Text: Hillary Clinton Remarks to House Foreign Affairs Committee (22 April 2009)

Related Post: Video - Hillary Clinton Says “Existential Threat” in Pakistan (22 April 2009)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Greetings to many friends and former colleagues. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. This Committee has been the source of many advances in our nation’s foreign policy and I look forward to working with you to continue that tradition.

When I appeared before the Senate – that’s that other body on the other side of the Capitol – I spoke during my confirmation hearing of a commitment to pursue a policy that would enhance our nation’s security, advance our interests, and uphold our values. Today, nearly 100 days later, I am pleased to report that we have begun making progress toward achieving that goal.
I want to begin by recognizing and thanking the men and women of the State Department and USAID, who are serving our country around the clock and around the world. I’m extremely proud of their work. With their talents, and under President Obama’s leadership, we have put forward a new diplomacy powered by partnership, pragmatism, and principle.

Our priorities are clear. We are deploying the tools of diplomacy and development along with military power. We are securing historic alliances, working with emerging regional powers, and seeking new avenues of engagement. We’re addressing the existing and emerging challenges that will define our century: climate change, weak states, rogue regimes, criminal cartels, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, poverty, and disease. We’re advancing our values and our interests by promoting human rights and fostering conditions that allow every individual to live up to their God-given potential.

Now, I know that many of your questions today will deal with longstanding concerns: Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, certainly the Middle East, the fallout from the global financial crisis. I will speak briefly to those, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

As you know, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the President has outlined a strategy centered on a core goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida, and to prevent their safe return to havens in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We combined our strategic review with intensive diplomacy, and nations from around the world are joining our efforts. More than 80 countries and organizations participated in the international conference in The Hague, and a donors’ conference just concluded in Tokyo raised over $5 billion.

In Iraq, we’re working toward the responsible redeployment of our troops and the transition to a partnership based on diplomatic and economic cooperation. We’re deploying new approaches to the threat posed by Iran, and we’re doing so with our eyes wide open and with no illusions. We know the imperative of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. After years during which the United States basically sat on the sidelines, we are now a full partner in the P-5+1 talks.

In the Middle East, we engaged immediately to help bring the parties together to once again discuss what could be done to reach a two-state solution. We’re maintaining our bedrock core commitment to Israel’s security, providing economic support, security assistance, and we are also doing what we can to bolster the Palestinian Authority, and to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

More broadly, we’re working to contain the fallout from the global financial crisis. Our efforts at the G-20 focused in large measures on the poorest and most vulnerable countries. We need to provide support for the International Monetary Fund. We need to provide direct assistance to countries such as Haiti, where I traveled last week. These resources will help democratic, responsible governments regain their economic footing and avert political instability with wider repercussions.
Now, these challenges demand our urgent attention, but they cannot distract us from equally important, but sometimes less compelling or obvious threats, ranging from climate change to disease to criminal cartels to nonproliferation.

In today’s world, we face challenges that have no respect for borders. Not one of them can be dealt with by the United States alone. None, however, can be solved without us leading. All will have a profound impact on the future of our children. As daunting as these challenges are, they also offer us new arenas for global cooperation. And we’re taking steps to seize these opportunities.

First, we are pursuing a wide-ranging diplomatic agenda premised on strengthening our alliances with democratic partners in Europe, Asia, Africa and our own hemisphere. We are cultivating partnerships with key regional powers. We’re building constructive relationships with major nations that will have a lot to say about what happens in the world to come – China, Russia, India.

We’re working with longtime allies like Japan and South Korea to address not just regional concerns, but a host of global issues as well. I want to say a special word about Asia. You know, advancing our relationship with India – which I know the Chairman and the Ranking Member and others mentioned – is essential. It’s the world’s largest democracy. It’s an important ally in so many efforts. I made my first overseas trip as Secretary of State to Asia, a signal that we are not just a transatlantic power, but also a transpacific power, and that Asia will be an indispensable partner in years to come.

But we haven’t forgotten our traditional allies. We have worked hard with the European Union and with NATO, and then just a few days ago, we did go to Latin America to meet with nations who share a common home, a hemisphere, a heritage, and a common future. We discussed a new energy partnership, fighting drug trafficking and the drug cartels, consolidating democratic gains, and so much more.

We’re also building closer ties with regional anchors, including Brazil, Indonesia, and Turkey. These are not only partners, but they can be leaders on issues ranging from deforestation to democracy. We will work with China and Russia wherever we can, and we’ll be candid about our areas of disagreement. We will be starting a strategic and economic dialogue with China very shortly. We’ll be working with them to develop technologies to reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. And we have committed ourselves to working with Russia on finding a successor agreement to the START arms control agreement.
But we also understand that redefining diplomatic engagement is not just between governments. Policies and political leaders change over time. But ties between citizens, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, universities, NGOs, all of those endure. And these are very effective tools of diplomacy, and we’re committed to engaging these groups.

And so finally, we will work to expand opportunity and protect human rights, strengthen civil society, live up to the ideals that define our nation, work to advance education and healthcare, the rule of law and good governance, fight against corruption, expand opportunities for women and girls, and those on the margins of society.

As we promote responsible governance abroad, we have to invest more in our tools here at home. As the Chairman said, I’m working hard to create a more agile, effective Department with the right staffing and resources to fulfill the President’s agenda. That’s why I have filled, for the first time, the position of Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
I’ve also challenged the Department to reform and innovate and save taxpayer dollars. We’re turning our ambassadors into in-country chief executives with authority and responsibility for the programs on the ground. We’re consolidating IT support services that will yield savings of tens of millions of dollars. We’re deploying new media technologies to carry our message more effectively.

And I am determined to see that the men and women of our Foreign and Civil Service get the resources they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. Even Secretary Gates has pointed out our country has underinvested in diplomacy. That must end. Just as we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into battle, we cannot send our diplomats into the field in today’s world with all of the threats they face, 24/7, without the tools they need. We don’t invest in diplomacy and development; we end up paying a lot more for conflict and all that follows.

So Mr. Chairman, we’re pursuing these policies because they’re the right thing to do. We believe that no country benefits more than the United States when there is greater security, democracy, and opportunity in the world. Our economy grows when our allies are strengthened and people thrive. And no country carries a heavier burden when things go badly. Every year, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars dealing with the consequences of war, disease, violent ideologies, and vile dictatorships.

So let’s invest in the type of world that we want. We have no shortage of challenges or opportunities. The world is looking for leadership and looking to see how this new Administration meets this moment. I believe if we follow our plans and our principles, we will succeed. We can lead the world in creating a century that we and our children will be proud to own, a century of progress and prosperity for the whole world, but especially for our beloved country.

But to achieve these goals, we need your help, we need your advice, and we need your support. And I look forward not only to the formal hearing today, but to the informal, ongoing dialogue that I’ve started with some of you and look forward to having with all of you. We’re in this together. We have to row in the same direction for the benefit of our country and our children.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Roxana Saberi/Hossein Derakhshan Update: Ahmadinejad Intervenes in Court Cases

UPDATE: Curiously, CNN does not seem to have noticed Ahmadinejad's intervention. Their current story focuses on the statement of Reza Saberi that his daughter is "frail and weak" in Evin prison.
*********************

Enduring America, 18 April: "It could be that judicial forces wanted to show 'independence' from political pressure (ironic given that this is a politicised case) and moved quickly."

Iranian politics just swung in favour of Roxana Saberi.

Less than 24 hours after the announcement of Saberi's 8-year jail sentence on espionage charges, the office of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has published a letter to the judiciary about the cases of Saberi and jailed Iranian-Canadian blogger Hossein Derakhshan (whose case Enduring America highlighted last November):

Based on the president's insistence, please make sure that all the legal stages about the mentioned people be based on justice.......and you personally make sure that the accused people will enjoy all freedoms and legal rights to defend themselves and their rights will not be violated.

Translation: the Iranian prosecutors and courts pushed this case to a quick conclusion. Now, facing the consequences for US-Iranian engagement and also wanting to curb the judiciary's activisms, Iranian leaders are pushing back.

The showdown will come as the case is appealed. Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he wants --- quickly --- a reduction of Saberi's sentence. Such a move will meet the measured but clear response of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that they were "deeply disappointed" over yesterday's announcement.

However, the President's wish is not necessarily a command. Will the prosecutors and judges try to hold their line and enforce the full 8-year jail term?

Israel-Palestine: What Has Happened to George Mitchell's Talks?

Funny thing about US envoy George Mitchell's latest visit to the Middle East: most of the US and British press didn't take much notice.

Mitchell was in talks yesterday with Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The New York Times decided this was worth one paragraph with the lead sentence:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday skirted calls by George J. Mitchell, President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding prior Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state instead.

The Washington Post relied on an Associated Press summary, "Stark differences between U.S. and Israeli policy toward peace talks with the Palestinians emerged clearly Thursday."

Even those brief mentions, however, raise the question: has Netanyahu effectively blocked Washington's pursuit of substantial Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper, offers a possible answer:

The Obama administration is preparing a Middle East peace process that will include simultaneous bilateral talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Syria. The plan is based on the Arab peace initiative that offers establishing normal relations between Israel and Arab League states in exchange for withdrawing from the occupied territories and establishing a Palestinian state.

The United States will put together a "security package," including demilitarization of the territories from which Israel will withdraw and the option of stationing a multinational force in them for years.

Frustratingly, Ha'aretz gives no clue to its source, so it is unclear if the information has been leaked by Washington. Even more curiously, the spin on the plan is that "the Obama administration believes that a breakthrough in the peace process between Israel and the Arab states would restrain Tehran's influence and contribute to the diplomatic effort to block Iran's nuclearization". This could be an attempt by an Israeli official to sell the US approach to a domestic audience, or it could be an American attempt to overcome Tel Aviv's opposition by setting out the "Iran-first" framework.

All this speculation and spin, however, may be no more than academic, given the current Israeli position. Palestinian Authority leaders, meeting Mitchell in the West Bank today, made clear, "The U.S. must hold Israel to previous peace commitments and pressure it to accept the principle of Palestinian statehood."

Iran: The Dangers of the Roxana Saberi Espionage Trial

Latest Post: Roxana Saberi Update - Positive Signs Despite a Hopeless TV Interview
Related Post: Iran Jails Journalist Saberi for 8 Years on Espionage Charges

It is a rare day when I agree with an opinion in the Wall Street Journal, but that morning has come.

Commenting on the espionage trial of Iranian-American Roxana Saberi, which began in secret on Monday, Gerald Seib commented, "This is a significant event that likely serves multiple, unpleasant purposes for an Iranian government with which the Obama administration is about to begin talking."

Let's be clear. The immediate multiple, unpleasant effects are being felt by Roxana Saberi, as she remains in Evin Prison in Tehran. Any failure of judgement --- she was initially charged with buying a bottle of wine and then for reporting without a license --- does not constitute espionage, especially when that guilt is to be determined without legal representation or any public presentation of evidence.

Possibly some of my friends and colleagues in Tehran would argue that the judiciary, as an independent branch, makes its own determinations on cases to be tried and that politicians should not interfere in that process. But, again to be clear, every indication is that the decision to ratchet up the charges against Saberi from possession of alcohol to spying was political, not legal, in nature. As Seib writes, "A journalist can be an easy target for signal-sending."

I'm not so sure about Seib's speculation for Saberi's prosecution, "It's the kind of move that chills internal dissent." This feels more like one agency or faction trying to score points against others within Iran's complex political system.

The broader point remains, however, that this trial is a powerful check-and-balance against Iranian engagement with the US. Two weeks ago, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passed a letter to Iranian representatives at The Hague conference raising the cases of Saberi and another detainee, as well as an American who has been missing for years after a trip to Iran. The decision to proceed with the trial, as well as a judiciary spokesman's criticism of American interference, is a blunt response that Iran does not bow to US wishes on its internal matters.

Some Iranian officials and politicians may have recognised the damage this case could cause to US-Iranian discussions. However, it has now proceeded so far that Iran cannot release Saberi and "save face".

My hope is that the Saberi case will follow the pattern of that of Haleh Esfandiari, the Iranian-American academic jailed in 2007 on charges of spying. After four months, and an intensive campaign on her behalf by colleagues such as the former Senator Lee Hamilton, Esfandiari was released.

However, it is important to note that Esfandiari was "better connected" than Saberi and that she never went to trial. And the US Government has been very reluctant to step in publicly for Saberi; it was only yesterday that a State Department spokesman broached concern.

Thus for Saberi's sake and --- not more importantly but more broadly --- for the sake of US-Iran engagement, some politicians and officials in Iran need to move with a face-saving solution such as conviction and immediate deportation.

It is essential that US-Iran discussions, leading to a more productive relationship diplomatic, economic, and cultural relationship, continue. It is just as essential that, in the name of those discussions, Roxana Saberi is not seen as expendable.

US-Iran Engagement: Washington to Drop Nuclear Precondition on Talks?

Yesterday's New York Times reported, "The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program."

That fits with our developing analysis that the faction within the Administration which favours an improvement of diplomatic relations with Tehran, linked to co-operation on issues such as Afghanistan, is winning an internal battle. That faction, which includes President Obama, has recognised that there is no hope of getting Iran to drop the nuclear programme and, I suspect, that the programme is devoted primarily to civilian purposes rather than acquisition of the Bomb. Equally important, they have likely concluded that there is no good option to block Iran's nuclear development: the US is unlikely to get strengthened multilateral economic sanctions, and an Israeli military strike --- which still accepted by some within the Administration --- would have serious, possibly disastrous, political consequences.

This does not mean that the internal battle is over. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, showing nerves over the leaked story, denied that it reflected an Administration decision. The dramatic declaration in the "Times" was hedged with the escape clause: the phrase "allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks" also allows for a move back to sanctions --- or a halt to discussions --- if Tehran does not allow inspections that the US considers suitable. And a "senior Administration official" maintained that the Iranians would ultimately have to halt uranium enrichment, “Our goal remains exactly what it has been in the U.N. resolutions: suspension.”

Still, the trend continues to be towards US-Iran negotiation, rather than confrontation. Substantive talks, especially in public, still have to await the Iranian Presidential elections in June. However, Tehran's signals that discussions will be welcomed, and Obama's gradual ascendancy over his own hard-liners, points to another date in this new US-Iran relationship.