debt relief for the poorest countries so that they can spend their
money on poverty reduction and development rather than debt repayment
to the international community. Reportedly, some of these countries are
now taking loans from emerging creditors such as China. How should the
United States respond?
Answer. It would clearly undermine the intended purpose of our
multilateral debt relief if the beneficiary countries were to be
incurring greater indebtedness from emerging bilateral donors such as
China.
I will make it a priority to work with China and other emerging
biliateral donors to support the same set of donor practices and
principles that have been agreed among the traditional bilateral donors
in recent years including on policies intended to reduce indebtedness.
hunger and food security
Question 165. Precipitous food price increases that occurred in
2007 and 2008 created havoc in many parts of the world, causing riots,
often violent, in some 19 countries, and plunging approximately 75
million more people into poverty and increased vulnerability to
malnourishment. It is estimated that nearly 1 billion people are
presently food insecure. The United States is uniquely situated to help
the world feed itself, and has the opportunity to recast its image by
making the eradication of hunger one of the most prominent centerpieces
of U.S. foreign policy.
a. Do you agree that hunger should be a more prominent focus
of U.S. global engagement?
Answer. Yes. Alleviating hunger is a particular interest of mine
and if confirmed, I intend to make it a more prominent focus of U.S.
global engagement.
b. As Secretary, how would you address food insecurity?
Answer. Over many years, we have tended to react to food crises in
an ad hoc fashion, waiting for obviously deteriorating situations to
turn to crises before reacting. Such delayed reactions are necessarily
more costly in human and monetary terms. I intend to make food security
a priority in our development programs so that we can invest up front
in food production, affordability, security, education, and technology.
Question 166. It is predicted that the world's population will grow
to such an extent that by 2050, current food demand will double. If we
are to avoid further deforestation by increasing land under
cultivation, the world will need to rely on technological advances
including biotechnology and genetically modified seed. Yet many
countries, including those that are chronically food insecure, resist
turning to this technology, largely due to European sentiment. What can
the United States do to promote agricultural technology in general, and
the benefits to be gained from biotechnological advances and food
products derived from biotechnology?
Answer. Agricultural biotechnology is a proven but underused tool
available to increase crop yields, reduce pressure for agricultural
land conservation, and help ensure that people have adequate supplies
of nutritious food.
The United States can help developing countries build the capacity
to grow more food domestically, and assess and manage potential risks-
posed by biotech crops to increase confidence that such technology may
be employed in a manner that preserves the health of their people and
the diversity of their environment. I also believe that imposition of a
global carbon cap when Kyoto expires in 2012 will help incentivize
sound agricultural processes and reforestation.
If confirmed, I will examine the issues surrounding these issues
and consult with other agencies including the Department of Agriculture
over the best way to proceed.
Question 167. During the 110th Congress, I introduced S. 3529, the
Global Food Security Act, to strengthen and bring greater focus to a
range of United States programs designed to promote global food
security through long-term investments in agriculture, higher
education, and technology. Do you support the objectives and approach
of this legislation?
Answer. I support the objective of strengthening and bringing
greater focus to U.S. programs designed to promote global food
security. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to
develop legislation that will achieve these goals.
______
The MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Presidential Transition
Team provides that during your service as Secretary, the Foundation
``will publish annually the names of new contributors.'' I believe that
the interests of transparency and public confidence would be best
served if this annual publication also included the amounts contributed
by each contributor during the year covered by the report (or the
amounts within a dollar range).
Question 1. Will you urge the Clinton Foundation to include this
information in its annual reporting?
Answer. The Foundation has committed to reporting the amounts
contributed by each contributor during the year covered by the report
within the dollar ranges consistent with how it published its
contributors in December 2008.
* * *
Under the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Presidential
Transition Team, President Clinton personally will not solicit funds on
behalf of the Clinton Global Initiative, but he retains the right
personally to solicit funds on behalf of other initiatives of the
Clinton Foundation.
Question 2. What specific considerations do you believe warrant
preventing President Clinton from fundraising on behalf of the Global
Initiative during your tenure as Secretary?
Answer. The Foundation and the Office of the President-elect
reached agreement on a range of steps that go above and beyond the
requirements of the law and the ethics rules. Their goal was to protect
against even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work
and the duties of the Secretary of State. Because CGI invites foreign
government officials and dignitaries, some of whom are visiting during
the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, President Clinton
agreed to limit his fundraising efforts on behalf of CGI to avoid any
appearance of a conflict of interest.
Question 3. Do you believe that these considerations also apply to
fundraising on behalf of other Clinton Foundation initiatives? If not,
why not?
Answer. While CGI involves the participation of many foreign
officials and dignitaries, the other initiatives do not convene such an
event with foreign government officials and dignitaries. I also think
it is important to observe that the Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
and the professional career ethics officials at the State Department
have advised that neither the law nor the ethics regulations require
President Clinton or the Foundation to take the voluntary steps they
have taken. The Foundation is a nonprofit entity--neither my husband
nor I have any financial interest.
The Presidential Transition Team, the Foundation, and I also agree
that not only would it be unnecessary for my husband to stop
fundraising on behalf of the Foundation's other initiatives, but also
that it would be harmful to the millions of lives the Foundation has
affected and will affect in the future. The Clinton Foundation, a
charitable organization of over 1,100 employees and volunteers working
in more than 40 countries around the world, has affected more than 200
million lives, including more than 1.4 million people in the developing
world who receive life saving medicine purchased under Clinton
Foundation agreements. That is nearly half of all people in the
developing countries who receive treatment. If fundraising were to
stop, the Foundation's continued efforts in this and other arenas would
be in jeopardy.
* * *
Under the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Presidential
Transition Team, the Clinton Global Initiative will not accept
contributions from foreign governments apart from attendance fees for
CGI events. The MOU contains no similar restriction on other Clinton
Foundation initiatives accepting contributions from foreign
governments.
Question 4. What specific considerations do you believe warrant
preventing the Global Initiative from accepting contributions from
foreign governments during your tenure as Secretary?
Answer. See response to Question 2 above. I also again want to
observe that OGE and the professional career ethics officials at the
State Department have advised that neither the law nor the ethics
regulations require President Clinton or the Foundation to take the
voluntary steps they have. Indeed, the Foundation and the Office of the
President-elect agreed upon a range of steps that go above and beyond
the requirements of the law and the ethics rules to ensure that even
the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work and the
duties of the Secretary of State was avoided.
Question 5. Do you believe that these considerations also apply to
Clinton Foundation initiatives other than the Global Initiative
accepting contributions from foreign governments? If not, why not?
Answer. See response to Question 3. The Clinton Foundation is
combating climate change, childhood obesity and HIV/AIDS and it is
bringing economic opportunity to people in America and around the
world. NGOs like the Foundation bridge the gap between what governments
can do and what is needed to be done. Since its inception foreign
governments have been valuable partners of the Foundation, especially
its HIV/AIDS work. For example, in the last 3 years alone, the Clinton
HIV/AIDS Initiative has shown that it is possible and economically
feasible to provide treatment for children. In partnership with
UNITAID, an international drug and diagnostic purchasing facility, and
with financial help from other governments, the Clinton Foundation now
supports the treatment of approximately two-thirds of all children on
HIV/AIDS treatment in the world. Governments' support is vital to this
effort. All of these relationships with foreign governments were forged
in advance of any consideration by President-elect Obama to nominate me
to be Secretary of State and they should continue in support of such
socially responsible work.
The Memorandum of Understanding provides that should an existing
contributing country elect to materially increase its commitment to the
Foundation, or should a new contributor country elect to support a
Foundation initiative, the Foundation will share the proposed
contribution with the State Department's professional career ethics
officials for review, and as appropriate the State Department's ethics
officials will submit the matter for review to the White House
Counsel's Office. In the event the State Department or White House has
concerns, those concerns will be conveyed to me and to the Foundation
for appropriate action.
* * *
Under the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Presidential
Transition Team, the State Department's professional career ethics
officials will review proposed contributions to the Clinton Foundation
from foreign governments to identify any potential ethics concerns. The
MOU provides no similar review process for contributions by foreign
individuals or companies. I believe that contributions from foreign
individuals and companies have the potential to raise appearances of
conflicts of interest that are as serious as those raised by
contributions from foreign governments.
Question 6. In order to minimize such risks, will you consider
urging the Clinton Foundation to follow the same ethics review process
for proposed contributions of more than $50,000 from nongovernmental
foreign sources that it has agreed under the MOU to follow for all
proposed contributions from foreign governments?
Answer. I understand and appreciate the suggestion; however, the
agreement as written already goes far beyond what any spouse of a
Cabinet official has ever done in terms of both limitations on the
Clinton Foundation and on my husband's own actions as a private
individual. Indeed, OGE and the professional career ethics officials at
the State Department have advised that neither the law nor the ethics
regulations require President Clinton or the Foundation to take the
voluntary steps they have taken. I believe the extraordinary steps
already being taken are sufficient to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
* * *
Under the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Presidential
Transition Team, in the event that State Department or White House
ethics officials have concerns about a proposed contribution to the
Clinton Foundation that are related to your service as Secretary of
State ``those concerns will be conveyed to [you] and to the Clinton
Foundation for appropriate action.''
Question 7. Under this arrangement, who will make the final
decision about whether the Clinton Foundation will accept a
contribution about which the State Department or White House has ethics
concerns?
Answer. The Clinton Foundation, as an independent entity with its
own fiduciary obligations, has to decide whether to accept or decline a
contribution. The Foundation has made clear that it will be guided by
the advice of the State Department's professional career ethics
officials under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. If the
Foundation does accept a contribution about which the State Department
has conflict of interest concerns, it would be with the understanding
that the State Department's professional career ethics officials have
recommended appropriate actions to address any such actual or perceived
conflict.
Question 8. Do you anticipate having a personal role in deciding,
in light of State Department and White House ethics advice, whether the
Clinton Foundation will accept particular contributions?
Answer. No, I have no authority over or involvement in the
fundraising or operations of the Foundation, so I cannot make decisions
about particular contributions. The Memorandum of Understanding sets
out the terms under which the Foundation and I will be guided by the
State Department's professional career ethics officials.
Question 9. In the event that the Clinton Foundation accepts a
contribution about which State Department or White House ethics
officials have expressed concerns that are related to your service as
Secretary of State, do you intend to take any steps to notify the
public of this fact and of the reasons the contribution was accepted in
spite of the ethics concerns?
Answer. President Clinton and the Foundation have agreed to an
unprecedented level of transparency and review. I know that all parties
will comply with the review process. The Foundation, President Clinton,
and I will be guided by the advice from the State Department's
professional career ethics officials--who may recommend recusal or
other actions in response to a potential contribution, as opposed to
recommending the Foundation decline it, and heed the recommendations
provided. In following their guidance, I do not anticipate any
publication of their guidance and the Foundation's actions with respect
to their advice. Under the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the
Presidential Transition Team, the Clinton Foundation has agreed to
``publish annually the names of new contributors.''
Question 10. Do you believe it would enhance transparency and
increase public confidence if the Clinton Foundation were to disclose
large donations (e.g., those over $50,000) at the time the donation is
made, rather than waiting until the end of the year?
Answer. I understand and appreciate the suggestion; however, the
agreement already goes far beyond what any spouse of a Cabinet official
has ever done in terms of both limitations on his Foundation and his
own actions as a private individual and the amount of transparency and
disclosure that is being provided. And, OGE and the professional career
ethics officials at the State Department have advised that neither the
law nor the ethics regulations require President Clinton or the
Foundation to take the voluntary steps they have. I believe the steps
already being taken are sufficient to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
* * *
As drafted, the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the Presidential
Transition Team would not require the Clinton Foundation to disclose
pledges it receives of amounts to be contributed in the future. Such
amounts would be disclosed only in the year in which the Foundation
receives the funds (assuming they are received during your tenure as
Secretary of State). This would appear to permit donors to pledge to
contribute funds to the Clinton Foundation during your tenure as
Secretary, but to avoid public disclosure of their contributions so
long as funds are not actually transferred to the Clinton Foundation
until after the end of your tenure as Secretary.
Question 11. Do you believe it would enhance transparency and
increase public confidence if the Clinton Foundation were to disclose
large pledges (e.g., those over $50,000) at the time such pledges are
made, in addition to disclosing the contributions themselves in the
years in which the money is contributed?
Answer. I understand and appreciate the suggestion; however, the
agreement already goes far beyond what any spouse of a Cabinet official
has ever done in terms of both limitations on his Foundation and his
own actions as a private individual and the amount of transparency and
disclosure that is being provided. And, OGE and the professional career
ethics officials at the State Department have advised that neither the
law nor the ethics regulations require President Clinton or the
Foundation to take the voluntary steps they have. The MOU already
provides for the professional career ethics officials at the State
Department to review proposed contributions from foreign countries; as
pledges are synonymous with proposed contributions in this instance,
they will review such pledges as well. I believe the steps already
being taken are sufficient to avoid even the appearance of a conflict
of interest.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Russell Feingold
Question. Iraq. Our top national security concern must be the
global fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as the
related struggle to prevent the expansion of safe havens or recruiting
opportunities for our enemies around the globe. How we allocate our
resources--the tools used in this struggle--are key to winning this
fight and without a more global and comprehensive approach, we will be
unable to make our country, or the world, a safer place. The current
administration's decision to focus resources on Iraq has been a tragic
mistake. Accordingly, please share your vision of how will you follow
up on President-elect Obama's pledge to redeploy
the bulk of our troops from Iraq in 16 months? What steps do you expect
the State Department will take to help ensure that transition occurs as
safely and as smoothly as possible?
Answer. The incoming administration will proceed with the following
overall strategy and core principles, which we will bring to this set
of security challenges. First, as we all know, Iraq is a sovereign
country, and the steps we take on security matters moving forward will
have to be taken in consultation with the Iraqis. We will certainly do
our best to press the Iraqi Government to combat sectarianism in their
security forces--and we will tie future training and equipping
resources to progress on this front. Improved Iraqi security forces
cannot fully replace U.S. forces in protecting reconstruction
personnel, but they can certainly help, if the Iraqis step up. And our
residual force will play a continued force protection role. Second, we
will take additional steps to help the Iraqi Government consolidate the
security gains that have been made in the past 2 years--gains that have
facilitated more intensive and effective rebuilding and aid efforts.
That will include an intensive diplomatic and political strategy,
including an effort to forge a comprehensive compact with Iraq's
neighbors. Third, we will pay particular attention to the humanitarian
crisis in Iraq, which risks destabilizing parts of the country,
including an aggressive effort to assist displaced Iraqis. But these
are serious challenges, and much of this turns on the capacity and
willingness of the Iraqis themselves.
Question. Chief of Mission Authority. Over the past 8 years we have
seen our military take on a broader role in counterterrorism operations
around the world. Vital to the State Department's ability to maintain
the helm of our foreign policy agenda, however, is a commitment from
all U.S. departments and agencies to uphold Chief of Mission authority.
Unfortunately, I have come across instances in which that authority has
been challenged, or even compromised. What steps would you take, as
Secretary of State, to ensure this authority is upheld and enforced,
with regard to the military as well as to the Intelligence Community?
Answer. I believe that the authority of the President's Chiefs of
Mission overseas must be unambiguous and sacrosanct. In individual
Letters of Instruction to each Chief of Mission (COM), the President
gives the Chiefs of Mission full responsibility for the direction,
coordination, and supervision of all U.S. Government employees within
the host country or in the relevant mission to an international
organization, with limited exceptions. National Security Decision
Directive (NSDD) 38 gives Chiefs of Mission full responsibility for the
size, composition, and mandate of overseas staffing.
Chief of Mission authority is essential to ensuring that there is
unity of effort in implementing the President's policies and pursuing
our national interests overseas.
As Secretary, I would do everything in my power to support Chiefs
of Mission in exercising the authority and fulfilling the
responsibilities that the President gives them. Such steps may include
conducting periodic reviews of interagency operations and providing
revised guidance, as appropriate.
Question. Great Lakes. The situation in the Great Lakes region of
Africa continues to be very dire--with already troublesome humanitarian
crises exacerbated by renewed fighting in eastern Congo and the recent
massacres by Lord's Resistance Army in Congo and Sudan. As Secretary of
State, what will be your strategy to bring lasting peace and stability
to this region of the continent? What further steps can be taken by the
United States, key regional actors, and the international community to
help address illegal armed groups in this region and end these ongoing
crises?
Answer. The situation in Congo is deeply disturbing. The President-
elect and I have both supported efforts on behalf of a lasting solution
to Congo's political disputes. The Obama administration will work to
support disarmament and demobilization in the Congo, recognizing the
challenges that persist there.
Question. Middle East Peace Process. Many experts believe that in
order to have real progress on a Middle East Peace Process the United
States must play a leading role, but it is essential to have greater
participation and the support of Arab countries in the region. Do you
believe this is an accurate reflection of what needs to happen and if
so, in light of the recent conflict in Gaza, what steps will the State
Department take to make this possible?
Answer. I believe the Arab states have an important role to play in
advancing efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Their chief means to do so are providing political and economic support
to the Palestinian Authority, and taking steps toward normalization
with Israel. The Arab Peace Initiative contains some constructive
elements which could be important bases for negotiations and for
proactive steps to give the initiative a more operational character. I
look forward to discussing these opportunities with Israeli,
Palestinian, and Arab leaders and encouraging progress in these
efforts.
Question. More generally, what framework do you envision for future
negotiations? Do you expect to have a special envoy and if so, what
would be the mandate and how would that person work with the current
envoys currently in the region--including General Jones, General
Dayton, and Tony Blair?
Answer. General Jones, General Selva, and General Dayton have each
played important and constructive roles in advancing U.S. efforts to
promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Former Prime
Minister Blair has also made an excellent contribution as the Quartet's
special envoy, promoting economic development and institution-building
in the Palestinian areas. No decisions have been made about the
personnel structure we will use to implement our Middle East peace
efforts, but each of the important functions carried forward by the
generals and Prime Minister Blair will need to be continued in whatever
structure we ultimately decide upon.
Question. LGBT. There is widespread recognition of the need to
build a more robust and effective diplomatic and development corps. As
part of that effort, it makes sense to consider ways to address
challenges faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
employees, particularly relating to domestic partner benefits and State
Department policies that make it difficult for the partners of Foreign
Service officers to travel and live at overseas posts. What would you
do as Secretary of State to address these concerns? Will you support
changes to existing personnel policies in order to ensure that LGBT
staff at State and USAID receive equal benefits and support? What steps
will you take to ensure that LGBT issues are taken into consideration
in both organizational and policy decisionmaking?
Answer. As we discussed in the hearing, this issue was brought to
my attention during the transition, I've asked to have more briefing on
it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing
policy. I know that many other diplomatic services, including those of
our closest allies, have gone much further in providing training,
protections, and benefits to the partners of LGBT employees. I will
consult with you and keep you informed of the decisions we make going
forward on this issue.
As to ensuring that LGBT concerns are addressed in policy
decisionmaking, President-elect Obama said during the campaign that
human rights violations based on sexual orientation must ``be part and
parcel of any conversations we have about human rights.'' If confirmed,
I will work to ensure that our country stands on principle against
human rights abuse or prejudice of any kind.
Question. Local Health Systems. Despite the massive investment the
United States has made in global health over the years, many health
systems in the developing world remain unable to meet local and
national needs. How can the State Department do more to ensure that our
global health assistance programs are strengthening local health care
delivery systems and infrastructure, as well as increasing the numbers
and capacity of local health care workers?
Answer. The President-elect and I agree that we need to invest even
more in local health care delivery systems and infrastructure, and we
intend to make this a priority. As one example, the new administration
will work to more effectively coordinate PEPFAR with programs to
strengthen health care delivery and address other global health
challenges. It will work with developing nations to help them build the
health infrastructure necessary to get sick people treated--more money
for hospitals and medical equipment, and more training for nurses and
doctors.
Question. Nuclear Weapons. You have endorsed the view of Henry
Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other prominent nuclear and global experts--
including Secretary General Ki-moon--that we must reinvigorate our
commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and the potential for nuclear
terrorism, including in countries like Iran. They have argued that one
of the key barriers to countering those threats is that nonnuclear
weapons states have ``grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of
the nuclear powers'' efforts to divest themselves of nuclear weapons,
as required by that treaty. While I concur that for the time being we
must maintain a reliable deterrent, please share your view on whether
reductions are needed to rebuild faith in the NPT. If so, what steps
would you pursue to make this a reality? What impact would the pursuit
of new nuclear weapons by the United States have on our ability to
realize these objectives?
Answer. The Obama administration will have no higher national
security priority than preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear
terrorism. Achieving those vital goals will require close cooperation
with a wide range of international partners on such matters as
strengthening the IAEA verification system, tightening controls on the
transfer of sensitive nuclear technologies, and adopting effective
means of enforcing compliance with nonproliferation obligations. To
gain the support of those international partners for measures to
reinforce the global nonproliferation regime, it is important that the
United States and other nuclear weapon states party to the NPT
demonstrate that they are serious about fulfilling their own NPT
obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.
The Obama administration will therefore set a new direction in
nuclear weapons policy, a direction headed toward the ultimate
elimination of all nuclear weapons worldwide. An early priority will be
to work with the Russians on a new, verifiable agreement to replace the
START Treaty. We will reach out to the Senate to secure the
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and then launch a
diplomatic effort to bring the treaty into force. We will seek to get
negotiations underway on a verifiable treaty to prohibit the production
of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons
exist, the United States must retain a strong, safe, secure, and
reliable nuclear deterrent. But the Obama administration will not
authorize the development of new nuclear weapons. By restoring
America's leadership role in reducing and eventually eliminating
nuclear weapons, we will increase our leverage to build broad
international support for measures needed to prevent nuclear
proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
Question. Will pledges for future contributions to the Clinton
Foundation from domestic donors be subject to the same review process
as those from foreign governments? If not, please provide an
explanation as to why such pledges for domestic contributions would not
raise the same issues, and should not trigger the same review process
applied to foreign contributions under the Memorandum of Understanding.
Answer. Should I be confirmed as Secretary of State, the Memorandum
of Understanding between the Clinton Foundation and the Office of the
President-elect provides that all future contributions to the Clinton
Foundation--both domestic and foreign--will be subject to annual
disclosure by the Clinton Foundation. Additionally, proposed new
contributions from foreign governments or a proposed material increase
in the contribution from a current foreign government donor to the
Clinton Foundation will be reviewed by the State Department's
professional career ethics officials who will advise me and the Clinton
Foundation of any concerns as they relate to my service as Secretary of
State. As I was not a party to MOU discussions between the Clinton
Foundation and the Office of the President-elect, I am not in a
position to address why specific decisions were made, but I do know
that they were focused on avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of
interest given the unique issues regarding foreign government
contributions.
Ultimately, however, there is no conflict between the foreign
policy or domestic policy of the United States and the efforts of the
Clinton Foundation seeking to reduce human suffering and increase
opportunity for people in need. That has been demonstrated quite
clearly in President Clinton's and former President Bush's efforts to
raise relief funds, including from foreign governments and others,
after Katrina and the tsunami.
Question. While the Clinton Global Initiative will no longer accept
contributions from foreign governments, the other initiatives that
comprise the Clinton Foundation will continue to accept contributions
from foreign governments. Please provide an explanation as to why these
initiatives will still receive such contributions. In addition, while
the Memorandum of Understanding does seek to address this issue, it
notes that ``appropriate action'' will be taken if there is a concern
about a proposed contribution. Please describe, under these
circumstances, what you think ``appropriate action'' might entail.
Answer. The Clinton Foundation and the Office of the President-
elect reached agreement on a range of steps that go above and beyond
the requirements of the law and the ethics rules. Their goal was to
avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between the
Foundation's work and the duties of the Secretary of State. In that
regard, they took into account that CGI invites foreign government
officials and dignitaries to its annual event, some of whom are
visiting during the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, in
reaching agreement that CGI would no longer accept contributions from
foreign governments.
With respect to all of the other initiatives, any relationships
with foreign governments were forged prior to any consideration by
President-elect Obama to nominate me to be Secretary of State and they
should continue in support of such socially responsible work, These
initiatives involve programs that combat HIV/AIDS, climate change,
childhood obesity, and bring economic opportunity to people in America
and around the world. Foreign governments have been valuable partners
in these Foundation initiations since their inception, particularly
with respect to its HIV/AIDS work. For example, in partnership with
UNITAID, an international drug and diagnostic purchasing facility, and
the financial help from other governments, the Clinton Foundation now
supports the treatment of approximately two-thirds of all children on
HIV/AIDS treatment in the world.
To avoid any appearance of conflict concerns, the MOU specifically
provides that should an existing contributing country elect to
materially increase its commitment to the Foundation, or should a new
contributor country elect to support a Foundation initiative, the
Foundation will share the proposed contribution with the State
Department's professional career ethics officials for review. In the
event the State Department or White House has concerns, those concerns
will be conveyed to me and to the Foundation for appropriate action
based on consideration of all the facts and guidance from the
professional career ethics officials. The Foundation is unlikely to
pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict unless the State
Department's professional career ethics officials recommend recusal, or
taking some other appropriate actions to mitigate any perceived
conflict. I will be guided by their advice.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. In a speech at the United States Institute of Peace,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently spoke of a problem that has
continued to plague U.S. efforts in Afghanistan--the failure of many
NATO allies to remove restrictions on their forces.
Specifically, Secretary Gates said: ``NATO's operations are
hamstrung by national caveats, where different countries impose
different rules on where their forces can go and what they can do. A
number of our allies and partners have stepped forward courageously--
showing a willingness to take physical risks on the battlefield and
political risks at home. But many have defense budgets that are so low,
and coalition governments that are so precarious, that they cannot
provide the quantity or type of forces needed for this kind of fight.''
Are you satisfied by the troop commitment from our NATO
allies and with the flexibility they have given their forces to
perform various missions?
If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that our NATO
allies are committed to our effort, both politically and
militarily?
Answer. The Obama administration deeply appreciates the continued
commitment of our NATO allies and other partners to the international
mission in Afghanistan. These countries provide over 31,000 troops,
accounting for over half the strength of the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF). Our allies and partners recognize that
securing Afghanistan against the threat posed by extremists and
terrorists and providing a better future for the Afghan people is in
our common interest.
Troop shortfalls and caveats that limit the flexibility of ISAF
forces remain a challenge in Afghanistan. While there has been some
limited progress in this area recently, the United States continues to
impress upon our allies and partners the importance of providing the
commanders on the ground the forces they need and allowing them maximum
possible flexibility in the employment of those forces.
If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with our allies and
partners to seek their views on the situation in-country as we review
our Afghanistan strategy and make changes where necessary. As President
Obama has made clear, if the United States increases our civilian and
military presence in Afghanistan, we will look to our allies to join us
in providing the resources necessary to help the Government of
Afghanistan secure its country against violent extremists.
Question. What is President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan, and
what is your definition of victory?
Answer. There have been several reviews of our strategy in
Afghanistan in recent months. One is being conducted under the
direction of General Petraeus, through CENTCOM, another by the Joint
Staff, and a third by the National Security Council. The administration
will review these reviews. We will also consult with our allies and
partners, who have contributed a great deal to the efforts in
Afghanistan, to solicit their thoughts on the way ahead. This process
will take some time, but it will lead to our identifying a clear set of
discrete goals that we are trying to achieve.
Afghanistan is going to be a long and difficult effort, but as
Secretary Gates stated, we can attain our strategic objectives--for
Afghanistan to be a reliable, stable ally, capable of effectively
governing its territories and borders, and no longer providing an
operating base for al-Qaeda.
Question. How do we ensure that we are using our military in the
proper way, particularly as we commit more Americans to Afghanistan,
and ask their families for further sacrifice?
Answer. There is broad agreement that there can be no purely
military solution to the war in Afghanistan. However, to date there
have not been enough troops--neither international nor Afghan--on the
ground to create the security conditions necessary to allow for an
effective counterinsurgency strategy to take hold. This has
particularly been the case in southern and eastern Afghanistan, where
the void is increasingly filled by the Taliban. The United States is
considering a further increase in our military presence, and we will
look to our NATO allies and the Government of Afghanistan to do more as
well. Additional troops will not only improve security, but they will
also help train the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National
Army, which will dramatically increase in size over the next 2 years.
Over the coming year we will see improvements in the security
situation, better civil-military coordination, and more effective
counterinsurgency efforts. The impact of both our military and
rebuilding efforts will be felt more concretely by the Afghan people,
who will ultimately be responsible for the future of their nation.
Question. How long do you foresee a substantial U.S. presence in
Afghanistan?
Answer. The situation in Afghanistan is extremely difficult and
complex, and it will not be solved easily or quickly. The border region
in Pakistan, where al-Qaeda leaders remain in hiding, is the central
front in the fight against terrorism. We will use all the elements of
our power--diplomacy, development, and defense--to work with those in
Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
and other violent extremists.
There have been several reviews of our strategy in Afghanistan in
recent months. One is being conducted under the direction of General
Petraeus, through CENTCOM, another by the Joint Staff, and a third by
the National Security Council. The administration will review these
reviews. We will also consult with our allies and partners, who have
contributed a great deal to the efforts in Afghanistan, to solicit
their thoughts on the way ahead. This process will take some time, but
it will lead to our identifying a clear set of discrete goals that we
are trying to achieve and help us to determine how long there will be a
substantial U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
Question. Do you think the United States should take a leadership
role in the world in fighting global warming?
If so, how do you believe we should change course?
Answer. Yes. Climate change is a complex, urgent, and global
threat. The United States will take the lead in addressing the climate
crisis by making commitments of our own and engaging other nations to
do the same.
We recognize that feasible solutions will require all major nations
joining together. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will be
the administration's chief climate negotiator, leading our efforts with
the United Nations negotiations and those at the subglobal, regional,
and bilateral level.
Question. I have consistently said that an end to the violence in
Darfur and a lasting peace in Sudan will require a negotiated solution
between the Government of Sudan and rebel groups in Darfur. The United
States led the efforts to broker a historic agreement--the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)--which ended a 20-year civil war
between the Government of Sudan and Southern Sudanese rebels. That
civil war had claimed over 2 million lives. The Darfur Peace Agreement
(DPA), in contrast, has fallen apart.
President Bush's first special envoy for Sudan, Senator John
Danforth, played a critical role in forging the CPA. Will the Obama
administration appoint a high-level special envoy for Sudan to lead
American efforts end the genocide in Darfur?
What diplomatic actions is the Obama administration prepared to
take to forge a lasting peace in Sudan?
Answer. I believe that the Darfur conflict requires a political
solution that must be achieved through an inclusive negotiated
settlement. There is no military solution to this conflict.
U.S. special envoys have in the past aided peace in Sudan. As you
mentioned, Senator Danforth was instrumental in bringing the parties
together to negotiate the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
Ambassador Natsios and Ambassador Williamson both made crucial efforts
to bring the Darfur parties to a negotiated settlement to that
conflict. This administration will consider the appointment of a new
special envoy for Sudan.
The United States will continue to lead diplomatic initiatives
aimed at helping the parties to reach a negotiated agreement to end the
conflict in Darfur and to push for continued implementation of the CPA.
The United States supports the ongoing efforts of United Nations/
African Union (AU) joint chief mediator Djibril Bassole to quickly
reach a framework agreement outlining the next steps in the Darfur
peace process, and appreciates the facilitating efforts of the
Government of Qatar. The United States will continue to work with the
parties in Sudan, the U.N., the AU, and key members of the
international community, including members of the U.N. Security Council
and Sudan's neighbors, to push for a resolution to the conflict in
Darfur and implementation of CPA provisions, including North-South
border demarcation, resolution of the Abyei dispute, and the holding of
national elections in 2009 and a Southern referendum in 2011.
Question. What steps will you take to reinvigorate the
international community's efforts to provide protection to Darfuri and
other Sudanese civilians who are at risk?
Answer. The United States has led the international response to the
protection of civilians throughout the Sudan. In 2005, we led the
United Nations Security Council on the creation of the U.N. Mission in
the Sudan (UNMIS); UNMIS has assisted the parties in North and South
Sudan to implement the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
and enabled the delivery of humanitarian assistance as well as the
protection and promotion of human rights. We will continue to work with
UNMIS and with the Assessment and Evaluation Commission (AEC) to ensure
that the CPA remains on track, particularly with Sudan's 2009 national
elections and with the need to find a lasting solution to the disputed
North-South border region. Additionally, we will continue to urge the
U.N. and UNMIS to ensure the presence of adequate security forces and
resources to protect vulnerable citizens in the UNMIS area of
operations, particularly Abyei.
To protect Darfuri internally displaced persons (IDPs) and
refugees, the United States also led efforts in 2007 at the Security
Council to get a Chapter VII-mandated force for Darfur. We remain
committed to seeing this 26,000-troop United Nations-African Union
Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) deployed as quickly as possible. To this
end, we are airlifting containers of peacekeepers' equipment and
supplies into Darfur this month. In addition to reinforcing the Darfur
peacekeeping operation, we will keep pressure on all parties to the
Darfur conflict to commit to the peace process led by Joint Chief
Mediator Bassole and to participate in talks to be hosted by Qatar. The
recent violence in North and South Darfur has reportedly claimed
civilian lives and must stop. We will continue to lead at the Security
Council to preserve the integrity of its resolutions on Darfur in the
quest for a political solution to the crisis.
In addition, USAID is saving lives in Darfur by supporting the
basic needs of people living in IDP camps and other underserved areas,
including food, water, sanitation and health. Our initiatives help to
mitigate the effects of conflict, protect vulnerable people and support
nascent efforts to promote a peaceful resolution to the crisis. USAID
has provided displaced women with skills and resources to pursue
income-generating activities that reduce the risk of sexual violence,
expanded monitoring of human rights violations in Darfur and supported
precedent-setting prosecution of sexual violence cases.
Question. The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 established the position
of Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues in the State Department. It
is currently posted at the Under Secretary level in Democracy and
Global Affairs.
Do you intend to appoint a Special Coordinator at a high
level, with adequate resources and access, to signal the Tibet
issue's importance to the U.S. Government?
Answer. We are still looking at the issue of personnel
appointments, but I can assure you that I take Tibetan issues seriously
and plan to appoint a well-qualified coordinator, and I will ensure the
coordinator has the resources to do the job.
We are disappointed with China's human rights record, including
with regard to its respect for human rights and religious freedom in
Tibet. We will raise our concerns about this issue at the highest
levels with the Chinese Government and press for progress. The Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues will sustain our focus on these issues
and will promote substantive dialogue, directed at achieving meaningful
results, between the Dalai Lama and his representatives and the Chinese
Government. We believe such talks provide the best hope for resolving
longstanding tensions in Tibetan areas and for safeguarding the
distinct ethnic, cultural, and religious identity of the Tibetan
people.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
holocaust restitution issues
Question. The Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues
serves a critically important task of developing and implementing U.S.
policy with respect to the return of Holocaust-era assets to their
rightful owners, compensation for wrongs committed during the
Holocaust, and Holocaust remembrance.
What will you do as Secretary of State to encourage those countries
to take action, given that the countries were unjustly enriched when
they nationalized insurance companies that never paid their policies to
Holocaust victims and their surviving relatives?
Answer. Compensation for wrongs committed during the Holocaust will
be a priority for the State Department. If confirmed, I will continue
to work to ensure that Holocaust survivors and the heirs of Holocaust
victims obtain compensation for stolen property. In cases where
nationalized insurance companies failed to pay claims or provide
compensation to victims or heirs, I will instruct, if confirmed, the
U.S. Special Envoy to work vigorously toward a resolution of the
matter.
Question. Will the United States be an active participant in the
international conference on Holocaust issues, including assets, that is
being held in Prague in June 2009 as part of the Czech Republic's
European Union Presidency?
Answer. My understanding is that the United States plans to
participate very actively in the Prague Conference and is working
closely with the Czech Republic to ensure that this Conference conducts
a review of what progress has been made on Holocaust era assets issues
and what additional steps should be taken. The U.S. Special Envoy for
Holocaust Issues was in Prague January 26 to discuss the Conference and
hosted a Czech delegation in Washington in November. I understand that
the specific issues that the conference will address include the
restitution of, or compensation for, confiscated property (real and
movable); Jewish religious items displaced during the war;
implementation of compensation programs established in 2000 and 2001;
and Holocaust education.
Question. If confirmed as Secretary of State, how will you work
with your counterparts at the Defense and Justice Departments to create
improved cooperation, coordination and accountability to confront the
problem of sexual assault against contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere?
Answer. Last year, the Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic
Security established a dedicated special investigations unit in
Washington, DC, staffed with trained and experienced investigators for
the purpose of responding to and investigating sexual assaults and
other violent crimes involving Chief of Mission personnel and
contractors throughout the world. The investigators in this unit
routinely liaise with their counterparts in the Justice and Defense
Departments, as well as with host country authorities, to pursue the
successful investigation and prosecution of sexual assaults involving
U.S. Government personnel and contractors. As Secretary, I will ensure
that the Department of State continues to pursue sexual assault
violations that fall within our purview to the full extent of the law,
and pledge to assist and work closely with DOD and DOJ elements where
appropriate.
Question. How will you pursue the issue of contractor
accountability more generally if confirmed as Secretary of State?
Answer. I strongly support efforts to achieve legal accountability
for unlawful acts that the Department's contractors may commit abroad.
As Secretary, I will ask my legal and legislative staffs to promptly
review available options in this regard and to consult with the
Department of Justice and other federal agencies.
sudan
Question. Since the United Nations Security Council imposed a full
arms embargo on all belligerents in Darfur in 2005, it has been
violated frequently.
What steps will you take to pressure countries such as China
and Russia to suspend arms shipments to Sudan?
What other measures--within a unilateral, bilateral, or
multilateral framework--will the U.S. Government adopt to
ensure that arms are not transferred to Darfur, a region where
mass atrocities are taking place?
The U.N. panel of experts that monitors the embargo has
recommended that the embargo be expanded to cover all of Sudan,
Chad, and northern parts of the Central African Republic. Do
you support expansion of the embargo?
If confirmed as Secretary of State, what measures can the
United States take to ensure that the embargo is enforced?
Answer. The United States remains committed to finding a lasting
political solution to the situation in Darfur through the exercise of
every tool available, whether diplomatic, economic, or security
related.
The presence of weapons, despite the existence of a U.N. arms
embargo covering the shipment of weapons into that area, is a
significant contributing factor to the violence in Darfur. The
willingness of some parties to overlook the implications of their
engagement with the Government of Sudan (GOS) and contribution to the
proliferation of weapons into Darfur is unfortunate. At this time we
are examining the best and most productive method by which to address
the situation in Darfur, including the possible expansion of an arms
embargo to cover all of Sudan. While this approach presents obstacles
to other areas of our assistance, including our efforts to support the
Southern Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), we are reviewing policy
options.
I can assure you of my enduring commitment to maintaining U.S.
support for U.N. actions to strengthen the arms embargo. My efforts
will include a commitment to the ongoing support of the UNSC Sudan
Sanctions Committee's Panel of Experts (POE) and its mandate to monitor
the implementation of the arms embargo and the targeted sanctions.
______
Responses to Questions by Senator Robert Menendez
cuba policy
Family travel and remittances to Cuba are specifically addressed in
section 112 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which
stresses the will of Congress that the President:
(1) Before considering the reinstitution of general licenses for
family remittances to Cuba, insist that, prior to such reinstitution,
the Cuban Government permit the unfettered operation of small
businesses fully empowered with the right to hire others to whom they
may pay wages and to buy materials necessary in the operation of the
businesses, and with such other authority and freedom as are required
to foster the operation of small businesses throughout Cuba.
(2) Before considering the reinstitution of general licenses for
travel to Cuba by individuals resident in the United States who are
family members of Cuban nationals who are resident in Cuba, insist on
such actions by the Cuban Government as abrogation of the sanction for
departure from Cuba by refugees, release of political prisoners,
recognition of the right of association, and other fundamental
freedoms.
I understand that 59 of the 75 independent journalists and
democratic opposition leaders that were arrested in the spring of 2004
and arbitrarily given 20-30 year sentences remain in prison in
isolated, deplorable conditions. In addition, thousands of others
arrested before and since that time also remain in prison.
Question. Do you have any intentions of recommending changes to
Cuba family travel policy or remittances policy beyond the 2004
regulations? If so, please specifically outline the changes to Cuba
policy that you would recommend.
Answer. There are many ways that we can send a message to the Cuban
people that the United States intends to play a positive role in their
future. The President believes that Cuban-Americans especially can be
important ambassadors for change in Cuba. As such, he believes that it
makes both moral and strategic sense to lift the restrictions on family
visits and family cash remittances to Cuba. The administration will
consult with Congress as we prepare these changes.
President Obama also believes that it is not time to lift the
embargo on Cuba, especially since it provides an important source of
leverage for further change on the island.
Question. President-elect Obama pledged to double foreign
assistance by 2012 and stated that he would ensure that it focuses on
bottom-up development. Exactly how will this goal be met? Specifically,
how do you see resource levels for foreign assistance in the coming
years? Given our critical economic problems, it is inevitable that
efforts will be made to limit or reduce our spending on foreign
assistance--how will you resist those efforts?
Answer. President Obama remains committed to his goal of doubling
foreign assistance, and intends to do so in a responsible manner. He
recognizes that the budgetary constraints resulting from the current
economic crisis may extend the timeframe for realizing this increase.
Working in partnership with Congress, we are prepared to make smart,
strategic budget choices that deal with our problems here at home while
also continuing our investment and where appropriate increasing support
for effective programs that save lives, strengthen our security, and
restore America's position in the world.
President Obama plans to put forward a robust FY 2010 budget
request. The President and I will fight for these resources by
investing them wisely with strong accountability measures and ensuring
they are directed toward strategic goals. I hope that Congress will
work with us in meeting the goal of doubling foreign assistance, and
fully fund the President's budget request.
Question. Who would control Foreign Assistance in your State
Department? What would be the role of Deputy Secretary of State Jack
Lew vis-a-vis USAID? Who will have budget authority over USAID? Do you
see this as an elevation of stature over the current structure?
Answer. These are important strategic issues. Jack Lew will be
responsible for assisting me in the comprehensive management of the
operations and resources of the Department. I intend to review closely
all options, including those of authority and structure, and will look
forward to consulting with the Congress as we move forward.
deputy position at the national security council
Question. If there were a Deputy position created for International
Development at the National Security Council, how would the position
interact with the Deputy Secretary of State and who would be setting
budget and funding priorities for USAID?
Answer. President Obama and I are committed to elevating
development in U.S. foreign policy. The administration will be promptly
reviewing whether fulfilling that objective will necessitate changes
such as the creation of positions at the National Security Council. We
look forward to hearing your thoughts and consulting with the Congress
as we move forward.
millennium challenge corporation (mcc)
Question. The MCC has had some problems getting started--the goals
were too ambitious, the disbursements were slow, the money was not
``additive'' as promised. However, I believe the MCC will offer some
important learning and may very well turn out to be an effective
component of our overall foreign assistance toolkit and should by no
means be ``scrapped.''
What do you see as the future of the MCC?
Will the USAID Administrator have oversight responsibility
of the MCC?
Answer. The State Department will continue to support MCC and its
underlying principle of greater accountability in our foreign
assistance programs. The MCC's mission of sustainable poverty reduction
through long-term development is an important asset in America's smart
power toolbox, and its focus on country ownership and accountability
has helped build local capacity, encourage broad civil society
consultation, and advance policy reform. The MCC's resources have
proven to be a powerful incentive for countries to demonstrate their
commitment to strengthening good governance, economic freedom, and
investments in people. As I review our development assistance framework
and goals, I will consider how best to build on the promise of MCC
within the administration's overall development assistance strategy.
We intend to review how the MCC programs can best be coordinated
and leveraged, and we look forward to consulting with the Congress as
we move forward.
institution-building
Question. I supported President Bush's PEPFAR and Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC) initiatives. However, I was concerned that
funding for those initiatives would come at the expense of long-term
development programs that, at their core, focus on building up the
institutions of governance overseas that will ultimately need to take
over and provide basic services to their people.
In many cases, this is exactly what happened.
If confirmed, how would you prioritize long-term development
programs in the context of initiatives like PEPFAR and the MCC
to make sure that we are still investing in long-run welfare of
the institutions of governance overseas?
Answer. President Obama has emphasized the importance of
development assistance to America's foreign policy and national
security. And we are both committed to doubling foreign assistance. The
totals have to grow.
Clearly, PEPFAR has experienced much success. MCC represents a
worthy new approach to reducing poverty and sustaining economic growth
in low- and middle-income countries that are committed to good
governance and investing in their people. As you note, however,
increases in those programs within the existing totals for foreign
assistance impact the resources available for traditional development
and foreign assistance programs. We must, therefore, increase
assistance resources overall. At the same time, we must ensure that all
foreign assistance programs work together to maximize their
effectiveness and achieve measurable, sustainable results.
As for the prioritization of long-term development programs, we
intend to evaluate, in close consultation and cooperation with
Congress, every spending priority based on what works and what doesn't,
and what impacts America's national security and economic interests. We
know, however, that long-term development programs play a vital role in
our national security and we want to reinforce that linkage.
We will work to ensure that these programs are efficient and
effective, as we also advocate strongly for the appropriate level of
resources for foreign assistance programs, both within the
administration and to the Congress.
Question. In your view, what changes need to occur in order to make
USAID a principal player in U.S. foreign policy?
Answer. The President's commitment to a strengthened and enhanced
role for development in our foreign policy means a reinvigorated USAID,
leading the formulation and implementation of U.S. development
strategies and articulating the role of development in national
security. We have to strengthen USAID so that it has greater capacity
to respond quickly to changing requirements, is less reliant on
contractors doing work that ought to be carried out by our own
government professionals, and is better able to report the results
achieved with taxpayer dollars. We are still in the process of thinking
through the precise organizational design, and I look forward to the
advice of the committee and Congress as we consider our approach. In
moving forward with this process, my goal, and the goal of the
President, is to enhance USAID's capacity and standing to carry out its
vital mission.
Question. Within the State Department, will there be a Director of
Foreign Assistance? Will there be a USAID Administrator? Would the
current F Bureau fall within the line of authority of the Deputy
Secretary for management and resources? Or, would the Director of
Foreign Assistance report directly to the Secretary of State?
Answer. There will be a USAID Administrator. As for positions
internal to the Department of State, I intend to closely review the
issue of structure and reporting relationships, and will look forward
to consulting with the Congress as we move forward.
staffing at usaid
Question. There needs to be more flexibility at USAID to hire the
technical expertise they need--both mid-level and high-level officials.
The institutional culture needs to change to reflect an increased sense
of accountability for programs, and this culture starts with the
people. The last administration proposed increasing the number of
Foreign Service officers. While this is positive, a much more thorough
look at the overall workforce needs to take place to make sure we have
the people we need, where we need them, when we need them.
Do you have any specific plans to address staffing at USAID in
broad terms? How would you handle Personal Services Contractors?
Foreign Service Limited (FSL) appointments, and the loss of senior
leadership in the Foreign Services due to retirement and minority
recruitment and retention?
Answer. The continued rebuilding of USAID staff is one of my
highest priorities. While USAID's program budget has increased
significantly in the last two decades, its direct-hire Foreign Service
officer levels have dropped. USAID's strength has always been the
quality and size of our field presence and I will diligently work to
reestablish the leadership role we held in the past. Additionally, and
based on a comprehensive study of almost every office and bureau in
Washington by the USAID's Office of Human Resources (OHR), I plan on
increasing USAID's Washington-based technical workforce. I want USAID
to use permanent career staff to address its mission, as appropriate,
and to begin to reduce its dependency on its multitude of nonpermanent
hiring mechanisms which can be expensive and don't build institutional
capacity.
The various hiring mechanisms used by USAID provide the agency with
flexibility to meet a variety of programmatic and administrative needs.
These mechanisms are often used simply because USAID does not have the
permanent staff to fulfill its mission. As USAID grows and trains its
permanent staff through the DLI, it will rely less on nonpermanent
mechanisms to meet its staffing need. These mechanisms, including FSL
appointments and Personal Services Contracts, will and should continue
to be used, however, for short-term and highly technical needs or where
there is no need for permanent staff.
Recognizing that USAID is facing the critical situation of an aging
workforce that has been more than a decade in the making, USAID began a
program of targeted mid-level career Foreign Service hiring. This
hiring will help fill its ``missing middle'' and provide an essential
cushion while the more DLI junior officers are hired, trained, and
deployed. USAID must have a reasonably distributed Foreign Service by
experience including entry, mid, senior, and executive level. I will
continue to support USAID's mid-level hiring initiative while it
rebuilds its junior ranks. It is essential that USAID has the ability
to place experienced permanent employees in its field missions.
Additionally, where possible, USAID should continue to use its
various legal authorities to employ and reemploy Foreign Service
officers wherever gaps exists. This approach will be necessary for the
near term as newly hired employees under the Development Leadership
Initiative (DLI's) and those hired since 2000 gain the specific USAID
experience to perform at the higher level.
Question. I know you are very familiar with the concerns that DOD
is taking too large a role, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan but in
other countries as well, in programs that are better managed by our
civilian agencies like USAID and the State Department. I know that the
weakened condition of USAID is one major reason for this.
How do you intend to build up our civilian agencies so they
can win the interagency battles on foreign assistance-related
policy, strategy, and implementation?
Answer. President Obama and I understand that we cannot counter
insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can
carry out economic and political reconstruction missions. We intend to
strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest
to take on this challenge, and to increase both the numbers and
capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians
who can work alongside our military. This increased capacity is
important in the implementation of programs, but also, as you note, in
policy and strategy discussions and decisionmaking.
We will need to invest additional resources in the Department and
USAID. The 25-percent increase in Foreign Service staffing that
President Obama has called for would do much to address these needs for
the State Department. In addition, USAID also needs additional capacity
and, with the support of Congress, has started to increase its Foreign
Service ranks. I look forward to working closely with Congress in order
to obtain the funding needed to realize these personnel increases as a
high priority.
funding for the united nations
Question.
As Secretary of State, would you pay down our debt at the
United Nations?
Will you recommend that the President request sufficient
funding to meet our obligations to the United Nations,
peacekeeping operations, and other United Nations programs and
agencies?
Answer. Since FY 2000, the United States has built up approximately
$250 million in new arrears to the United Nations, consisting mainly of
U.N. peacekeeping arrears due to the 25-percent peacekeeping cap and
U.N. regular budget arrears due to shortfalls and exchange rate losses
that occurred in FY 2007 and FY 2008. In addition to these arrears, the
United States continues to delay its U.N. regular budget payments due
to our deferral practice, which consists of paying our calendar year
bill with funds from the following fiscal year.
I will work to reverse our U.N. arrears and to ensure that our
funding requests fully reflect our financial obligations so that the
United States can pay its dues in full and on time. When we fail to do
this, we undermine our credibility and effectiveness in working to
achieve our objectives at the U.N. We support having a U.N. that is
adequately resourced to carry out activities that are in our national
interest.
Question. Rising food prices have swelled the ranks of the world's
hungry by tens of millions, with women and children bearing the brunt
of the crisis. The U.N. Secretary General rallied the U.N. and Bretton
Woods institutions to develop a comprehensive framework of action, and
donor nations made bold pledges. The international community, however,
has fallen woefully short in meeting those commitments.
What will the Obama administration do to address the global
food crisis?
Do you plan to send a senior delegation with robust
positions to the January 26-27 international conference
organized by the Spanish Prime Minister to take stock and give
renewed impetus to the U.N. comprehensive framework initiative?
Answer. President Obama has made clear that alleviating hunger
worldwide is a top priority of his administration. As he said on the
first day of his Presidency, ``to the people of poor nations, we pledge
to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters
flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.'' The President
and I intend to focus new attention on food security so that developing
nations can invest in food production, affordability, accessibility,
education, and technology. We are committed to building a new
partnership among donor states, developing nations, U.N. agencies,
NGO's, the private sector and others to better coordinate policies,
with a view toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals agreed to
in 2000.
I am sending a strong team composed of senior officials from across
the U.S. Government to the Madrid Conference to convey the President's
message. They will be emphasizing the need for action in three major
areas. First, we must invest in agricultural research to improve
potential crop production. Second, we must also invest in
infrastructure related to agriculture in order to spread the benefits
of new technology to all farmers, and improve the efficient delivery of
food to markets. And third, we have to make markets themselves more
efficient, both locally and globally. I also propose to send a
videotaped message to the Conference to underscore my personal
commitment to ending world hunger.
Question. During the Bush administration, the United States decided
not to seek a seat on the Human Rights Council.
Do you feel the U.S. tactic of disengagement has worked to
promote U.S. interests at the Council or to promote U.S.
leadership on the issue of human rights?
As Secretary of State, would you support--and put the
necessary diplomatic effort into--the United States seeking a
seat on the Human Rights Council?
Answer. The administration is reviewing and considering the issues
and policy options you raise in your question. This is an unfolding
process and we look forward to engaging with you as our review
progresses.
the situation in sudan
Question.
Under what circumstances, if any, would Article 16 be
considered for the case of Sudan? Would the United States be
prepared to veto Article 16 at the Security Council?
What steps should be taken to reinvigorate UNAMID?
Who will have the Sudan portfolio and to whom will that
person report to?
Despite an international arms embargo, there is evidence
that weapons from other countries are being used in Darfur by
the Government of Sudan. What steps will you take to ensure
that the arms embargo is enforced?
Given its dependence on Sudanese oil, China has an interest
in a peaceful Sudan. What steps will you take to work with
China to ensure that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement holds,
and that the crisis in Darfur is ended through a negotiated
solution?
Answer. At this point, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber has not yet
ruled on the Prosecutor's application for an arrest warrant, and there
is not currently an Article 16 resolution before the Security Council.
We support the ICC's investigations into the matter and its pursuit of
perpetrators of genocide in Darfur.
The United States will continue to vitally support the United
Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) though U.N. dues, as
well as through in-kind and personnel assistance to UNAMID. We will
maintain a partnership with U.N. and diplomatic officials in New York,
Sudan, and foreign capitals to help ensure UNAMID receives the
personnel, material, financial, and political support it needs. In
addition, we will continue to pressure the Government of Sudan to
cooperate with UNAMID and will pressure UNAMID to pursue its mandate
aggressively to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian operations,
and create conditions conducive to a lasting political settlement to
the Darfur crisis.
The Department is reviewing next steps in our approach to the
situation in Sudan, including Darfur and implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
The presence of weapons, despite the existence of a U.N. arms
embargo covering the shipment of weapons into that area, is a
significant contributing factor to the violence in Darfur. There are
several countries that are supplying arms to Sudan, and illicit arms
transfers come across the border of neighboring countries, possibly
with the knowledge or assistance of the governments. At this time we
are examining the best and most productive method by which to address
the situation, while we also review the impact of these efforts on our
assistance to the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA).
Sudan plays a special role in China's energy diplomacy because a
Chinese parastatal energy company--the China National Petroleum Company
(CNPC)--is the dominant foreign actor in Sudan's energy industry, and
China receives the majority of Sudan's oil exports. Therefore, although
Sudan is only China's sixth-largest petroleum provider, Sudan's oil
industry is largely dependent on Chinese support. Given China's
significant economic participation in Sudan, the United States
continues to encourage China to use its influence with the Government
of Sudan constructively to help implement the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) and bring peace and security to Darfur. The United
States frequently communicates with the Chinese Government, including
the Chinese special envoy and the Chinese mission to the U.N., on
Sudan-related issues. The United States has repeatedly asked China to
exert additional pressure on the Government of Sudan to reduce violence
in Darfur, provide additional support to UNAMID, and halt Chinese arms
sales to Khartoum.
China has shown some willingness to engage with Sudan and the
international community on the issue of Darfur. China provided the
first non-African personnel to the U.N./AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID),
consisting of a battalion of combat engineers, and provided $500,000 to
the U.N. Trust Fund to support the AU/U.N. Darfur mediator. They also
have a large troop contingent deployed to the U.N. Mission in Sudan
(UNMIS). Given their longstanding policy of nonintervention, China is
often reluctant to weigh in as heavily or punitively with the Sudanese
as we would like, though they do raise certain issues with the Sudanese
privately.
darfur
Question. I was pleased that the U.S. Government has finally
provided some additional air support to help facilitate the
peacekeepers' arrival in Darfur. I believe this is a signal of the
greater engagement that the United States can and should be doing in
Darfur. However, this is not enough, we need to do more.
How do you intend to step up these efforts in the next
administration?
What specifically can and should the United States be doing
in Darfur?
What steps will you take to reinvigorate the United Nation's
Hybrid Force in Darfur (UNAMID)?
Answer. The United States has provided over $400 million of in-kind
support to Darfur peacekeeping above and beyond its assessed U.N. dues.
From 2004 through 2007, the United States was the African Union Mission
in Sudan's (AMIS) largest donor. In December 2007, the United States
assisted AMIS transition to the U.N./AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), and
obtained a Presidential waiver of reimbursement to gift the U.N. with
34 troop camps, vehicles, and communications equipment capable of
supporting 9,000 Darfur peacekeepers.
From 2007 to today, the United States has provided UNAMID Troop
Contributing Countries (TCCs)--including Rwanda, Senegal, Ethiopia,
Burkina Faso, and Tanzania--with over $100 million in training and
equipment to deploy over 7,000 new peacekeepers to Darfur. Several of
these newly trained and equipped units will deploy in 2009, and further
increase UNAMID's capacity. The United States has recently added to
this ongoing training and equipment assistance by providing the U.N.
and its Member States with over $17 million in airlift assistance to
and within Darfur. This airlift moved key UNAMID equipment from Rwanda,
Ethiopia, the U.N. and other TCCs to and within Sudan. The United
States also provides active-duty military officers to serve as staff in
UNAMID's Darfur headquarters.
In 2009, the United States will continue providing U.N. dues, in-
kind, and personnel assistance to UNAMID. The United States will work
closely with U.N. and partner staff in New York, Sudan, and foreign
capitals to help ensure UNAMID receives the personnel, material,
financial, and political support it needs. The United States will
continue to pressure the Government of Sudan to cooperate with UNAMID
and will pressure UNAMID to aggressively pursue its mandate to protect
civilians, facilitate humanitarian operations, and create conditions
conducive to a lasting political settlement to the Darfur crisis.
Question. Tough Actions on Darfur? Ambassador Richard Williamson
recommended a series of tough actions to compel better behavior from
the Government of Sudan. They included jamming radio communications in
Khartoum, blockading Sudan's port to interrupt its oil sales and
targeting its military aircraft that violate U.N. bans on offensive
flights. Williamson was largely ignored by the current administration.
What is your position on these actions?
Answer. It is critically important that the United States consider
the full range of tools at our disposal as we work toward the full
deployment of the United Nations/African Union Mission in Darfur
(UNAMID), a resolution to the conflict in Darfur and implementation of
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). These issues are difficult
ones that mandate careful deliberation and serious focus. At this time
we are examining a number of options to determine the best and most
productive methods by which to address the situation.
china/darfur
Question. Given its dependence on Sudanese oil, China has an
interest in Sudan.
What steps will you take to work with China to ensure that
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement holds and that the crisis in
Darfur is ended through a negotiated solution?
Answer. Sudan plays a special role in China's energy diplomacy
because a Chinese parastatal energy company--the China National
Petroleum Company (CNPC)--is the dominant foreign actor in Sudan's
energy industry, and China receives the majority of Sudan's oil
exports. Therefore, although Sudan is only China's sixth-largest
petroleum provider, Sudan's oil industry is largely dependent on
Chinese support. Given China's significant economic participation in
Sudan, the United States continues to encourage China to use its
influence with the Government of Sudan constructively to help implement
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and bring peace and security to
Darfur. The United States frequently communicates with the Chinese
Government, including the Chinese special envoy and the Chinese mission
to the U.N., on Sudan-related issues. The United States has repeatedly
asked China to exert additional pressure on the Government of Sudan to
reduce violence in Darfur, provide additional support to UNAMID, and
halt Chinese arms sales to Khartoum.
China has shown some willingness to engage with Sudan and the
international community on the issue of Darfur. China provided the
first non-African personnel to the U.N./AU Mission in Darfur (UNAMID),
consisting of a battalion of combat engineers, and provided $500,000 to
the U.N. Trust Fund to support the AU/U.N. Darfur mediator. They also
have a large troop contingent deployed to the U.N. Mission in Sudan
(UNMIS). Given their longstanding policy of nonintervention, China is
often reluctant to weigh in as heavily or punitively with the Sudanese
as we would like, though they do raise certain issues with the Sudanese
privately.
Question. During your time in the Senate, you cosigned letters to
President Bush in 2005 and 2006 urging him to recognize the Armenian
genocide. As a Presidential candidate, you pledged that you would
recognize the killings as genocide if you were elected.
As you know, I have been an advocate of changing the U.S.
policy of not officially recognizing the Armenian genocide.
Will you advocate to the President the formal recognition of
the Armenian genocide?
Answer. The Obama administration will be looking closely at this
challenging issue to address the concerns that have been raised. No
decision has yet been made. Our focus will be on how the United States
can help Armenia and Turkey come to terms with these tragic events in a
way that honors and recognizes the victims, and helps clear the way for
a future of peace and prosperity between the two countries.
What other steps would you take to expand and improve United
States-Armenian economic, political, and military relations?
Answer. In terms of the United States-Armenia relationship, we seek
to help Armenia strengthen the security, prosperity, and freedom of its
citizens. Specifically, we hope to see normalized relations and open
borders between Armenia and Turkey, a just and lasting peace settlement
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and advancement of democratic and
economic reform in Armenia. We hope to see Armenia fully integrated
into East-West energy and other transportation networks.
Question. More than 25,000 Turks recently added their names to an
online statement apologizing for Ottoman war crimes committed against
the Armenians during World War I. Intellectuals and politicians around
the world--who have all accepted the incontestable fact of the Armenian
Genocide--hailed this as an important step forward, noting an
irreversible trend has commenced in Turkey. Unfortunately, freedom of
speech is not a guaranteed right for citizens of Turkey. Article 301 of
Turkey's penal code deliberately strangles free speech and can be and
often is used to persecute and prosecute those who attempt to exercise
this universal right, especially as it pertains to discussion of the
Armenian Genocide.
How do you seek to address the inability of the Turkish
Government to allow this most basic freedom to its citizens and
bring an end to the use and misuse of Article 301?
Answer. Clearly, there is much more to be done to expand freedom of
expression in Turkey. Nevertheless, Turkey's recent amendments to
Article 301, which had previously criminalized ``insulting
Turkishness,'' mark a step forward; the amendments reduce the
possibility for imprisonment and require the Minister of Justice to
determine whether to accept a case for prosecution. While the
amendments do not go far enough to meet European and American standards
for free speech, the Justice Minister's new role should help reduce the
number of cases brought by overzealous prosecutors for political and
ideological motives.
If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will continue to press the
Turkish authorities to further this progress by ending legal action
against citizens for expressing their views, whether under Article 301
or other laws used to prosecute individuals for their speech. I will
also coordinate with our European allies to encourage further expansion
of freedom of expression in the context of Turkey's EU accession
process.
tibet policy
Question. The Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 established a Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues in the Department of State. Do you
intend to appoint a Special Coordinator at a high level, with adequate
resources and access, to signal the Tibet issue's importance to the
U.S. Government? If so, when might I expect such an appointment to take
place?
Answer. I can assure you that I take Tibetan issues seriously and
plan to appoint a well-qualified coordinator at the earliest
opportunity. I will ensure the coordinator has the resources to do the
job.
We are disappointed with China's human rights record and the lack
of progress during eight rounds of talks between the Chinese Government
and the Dalai Lama's representatives. We are also very concerned about
the increased repression in Tibetan areas over the past year. We will
raise our concerns about these issues at the highest levels with the
Chinese Government and press for progress. The Special Coordinator for
Tibetan Issues will sustain our focus on these issues and will promote
substantive dialogue, directed at achieving meaningful results, between
the Dalai Lama and his representatives and the Chinese Government. We
believe such talks provide the best hope for resolving longstanding
tensions in Tibetan areas of China and for safeguarding the distinct
ethnic, cultural, and religious identity of the Tibetan people.
detained tibetans
Question. In 2008, the United States and China resumed their
bilateral human rights dialogue, but with little concrete progress.
Will your Department raise political prisoners and human rights,
including the cases of hundreds or thousands of detained Tibetans, with
the Chinese outside of the dialogue process?
Answer. Promoting greater respect for human rights and religious
freedom is among our key foreign policy objectives in China. We
document our concerns about these issues in our annual Human Rights
Report. We take every opportunity to press China to uphold the
fundamental human rights of the Chinese people, consistent with China's
own constitution and international human rights standards. We will
continue to monitor individual human rights cases of concern closely
and to raise them regularly with the Chinese Government, urging the
release of all who have been imprisoned for the peaceful expression of
their political, social, or religious views.
With respect to individuals detained and tried in connection with
the unrest in Tibetan areas last spring, we are concerned about reports
that these individuals were not afforded basic protections of due
process. The United States Government will continue to seek information
about the whereabouts and well-being of these individuals, and to call
on the Chinese Government to ensure that all legal and administrative
proceedings against such persons are conducted in a manner that is both
transparent and consistent with Chinese law and international human
rights standards.
durban ii
Question. An issue you will have to focus on quickly is the World
Conference Against Racism, commonly known as Durban II, which is
scheduled for this April.
Will you work to try and ensure a positive agenda for the
conference?
If it appears that Durban II would follow an anti-Israel
agenda, will the United States refuse to attend the conference?
Answer. The administration is currently reviewing our position on
the Durban Review Conference. We have not made a decision with respect
to U.S. participation in the conference, but we will consider in our
deliberations the ongoing negotiations in Geneva on the Review
Conference's outcome document.
Question. Last year, the Bush administration submitted to Congress
a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia in accordance with
section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, despite the troubling behavior of
Russia in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions. While the agreement was
later pulled in light of the situation in Georgia, its initial
submission raised serious questions of priorities. Beyond Russia we
have seen expanded nuclear cooperation and interest throughout the
Middle East.
Do you believe a 123 agreement with Russia should be linked
to changes in Russia's policy toward Iran?
How do you view the spread of nuclear technology in the
Middle East? Should the United States cooperate on civilian
nuclear projects in the region? How can we make certain we do
not inadvertently contribute to nuclear proliferation in the
Middle East?
Answer. The administration will seek to cooperate with Russia on
issues that are in our mutual interest--including efforts to halt and
reverse nuclear proliferation. We seek Russia's cooperation on Iran,
for example, because it is in our interest to work together to prevent
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. The proposed United
States-Russia Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (123
Agreement), signed at Moscow May 6, 2008, can be an asset to our
nonproliferation efforts. Russia's policy with respect to Iran will be
one of the important factors taken into consideration as the
administration considers whether to proceed with the proposed United
States-Russia 123 Agreement again. But the decision to submit the
agreement to Congress once again for review, and bring it into force,
cannot be made in isolation from the larger question of our overall
relationship with Russia.
With regard to the spread of civil nuclear technology in the Middle
East, the administration's goal is to ensure that any expansion of the
means to produce peaceful nuclear energy in the region, and indeed
globally, and any U.S. cooperation to help further such expansion, will
apply the highest standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation.
The most important measure we can take to prevent the expansion of
nuclear energy from inadvertently contributing to weapons proliferation
will be to discourage countries from seeking to acquire sensitive
technologies, such as enrichment or reprocessing, that could be used to
make a nuclear weapon.
Question. You have been a strong advocate of compensation for
persons who have been the victims of acts of terrorism and torture.
During the Bush administration, such justice was denied to American
citizens who had been seized by the Saddam Hussein regime in the period
before the gulf war, and used as human shields.
As Secretary of State, would you support a resolution of
this situation, by calling on the Iraqis to compensate those
Americans who were seized and held as human shields?
Answer. I intend to review this matter with a view to developing an
effective approach for facilitating a resolution with Iraq, which
includes making the claims of U.S. victims of terrorism a priority. The
Department has engaged a range of involved parties, including officials
in the Iraqi Government and the claimants' counsel, and will continue
to engage with Iraq to encourage it to develop a resolution of these
victims' claims.
Iraq committed to work to settle existing claims and debts from the
Saddam era, which would include claims from victims of acts of
terrorism, in its request to the Security Council to extend the
protections for an additional year for the Development Fund for Iraq
(DFI) and Iraqi oil and gas exports and revenues, including protections
from legal attachment. The United States supported U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1859 (2008), extending the previous protections.
Foreign Minister Zebari also affirmed that the Government of Iraq was
fully committed to resolving all legitimate claims and complying with
its obligations under international law.
mine ban treaty
Question. The record now shows quite clearly that the United States
does not need antipersonnel mines to fight its battles. The United
States has not used these weapons in any of the numerous military
operations it has undertaken since the treaty was opened for signing in
1997. It has not used landmines since the 1991 gulf war; has not
exported them since 1992; and has not produced them since 1997. It is
in de facto compliance with the treaty's key provisions, except the ban
on stockpiling.
Korea has been cited as a reason for keeping antipersonnel mines,
but current policy is to ban use of ``dumb'' mines in 2010, including
in Korea. It is also our understanding that most U.S. mines in Korea
have been, or will be, removed as a part of the end of the War Reserve
Stockpile for Allies, Korea (WRSA-K) program.
What is your position about bringing the United States into
the Mine Ban Treaty?
Answer. The incoming administration has not taken a position on the
landmine treaty. We are committed to working with our friends and
allies around the world to reduce the threat posed by landmines.
cluster munitions treaty
Question. Unlike most of its allies, the United States has not
signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The Bush administration did
acknowledge that cluster munitions are of grave humanitarian concern,
and in June 2008 Secretary Gates articulated a new U.S. policy which
states that in 10 years, the military would stop using and begin
destroying its arsenal (which consists of over 700 million
submunitions). In so doing, Secretary Gates recognized both the problem
with the weapons, and the eventual solution--but in a way that delays
the implementation of this solution until 2018 and leaves the United
States standing apart from most of its NATO allies.
The Obama administration has made clear that it is committed to
restoring our diplomatic alliances, and reengaging on matters of
international humanitarian law. A spokeswoman for the Obama transition
team told the Chicago Tribune on December 3 that the next President
would ``carefully review the new treaty and work closely [with] our
friends and allies to ensure that the United States is doing everything
feasible to promote protection of civilians.''
Will the administration conduct a review of U.S. policy
regarding the use of cluster munitions? What are your views
about the United States signing onto the Convention on Cluster
Munitions?
Answer. The incoming administration has not taken a position on the
new cluster bomb treaty. I look forward to working with the President-
elect and the rest of the national security team on this issue in order
to develop a policy that upholds our moral obligations while protecting
our troops. The new administration will carefully review the treaty in
consultation with military commanders and work closely with our friends
and allies to ensure that the United States is doing everything
feasible to promote protection of civilians--especially children.
Question. As you know, I have long been an advocate for greater
engagement in our hemisphere.
What are your ideas on how the United States can increase
its engagement with our neighbors in Latin America?
Answer. One of the most significant aspects of our relationship
with the Western Hemisphere is how multifaceted it is and how
interconnected the United States is today with our neighbors in North,
South, and Central America, and the Caribbean. I think it is important
to recognize that our links are first and foremost human connections--
involving shared cultures, languages, values, and aspirations. These
are often ties between families, and civil society, that transcend
borders. We have vitally important economic, energy, and trade links,
that have grown enormously over the last two decades, as well as unique
geographic ties that give us all a special stake in each other's well-
being.
All of this underscores the huge opportunities, and
responsibilities, we have today to build stronger and more effective
partnerships with our neighbors on the issues that matter most to all
our peoples. The most important of these priorities are widely shared--
they include social and economic opportunity, access to quality
education, citizen safety, public health, and protecting the
environment.
Good, pragmatic partnerships that work also have to be founded on
mutual respect, a real sense of shared responsibility, and the
imagination to move beyond old ways of looking at each other. They also
need to be able to marshal all the tools and resources we have,
collectively, at our disposal--for truly common efforts that can
achieve big results.
This is the approach we want to bring to our engagement in the
region. It will order how we organize ourselves internally for that
task, how we seek to allocate our resources, and how we reach out to
our partners in the region.
It will also shape the priority we give to initiatives that use new
media, and people-to-people exchanges, to strengthen further the ties
between our societies. This is especially important in the area of
science, where more exchanges and sharing of expertise can help all of
us build capabilities that will better enable us to tackle big common
challenges.
In short, while I am mindful of the many challenges we face in the
Hemisphere, I am enthusiastic about the many opportunities we have to
strengthen ties with the people in our region.
iran
Question.
How would you describe the urgency of dealing with the
Iranian threat? How high on the agenda is it for you and the
Obama administration?
What concrete steps would you expect the new administration
to take regarding Iran early in the year? Do you believe
sanctions should be imposed against the Iranian Central Bank?
Will you reach out to our allies and seek to establish with
them a timeline for talks with Iran?
Would you also seek the agreement of our allies to a regime
of sanctions should it become clear that progress through talks
is not possible?
Answer. We are still reviewing policy and consulting on our initial
steps on Iran. However, this administration places Iran high on its
agenda, and sees great urgency in dealing with the Iranian threat,
while also remaining open to opportunities for a more constructive path
forward in United States-Iran relations.
Over the next several months, we will be laying out our general
framework and approach regarding Iran. And as the President said during
his inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench
their fist, they will find an extended hand from the United States.
We continue to monitor Iranian financial institutions' attempts to
evade international financial sanctions, but I cannot comment further
on our internal processes.
The President has publicly stated that he supports tough and direct
diplomacy with Iran without preconditions, but I cannot offer
additional details regarding any specific timeline for this process.
Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure
Iran to fully meet its UNSC, NPT and IAEA obligations on its nuclear
program, end support for terrorism, uphold its international human
rights obligations, and cease threats toward Israel. President Obama
and Vice President Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If
Iran addresses the international community's serious concerns about its
nuclear program and ends support for terrorism, we will offer
incentives like supporting membership in the World Trade Organization,
economic investment, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations.
However, if Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will explore
additional diplomatic options. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will
coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful
preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is
our best way to make progress.
persecution of persons for sexual orientation and gender identity
Question. Despite advances around the world, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people continue to face persecution,
imprisonment, and even death at the hands of their governments, simply
for being who they are. Homosexual activity remains subject to criminal
penalty in more than 80 countries, in some cases punishable by death.
Just last week, a group of AIDS activists in Senegal were sentenced to
8 years in prison under the country's sodomy statute, and publicity
around their procedurally questionable trial has created an atmosphere
of extreme animosity to LGBT people. This is just one example. Yet, the
United States refused last month to join a nonbinding U.N. General
Assembly resolution calling on Member Nations to end discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Our Nation can, and
must, be a leader in calling for respect of human rights around the
world, including the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
people.
How will you work to advance these issues at the Department
of State?
Question. We join those countries that deplore the jailing and
execution of individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender
identity.
You can expect that I, my Deputies, Under Secretaries and Assistant
Secretaries will raise LGBT issues in countries whenever it is
appropriate to do so.
In addition, I have asked that when a new Assistant Secretary for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor is appointed and confirmed that he or
she consult with the LGBT community to hear their views regarding
effective reporting on issues of concern to them in our country
reports.
On the statement issued by the Government of France, the
administration is reviewing the issues and policy options. This is an
unfolding process and we look forward to engaging with you as our
review progresses.
Question. At the Fourth Women's Conference in Beijing in 1995, you
declared that women's rights were human rights. Do you believe that
family planning assistance is a necessary component of women's, and
therefore human, rights?
Answer. Yes, and as I have said previously, women must not be
denied the right to plan their own families. I look forward to working
with the President, Members of Congress, my colleagues in the
administration, and the NGO community to promote programs and policies
that ensure women and girls have full access to health information and
services.
``global gag'' rule
Question. On January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the landmark
U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, President George W. Bush
issued an Executive order reinstating the global gag rule. This
restriction prohibits overseas organizations that receive U.S.
international family planning funds from providing abortion services,
and from advocating for changes in abortion policy--even with their own
private funds. The gag rule also limits the free speech by these
organizations, prohibiting them from making public statements, drafting
and distributing material, and sponsoring conferences pertaining to
abortion law and policy. In September 2003, President Bush issued an
Executive order expanding the gag rule into all programs--reproductive
health or otherwise--that the United States funds, which has meant that
even more women worldwide are denied basic health care services and
access to family planning. Under the expansion, foreign NGOs that
receive U.S. HIV/AIDS funds are not able to provide legal abortion
information to women who are at risk for or have HIV/AIDS, even when
such information could be life saving.
Do you support rescinding the global gag rule in its
entirety? If so, do you believe the best course of action is
via legislative or administrative means?
Answer. As I stated on January 23, 2009, ``President Obama's repeal
of the global gag rule, which has prevented women around the world from
gaining access to essential information and health care services, is a
welcomed and important step taken during the first days of the
administration.''
climate change
Question. According a CNA Corporation report entitled, ``National
Security and the Threat of Climate Change'' authored by a distinguished
group of retired generals and admirals, climate change is a security
``threat multiplier''--meaning that as climate change begins to foment
conflict over scarce natural resources, it destabilizes developing
nation's economies. Vulnerable countries are already facing growing
water scarcity, severe weather events, and increasing health risks.
How can the United States address these immediate
challenges, not only by reducing global greenhouse gas
emissions, but by helping the most vulnerable countries to
prepare for and adapt to the consequences of global warming?
Do you plan to support proposals in international climate
negotiations to provide innovative financing and other support
to developing countries to help them cope with climate impacts?
Answer. USAID has been a leader in advancing climate, clean energy,
and conservation activities in the developing world, drawing the clear
and important link between solving the climate problem and promoting
sustainable development globally. We are committed to building on this
work to help developing nations build efficient and environmentally
sustainable energy infrastructures through technology development,
adaptation assistance, and support for environmental mitigation so that
nations have the tools and the means to address this crisis.
The United States will also actively pursue innovative approaches
to providing financial, technical, and institutional support to
developing countries, especially the most vulnerable.
We look forward to working with Congress as we develop our thinking
on these critical issues.
Question. Tropical deforestation and degradation is responsible for
20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. To what degree will
you address tropical deforestation as a key goal of our foreign and
domestic policies on reducing global warming?
More specifically:
Do you support providing resources to help build the
capacity of tropical nations to
Reduce the rate of tropical deforestation and
Eventually earn credits through international carbon
markets?
Would you ensure that U.S. climate change negotiators urge
support for tropical deforestation in international climate
agreements?
Answer. Deforestation and forest degradation are important to the
administration and we are committed to finding multiple ways to reduce
deforestation and promote sustainable forest management, including
through international climate agreements.
The United States is committed to addressing all causes of climate
change, including deforestation. The United States supported specific
inclusion of ``reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation'' (REDD) in the Bali Action Plan.
We also support exploring new ways to assist, and incentivize,
developing countries actions to address land use practices that result
in GHG emissions, or encourage those that sequester carbon. We believe
that doing so will not only have a positive impact on global warming,
but also on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and sustainable
development.
We will be examining, as part of the UNFCCC negotiations, a range
of options to incentivize ``REDD'' activities, including the use of
carbon credits, in close consultation with Congress as it develops
comprehensive legislation on climate change.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
grand strategy and u.s. foreign policy
Question. Historically, the United States has adopted one of four
grand strategies, or some combination of the four: Neoisolationism
(avoidance of foreign entanglements), selective engagement (traditional
balance of power realism that works to ensure peace among the major
powers), cooperative security (a liberal world order of interdependence
and effective international institutions), and primacy (American
unilateralism and continued hegemony).
Which grand strategy, or combination of strategies, do you think
best describes how you would seek to promote U.S. national security
today?
Answer. I appreciate that the members of the committee, the
American people, and many others around the globe are interested in how
the Obama administration will protect our security, advance our
interests, and promote our values in the world. The President-elect has
promised a new direction for our foreign policy, and while we must
always take into account the lessons of history, it should not be
surprising that the paradigms of the past neither adequately describe
our present realities, nor provide a comprehensive guide to what we
should do about them. In my prepared statement, I will explain why
today's world requires that we practice what some have called ``smart
power,'' which entails leading with diplomacy, and marrying principles
and pragmatism to advance our security and interests in an increasingly
complex and interdependent world.
global education for all
Question. In the 110th Congress, you introduced the Education for
All Act, an important piece of legislation to invest up to $10 billion,
over 5 years, as part of an international effort to enroll in school
the 75 million children in poor and conflict-affected countries that
have been left behind. During the course of his campaign, President-
elect Obama committed to erasing the global primary education gap by
2015 and capitalizing a ``Global Education Fund'' with at least $2
billion in funding toward the goal of universal access.
As Secretary of State, will international basic education remain a
priority for you? If so, please describe what policies you would like
to design and implement to support it, how would you envision Congress
supporting your efforts, and how this significant investment will
benefit the recipients, and the United States?
Answer. The United Nations developed the Millennium Development
Goals to help reduce the crippling burden of global poverty. One of
those goals is to achieve universal primary education by the year 2015.
The United States joined other U.N. Member States in adopting the MDGs
in 2000, and I applaud our Government's commitment to reaching all of
these goals, including universal primary education. I look forward to
implementing President-elect Obama's vision and ensuring that the U.S.
remains a leader in efforts to help all girls and boys access quality
basic education. We should coordinate our efforts with others,
including the World Bank's Fast Track Initiative, in order to maximize
our investment in global education.
I know there are many ideas as to how the United States can best
contribute to the global efforts to achieve universal basic education,
and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with my colleagues in
Congress and education experts to develop a comprehensive strategy for
education assistance.
I believe that any strategy should include the following
components:
Adequate access to at-risk children: Our efforts to achieve
universal education must reach all children, particularly those
who are most likely to be out of school. We must ensure that
children in conflict areas or disaster sites have the
opportunity to continue their education. We must ensure that
often-marginalized populations, such as children with
disabilities and indigenous or minority ethnic groups, have
access to education. And it is imperative that our global
education efforts include increasing enrollment of girls, who
currently account for a majority of children that lack access
to education.
Quality education: Our efforts to achieve universal basic
education cannot simply be measured by enrollment figures.
Rather, we must ensure that every child has access to a quality
education, and is in an environment that is conducive to
learning. Specifically, we must ensure that we have adequate
resources, including a trained teacher workforce and
educational materials, and an environment that is free from
violence.
Accountability: We must ensure that our increased investment
comes with a plan for coordination, so that we are
complementing, not duplicating, other efforts. It is also
important to have strong management within our Government to
oversee these efforts, facilitate cooperation among agencies
and other partners, and ensure that we are making continued
progress toward universal basic education.
weapons in space
Question. The Bush administration refused to engage in multilateral
talks regarding any constraints on the testing or deployment of
antisatellite weapons. China conducted one such test in 2007 that
produced tens of thousands of pieces of space debris that will last for
a century or more. Space debris can be lethal to satellites upon which
American citizens, our Armed Forces, and the American economy depend.
What is your view toward diplomatic initiatives to increase space
security?
Please outline your broad views on whether or not the deployment of
new weapons in space enhances or undermines U.S. national security.
Under your leadership, will the State Department pursue diplomatic
initiatives to enhance space security?
Answer. During the campaign, President-elect Obama outlined his
view that weaponizing space was not in America's interest. That remains
his view and my view.
land mine ban treaty
Question. More than 10 years ago, President Clinton was a leader in
the global effort to ban antipersonnel landmines, being the first head
of state to call for the ``eventual elimination'' of these weapons in
1994. The world community rallied, and 122 governments signed the Mine
Ban Treaty in December 1997. The United States did not sign, as
objections were raised by the Pentagon about the possible continued
need for these weapons. At that time, President Clinton set out a
policy that would have the United States developing alternative
technologies and joining the treaty by 2006. The Bush administration
then undertook a review of this policy and announced in February 2004
that the United States new policy was to never join the treaty.
Please outline whether or not you intend to revisit the U.S.
position on the Land Mine Ban Treaty as Secretary of State.
Answer. The incoming administration has not taken a position on the
landmine treaty. We are committed to working with our friends and
allies around the world to reduce the threat posed by landmines.
cluster munitions treaty
Question. On December 3, 2008, 94 nations, including some of the
United States closest military allies such as Great Britain, France,
and Australia, signed a treaty in Oslo, Norway, banning the production,
stockpiling, transfer and use of cluster munitions. The Bush
administration did not participate in the negotiation of the treaty and
did not sign it. However, the U.S. Government did acknowledge that
these are weapons of grave humanitarian concern, and in June 2008
Secretary Gates articulated a new U.S. policy that in 10 years, the
military would stop using and begin destroying its arsenal of cluster
munitions.
A spokeswoman for the Obama Transition Team was quoted on December
3 in The Chicago Tribune that the next President would ``carefully
review the new treaty and work closely [with] our friends and allies to
ensure that the United States is doing everything feasible to promote
protection of civilians.''
Can you confirm that this policy review will take place? If so,
what is the timeframe for the policy review? Please outline the broad
principles that are likely to guide the Obama administration's policy
review on cluster munitions.
Answer. The incoming administration has not taken a position on the
new cluster bomb treaty. I look forward to working with the President-
elect and the rest of the national security team on this issue in order
to develop a policy that upholds our moral obligations while protecting
our troops. The new administration will carefully review the treaty in
consultation with military commanders and work closely with our friends
and allies to ensure that the United States is doing everything
feasible to promote protection of civilians--especially children.
china
Question. By 2025, China is expected to have the world's second
largest economy and be a leading military power. It also could be the
world's largest importer of natural resources and the biggest polluter.
Many believe that the United States-China relationship is the most
important bilateral relationship in the world. While the United States
and China have fundamental differences on key issues, including the
future status of Taiwan, it also has common areas of cooperation, such
as securing the peaceful nuclear disarmament of North Korea.
Please outline how the United States will view China under
President Obama. Will the Obama administration view China as a national
security threat to the United States, a cooperative partner for a
common security agenda, or some combination of the two?
Answer. It is difficult to put a label on a complex relationship.
We have to find ways to work cooperatively with China on issues of
shared concern--including climate change, North Korea, and
proliferation--while we also candidly and frankly express our views
when and where we disagree--as on democracy, human rights, for example.
With American leadership and this pragmatic approach, we can improve
our relationship with China and advance our shared interests. That is
the approach that I will take into my job if I am fortunate enough to
be confirmed.
the role of special envoys
Question. Numerous press reports indicate that you are looking at
the appointment of a series of regional envoys to manage such hotspots
as the Middle East, Iran, South Asia, North Korea, and other crises.
Can you describe your thinking behind this approach of appointing a
series of special envoys to help manage the key foreign policy hotspots
for the next administration?
How will these special envoys coexist with the regional Assistant
Secretaries; e.g., for Near Eastern Affairs, for South Central Asian
Affairs, etc.? Do we run the risk that these regional Assistant
Secretaries will be marginalized?
How will you ensure that the interagency process will be respected
as these special envoys carry out their duties? That the equities of
the Defense Department, the National Security Council, and other key
executive branch components are not ignored or brushed off?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to using the full range of
tools and resources at my disposal to ensure that the State Department
carries out its vital mission during this challenging time. I hope to
bolster the Department's senior ranks by becoming the first Secretary
to fill the second Deputy Secretary position. I've asked Jack Lew to
join me at the State Department, so that we can tap into his expertise
in budgeting and management to ensure that the Department has the
resources it needs to carry out its mission, and that those resources
are deployed effectively. And like Secretaries of State have in the
past, I anticipate using envoys as additional means to achieve the
President-elect's goals for America's foreign policy. No specific
decisions have been made about specific envoys, but I can tell you that
these envoys will work in tandem with the Department's existing
structures--and collaboratively through the interagency process--to
bring additional focus and resources to a given issue or area.
iran
Question. Iran is likely to be the most serious foreign policy
challenge that confronts President Obama. Over the past 3 years,
despite the passage of a series of United Nations Security Council
resolutions imposing sanctions, Iran has continued to steadily move
forward on its nuclear program, drawing closer and closer to mastering
the uranium enrichment cycle that can provide the fissile material for
a nuclear weapon. For the past 2 years, I have encouraged the Bush
administration to take a look at the utility of placing further
pressure on Iran by assembling an embargo on exports of reprocessed
gasoline products to Iran. As you know, despite its vast oil resources,
Iran does not have sufficient refining capacity to supply its consumers
and economy with sufficient gasoline, leaving it to import refined gas.
Should the United States lead an international effort to ban the
export of reprocessed gasoline products, an essential ingredient for
Iran's industrial economy, to increase the pressure on Iran's
leadership to end its nuclear activities in defiance of the United
Nations?
Answer. We are closely monitoring this situation, and remain
cognizant of potential pressure points with Iran. We will examine a
range of options to apply pressure to the Government of Iran to end its
illicit nuclear program, and preventing Iran from importing refined
gasoline will be one such option we examine. The incoming
administration will work with our international allies to persuade the
Iranian regime that verifiably abandoning its nuclear weapons efforts
is in its best interest.
jubilee act and debt relief
Question. The current financial crisis is having impacts all around
the world and it threatens to reduce progress toward meeting global
poverty reduction goals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In the last
Congress, working with the ranking member, Senator Lugar, Senator Dodd,
and 23 other Senate cosponsors, I introduced the Jubilee Act for
Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Relief, to build on previous
rounds of debt cancellation to make all impoverished nations with
accountable governments eligible for bilateral and multilateral debt
relief. I look forward to introducing the legislation again this
spring.
What should be done to alleviate the impact of the global economic
crisis on the world's most impoverished countries? What is your view on
the role of debt relief as a tool to help poor countries free up their
resources to fight poverty? Specifically, do you support expanding the
list of poor countries eligible for debt cancellation to include all
transparently and accountably governed impoverished countries that
qualify for so-called ``IDA only'' assistance from the World Bank?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I each cosponsored the Jubilee
Act in the Senate, and believe that the United States and its G-8
partners must complete debt cancellation for all of the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)--a commitment the President-elect
enumerated during the campaign. I have been supportive also of
expanding the list of HIPC countries, and will urge that the new
administration give that full consideration as part of our foreign
assistance program.
the millennium challenge corporation
Question. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, or MCC, has been
one of President Bush's signature development programs. It has been
both praised as encompassing innovative and creative ideas, as well as
criticized for being too slow to disburse funds once a compact has been
signed.
I am a strong backer of the MCC, as I believe the idea of linking
expanded U.S. foreign assistance to governments that demonstrate a
record of good governance, market-based economic stewardship,
transparency in budgets, and anticorruption practices is a solid one--
we should reward those governments that do the right thing by their
people.
Can you describe to the committee your general views on the MCC? Is
this an initiative that will continue with strong support under the
Obama administration? How do you envision the MCC fitting into broader
U.S. foreign assistance reform efforts this administration may pursue?
Answer. The MCC is a unique tool in America's foreign policy
portfolio. It has the potential to incentivize poverty reduction,
improve health structures, and better governance in developing
countries. President-elect Obama supports the MCC, and the principle of
greater accountability in our foreign assistance programs. However,
there are clear challenges within the MCC, such as the pace of
implementation of compacts and the danger of a lack of coordination
with overall U.S. foreign assistance. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the Congress to integrate the MCC as a key part of a
modernized foreign assistance architecture.
violence against iraqi christians
Question. Violence in Mosul this previous fall drove away large
numbers of Iraqi Christians. This violence is emblematic of a larger
pattern of severe persecution by extremists that threatens to deprive
Iraq of her non-Muslim citizens. It also highlights the possibility of
increased violence ahead of provincial elections.
For over 1,000 years, Iraq has been home to people of many faiths
who have lived and worshipped side by side, including Shiites, Sunnis,
Jews, Yazidis, and Christians. This long and proud tradition has made
Iraq a cradle of human civilization.
How do you intend to work with the Iraqi Government to ensure that
Iraqi Christians are not singled out for persecution and violence?
Answer. Religious persecution is anathema to Americans. We believe
in the freedom to worship, and there is an office in the State
Department that is committed to religious freedom. I will work with our
international allies to speak out strongly against discrimination and
oppression in any form--in Iraq and elsewhere--because it violates not
only American values, but also American security interests throughout
the world.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator George Voinovich
special envoy to combat anti-semitism
In 2004, I was fortunate to have you join me as a cosponsor of the
Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-332). As you know,
this legislation created the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and
Combat Anti-Semitism at the State Department. This office, housed in
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) is tasked with
the development and implementation of policies and projects to support
efforts to combat anti-Semitism.
Question. Jewish communities throughout the world cannot afford a
gap in coverage. Can you assure members of the committee that the
special envoy position will be expeditiously filled by a competent and
capable individual?
Answer. President-elect Obama and I are strongly committed to
combating global anti-Semitism, and all forms of hate and prejudice.
The Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is a key post in
enabling the United States to fulfill this mission, and it will be
filled by a strong individual.
relationship with u.n. ambassador
I understand that President-elect Obama has decided to elevate the
position of U.N. Ambassador to Cabinet-level status. I also understand
that the Ambassador's staff and policy apparatus is housed within the
State Department bureaucracy that technical1y reports to the Secretary
of State.
Question. What is your vision for your relationship with Susan Rice
and the U.N. Ambassador's office in terms of policy formulation,
messaging, and management?
Answer. I look forward to a very close and cooperative relationship
with Dr. Rice, the Permanent Representative designee. In elevating the
position to Cabinet rank, the President-elect intended, in part, to
demonstrate to the U.S. people and the rest of the world the importance
of global engagement. This is an arrangement that has substantial
historical precedent, and I am confident that this structure will serve
the President-elect and his entire foreign policy team well.
defense trade cooperation
International arms sales help to sustain U.S. jobs, reduce the cost
of weapons procurement by the Department of Defense, help to grow small
businesses, and support the national security and foreign policy
objectives of the U.S. Government. It is important that the Obama
administration continue to support arms sales as an important foreign
policy tool.
Question. Senator Clinton, does the committee have your commitment
to support critical arms sales to our partners and allies around the
world?
Answer. As you know, controlling the export of commercial defense
items is a significant Department responsibility. I am very much aware
that the committee has long been concerned about the efficiency and
effectiveness of the export licensing process. I am just getting up to
speed on these issues but am committed to work closely with Congress as
we consider international sales.
Question. Does the incoming administration intend to pursue
ratification of defense trade cooperation treaties with the United
Kingdom and Australia?
Answer. The proposed defense trade cooperation treaties would
permit the export of certain U.S. defense articles and services to the
United Kingdom and Australian governments, and select British and
Australian companies that meet specific requirements--without U.S.
export licenses or other approvals. I know that the committee
leadership has expressed support for the objectives of the treaties,
but that there were unresolved questions that ultimately precluded
committee action on the treaties in the previous Congress. I look
forward to consulting with the Foreign Relations Committee to discuss
the appropriate way to address these treaties.
great lakes water ouality agreement
Question. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) with
Canada is now up for renegotiation. What will be your priorities in
changes to the agreement?
Answer. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) with
Canada, which was last updated in 1987, has made a significant,
continuing contribution to the health of the Great Lakes and to the
quality of life of people in both countries. An interagency working
group cochaired by the State Department and the Environmental
Protection Agency is now reviewing U.S. positions on what changes to
the agreement, if any, we should seek going forward. I look forward to
receiving its recommendations at an early date.
Question. What mechanisms will you put into place to ensure that
the GLWQA with Canada is implemented and legally enforceable in the
U.S.?
Answer. This issue will be considered as part of the ongoing
review.
______
Response to Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. President Bush signed legislation that supports Taiwan's
observer status in the World Health Organization (WHO). As Secretary of
State, you would be working with health leaders in other countries to
improve the international health security network. The SARS epidemic,
the catastrophic tsunami that ravaged Southeast Asia, and the threat of
avian flu all demonstrate the importance of international cooperation
in fostering global health security. Along those lines, how will you
work to improve Taiwan's participation in the World Health
Organization?
Answer. I commend Taiwan's President Ma and China's President Hu
Jintao for seizing the opportunity created by President Ma Ying-jeou's
election this past March. I sincerely hope they will continue this
progress, as the United States gains from peaceful, stable cross-Strait
relations, including development of economic ties and cross-Strait
security. In this context, and consistent with the ``one China''
policy, I believe that it is appropriate for the United States to
support Taiwan's efforts to expand its international space, such as
observer status at the World Health Assembly. It is important for
Beijing to demonstrate to the people of Taiwan that the practical and
nonconfrontational approach taken by President Ma toward the mainland
can achieve positive results. As you note, there are myriad public
health issues that result from Taiwan's continued exclusion from
appropriate participation in the World Health Organization, and like
you I believe that the United States should work with Taiwan to see
that situation rectified.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator Jim DeMint
foreign policy philosophy
Question. Much has been made of the Bush administration putting
military preemption on the policy table as a possible option against
states hosting terrorists or adversarial states on the verge of
developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet, in the mid-90s, the
Clinton administration considered undertaking a preemptive strike
against North Korea in light of its nuclear weapons program and its
unwillingness to return to the strictures of the NPT. Will the Obama
administration keep the possibility of military preemption as a policy
option and, if so, what will be the parameters guiding its use?
Answer. As the President-elect has said many times, there is no
greater duty for any President than keeping the American people safe.
He has made clear that he will use all tools of American power to do
that. Decisions about ordering military force rest with the President,
and as such I cannot comment on it.
Question. Do you believe that tensions between Iran and the
international community result primarily from misunderstandings or from
conflicting objectives? If the latter, how will increased diplomatic
engagement with Iran help reduce these tensions?
Answer. The Iranian regime's stated objectives and practices--such
as supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, pursuing a
nuclear program in defiance of the international community, and calling
for the destruction of Israel--are directly counter to U.S. national
security and interests. That is why the new administration will present
the Iranian regime with a clear choice: Abandon your nuclear weapons
program, support for terror and threats to Israel, and there will be
meaningful incentives; refuse, and we will ratchet up the pressure,
with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in
the Security Council; and sustained action beyond the U.N. to isolate
the Iranian regime. By exhausting diplomacy, we will be better able to
rally the world to our side, strengthen multilateral sanctions, and to
convince the Iranian people that their own government is the author of
its isolation.
Question. What is your view regarding the status within the
international system of the independent, sovereign state in general,
and the importance of preserving and protecting American sovereignty in
particular? Do you ascribe to traditional views of national sovereignty
or to the theory of ``global governance''?
Answer. The overriding duty of our foreign policy is to protect and
advance America's security, interests, and values. If confirmed, my
first priority as Secretary of State will be to promote policies to
keep our people, our Nation, and our allies secure. Our world has
undergone an extraordinary transformation in the last two decades. The
clear lesson of the last 20 years is that we must both combat the
threats and seize the opportunities of our interdependence. And to be
effective in doing so we must build a world with more partners and
fewer adversaries. America cannot solve the most pressing problems on
our own, and the world cannot solve them without America.
Question. What are your views regarding several controversial
multilateral treaties and efforts by the United Nations that, if
supported or ratified by the United States, would erode American
sovereignty?
Answer. The new administration has not made any decisions on the
timing of submission of treaties to the Senate. As in the case of any
treaty that the President may support, the administration will work
closely with this committee and the Senate leadership on devising and
implementing a strategy for successful approval of by the full Senate.
The President-elect and I have both supported ratification of the
Law of the Sea Convention and he has publicly committed to working
actively to ensure that the U.S. ratifies the Convention. The
Convention remains an important piece of unfinished treaty business.
The incoming administration agrees with the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of
whom endorsed the Convention during the 110th Congress. Joining the
Convention will advance the interests of the U.S. military. As the
world's leading maritime power, the United States benefits more than
any other nation from the navigation provisions of the Convention.
Those provisions, which establish international consensus on the extent
of jurisdiction that States may exercise off their coasts, preserve and
elaborate the rights of the U.S. military to use the world's oceans to
meet national security requirements.
Joining the Convention will enhance, not restrict, our ability to
interdict shipment of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean. The
Convention's navigation provisions derive from the 1958 law of the sea
conventions, to which the United States is a party, and also reflect
customary international law accepted by the United States. As such, the
Convention will not affect applicable maritime law or policy regarding
interdiction of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery,
and related materials,
Like the 1958 conventions, the LOS Convention recognizes numerous
legal bases for taking enforcement action against vessels and aircraft
suspected of engaging in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
including exclusive port and coastal State jurisdiction in internal
waters and national airspace; coastal State jurisdiction in the
territorial sea and contiguous zone; exclusive flag State jurisdiction
over vessels on the high seas (which the flag State may, either by
general agreement in advance or approval in response to a specific
request, waive in favor of other States); and universal jurisdiction
over stateless vessels.
Nor will the Convention undermine the Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI). PSI requires participating countries to act
consistent with national legal authorities and ``relevant international
law and frameworks,'' which includes the law reflected in the Law of
the Sea Convention. Finally, nothing in the Convention impairs the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense (a point which
is reaffirmed in the Resolution of Advice and Consent proposed by the
committee in the 110th Congress).
middle east
Iraq
Question. It no longer requires a willing suspension of disbelief
to imagine the emergence of a peaceful, stable, democratic Iraqi state
that is an ally in the war on terror. Such a development, as Deputy
Prime Minister Barham Salih recently noted, creates a remarkable
opportunity to integrate a normal Iraq that can contribute to regional
security into the Arab world for the first time in decades. What steps
do you propose to take to accelerate and facilitate this integration?
What larger regional opportunities do you see in the prospect of such a
reintegration? In particular, what measures are you prepared to take to
persuade the Saudis to reopen their Embassy in Baghdad?
Answer. The President-elect and I are committed to active regional
diplomacy to assist in consolidating Iraq's security gains. In recent
months, there have been hopeful signs that Iraq's neighbors are
beginning to more fully engage the Iraqi Government, including high-
level visits by foreign officials and commitments by Bahrain, Jordan,
Syria, and the United Arab Emirates to open embassies in Baghdad.
Although Saudi Arabia has not yet committed to following suit, the
Kingdom has dispatched a delegation to inspect the situation in Iraq
and examine the possibility of opening an embassy. The State Department
will work to build on this momentum to assist in fully reintegrating
Iraq into the region and fostering cooperative relationships with
Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia.
Question. Currently, the State Department relies heavily on
contractors to provide security for U.S. diplomatic personnel and
facilities aboard. Considering the substantial improvements in the
accountability, transparency, and government oversight of security
contractors in Iraq do you feel that we are close to achieving the
right balance between supervisory functions being conducted by U.S.
Government personnel and the security functions carried out by
contractors who employ vetted and trained U.S. military and law
enforcement veterans?
Answer. Ensuring security for U.S. diplomatic personnel and
facilities in Iraq is essential. Right now, much of the rebuilding is
taking place under a security umbrella provided by the brave young men
and women of our Armed Forces. Their departure from critical areas in
Iraq will certainly change the security calculus. How we deal with this
challenge--both generally and specifically with respect to Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)--has been and will continue to be the
subject of discussions among the national security team and with the
President-elect.
Both the President-elect and I have been outspoken in calling for
more oversight and accountability for private contractors and more
tools to stop abuses in Iraq. I have been highly skeptical of heavily
armed military contractors who have operated in Iraq without any law or
court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These contractors have
at times been reckless and have at times compromised our mission in
Iraq.
I look forward to working with the President-elect and the Congress
to establish the legal status of contractor personnel, so that we can
prosecute any abuses committed by private military contractors. In
addition, our experience in Iraq has shown that there must be serious
oversight and effective program management--and that starts at the
State Department. I will be especially vigilant about this. Finally, it
is important to remember that there are many private contractors in
Iraq and elsewhere who are honorable, hardworking, and patriotic. But
we have seen too many abuses in the past few years to do anything less
than impose a new legal regime to hold security firms and individual
personnel accountable when they act outside the law.
Question. CBO has stated that contractors are less expensive to the
Federal Government. Do you believe we should continue to utilize
security contractors? If not, what are your specific plans to replace
contractors in this security role? How large would Diplomatic Security
have to grow in order to bring this security function in-house?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will work with the
President-elect and other administration officials to determine what
the appropriate staffing levels should be to pursue the President-
elect's policies and priorities, and what should be the role of
contractors. The protection of State Department personnel operating in
areas like Afghanistan and Iraq is an important issue, and I look
forward to working along with other members of the President's national
security team to exploring the best way to address that issue if
confirmed.
Syria
Question. Many believe Syria was responsible for the assassination
of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and the series of
assassinations of Syria's opponents in Lebanon as well. While Syria has
withdrawn its troops from Lebanon, it has yet to send an ambassador to
Beirut, continues to manipulate Lebanese politics, and arms the
nation's most significant terror group (also a political party),
Hezbollah. In addition, Syria has facilitated the traffic of extremists
into Iraq to kill Americans and was for several years building a North
Korean designed nuclear reactor outside its obligations under the NPT.
Rumors abound that the Obama administration intends to change the
Bush administration's approach to Syria, including returning an
ambassador. Do you believe that there should be any change in the
United States-Syria relationship for as long as Syria refuses IAEA
inspectors access to suspect nuclear sites, refuses to close its
borders to terror groups, and continues to arm Hezbollah, one of the
world's most potent terror groups, and fails to participate with the
Hariri tribunal? What exactly are your positions on this issue and can
you commit that these will be prerequisites to any rapprochement
between the United States and Syria?
Answer. The United States and Syria have profound differences on
important issues, and the President-elect and I believe that engaging
directly with Syria increases the possibility of making progress on
changing Syrian behavior. In these talks, we should insist on our core
demands: Cooperation in stabilizing Iraq; ending support for terrorist
groups; cooperation with the IAEA; stopping the flow of weapons to
Hezbollah; and respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and independence.
Israel
Question. As Secretary of State, how would you characterize the
United States-Israel relationship? What do you see as the major
challenges to the relationship?
Answer. The United States-Israel relationship is a profound and
deep partnership between two democracies based on shared interests and
shared values. We have strong and enduring political and security
relationships, to the benefit of both countries, but our partnership
extends to the economic, scientific, and cultural spheres as well. We
stand together and support each other against many of the same threats.
And while we may not always agree on every issue, there is no issue
that can shake our fundamental commitment to Israel's security and
well-being. The major challenge we face is helping Israel achieve its
quest for both peace and security, which requires leaving no stone
unturned in the search for peace between Israel and its neighbors,
while remaining vigilant against those who seek to do Israel harm.
Question. With Palestinian elections for the Presidency taking
place sometime in the coming year, there is the possibility that Hamas
will take control. What will the Obama administration policy be if the
Palestinian Authority is run or effectively controlled by Hamas?
Answer. I prefer not to speculate about the outcome of future
elections in other countries. Our policy on Hamas is clear: We support
the Quartet's conditions on any dealings with Hamas--recognition of
Israel, renunciation of violence, and abiding by past agreements.
Question. Recently news outlets have reported the Obama
administration intends to begin low-level discussions with Hamas. Do
you support President-elect Obama's policy to talk with Hamas? If so,
what role will you play in helping facilitate these conversations?
Answer. Those new reports are false. Our policy on Hamas is clear:
We support the Quartet's conditions on any dealings with Hamas--
recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, and abiding by past
agreements.
Question. Many believe there will be no enduring peace between
Israel and the Palestinians until the schools in the Palestinian areas
no longer use textbooks that deny Israel's right to exist. Will you
commit that no U.S. foreign assistance will be used to fund education
programs that use textbooks which deny Israel's right to exist?
Answer. I have worked for many years to address the problem of
Palestinian textbooks that delegitimize Israel and its right to exist.
I agree that ending incitement and educating children in hate is
essential for peace to take hold. I am committed to working to ensure
that no U.S. foreign assistance funds programs that use such textbooks.
Question. In view of comments you made in June 2008 that the United
States will never ``impose a made-in-America solution'' to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, what role do you think the United States should
take in helping to bridge the gaps between the two parties on sensitive
issues like Jerusalem, refugees, and borders?
Answer. These issues are indeed among the most sensitive issues the
parties face, which is why Israelis and Palestinians have designated
them as final status issues. It is clear that no agreement on these
issues can last unless the parties themselves agree to it, and it
cannot be imposed upon them by any outside actor. The United States
should do whatever we can to support Israelis and Palestinians in their
peace efforts and help ensure they have the opportunities to reach such
agreements.
Question. The United States has long maintained a policy-espoused
by Presidents of both parties--of opposing the many one-sided Security
Council resolutions that, more often than not, criticize Israel, but
fail to address other issues, such as Palestinian terrorism. More than
41 anti-Israel Security Council resolutions have been vetoed by the
United States over the years.
Do you support the use of the American veto to block one-
sided anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council?
What do you believe should be the standard employed in
deciding whether to veto or not?
How would you have advised President-elect Obama to vote on
the recent U.N. resolution on Israel and Hamas? Would you have
recommended a veto or voting for, against, or abstaining?
Answer. Yes. The United States has a long history of using its veto
at the Security Council to ensure that it does not pass resolutions
that unfairly target the State of Israel. Each proposed resolution must
be judged on its merits, but the Obama administration is prepared,
whenever appropriate, to continue this American role in the Security
Council. I do not want to speculate on what future resolutions might
look like. When it is in the U.S. interest, we will continue to use our
veto as necessary,
As for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1860, we are obviously very
concerned about the serious situation in Gaza and southern Israel.
President-elect Obama has spoken about his deep concern for the loss of
civilian life in Gaza and Israel, and I think we all agree that it is
very important that a durable cease-fire be achieved. That will require
an end to Hamas rocket fire at Israeli civilians, an effective
mechanism to prevent smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and an effective
border regime. We will work hard with our international partners to
make sure all these elements happen. The cease-fire should be
accompanied by a serious effort to address the immediate humanitarian
needs of the Palestinian people and a longer term reconstruction and
development effort. The Bush administration is in the middle of
sensitive diplomatic negotiations on behalf of the United States, so I
think it is best that I not comment specifically on the negotiations
underway. I will say that we plan to be actively engaged on diplomacy
in the Middle East in pursuit of peace agreements to resolve conflicts,
and when necessary, to bring hostilities to an end. We are committed to
helping Israel and the Palestinians achieve their goal of two states
living side by side in peace and security, and will work toward this
goal from the beginning of the administration.
Iran
Question. Do you think that economic, diplomatic, and political
efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program can
succeed in the absence of the credible threat of military force against
Iran?
Answer. President-elect Obama has stated that he will use all
elements of American power--political, diplomatic, economic--to prevent
Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yet when it comes to protecting
America's security, he would never take the military option off the
table.
Question. President-elect Obama has talked about direct and tough
diplomacy with Iran. What steps does the administration intend to take
to pursue such direct diplomacy with Iran? Do you believe that the
United States should meet unconditionally at senior levels with the
Iranian regime? Do you believe that the preconditions listed in several
U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment are
not preconditions to U.S. negotiations with Iran?
Answer. The Obama administration will support tough, aggressive,
and direct diplomacy, without preconditions, with our adversaries. Note
that there is a distinction between preparations and preconditions. For
possible negotiations with Iran, there must be careful preparation--
including low-level talks, coordination with allies, the establishment
of an agenda, and an evaluation of the potential for progress.
The U.S. should support and participate in ongoing efforts with our
European allies and assemble an international coalition that will exert
a collective will on Iran so that it is in their own interest to
verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons efforts.
We will carefully prepare for any negotiations--open up lines of
communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and
evaluate the potential for progress.
We will not sit down with Iran just for the sake of talking. But we
are willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate
Iranian leader at a time and place of our choosing--if, and only if--it
can advance the interests of the United States.
We should be careful not to let our engagement with Iran be used by
the Iranian regime in the runup to the June Presidential election--but
the elections should not prevent us from starting a dialogue if we
determine that there is a genuine intent to engage.
Question. Under what conditions would you implement sanctions under
the Iran Sanctions Act?
Answer. While pursuing a policy of tough and direct diplomacy, the
Obama administration will use various means to increase economic
pressure on Iran to persuade it to abandon its pursuit of nuclear
weapons. We will be guided by the law when it comes to applying
statutory sanctions. If there are entities in violation of the Iran
Sanctions Act, we will take necessary steps under that statute.
Question. 1. With high oil prices, several Persian Gulf nations
expressed concern with an assertive Iran and sought a closer
relationship with the U.S. What do you believe the role of the U.S.
should be in the Middle East?
Answer. The U.S. should support and participate in ongoing efforts
with our allies and partners in the region to assemble an international
coalition that will exert a collective will on Iran so that it is in
their own interest to verifiably abandon their nuclear weapons efforts.
Question. Last year, the Bush administration submitted to Congress
a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia in accordance with
section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. The administration and Middle
East nations have also expressed interest in expanded nuclear
cooperation throughout the Gulf Region. How do you view the spread of
nuclear technology in the Middle East? What standards would you propose
to guide cooperation on civilian nuclear projects in the region?
Answer. The Obama administration will carefully study cooperation
on civilian nuclear projects in the region, focusing especially on its
implications for our bilateral relationships and for our
nonproliferation objectives in the Middle East and globally.
central asia
Several nations in Central Asia are currently drafting religion and
assembly laws. Just recently, after intense international pressure,
President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan sent his nation's religion law to
the Kazakh Supreme Council for review, where it is expected to die or
be changed substantially. There is serious concern that these laws in
both Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, are being used to limit faith-based
organizations from being allowed to operate in-country and at the same
time consolidate the power of local religious leaders.
Question. The freedom to assemble and religious freedom are core
values of U.S. society and are building blocks of a strong civil
society. How do you intend to promote these values in U.S. foreign
policy as a whole and in central Asia specifically?
Answer. The President-elect and I believe that it is a false choice
to argue that we must either pursue our interests or our values. We are
most effective when we pursue in parallel and at the same time. The
President-elect has expressed support for organizations such as the
National Endowment for Democracy, which offer us a way to interact
directly with those fighting for greater pluralism in the world,
including in Central Asia.
Afghanistan
Question. President-elect Obama has commented frequently about the
need for a ``surge'' in Afghanistan. Do you believe the success of the
surge in Iraq can be replicated in Afghanistan?
Answer. If I am confirmed, designing and implementing a more
effective strategy in Afghanistan will be one of my highest priorities
at the State Department. We have lost ground in Afghanistan over the
past 7 years. Our strategy has to acknowledge Afghanistan as it is, not
as we hoped it would be 7 years ago. We also have to acknowledge that
we will not see progress in Afghanistan overnight. The President-elect
and the entire national security team understand Afghanistan and
northwest Pakistan are the central front in the war on terror, and we
know that it is critical that we make progress there.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement a new set
of strategies that will help us confront the resurgence of the Taliban
and the persistent threat of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Additional troops
are certainly a part of that--though Secretary Gates can better speak
to the military dimensions of our efforts in Afghanistan.
Question. Unlike Iraq, most Afghanis lack the education level and
the country lacks many of the basic institutions necessary to create a
stable and secure government and society. How do you believe this will
shape any surge strategy?
Answer. The President-elect and I have consistently said that our
strategy in Afghanistan cannot simply be about adding more troops. He
has enunciated an approach that we call ``more for more''--more troops
and assistance from the U.S. as we seek more from NATO allies, and more
from an Afghan Government that needs to focus on improving the lives of
its people. We also have to implement a coherent Pakistan strategy, one
that involves more nonmilitary aid and more pressure on Pakistan to
fight terror. With this set of principles, and with the resources,
focus and diplomatic effort that Afghanistan deserves--and has been
denied because of our entanglement in Iraq--we believe that we can make
progress in supporting the people of Afghanistan and preventing al-
Qaeda from staging future attacks.
Economic development is absolutely essential to Afghanistan's
stabilization and reconstruction. It is inextricably linked to
security. The President-elect has proposed a ``more-for-more'' strategy
which will provide additional nonmilitary aid each year--above and
beyond what is given now. That money will be focused on initiatives
dealing with education, infrastructure, human services, and alternative
livelihoods for poppy farmers. And it will be accompanied by tougher
anticorruption measures. We will tie aid to better performance by the
Afghan national government, including anticorruption initiatives and
efforts to extend the rule of law across the country. We will also work
to ensure that investments are made not just in Kabul but out in
Afghanistan's provinces.
Question. On trips to Afghanistan, my staff and I found a glaring
lack of coordination among reconstruction efforts. For instance,
schools were built with no teachers to teach in them, large sums of
money were spent to meet the requirements of USAID personnel in
Washington without any lasting affects on the ground, and large
portions of U.S. foreign aid allocated for Afghanistan stayed in the
U.S., there was no comprehensive list of reconstruction projects, and
PRTs do not communicate routinely to compare successes and mitigate
deficiencies. What is your plan to ensure U.S. foreign aid is spent
effectively and provide the oversight necessary to ensure U.S. taxpayer
money is not wasted?
Answer. I welcome congressional oversight and ongoing consultation
with this committee as key tools in ensuring efficient and effective
investment of American taxpayer resources. I agree that our development
and reconstruction efforts need to be better planned, coordinated, and
tied to a broader strategy. If confirmed I will work with my colleagues
in the Department, at USAID, DOD, and elsewhere to make that happen. In
addition, any U.S. assistance to Afghanistan will be accompanied by
tougher anticorruption measures. We will tie aid to better performance
by the Afghan national government, including anticorruption initiatives
and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country. We will also
work to ensure that investments are made not just in Kabul but out in
Afghanistan's provinces.
Question. NATO's International Security Assistance Force has been
plagued by a lack of commitments from NATO allies and caveats they
place on their forces deployed to Afghanistan. While many European
leaders speak of the commitment to Afghanistan, they do not advocate
the need for the mission among their own citizens and to lift their
caveats. What do you believe can be done to reduce the number of
caveats--especially ones that U.S. commanders have highlighted as the
most egregious?
Answer. Afghanistan is not just a challenge for the United States--
it is a critical security issue for our allies in NATO and for all
countries in the region. Afghanistan's considerable problems will not
be resolved without the cooperation of these countries, which requires
a regional strategic approach. That is what I will seek to implement if
confirmed.
That is why we believe our NATO allies must do more. The Obama
administration will seek greater contributions from them in
Afghanistan. We will ask our NATO allies to reconsider national
restrictions on NATO forces. The NATO force is short-staffed and some
countries contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their
troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. The
Obama administration will work with European allies to end these
burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force.
Pakistan
Question. Since 9/11, the United States has given more and more
assistance to Pakistan, both in FMF and in development assistance.
While Pakistan has in some ways stepped up in aiding the war on terror,
in many ways the government has allowed and even supported the
resurgence of the Taliban and other al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Do you
believe that Pakistan has done everything possible to combat extremist
groups, including fighting the cross-border movement of extremists into
Afghanistan? How important is Pakistani military and intelligence
support for groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group responsible for the
recent Mumbai terrorist attacks? Should the United States use its
assistance as leverage to wean Pakistan military and intelligence away
from extremist groups?
Answer. We need to ensure that we do as much as possible to engage
a wide range of Pakistan's democratically elected civilian leaders.
U.S. military assistance to Pakistan must be conditioned on Pakistan's
efforts to close down training camps, evict foreign fighters, and
preventing the Taliban and al-Qaeda from using Pakistan as a terrorist
sanctuary. Nonmilitary assistance should be tripled, with a focus on
the border regions, so that over the long term we are reducing the pull
of the extremists.
Question. In your opinion, does the unilateral use of American air
strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan contribute to or detract
from the development and execution of a sound American political and
military strategy in the region? Would you advocate relying more on
such targeted strikes, restricting them, or keeping about the same
policy we have today? In general terms, do you think that a counter-
terrorism strategy that relies primarily on such long-range strikes
into sovereign states can be successfbl, and what price do you think
the U.S. pays for pursuing such policies over the long term?
Answer. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO to secure the border, take out
terrorist camps, and crack down on cross-border insurgents. We cannot
tolerate a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists who threaten the American
people. Pakistan and the international community must commit to a more
comprehensive approach along the border--one that involves robust
economic investment and development, good governance and government
accountability, and enhanced security and law enforcement capacity. If
Pakistan is willing to go after high-level terrorist targets like Osama
bin Laden, we must give Pakistan all of the support it needs. The
United States must also provide more assistance to benefit the
Pakistani people directly, so that our nations forge a deeper and more
sustainable partnership.
Our ability to contain and diminish the threat of international
terrorism depends heavily on our ability to build partnerships among
nations and deepen cooperation across a range of areas, including law
enforcement, intelligence-sharing, border controls and safeguarding of
hazardous materials. The United States--and the State Department in
particular--has historically played a central role in this area. I
strongly believe that keeping terrorists on the defensive, reducing
their room for maneuver and preventing them from striking at us and our
allies will require that the Department act energetically to build the
international cooperation that is essential for confronting a
transnational threat that no one country can successfully fight alone.
europe
Question. During the 110th Congress, Senator Obama and I
cosponsored legislation and strongly supported extending the Membership
Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine and Georgia. As President-elect Barack
Obama has stated, ``Ukraine and Georgia . . . have declared their
readiness to advance a NATO Membership Action Plan . . . they should
receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to
Atlantic and European institutions.'' Do you support extending the MAP
to Ukraine and Georgia?
Answer. While there are different views among allies on the best
way to promote eventual NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, it is
essential that we work closely with our allies to develop a common
approach on Alliance enlargement. The NATO-Ukraine Commission and the
NATO-Georgia Commission (established last summer) are other avenues
available for deepening relations between the Alliance and Georgia and
Ukraine. NATO's door must remain open to European democracies that meet
membership criteria and can contribute to our common security. How and
when new countries might join must be determined together with all our
allies in the alliance.
Question. In the French-sponsored cease-fire agreement reached with
Russia after the invasion of Georgia, the Russians agreed to return to
preconflict troop positions and numbers. As yet, this has not happened.
What steps will the Obama administration take to ensure the agreement's
terms are fully abided by and, if not, what policy consequences can we
expect to see in United States-Russia policy for Moscow not abiding its
terms?
Answer. The President-elect and I have consistently insisted that
Russia must fully comply with the cease-fire agreement, which means
that it must return its troops in Georgia to preconflict positions. We
have also made clear--both before and after the conflict--that Russian
troops must be replaced with truly independent, international
peacekeepers. Russia must know that its relations with the West will be
harmed by a failure to implement all the provisions of the cease-fire
agreement it signed.
Question. In October 2008, during a television interview, Russian
President Medvedev articulated a five-point doctrine that would govern
Russia's foreign policy. Among other statements, he stated that ``there
are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are
home to countries with which we share special historical relations and
are bound together as friends and good neighbors.'' Medvedev elaborated
that these countries are ``the countries on our borders are priorities,
of course, but our priorities do not end there.''
a. Do you believe the nations on Russia's border have a
right to determine who they wish to ally themselves with? Do
you think it is in America's interests to resist Russian
attempts to regain de facto control over portions of the Former
Soviet Union and, if so, what measures would you favor? What do
you think the U.S. can do to reassure our nervous NATO allies
in Eastern Europe that America will not abandon them to Russian
threats, even if NATO appears unwilling to stand up to Moscow?
Answer a. The President-elect and I feel very strongly that the
concept of ``privileged interests'' has no place in today's Europe. The
democratic nations of Europe all have the right to determine what
alliances they want to join, and their independence and sovereignty
must be respected. We will seek to cooperate with Russia on a wide
range of issues of common concern, but we cannot accept the notion that
Russia or any other country has a special say over the future of its
independent neighbors. The Obama administration will make this
principle clear to our NATO allies, our other friends in Europe, and to
Russia.
b. In November, Russian President Medvedev called for a new
Europe-wide security pact, essentially replacing the Final
Helsinki Accords of 1975. Among the principles he suggests
should be part of that new order is outlawing any expansion of
alliance relations that can be seen coming at the expense of
another country. In turn, after completion of the Russia-
European Union summit in November, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy stated that he was interested in there being a mid-2009
summit which could lay down a blueprint for ``a future pan-
European security structure.'' Is the Obama administration in
favor of such an effort? If so, how will NATO's pledges to
Ukraine and Georgia for future NATO membership be taken account
of? And if the administration is not in favor of negotiations
on new European security architecture, how will it signal that
fact to our European allies?
Answer b. President Medvedev has not offered many details about his
proposal, explained why it is needed, or explained how a new security
pact would differ from the OSCE, an existing pan-European security
organization. We will always be open to ideas about how European
security can be ensured but, as already noted, could not accept
constraints on sovereign European countries' right to choose their own
alliance relationships. Whether candidates for NATO join the alliance
will depend on their readiness for membership and a consensus among
NATO members that they should join--not on the decisions of any third
party. If confirmed I will seek to engage early on with our NATO allies
and others on the best ways to promote security across the continent
and around the world.
missile defense
Question. It was suggested during the campaign, and during the
early days of the post-election transition, that the U.S. might extend
its nuclear deterrent umbrella to include Israel and other Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Do you support that idea?
Before we use the threat of nuclear weapons to defend these
countries, do you agree we should have nonnuclear measures in place
like missile defense? Will you support deeper missile defense
cooperation with all these states?
Answer. The new administration has not taken a position on
extending the nuclear deterrent in the Middle East but has a commitment
to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. I look forward to working
with the President-elect, the Department of Defense, and the rest of
the new administration's national security team to address the issue of
deterrence and what role missile defense should play in security
arrangements in the Middle East.
Question. The NATO Alliance recently recognized in its Bucharest
communique ``the substantial contribution to the protection of allies
from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned
deployment of European-based United States missile defence assets.''
Will you stand with our NATO allies and reaffirm the importance of
missile defense?
Answer. The Obama administration has been very clear that we will
make a decision on whether to move forward or not with the proposed
missile defense system in Europe based on an assessment of whether it
works and is cost-effective.
Question. Russia has a significant number of nuclear-tipped
interceptors surrounding Moscow as a ballistic missile shield to
protect much of Russia. Additionally, Russia has hundreds of ICBMs,
including many on mobile launchers, as a significant element of their
nuclear deterrent. Do you believe Russia has any practical reason to
fear 10 interceptors in Poland that defend the U.S. and our NATO allies
against Iranian missiles?
Answer. The missile defense system with component parts in Poland
would be in response to rogue states like Iran--not Russia. As stated
above, the Obama administration will make a decision on whether to move
forward or not, with the proposed missile defense system in Europe
based on an assessment of whether it works and is cost-effective.
Russia's decision to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad or not, will not
influence our decisions.
africa
Question. From genocide to humanitarian crises, from military
dictators to bad agriculture policy. Many of the problems in Africa
have been created by poor leadership--political, military, and
economic. What new policies do you believe are necessary to change the
``business as usual'' conditions on the continent?
Answer. In Africa, the foreign policy objectives of the Obama
administration are rooted in security, political, economic, and
humanitarian interests, including: Combating al-Qaeda's efforts to seek
safe havens in failed states in the Horn of Africa; helping African
nations to conserve their natural resources and reap fair benefits from
them; stopping war in Congo; ending autocracy in Zimbabwe and human
devastation in Darfur; supporting African democracies like South Africa
and Ghana--which just had its second change of power in democratic
elections; and working aggressively to reach the Millennium Development
Goals in health, education, and economic opportunity.
Question. Last year Congress passed legislation authorizes up to
$48 billion over the next 5 years for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment,
and care programs. This occurred despite the Congressional Budget
Office's projection that the U.S. Government could not spend more than
$35 billion effectively. Do you believe it is wise to authorize
spending levels above our ability to spend the money--especially at a
time when U.S. budget pressures are skyrocketing?
Answer. The President-elect has applauded President Bush's efforts
to combat HIV/AIDS, and pledged to continue and enhance PEPFAR. There
are an estimated 33 million people across the planet infected with HIV/
AIDS. We must do more to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as
malaria and tuberculosis. The President-elect is committed to fully
implementing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and to
ensuring that best practices, not ideology, drive funding. He has
committed to investing $50 billion over 5 years to strengthen the
program and expand it to new regions of the world, including Southeast
Asia, India, and parts of Europe. At the same time, the new
administration will work to more effectively coordinate PEPFAR with
programs to strengthen health care delivery and address other global
health challenges. The new administration will also increase U.S.
contributions to the Global Fund to ensure that global efforts to fight
endemic disease continue to move ahead through multilateral
institutions as well. As part of these efforts, the new administration
will work with drug companies to reduce the costs of generic
antiretroviral drugs. And it will work with developing nations to help
them build the health infrastructure necessary to get sick people
treated--more money for hospitals and medical equipment, and more
training for nurses and doctors.
Question. Under PEPFAR ``Abstinence'' and ``Be Faithful''
components of our ABC method have been effective tools in the fight
against AIDS. However, it is important to note that these components
were requested by leaders in Africa who advised a single pillar would
not be a wise policy. Will you continue to support the A and B
components of PEPFAR?
Answer. We will review and consult PEPFAR options.
AFRICOM
Question. The organizational structure of U.S. Africa Command is an
effort to better coordinate the disparate parts of the U.S. Government
that all support each other in the promotion of defense, development,
and diplomacy. This command could represent a paradigm shift for
interagency coordination if properly supported. Do you intend to fully
support this command and the direction it is attempting to go?
Answer. The President-elect supports the concept of AFRICOM, as do
I, but we want to make sure that it is implemented properly. I look
forward to working on behalf of the President-elect, with Secretary
Gates and General Jones, and with African nations on this issue. The
original concept behind AFRICOM was that our engagement with Africa
would be improved by streamlining our command structure so that there
is a single unified command responsible for Africa, rather than three
separate commands as has been the case. The President-elect has warned
that we must be very careful not to overmilitarize our relations with
African nations. On the other hand, there is a role to play for AFRICOM
in helping train and equip African rapid response forces for
peacekeeping operations. AFRICOM can also contribute to an enhanced
capability of African nations to patrol their own waters.
Question. How will the State Department and USAID interact with
AFRICOM within Africa?
Answer. A well-conceived AFRICOM--one that plays the traditional
role of a combatant command rather than supplants the State
Department's traditional role--can enhance U.S. Government efforts to
foster peace and stability on the continent. I look forward to working
with Secretary Gates and others to ensure that AFRICOM complements the
efforts of State Department and USAID.
asia
China
Question. Under President Clinton, China was considered a
``strategic partner''; however, under the Bush administration China was
regarded as a ``strategic competitor.'' Which do you feel more accurate
defines the current relationship between the U.S. and China?
Answer. I would note that although President Bush used the term
``strategic competitor'' in his first Presidential campaign, once in
office he worked to build a relationship with China that he called
``candid, constructive and cooperative.'' The Clinton administration
called for ``building toward a constructive strategic partnership with
China''; it did not assert that such a partnership already existed.
The fact is that the U.S. relationship with China contains elements
of both cooperation and competition. We should work where possible to
expand the areas of cooperation while managing the areas of
competition. It is essential that China's rise be peaceful. The United
States cannot by itself ensure that result, but it can help create an
environment in which China makes the right choices--choices such as
contributing to global economic stability, ensuring fair trade,
supporting international efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, ending
support for repressive regimes such as those in Zimbabwe and Burma,
protecting human rights, and combating global warming. The Obama
administration will work to promote these and other important
objectives in its interaction with China.
Question. In the December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, you wrote
that, ``The United States and China have vastly different values and
political systems . . .'' and that ``we disagree profoundly on issues
ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices,
and Tibet'' while still asserting that there is much we can accomplish
together. In the context of this bilateral relationship, how do you
propose that we make progress on these issues related to human dignity
where we are at such odds? Will our Ambassador in Beijing be given
clear instruction that they are to press, both publicly and privately,
the Chinese Government on their human rights record?
Answer. Again, there are areas in which we can and do cooperate
with China, and areas where we disagree. One of the areas in which we
do not see eye to eye is human rights. The Obama administration will
work to support movement toward democracy and greater human rights in
China, including for Tibetans. Neither President-elect Obama nor I will
be shy about pressing China on our concerns about human rights issues
at every opportunity and at all levels, publicly and privately, both
through our mission in China and in Washington.
Question. Given China's increasing political, military, and
economic strength in the region, how would you institutionalize a
departmentwide or governmentwide comprehensive and consistent strategy
to pressure China to release dissidents and political prisoners,
curtail its human right abuses, end its support of rogue regimes in
places like Burma and the Sudan, and end its practice of forced
repatriation of North Korean refugees?
Answer. The U.S. relationship with China is multifaceted, and our
policy toward China likewise has many elements involving many U.S.
Government agencies. Under the Obama administration, China policy will
be directed from the top by the President and coordinated by the NSC
and NEC. We will make early decisions about the precise institutional
arrangements for coordinating the various strands of our China strategy
and for engaging with the Chinese, but the issues you enumerated--
advancing human rights in China, ending Beijing's support for rogue
regimes, and ensuring appropriate treatment of refugees--will be
important objectives of our policy under any institutional framework.
Taiwan
Question. International Commerce and security in East Asia rests in
large part with stability in the Taiwan Strait. Thirty years ago,
Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure that Taiwan
possessed a credible military deterrent. The Bush administration
recently reversed course on moving forward with foreign military sales
to Taiwan only after intense pressure. With the Chinese military budget
growing and the buildup of Chinese forces across the Taiwan Strait, do
you support foreign military sales to Taiwan? Do you support the sale
of F-16s and submarines specifically? As secretary do you commit to
work with our allies who could support some of the equipment to Taiwan?
If you do not support these sales, how do you propose Taiwan replace
its aging fighter aircraft and protect its merchant shipping?
Answer. When the Bush administration announced its decision to
notify Congress concerning the package of weapons systems for Taiwan
this past fall, President-elect Obama welcomed that announcement. This
package represents an important response to Taiwan's defense needs, was
fully consistent with U.S. obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act,
and helps to contribute to Taiwan's defense and the maintenance of a
healthy balance in the Taiwan Strait. I take very seriously our
responsibility under the Taiwan Relations Act to make available to
Taiwan defense articles and services that will enable it to maintain a
sufficient self defense capability, and for the United States to
continually review and assess Taiwan's defense needs. But I do not
think it appropriate to speculate on specific weapons systems or what
future assessments might hold. The Taiwan Relations Act calls for U.S.
defense authorities to advise the President on Taiwan's defense needs.
I look forward to hearing their views. Like President-elect Obama, I
believe that strengthening of Taiwan's defenses consistent with the
Taiwan Relations Act will not undermine the process of reduction of
tensions across the Strait and can actually promote it.
Question. Over the years, high-level contacts between U.S.
Government officials and Taiwan officials have decreased as U.S.
guidelines issued by the State Department have grown more restrictive.
In keeping with the requirements of the Taiwan Relations Act, do you
support revising these restrictions at a time when U.S. security and
economic interests continue to grow? Will you support Cabinet-level
visits to Taiwan, like President Clinton?
Answer. In his letter to President Ma Ying-jeou on May 20, 2008,
President-elect Obama stated that he believed the United States should
strengthen channels of communication with officials of Taiwan's
Government. I share that view and believe that it is important that the
United States seek to rebuild a relationship of trust with Taiwan, and
support for Taiwan's robust democracy. I support the ``one China''
policy of the U.S., adherence to the three U.S.-PRC joint communiques
concerning Taiwan, and observance of the Taiwan Relations Act, and on
that foundation I would hope that we can both open necessary channels
that have become blocked in recent years as well as resume, in an
appropriate fashion, the sorts of Cabinet-level visits and exchanges
that the United States and Taiwan enjoyed before the George W. Bush
administration when issues in our relations warrant. These sorts of
visits and exchanges--with U.S. officials traveling to Taiwan, and
Taiwan officials to the United States--are positive for both the United
States and Taiwan and can also contribute to greater cross-Strait
stability.
North Korea
Question. In the past you have criticized the Bush administration
suggesting they should bypass the six-party talks and negotiate
unilaterally with North Korea. How do you view the current state of the
six-party talks? Do you believe the U.S. should have removed North
Korea from the state sponsor of terror list before North Korea
accounted for all of its proliferation activities and Japanese and
South Korean abductees? Should we accept less than Libya style
disarmament?
Answer. The new administration will pursue direct diplomacy
bilaterally and within the six-party talks to achieve the complete and
verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, and
an accounting for North Korea's past plutonium production, uranium
enrichment activities, and proliferation activities.
Sanctions should only be lifted based on North Korean performance.
If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we should move
quickly to reimpose sanctions that have been waived, and consider new
restrictions going forward.
Question. Do you support China's policy of repatriating North
Korean refugees? Will you pressure China to stop this practice?
Answer. We are greatly concerned about the status of refugees from
North Korea who have fled that repressive regime. If confirmed, I am
committed to working with relevant international organizations, our
regional partners, and countries like China to ensure that refugees
from North Korea are treated humanely and in ways consistent with
international law.
Question. Do you agree that it is essential that we get to the
bottom of suspicions that North Korea is working on a covert uranium
enrichment capability? If confirmed as Secretary of State, will you
ensure that we agree to no diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff
with North Korea that does not permit us to conduct the verification
necessary to be satisfied that North Korea has shut down and dismantled
not just its plutonium production capability, but also whatever uranium
enrichment capability it has?
Answer. The Obama administration will confirm the full extent of
North Korea's past plutonium production and its uranium enrichment
activities, and get answers to disturbing questions about its
proliferation activities with other countries, including Syria. The
North Koreans must live up to their commitments and fully and
verifiably dismantle all of their nuclear weapons programs and
proliferation activities. If they do not, there must be strong
sanctions. We will only lift sanctions based on North Korean
performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we
should move quickly to reimpose sanctions that have been waived, and
consider new restrictions going forward. The objective must be clear:
The complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear
weapons programs, which only expanded while we refused to talk. As we
move forward, we must not cede our leverage in these negotiations
unless it is clear that North Korea is living up to its obligations.
South Korea
Question. President Obama talked about restoring our image and
reinvigorating our presence in Asia. How will you do that if we do not
move forward with the Korea FTA which Senator Obama stated he opposed
during the campaign?
Answer. South Korea is an important friend and ally and if
confirmed I look forward to building an even stronger bilateral
relationship in the years to come. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the United States Trade Representative, the Treasury
Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, and others on the President-
elect's economic team on these issues. We will communicate forthrightly
and fairly with South Korea, explaining that our concerns with the FTA
are discrete and specific and have no bearing on the many collaborative
dimensions of our alliance and friendship. We will also work to resolve
these concerns to the satisfaction of both parties.
western hemisphere
Question. Despite the fact that the U.S. remains the preeminent
power in Latin America, Russia, China, and Iran are actively engaged
and competing with the U.S. for influence.
Many diplomats and businessmen warned about the effects of
the U.S. Congress not passing the Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
with Colombia and the damage this could have on U.S. relations
in Latin America. What policies do you propose to correct the
damage that will be done to our relations with Latin America if
the FTA is not quickly passed?
Do you support the FTA in its current form?
Answer. Let me address both of these questions together. It is
important that we not lose sight of the many aspects of the important,
dynamic, and complex bilateral relationship that the United States and
Colombia have when we discuss the United States-Colombia Trade
Promotion Agreement. I look forward to working to maintain the across-
the-board vibrancy of the relationship.
With regard to the trade agreement, it is essential that trade
spread the benefits of globalization. Without adequate labor
protections, trade cannot do that. Although levels of violence have
dropped, continued violence and impunity in Colombia directed at labor
and other civic leaders makes labor protections impossible to guarantee
in Colombia today.
Colombia must improve its efforts. I look forward to working with
members of this committee, as well as other Members of the Senate and
House of Representatives to see what the United States can do to help
contribute to an end to further violence and continued impunity
directed against labor and other civic leaders in Colombia.
The United States and Colombia have long enjoyed a close, mutually
beneficial relationship. I am confident that through continued
cooperation on the full array of bilateral issues, we can maintain and
deepen that relationship. Active engagement with Colombia will be an
important part of this administration's approach to hemispheric
relations.
foreign management issues
Question. It has been suggested that USAID should be elevated to an
independent Cabinet agency, as in Great Britain. But the result there
indicates that such a step would make it more difficult to shape
development programs in a way that would advance the national interest
and make for a coherent strategy. What are your views?
Answer. President-elect Obama, many of the leaders selected to
serve in his Cabinet, and many members of this committee believe that
development can and should be a prominent piece of U.S. foreign policy
and our national security strategy. But, to be effective, development
assistance needs to be strengthened and modernized. The President-elect
has committed to enhancing our foreign assistance architecture to make
it more nimble, innovative, and effective. This means a reinvigorated,
empowered USAID, playing a central role in the formulation and
implementation of critical development strategies. Development serves
our national interest as well as improves our Nation's global image.
Increasing stability and opportunity in poor countries creates new
allies, but also reduces the pool of people living in desperate
situations who are susceptible to being drawn toward extremist
tendencies.
That said, no decisions have been made on a specific organizational
design, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of this
committee, as well as the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to help
improve development assistance. The goal of President-elect Obama--and
my goal--is to enhance USAID's capacity and standing to carry out its
vital missions.
Question. During the Bush administration, Foreign Service officers
often complained--in public--about the necessity to work in dangerous
embassies or in isolated provincial reconstruction teams. How do you
intend to reform the Foreign Service to meet the needs of the 21st
century? Do you believe the Foreign Service simply needs to be larger,
or are there problems with the State Department corporate culture that
should be addressed?
Answer. Based on the briefings I have received so far, I do not
believe the Department has an adequate number of personnel. The men and
women of the Foreign Service and Civil Service also need additional
training opportunities, as well as resources, to carry out the many
responsibilities assigned to the Department. If confirmed, I intend to
work closely with the President and the Congress to secure the
necessary resources for the Department.
The opportunities and challenges in front of all of us are both
promising and daunting. The objectives that the President-elect has set
forth are compelling, demanding and necessary to meet our interests. To
meet these goals, I am seeking to recruit strong, experienced
professionals to join the Department. I am using every position
available to maximize the possibility for success and to manage an
unprecedented number of responsibilities for our Nation's security and
prosperity.
I intend to use both Deputy positions that are available in law--to
manage the overall foreign policy agenda and to manage the operations
and resources needed for success, Jim Steinberg, if confirmed, will be
responsible for assisting me in the formulation and conduct of our
foreign policy; Jack Lew, if confirmed, will be responsible for
assisting me in the management of the operations and resources of the
Department.
I also will recommend to the President-elect under secretaries and
assistant secretaries who are at the top of their fields, who think
strategically and are strong diplomats and managers of talent. And, I
will employ a time-honored tradition to make use of special envoys who
will work in a focused fashion to address some of our most difficult
challenges.
Question. American diplomats and diplomacy increasingly need a
range of skills and knowledge that go beyond traditional limits,
including the need to work more closely with U.S. military officers and
officials of other agencies, to oversee large reconstruction and
development projects, and to help build strategic partnerships with
fragile democracies and allies. What steps do you intend to take to
prepare the State Department to master these new roles? What is your
plan to upgrade the training and education of State Department
personnel?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to be a strong advocate for
resources for the Department including appropriate education and
training for State Department personnel. I also plan to review the
current training and education efforts and consider what changes in
education and training are necessary and required. The President-elect
has made it clear that he wants to strengthen the civilian capacity of
the State Department and other agencies to work alongside our military,
and we will pursue that goal.
Question. Given the expected constraints of a growing Federal
budget deficit, a global financial crisis, continued commitments to
conflict and crises overseas, what priorities will you establish in
assistance areas to guide difficult tradeoff decisions as Secretary?
Answer. The President-elect has made it clear that he will review
the Federal budget with new scrutiny and a commitment to initiatives
that are effective, accountable, and make a real difference in the
American people.
In these challenging economic conditions, we will have to make
strategic budget choices--choices which increase the security of this
country and strengthen our position in the world. Targeting extreme
poverty and preventable global diseases like AIDS and malaria in
vulnerable countries is both smart and strategic. It saves lives,
builds friendships in volatile places, and creates new opportunities
for America around the world. It is in America's national interest to
continue to support activities that are measurable successes, are
consistent with our values, and improve our security. These will be my
touchstones as I prepare the development assistance budget priorities
for the State Department.
foreign assistance
Question. President-elect Obama made commitments to ``elevate,
empower, consolidate and streamline'' U.S. development programs. During
your own campaign, you said you would ensure U.S. development
assistance is spent in a ``smart, coordinated, and efficient manner
with a measurable impact on people's lives.'' With foreign assistance
programs scattered across more than 20 different Federal agencies, how
do you intend to address inefficiencies and incoherence within the
current structure in order to help maximize the impact of U.S.
assistance and instability that threaten prosperity and security
globally and at home?
What metrics should the U.S. Government use to gauge the
success of U.S. foreign assistance programs? If the metrics are
not met would you advocate for the elimination of a program?
Answer. President-elect Obama and this Congress will evaluate every
spending priority based on what works and what does not, and what fits
best with America's national security and economic interests. Working
in partnership, Congress and the Obama administration will have to make
smart, strategic budget choices that deal with our problems here at
home while also continuing to support effective initiatives that save
lives, strengthen our security, and restore America's position in the
world.
Question. Over the past five decades, the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961--which was originally written and enacted to confront the cold-war
threats of the 20th century--has swelled into a morass of rules,
regulations, objectives, and directives. Foreign policy experts on both
sides of the aisle--including former USAID administrators from both
Democratic and Republican administrations--have said writing a new
Foreign Assistance Act is central to clarifying the mission, mandate,
and organizational structure for U.S. foreign assistance. The Project
on National Security Reform also recently recommended a ``comprehensive
revision of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.''
How do you propose we redesign the foreign assistance of the
U.S.? Do you promise to work closely with both parties in
Congress to ensure reforms meet the needs of the 21st century?
Answer. The President-elect is committed to a strengthened and
enhanced role for foreign assistance and development in our foreign
policy, as am I. It is both right and smart for the United States to
renew its leadership as a nation that seeks to promote opportunity and
security around the world. To that end, the President-elect has
committed to doubling U.S. foreign assistance over his first term, and
I look forward to working closely with the Congress to fulfill this
goal. The President-elect has said that the current economic crisis
could slow increases in foreign assistance.
Our foreign assistance infrastructure must be able to meet the
challenges we face today while anticipating those in the months and
years ahead. We should look at areas which can be better coordinated
and streamlined, and would look forward to engaging the committee on
ideas for reform. The President-elect has stressed the need for clearer
leadership and coordination in Washington, and continued efforts to
prevent abuses and corruption among recipient countries. Similarly, we
should look at those areas which have proved effective and build on
those successes, while determining if poorly performing initiatives are
able to be improved. I pledge to work closely with both parties in
Congress on these important issues.
Where do you believe the Millennium Challenge Corporation
fits into any new restructuring?
Answer. President-elect Obama supports the MCC, and the principle
of greater accountability in our foreign assistance programs. It
represents a worthy new approach to proverty reduction and combating
corruption. However, there are challenges within the MCC. Pace of
implementation is certainly one challenge, as is the danger of a lack
of coordination with overall U.S. foreign assitance. The Obama
administration looks forward to working to build on the promise of the
MCC as we move forward with modernizing U.S. foreign assistance
programs.
Question. What is your position on linking U.S. foreign aid to
human rights conditions? For example, Egypt, the second largest
recipient of U.S. aid since 1979. They persist in major abuses of human
rights and religious freedom. Would you consider conditioning aid to
Egypt based on the government meeting certain benchmarks like the
release of political prisoners, lifting of media restrictions, etc.
Answer. I look forward to working with you on how best to address
human rights concerns in Egypt.
coordination with department of defense
Question. The ability of the Department of Defense to conduct
contingency planning, rapidly respond to natural disasters with
humanitarian relief, and its vast experience in civil-military affairs
is a cornerstone of American foreign policy and soft power projection.
Important victories like the Berlin Airlift, the 2004 Tsunami Response,
Pakistani Earthquake Relief in 2006, and hundreds of other humanitarian
relief operations conducted by DOD provide immense credibility and
benefit to America's image abroad. What do you see as the relationship
between State Department and the Department of Defense in public
diplomacy, humanitarian relief operations, and soft power projection?
Answer. The President-elect has repeadedly asserted that we must
more effectively integrate our military and civilian tools of national
power to have a successful and sustainable national security strategy.
If confirmed as Secretary of State, I am committed to coordinating
efforts closely with the Department of Defense in Iraq and elsewhere
and to instill that culture of cooperation in the Department. Secretary
Gates and I worked well together during my service on the Senate Armed
Services Committee and I am confident that we can work together to
ensure that we continue to close coordination gaps between the
Department of State and the Department of Defense. In order to
facilitate that coordination, we must strengthen our civilian capacity
to operate alongside our military.
Question. There are several Department of Defense core competencies
that are critical to the success of State Department operations; rapid
global mobility (airlift operations), provincial reconstruction teams,
and DOD's massive logistics system (rapidly distribute humanitarian
relief via land, air, and sea). How do you foresee the State Department
partnering with the DOD to increase collaboration and increase
utilization of these areas of expertise? Do you support the Global
Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI)? If so, how can the capabilities of
the State Department and DOD be more effectively merged?
Answer. As stated in response to the previous question: The
President-elect has repeatedly asserted that we must more effectively
integrate our military and civilian tools of national power in order to
have a successful and sustainable national security strategy. If
confirmed as Secretary of State, I am committed to coordinating efforts
closely with the Department of Defense in Iraq and elsewhere and to
instill that culture of cooperation in the Department. Secretary Gates
and I worked well together during my service on the Senate Armed
Services Committee and I am confident that we can work together to
ensure that we continue to close coordination gaps between the
Department of State and the Department of Defense. In order to
facilitate that coordination, we must strengthen our civilian capacity
to operate alongside our military.
Question. As a Senator, you voted for Commander's Emergency
Response Program funding, but at a lower figure than requested, and
then criticized how it was being spent. According to commanders on the
ground, CERP has been cited as being an invaluable tool to improve
security and stability in areas of conflict. Do you support the
continuation of CERP funding and at levels our commanders on the ground
request? If not, how do you propose replacing this vital tool of
foreign aid and diplomacy?
Answer. CERP funding is an important tool for military commanders.
However, the President-elect and I believe that we must strengthen our
civilian capacity to operate alongside our military. If confirmed, one
of my priorities as Secretary will be to work with Congress to increase
resources of the Department as well as to make better use of the
resources the Department already has.
united nations
International Atomic Energy Agency
Question. Will you pledge to consult closely with the members of
this committee concerning who the U.S. will support as the next
Executive Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Answer. Yes.
Human Rights Council
Question. In its first few months, the Obama administration will
decide whether to change existing U.S. policy to attend the Durban
Review Conference (Durban II) and fully participate in the United
Nations Human Rights Council by seeking a seat in the upcoming May
election. Would you recommend that the President continue current
policy or reverse it?
Answer. Unfortunately, the new Human Rights Council has strayed far
from the principles of the authors of the U.N. Declaration of Human
Rights. It has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy
with higher standards of human rights than its accusers, but it is only
with difficulty that it adopted resolutions pressing Sudan and Myanmar.
The United States should seek to reform the U.N. Human Rights Council.
We need our voice to be heard loud and clear to call attention to the
world's most repressive regimes, end the despicable obsession with
Israel. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President-
elect and the U.N. Permanent Representative and consulting with this
committee as we review whether and when to run for election to a seat
on the Council. Whether or not we seek election, we will certainly
fully engage to make reform of the human rights system a priority of
the United States.
The United Nation's 2001 World Conference Against Racism in
Durban--Durban I--was a disgrace. The idea of Durban I was to have a
historic global stand against racism, which this administration
certainly agrees is an important undertaking. But as the President-
elect has said, Durban I degenerated into an ugly display of anti-
Israel and anti-Semitic outrages. The next administration will work
hard in an effort to ensure that the 2009 Conference--which will take
place in Geneva in April--does not once again get twisted into a forum
for hatred and bias, like its predecessor. We want to review what we
can do to that end but, unfortunately, there are indications that this
conference will be just as deeply flawed. The President-elect and I
both believe that we must stand up to prejudice in all of its forms--
including the scourge of anti-Semitism. We will not throw up our
hands--we'll keep working to help put the conference on a responsible
path. But if those efforts fail, then the U.S. will not participate.
U.N. Peacekeeping
Question. U.S. taxpayers have continually seen reports of United
Nations peacekeepers that have robbed from, beaten, or sexually
assaulted the very people they were sent to protect. What policies will
you support to ensure the U.N. peacekeepers are held to high moral
standards of conduct?
Answer. United Nations peace operations play an important role in
promoting peace and stability, preventing conflict, resolving conflict,
and stabilizing conflict zones once war has ended. The new
administration will be committed to preventing misconduct by U.N.
military, police, and civilian peacekeeping personnel, with a
particular focus on sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as on
financial offenses such as fraud and black market activities. The U.N.
has undertaken a number of preventive and disciplinary measures, such
as establishing codes of conduct, training, investigative procedures,
and public awareness programs. Disciplinary action by governments
contributing personnel is also critical.
U.N. Reform
Question. Under the Bush administration, there was a concerted
effort to improve transparency and accountability at the U.N. However,
these successes were limited to the Secretariat and not the myriad
other funds and agencies that make up the U.N. Do you support these
efforts and what policies will you promote to improve reform of the
U.N.?
Answer. Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have understood
for decades that when the U.N. and related institutions work well, they
enhance our influence. And when they don't work well--as in the cases
of Darfur and the farce of Sudan's election to the former U.N.
Commission on Human Rights, for example--we should work with likeminded
friends to make sure that these institutions reflect the values that
motivated their creation in the first place.
We must prioritize U.N. reform, including greater transparency,
accountability, and efficiency. The U.N. needs to modernize. Outdated
structures and bloated management structures continue to undermine
performance. The United States has a critical role to play helping to
spearhead reform efforts.
energy
Question. According to a National Association of Manufacturers'
Study, energy is the second largest cost of doing business in America.
Access to affordable energy provides a competitive advantage for the
U.S., vis-a-vis other countries. Will you support treaties or other
types of international agreements that require an increase in U.S.
Government subsidies to our energy sector or raise the cost of energy
production in the U.S.?
Answer. I will consult closely with other members of the new
administration's energy policy team as well as with Congress before
negotiating international agreements that could impact our energy
policy in the United States.
______
Response to Question Submitted Senator Johnny Isakson
Question. Since 1997, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has pursued
observer status at the annual meeting of the World Health Assembly
(WHA), the supreme decisionmaking body of the World Health Organization
(WHO). Taiwan will once again seek observer status when the 2009
meeting of the WHA begins this May in Geneva.
Taiwan has engaged in this effort because the preservation of
global public health is one of the most important areas for
international participation and cooperation. As witnessed in recent
years, the threats posed by SARS and the avian flu did not respect
national boundaries, and multilateral efforts were essential to effect
preventative measures and control their proliferation. Occasional
reports of outbreak of epidemic diseases demonstrate the need for
active regional cooperation and global collaboration to preserve public
health.
In 2004, the U.S. Congress passed, and President Bush signed,
Public Law 108-235, which authorized the Secretary of State to pursue
observer status for Taiwan at the annual WHA meeting.
If confirmed, would you reaffirm U.S. policy to support Taiwan's
WHA observer status? Could you describe steps that you would
take to advance this objective?
Answer. I commend Taiwan's President Ma and China's President Hu
Jintao for seizing the opportunity created by President Ma Ying-jeou's
election this past March. I sincerely hope they will continue this
progress, as the United States gains from peaceful, stable cross-Strait
relations, including development of economic ties and cross-Strait
security. In this context, and consistent with the ``one China''
policy, I believe that it is appropriate for the United States to
support Taiwan's efforts to expand its international space, such as
observer status at the World Health Assembly. It is important for
Beijing to demonstrate to the people of Taiwan that the practical and
nonconfrontational approach taken by President Ma toward the mainland
can achieve positive results. As you note, there are myriad public
health issues that result from Taiwan's continued exclusion from
appropriate participation in the World Health Organization, and like
you I believe that the United States should work with Taiwan to see
that situation rectified.
______
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senator David Vitter
Question. What MOU language makes it crystal clear that future,
nonattendance-fee contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)
will be publically disclosed?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity again to set the record
straight on this issue. The only ``nonattendance-fee contributions'' to
the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) are sponsorship fees. In reaching
agreement on the MOU, the Transition and the Foundation took into
account that CGI already publishes all sponsors on an annual basis. And
to be clear: CGI will continue its practice of disclosing the names of
all sponsors on an annual basis. Thus, as I said in my testimony today,
CGI is not covered in the MOU for this purpose ``because they already
have a practice of disclosing all of their contributions. There is no
need to require it.''
Question. What MOU language makes it crystal clear that future
foundation contributions from contributors will be publically
disclosed?
Answer. The MOU provides: ``In anticipation of Senator Clinton's
nomination and confirmation as Secretary of State, the foundation will
publish its contributors this year. During any service by Senator
Clinton as Secretary of State, the foundation will publish annually the
names of new contributors.''
The MOU's use of ``new contributors'' includes all ``new
contributions.'' In my response to Senator Kerry's questions for the
record, I attempted to address any lack of clarify on this matter by
stating: ``As I understand from the MOU, should I be confirmed, the
foundation wiIl publish annually the names of all contributors for that
year.''
To restate for record here, all new contributions will be reported,
without regard to whether the contributor has given before.
Question. You have said that even the appearance of conflicts of
interest must be avoided. Does the Foundation's acceptance of a major
contribution fiom the Alavi Foundation after your nomination to be
Secretary of State meet that test?
Answer. The appearance of a conflict of interest must be assessed
based upon all the facts and circumstances. In this instance, I have
confirmed with the Foundation that it has not accepted a contribution
from the Alavi Foundation after my nomination. The only contribution
from the Alavi Foundation was published with all the other contributors
on December 18, 2008.
Question. Do you believe the U.S. is in violation of the text,
history, practice or intent of article VI of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
Answer. No; I do not.
Question. Section 33 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act
requires that all measures that ``obligate the United States to reduce
or limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States in a
militarily significant manner'' be undertaken with respect to article
11, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution--the Treaty
clause--requiring the advice and consent of Senators. Are you committed
to compliance with this law?
Answer. Yes; I am committed to comply with that law. The Obama
administration will consult closely with the Congress on the form in
which any agreements are submitted to the Congress.
Question. Both you and President-elect Obama cosponsored
legislation in the 110th Congress that would prohibit a so-called 123
civil nuclear cooperation agreement from entering into force or being
carried out as long as Russia continues to provide nuclear cooperation
and advanced conventional weapons sales, including advanced air defense
systems, to Iran. Can we assume that the President-elect and you
continue to believe that is the right policy and as a consequence, the
Obama administration will not push for Russia 123 to come into force
until the objectives of that legislation are satisfied?
Answer. Entry into force of the United States-Russia agreement for
civil nucIear cooperation (the 123 Agreement) could bring significant
benefits for the United States. At a technical level, an agreement
could help accelerate U.S. nuclear energy research and development
plans in such areas as fast neutron reactors, where the Russians
possess both experience and facilities not available in the U.S. A 123
Agreement also supports U.S. commercial interests by allowing U.S.
firms to sell nuclear materials, equipment, and technologies to Russia
and to team up with Russian companies in joint ventures to develop and
market reactors and other products to third countries. But perhaps the
most important benefit of a 123 Agreement is that it can facilitate a
cooperation in preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism--
including by allowing the U.S. to contribute materially to Russia's
multilatera1 uranium enrichment facility at Angarsk and by promoting a
more promising political and legal environment for pursuing a range of
cooperative threat reduction programs (e.g., nuclear security upgrades
in Russia). In light of Russia's behavior in the Georgia conflict, the
Bush administration decided that the timing was not appropriate last
year for pursuing congressional approval of the United States-Russia
123 Agreement. The Obama administration will review this issue and
decide how to proceed, taking into such factors as the potential
benefits of the deal, Russia's compliance with its commitments to stop
sensitive nuclear cooperation between Russian entities and Iran, and
the context of the overall United States-Russia relationship.
Question. Senator, the question of how to halt Iran's illegal
nuclear weapons program is surely the most immediate question that will
confront the new administration. WhiIe the Bush administration managed
to get a series of U.N. Security Council Resolutions on the matter, it
is widely accepted that the sanctions agreed to in those resolutions
have been insufficient. Regardless of what one thinks of the President-
elect's plan for unconditional diplomatic engagement, I assume you
agree that for it to be successful, the U.S. must approach that
engagement from a position of strength, which means we must be using
all the tools at our disposal?
Answer. President-elect Obama has stated that he will do everything
in his power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, beginning
with the power of aggressive American diplomacy. We will use all tools
at our disposal, and no options are off the table. President-elect
Obama said during the campaign that his administration will present the
Iranian regime with a clear choice: Abandon your nuclear weapons
program, support for terror and threats to Israel, and there will be
meaningful incentives. Refuse, and we will ratchet up the pressure,
with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in
the Security Council; and sustained action outside the U.N. to isolate
the Iranian regime. By pursuing tough, direct diplomacy, we will be
better able to rally the world to our side, strengthen multilateral
sanctions, and to convince the Iranian people that their own government
is the author of its isolation.
Question. The President-elect made the following statements during
the campaign:
a. ``I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon--everything in my power to prevent
Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon--everything.''
b. ``. . . while we should take no option, including military
action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy
combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to
prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.''
c. ``Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage
through stronger sanctions. . . . It would mean full
implementation of U.S. sanction laws.''
d. ``We should also pursue other unilateral sanctions that
target Iranian banks and Iranian assets.''
e. In July 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video
questioner: ``Would you be willing to meet separately, without
precondition, during the first year of your administration, in
Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria,
Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea? . . .'' ``I would,'' he
answered.
Do you agree with these statements? Can we expect the new
administration to promptly and aggressively use all sanctions options
at the disposal of the United States?
Answer. The President-elect and I are committed to opening a new
chapter in American foreign policy and developing new approaches to the
challenges and opportunities we face. The Obama administration will
support tough, aggressive, and direct diplomacy, without preconditions,
with our adversaries. Note that there is a distinction between
preparations and preconditions. For possible negotiations with Iran,
the President-elect and I both believe that there must be careful
preparation--such as low-level talks, coordination with allies, the
establishment of an agenda, and an evaluation of the potential for
progress.
We will carefully prepare for any negotiations. We will not sit
down with Iran just for the sake of talking. But we are willing to lead
tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a
time and place of our choosing--if, and only if--it can advance the
interests of the United States.
While pursuing a policy of tough and direct diplomacy, the Obama
administration will use various means to increase economic pressure on
Iran to persuade it to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will
be guided by the law when it comes to applying statutory sanctions. If
there are entities in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act, we will take
necessary steps under that statute.
Question. Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey has been remarkably
successful at isolating Iran's economy, chiefly its banks. As a
Senator, did you support these efforts? As Secretary of State, will you
pledge to this panel that the State Department will fully support the
Treasury Department?
Answer. When it comes to targeting the finances of terrorists and
other threats to U.S. national security, we expect to build on the
efforts of the Bush administration. If I am confirmed I will look to
hit the ground running on these issues, because we can't risk any
delays when dealing with terrorists and dangerous regimes. At the same
time, we will review all of these initiatives with an eye toward
continuing what is effective, improving what should be improved, and
beginning new initiatives where they are needed. I look forward to
working closely with the committee in doing so.
Question. The President-elect made this statement on the campaign
trail: ``Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through
stronger sanctions. . . . It would mean full implementation of U.S.
sanction laws.'' Are you familiar with the Iran Sanctions Act, which
punishes companies--foreign and domestic companies--that invest in
Iran's energy sector and was not used by the Bush administration?
Answer. President-elect Obama is committed to taking the necessary
steps to have policies consistent with existing U.S. sanctions laws.
Question. Do you agree that sanctions legislation only deters bad
actors as long as they believe there is a reasonable chance that a
violation will be caught and punished?
Answer. The prospect of punishment can deter bad actors, which is
why we must ensure that violators of sanctions legislation are held
responsible for their crimes. President-elect Obama is committed to
implementing U.S. sanctions laws and existing U.N. Security Council
Resolutions. We need to work with our partners on the Security Council
to consider additional measures to toughen penalties for violators, and
strengthen enforcement tools.
Question. Iran is racing ahead to build its own domestic refinery
capacity in order to protect itself from disruptions to its imported
supply of gasoline and diesel. In one of its most recent large-scale
domestic refinery projects, the Chinese firms Sinopec and China
National Offshore Oil Co. and the Malaysian firm SKS Ventures are
significant investors. Would you please let me know in a letter within
30 days of your taking office at State whether these firms' activities
are in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act or International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)?
Answer. We are closely monitoring this situation, and remain
cognizant of potential pressure points with Iran. The incoming
administration will work with international partners to persuade the
Iranian regime that its best interest is to verifiably abandon its
nuclear weapons efforts.
Question. As Secretary, would you commit to this committee that the
Department would investigate investments in the Iranian Energy sector
that appear to violate that act and promptly and completely answer any
inquiries from members of this committee who ask about specific
reported transactions?
Answer. I am committed to working with the committee on these
important efforts.
Question. Additionally, I'm curious if you agree with the
President-elect, when he said the following during the campaign: ``if
we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right
now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil producer, because its oil
infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing
the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that
starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the
squeeze on them.'' (Debate, October 7, 2008) Can we expect that you'll
work to target Iran's reliance on imported gasoline in order to achieve
this change in the regime's ``cost-benefit analysis''?
Answer. As stated earlier, we are closely monitoring this
situation, and remain cognizant of potential pressure points with Iran
including its importation of refined gasoline.
Question. Do you agree that it should be U.S. policy to dissuade
other countries from supplying (directly or through companies that do
business within their territory) refined petroleum products to Iran?
Answer. The incoming administration views with great concern the
role that Iran is playing in the world, including its sponsorship of
terrorism, its continuing interference with the functioning of other
governments and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We continue to look at
the issue of Iran's importation of refined gasoline as a part of our
larger foreign policy review.
Question. The U.S. and the EU have been negotiating with the
Iranians for several years through the EU-3 (France, Germany, U.K.)
with no results. The Europeans have had the precondition of a
suspension of uranium enrichment before agreeing to any payoffs to the
Iranian regime. There have been four U.N. Security Council resolutions
that also call for the suspension of the enrichment.
Do you support the U.S. going alone and unilaterally offering Iran
``negotiations without preconditions'' thus abandoning our European
allies and reversing course away from the U.N. Security policy
currently in place?
Answer. We believe that our best chance to gain Iranian compliance
with the demands of the international community comes though using all
tools at our disposal, ranging from direct, aggressive, principled
diplomacy, to tougher unilateral sanctions, to enhanced multilateral
sanctions.
Question. President Bush signed legislation that mandates the U.S.
support Taiwan's observer status in the World Health Organization (WHO)
and each year the administration must report to Congress on steps taken
to assist Taiwan in that effort. In an era where diseases such as SARS
and Avian Influenza can travel the world at the speed of an
international flight and tens of millions of lives could be at risk, a
lack of participation by Taiwan in the WHO is a danger not only for
Taiwan's population but our national security, and the world's, as
well. Will you work with Taiwan and will the administration be engaged
with the U.N. and other stakeholders to assist Taiwan in gaining
Observer Status within the WHO as well as aggressively support Taiwan's
entry into other international bodies?
Answer. I commend Taiwan's President Ma and China's President Hu
Jintao for seizing the opportunity created by President Ma Ying-jeou's
election this past March. I sincerely hope they will continue this
progress, as the United States gains from peaceful, stable cross-Strait
relations, including development of economic ties and cross-Strait
security. In this context, and consistent with the ``one China''
policy, I believe that it is appropriate for the United States to
support Taiwan's efforts to expand its international space, such as
observer status at the World Health Assembly. It is important for
Beijing to demonstrate to the people of Taiwan that the practical and
nonconfrontational approach taken by President Ma toward the mainland
can achieve positive results. As you note, there are myriad public
health issues that result from Taiwan's continued exclusion from
appropriate participation in the World Health Organization, and like
you I believe that the United States should work with Taiwan to see
that situation rectified.
Question. 0ne of the most effective means of building relationships
and ties between Taiwan and U.S. officials is for personal meetings and
briefings. The administration has an opportunity with two new
Presidents--President-elect Obama here and President Ma in Taiwan--to
build these relationships through visits by Cabinet members and senior
political appointees. Conversely, visits by Taiwanese Cabinet ministers
and other senior officials here would be extremely beneficial to a
wide-range of U.S. officials. This also fits in with President-elect
Obama's desire to broadly engage the world community. Would you agree
that these visits make sense for Taiwan?
Answer. As I noted in my response to Senator DeMint, in his letter
to President Ma Ying-jeou on May 20, 2008, President-elect Obama stated
that he believed the U.S. should strengthen channels of communication
with officials of Taiwan's Government. I share that view and believe
that it is important that the United States seek to rebuild a
relationship of trust with Taiwan, and support for Taiwan's robust
democracy. I support the ``one China'' policy of the U.S., adherence to
the three U.S.-PRC joint communique concerning Taiwan, and observance
of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Question. In 2007, you voted against a resolution labeling Iran's
Revolutionary Guard a ``terrorist'' organization. Is it still your
contention that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is not a ``terrorist''
organization?
Answer. I'm not aware of voting against any such resolution. Both
the President-elect and I agree that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
should be labeled a ``terrorist'' organization.
Question. For most of the Clinton and much of the Bush
administrations a great deal of effort was focused on bringng about an
end to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, In spite of these efforts, it
remains unclear as to whether conditions are ripe for a deal. The
Palestinian leadership is weak and divided and Hamas, committed to
Israel's destruction, controls Gaza.
Do you directly support Israel's right to defend themselves?
What are your realistic expectations for negotiations in the
coming months? How ripe is the situation for resolution? Can
the U.S. ``force'' the process?
How would you assess Arab support for the peace process and
for Mahmoud Abbas? What can you do to encourage the Arab states
to make good on their pledges to Palestinians and to play a
more constructive role?
With Palestinian elections for the Presidency taking place
sometime in the coming year, there is the possibility that
Hamas will take control. What will the Obama administration
policy be if the Palestinian Authority is run or effectively
controlled by Hamas?
Answer. Israel faces many threats to its security, and President-
elect Obama and I will always support Israel's right to defend itself.
We also share a belief that Israel's security would benefit from peace
agreements with its neighbors. President-elect Obama has pledged to
work actively from the beginning of his administration to help Israel
and the Palestinians achieve peace and security through a two-state
solution, because this is in both parties' interests, and chiefly,
because it is in the United States interests. Throughout 2008, he urged
Israel and the Palestinian Authority to make as much progress as
possible in their negotiations that arose out of the Annapolis
conference, so that a functioning process could be continued in 2009.
And indeed, the parties report that progress has been made in these
talks, which they hope to build upon. Our commitment is to help them
build on that progress and achieve their goal of two states living side
by side in peace and security. That commitment remains, even in the
face of very difficult and challenging events, such as the recent
events in Gaza and southern Israel.
I believe the Arab states have an important role to play in
advancing efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Their chief means to do so are providing political and economic support
to the Palestinian Authority, and taking steps toward normalization
with Israel. The Arab Peace Initiative contains some constructive
elements which could be important bases for negotiations and for
proactive steps to give the initiative a more operational character. I
look forward to discussing these opportunities with Israeli,
Palestinian, and Arab leaders and encouraging progress in these
efforts.
Question. With Palestinian elections for the Presidency taking
place sometime in the coming year, there is the possibility that Hamas
will take control. What will the Obama administration policy be if the
Palestinian Authority is run or effectively controlled by Hamas?
Answer. I prefer not to speculate about the outcome of future
elections in other countries. Our policy on Hamas is clear: We support
the Quartet's conditions on any dealings with Hamas--recognition of
Israel, recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, and abiding by
past agreements.
Question. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an
intergovernmental body whose purpose is the promotion of national and
international policies to combat money laundering and terrorist
financing. FATF has a list of 40 recommendations and 9 special
recommendations it uses to test whether financial institutions are
taking necessary precautions to avoid terror financing, money-
laundering, and other illicit activities.
Will you commit to protecting the U.S. taxpayer from inadvertently
funding such things as genocide in Burma or weapon sales to terrorists
by North Korea by prohibiting U.S. funds from going to any U.N. system
entity or other foreign development organization that transfers funds
to banks within states that are not certified by FATF?
Answer. This is an important issue. Your proposal is one that I
have not yet had the opportunity to review or consider. I look forward
to conducting that review and consulting with you as we move forward.
The United States, in coordination with allies and partners, has made
great strides in preventing terrorism supporters from misusing the
formal financial sector. I will work with the President-elect and my
fellow Cabinet members as the United States deploys all the tools of
national power to continue cracking down on terror-funding, including
military action, law enforcement investigations, prosecutions, and
diplomatic and intelligence activities.
Question. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
(FFATA), coauthored by President-elect Obama, requires all Federal
funding to be put on the public Web site, USAspending.gov. This
includes all contract, subcontract, grant, and subgrant data such as
the amount of award, source of funds, and the intended purpose of the
funds.
Despite this law, the State Department has failed to comply by not
listing all its contributions to entities within the U.N. system, such
as the U.N. Development Program, UNICEF, or UNESCO. Other U.S. agencies
that transfer U.S. funds to U.N. entities--such as the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Treasury, Interior, Energy, and
Education--have either ignored FFATA or only have submitted partial
information for their U.N. funding.
Shouldn't the U.S. taxpayers know where their money is going at the
U.N., and if you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure compliance
at the State Department and other U.S. agencies with the FFATA re U.N.
system funding?
Why should the U.S. fund a U.N. entity or any other grantee or
subgrantee of the State Department if it does not comply with U.S. law
as found in the FFATA, and supply subgrant information to be posted on
USAspending.gov?
Answer. I have not been fully briefed on the FFATA, but I look
forward to reviewing this issue and consulting with you on it as we
move forward. I take very seriously my responsibility to the U.S.
taxpayer to ensure that our U.N. contributions are well-spent and well-
managed. I also take very seriously my commitment to complying with the
law. If I am confirmed, I intend to work closely with Congress and the
members of this committee on this and the entire range of issues
pertaining to the United Nations.
