FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Disappearance of Lao Civil Society Leader Sombath Somphone
Press Statement
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 16, 2013
We are deeply concerned about the well-being of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, who disappeared one month ago. Reports indicate that Mr. Sombath went missing on December 15, 2012 after being stopped at a police checkpoint in the capital city of Vientiane. We call upon the Lao government to pursue a transparent investigation of this incident and to do everything in its power to bring about an immediate and safe return home to his family.
Since receiving his education in the United States, Mr. Sombath has worked tirelessly to promote sustainable development in Laos and he inspired a new generation of young leaders. He founded the Participatory Development Training Center, which trains Lao youth and local government leaders in community development and poverty reduction. His disappearance has generated a tremendous amount of concern from his family, friends and colleagues around the world. We urge his immediate return home and send our thoughts and prayers to his family and loved ones.
Showing posts with label U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
ACTING UNDER SECRETARY GOTTENMOELLER'S GOOGLE+ HANGOUT AND ARMS CONTROL INNOVATION CHALLENGE REMARKS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller's Google+ Hangout
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Washington, DC
Daniel Terdiman
: Innovation in arms control as well as to announce the winners of the innovation challenge, I would like to introduce Acting Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Thank you Daniel and thank you everyone for being here. It’s great to try out this new technology. I have to say I have been fascinated by the potential for the information technology revolution to help us out in the world of arms control, verification and monitoring. In fact for a long time, since I was negotiating the New Start Treaty with Russian colleagues in Geneva, I was thinking that a lot was happening out in the information arena that we hadn’t thought about using in the arms control monitoring and verification world. Beyond traditional treaties, like the New START Treaty that are also areas of nuclear safe guards, the International Atomic Energy Agency for example is always looking for ways to hone and modernize and improve its ways of safe guarding nuclear facilities, civil energy facilities around the world. So, I was very interested in work that we can do that would help us in this arena. So, about a year ago we got the idea of putting together a competition, a challenge, an innovation challenge, to see if a community of experts working in these areas, whether in the arms control arena or else in the information and technology arena could help us think about some new ideas for really tackling these tough policy problems, and I am very happy to tell you that while it was quite a bureaucratic tussle as you can imagine to work this out, but for one thing the U.S. Government is very encouraging now of technology innovation challenges , we’ve been working some with the Defense Advanced Research Projects, you can see DARPA has long been at the forefront of efforts to move these information technology challenges, they were very, very helpful and we managed to get it done.
I am very happy to announce the results of our first competition, and we have all three of our competition winners here on the screen. The first, our first prize winner is all the way from Beijing where it is 2 o’clock in the morning, and she has joined us today. Her name is Lovely Umayam, she is a graduate student from the Monterey Institute of International Studies at Middlebury College, and she has been awarded first prize of $5,000 for her creation of "Bombshelltoe". This is an online education platform that examines the intersection culture and nuclear issues in order to facilitate a better understanding of basic arms control and nuclear policy-related issues. So congratulations to Lovely and thank you very much for joining us all the way from Beijing. We will be hearing more from her in a minute, but let me turn to the other two prize winners. The second is Mr. Allen Childers, an aerospace and defense industry consultant from Florida. He has been awarded the runner up prize of $2,500 for his proposal of a mobile application that provides a platform for users to connect and interact, as well as a rewards program for sharing information on various arms control treaty regimes. Our third winner is Dr. Rudolph "Chip" Mappus, a research scientist at Georgia Tech. I should say he is our second runner up, our two runners up of the same status. He is a research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute and he has been awarded the second runner up of $2,500 for his proposal of a unique geographically based online social game for verifying treaty compliance. All three of these prizes that we’ve awarded are related to the education of the public and really figuring out how to get the public more engaged in arms control monitoring and verification, and to develop public understanding of the challenges that face us in this policy arena. So again a very big thanks and expression of appreciation to our three prize winners, and Dan I’m going to turn it back over to you for, for your comments and questions. Thanks a lot.
Daniel Terdiman: Okay, well thank you very much. We did want to hear from each of the winners, I believe each of you have a little, small presentation about your, about your submissions. Lovely, do you want to start us off?
Lovely Umayam: Sure, again thank you so much for this opportunity. I am in Beijing, but it’s totally fine and again I am really excited to be here. So, as Under Secretary Gottemoeller said earlier, my proposal is "Bombshelltoe", which is a nuclear policy blog dedicated to examining nuclear issues through popular culture. In the nonproliferation field, I’ve noticed we take for granted some basic knowledge like the difference between uranium and plutonium, what a nuclear weapon free-zone is, etc. But the public is starting with zero knowledge and usually they get their knowledge from movies and TV shows and so forth, and so "Bombshelltoe" or the goal of "Bombshelltoe" is to foster a more meaningful conversation about arms control issues by exploring the intersection between the two that would hopefully pique the interest of the public into diving deeper into the details of arms control policy, and Under Secretary Gottemoeller is a big component of social verification and its exciting and it’s an idea worth exploration. But, our conceptualization of such an issue needs a pragmatic approach, and what I want to advocate is that we cannot leave social out of social verification, and this means engaging in education for the public. So that’s a snippet of "Bombshelltoe" and I am excited to unleash it in the universe and share it with you all, so thanks again.
Daniel Terdiman: Thank you Lovely, one quick question that I have for you is have you seen other projects like this, that you know involving other issues?
Lovely Umayam: I have actually, one of the inspirations for "Bombshelltoe" was Radio Lab from WNYC and there is also you know Wired Magazine. It is basically taking their complex issues and simplifying it, and and I guess interpreting it with a twist, so it’s a little bit more interesting. And I mean I think that is really where social verification needs to start, if we are going to try to use information technology, at the end of the day its people using such technology. So they need to be well informed and they need to be interested, especially with national security issues. So I hope that, well you know "Bombshelltoe" in and of itself is experimental, I think it’s going to be a challenge to condense the very dense issues about nuclear policy, about arms control policy into a nuclear policy blog, but I sure hope to try.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good, thank you so much. Allen do you want to give us a little of a primer on your project, please?
Allen Childers: Sure, thank you for having me here today and awarding me a prize, I was pleasantly surprised when that happened. I have a background in the military, I have 26 years in the military and part of that time was spent in the State Department and much of that time that I had in the military and as a contract consultant after I left the military was in the arms control world, so I come to it with a little bit different perspective. I thought that a great idea would be to create a game along the lines of "Where is Waldo?", except we would call it "Where are TLI?" or we create a title for something like that, and I look at it as an opportunity to gather information not necessarily to do intelligence gathering or verification of arms control treaties, because I personally believe the government is responsible for that. And we don’t want to create a social network of people who are "pseudo-spies" necessarily because from a military perspective we don’t want our own citizens spying on us and I am certain from my experience with the Russians and other countries we don’t want to put their citizens in a situation where they’re perceived as spying on their own militaries or their own government. So a "Where’s Waldo?" concept came up because when you go online and look at Waldo, he is leaving a number of tools around a number of hints of where he is at all the time and what happens is when you take treaty limited items outside of their normal environment for example you take a warhead off of an ICBM, and you transport it somewhere, we as a country and any other country involved in an arms control agreement would like to understand where that warhead is all the time, when it is not where its suppose to be and that’s really the gap that we have in verification of arms control treaties. Generally we know from data exchanges and from on-site inspections where things are when they are suppose to be there. We have trouble finding out where they’re at when they’re not supposed to be. So, my proposal was basically to create a system of avatars, everyone would log on to a system, a "Where’s Waldo?" type of game as an avatar. So they are not identified as a person providing particular information, we don’t provide them with anything other than a series of points that they can be awarded when they identify "TLI" that is not in place, and we provide them with some kind of idea what a "TLI" not where its suppose to be might look like, for example a warhead would not travel as a warhead on the back of a flatbed truck so that everyone can see, it would travel in a trailer, we would find those kinds of trailers and have people identify if they see that kind of data. So, then we would have to establish a number of ground rules too with our treaty partners, we would have to test the system regularly. I was particularly encouraged last week because I noted in an article released by Reuters that Google, Facebook, and Amazon.com are going to take this kind of approach in a cancer research study, were there is so much data out there that can be shared with social media and people with five minutes or something can review that data and look for particular anomalies in that data and tell a scientist that they see it, so you take millions of people, researching the data for them. And that’s my contribution, thank you again.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good thank you, that sounds very interesting, and Chip would you like to let us in on what you’re working on, please?
Dr. Rudolph "Chip" Mappus: So, thanks again for letting us all be here today, my proposal dovetails with what Allen was proposing. Mine sort of focuses on or is inspired by existing online games that utilize consumer-grade GPS and smartphone technology to hide things in the open, right, so you know these notions of geocaching or QR codes that are hidden in plain sight but are only, players are only aware of them and their significance by locating them. My proposal was to have experts, treaty experts post online locations and tasks for players to complete and then the players would go out, seek out these locations, note the needed information that is necessary for treaty compliance, and then submit it online so that the experts can then again verify that the players have completed the tasks. So it’s sort of a running game now where there are millions of these geocaches located throughout the world and people play it insistently almost and this game, this proposal game is a play on that.
Daniel Terdiman: Well thank you very much. Under Secretary Gottemoeller, I’m curious from your prospective were you surprised to see that two of the three winners had proposed games? I mean was that what you were expecting?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well, honestly I hadn’t thought about games, but they’re two important points that all three of our prize winners will point out for the community -- and first of all that is we need a way to engage the public that really gets them interested because the whole area of nuclear arms control, conventional, chemical biological weapons, it seems so arcane somehow, and you never seem to get the level of interest that we had during the Cold War these days. These days its seems very remote and something that’s not really important to people’s day-in, day-out lives. So I was very pleased, actually, that all three of our prize winners came up with ways to engage the public and engage the public in very lively ways that really point out the relevance, I think, of this arena of arms control policy and nonproliferation policy to everybody’s everyday interests, and so I actually in the end was surprised, I have to say, but in the end I got it. And I said this is really interesting. And this is a great way to engage the public and by the way to get young people interested. Because especially for the younger generation, I think a lot of them think, "Oh man, that’s something from the Cold War," or "That’s something we don’t have to think about today at all," so I really welcome that each of these three prize winners came up with ideas that will engage the public and that will keep the younger generation interested because I’m certainly looking for the next generation of policymakers to take over in this arena when I am ready to retire. The other thing I think is that their work points out is that, especially our latter two prize winners, the role of ubiquitous sensing these days. That we have sensors everywhere -- sensors on smartphones, iPads, a great number of sensors all producing data and information and we have to figure out a way to use that information for all kinds of applications. I think the medical applications are terrific, just mentioned a few moments ago of the use of this great flow of data for cancer research and potentially cancer treatment. I think this is a really exciting area in the medical arena and I say to myself, "Why not apply it to the kind of sensing task we need in the arms control treaty and monitoring arena?" So I really welcome also that they pointed us in that direction in this competition.
Daniel Terdiman: Absolutely, very good. You mention that you want to get young people involved in this. Do you have a sense of whether if there were school-aged people that made submissions to this innovations challenge?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well, I was just delighted that Lovely is our first prize winner and she is a graduate student, as I mentioned at the Monterey Institute, although now doing a year of dissertation research in Beijing, so we had a number of very, very good applications from students all over the place. This particular competition was limited to students in the United States, but we had quite a few good ideas coming in from students and I am very pleased about that. And by the way, we are looking forward to a new competition, so stay tuned for that. I am not ready today to announce the details, but we will certainly be putting out the details of a new competition within a short time. Sometime this spring.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good. Well, we have some questions that were submitted by people by Twitter and also on Google+, and I thought we would give you a chance to answer a few of those. They are not related directly to this challenge, but they are more to the question of arms control and international security. So, one is vaguely related, and so the question is, "What is the most outrageous information and communication technology, or concept that you would have loved to see applied to help solve a global security problem?"
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: The most outrageous? Wow, that’s in the eyes of the beholder, but I think that that’s a great question. I think I will take us back to the notion of ubiquitous sensing and how we make use of this kind of information, because a lot of the challenges we will be facing in the future in the arms control arena, it’s kind of like the "Where’s Waldo?" issue that was described a few moments ago. We are going to very small objects, widely disbursed, things like warheads. President Obama has talked about in the next phase of nuclear arms reductions focusing in on warheads that are in storage facilities or warheads that are held in reserve as one of the goals for the next stage of nuclear arms reduction. Up to this point, we have always focused in on big items, that you can see even from outer space, even from satellites, or from overhead aircraft, like missiles or bombers or big submarines, really large objects. But when we start focusing in on warheads, that are held behind closed doors in storage facilities we are going to have very, very different kinds of challenges, so having widely dispersed sensors that can help us with the right analysis and, of course, the right acquiescence with our treaty partners to get out looking for and finding some of these smaller objects. I think it will be a very important step forward. So, I would say that’s our greatest challenge and so I’m looking very useful, but I think never the less, at this point, becoming well-developed technologies are not new things but are well deployed around the world and we are just looking for better ways to use them.
Daniel Terdiman: Can you step back in time a little bit and explain what the term "societal verification" means?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Yes, societal verification was first developed during the 1950s. One of its first proponents was Joseph Rotblat who was one of the founders of the so called ‘pugwash movement’ that was really one of the first efforts to bring together Soviet scientists, U.S. scientists, and scientists from other countries to tackle the problem of nuclear arms control and nuclear nonproliferation. So "Pugwash" did a great job and Joseph Rotblat very early on said that we need to get the public more involved in and more excited about these issues and really try to get them into -- into cooperating with the government on arms control implementation. It is a challenge, and several of our winners have pointed to this. It is a challenge you want to make sure this can be done in cooperation with governments and make sure that people won’t be accused of contradicting national policy or getting in the way of government policy when they participate in this kind of partnership with government on verification activities. But one thing I like to point out is this notion of societal verification is already well established in the environmental sphere. When we had the big oil spill down in the Gulf of Mexico a couple of years ago, it was local communities who were really engaged and involved in providing information about the conditions on the ground there back to governments, both local city, and in the end the Federal Government in order to provide better data on the oil spill. So, societal verification is established in some fields and I think we need to think about its proper use in this more narrow field, never the less very important one of arms control.
Daniel Terdiman: Got it. And you talk about this idea being around for quite some time and I’m curious why you though, you know, I guess the challenge was announced last August, but why is this the right time to be starting challenges like this? Is it because of technology just become kind of ready or why else do you think?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: We think it’s partially the revolution in information technology. I can see that these kinds of applications are emerging in other fields, in the environment and medicine, two that we already talked about today, and finally I felt this really compelling need to engage the public and to get them interested in this field of policy. The President has been very committed to the so-called "Prague Initiative," that is his idea of eliminating eventually over time nuclear weapons and really insuring we eventually get to zero. So in terms of engaging the public this was all important I think in order to be able to fulfill this task.
Daniel Terdiman: Well, very good. Let me turn to a couple more questions from viewers that are not related to the competition itself. When dealing with other countries to negotiate the control of weapons of mass destruction, who are our greatest enemies and who are our greatest allies, and why?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: I rather say what, rather than who in this case, our greatest ally, in my view is experience. We’ve had forty plus years of experience in reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons, first with the Soviet Union, now with the Russian Federation. This experience over time has really given us a good idea of how to go about it and by the way how to constantly improve it. I really like to think about new methods and technologies for verification and monitoring because there are always better ways to do what we have already done. But I think we have been able to clearly establish with the experience of the last 40 years, that these kind of deals are in our national security interest, so that’s why I say experience has really shown us the compelling reasons that we need to embrace nuclear arms control and to continue to pursue it. And that goes for other weapons of mass destruction too. Chemical weapons have been very much in the press because of what is going on in Syria and before that in Libya. So, it is very important to work on these issues. Our greatest enemy, I think, is time because there is never enough time to address every single problem that needs to be addressed. And certainly in negotiating these arms control treaties, some of them are very complicated and we need to work out a lot of details and you really need to keep your eye on the prize of what you are trying to accomplish in policy terms, and not forget about that, because otherwise you can get wrapped around the axle about all the problems that need to be confronted. And we just have to realize that, although time is an enemy, we can take the time we need to make a really good agreement happen.
Daniel Terdiman: You mention time -- and one of the things that it made me think about is the idea that we talk about it with hacking and computer security a lot -- is that you come up with the solution to a problem, and just as you come up with a solution the bad actors are already moving on to a new kind of attack. Is that kind of something where you worry that as these technologies become available, the people that you're worrying about are already moving onto whole new approaches to cause problems?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well, certainly this has been a very fast moving field and I’m not here today to talk about the challenges affecting the information security, computer security realm but I would say that we have to be smart how we work these areas of policy, the U.S.G. The U.S. Government has been putting a lot of attention into how we tackle the problem of cyber security and the challenges in this arena and we have to stay a couple steps ahead of the game in every way we can, but at the same time I think we have to be embracing the potential here and having to figure out we can make use of these great technologies to help us out with what we need to do.
Daniel Terdiman: But in the arms control arena, the same question, do you worry that as technology is becoming your ally, solving these problems in the country, the terrorist groups are already moving onto new technologies that could, that can…?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: If you’re talking about ways to hide the ball, in other words, to obscure what they are doing, yeah, we’re always concerned about that and we’re always trying to stay a couple steps ahead of the game in that regard as well. Because these are important assets for actors and we worry very much about non-state actors, terrorists who might get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. In fact, that’s why the President has been so intent on working on not only nuclear arms control and elimination, because if you get rid of nuclear weapons you deal with part of that problem worrying about nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, but the other thing he has been working on is nuclear material security. Let’s lock things down, let’s make sure we do everything we can to make sure that nuclear materials don’t get into terrorist hands. You have to stay two steps ahead of those guys at all the time.
Daniel Terdiman: Well great, I think we have time for one more question from our Twitter and Google+ viewers, this question is: "Why are the P5 scared to talk about the consequents of the nuclear weapons that they predicate their security on?"
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: I don’t accept the premise of that question at all, the P5 have been at the forefront of countries that have been working these problems from the get-go, in fact, the United States and the Soviet Union and now the United States and Russia, have been wrestling with this problem for forty years as I mentioned a moment ago, so I don’t accept the premise of the question. I think the question comes from the fact that the P5 and that is the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China have decided not to attend a conference in Oslo on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. The reason is that, we understand very well what the humanitarian consequences are and we are focused on, in a step-by-step way, reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. We’ve been concerned that an activity like the Oslo Conference would obscure this pragmatic step-by-step approach that we feel is the all important way to get our arms around this problem and solve it. But I would like to make one thing really clear, there could be some confusion among friends and colleagues in the nongovernmental community, we are very, very keen to continue to see education on this very important issue to take place among the public, because it is true that the public has lost sight of the dangers of nuclear use, and I think it’s very important for the expert community as well as the allies and colleague in the academic community as well as the government to continue to educate the public about the heavy consequences of nuclear use, so it is a very important goal, but as far as the P5 are concerned we are very knowledgeable about this issue overall as well as being very committed to it being done in a step-by-step way and we don’t want to be distracted from that step-by-step path.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good, do we have time for one more question perhaps?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Yes, I have time for one more question, if we don’t get zeroed out here somehow.
Daniel Terdiman: I’m curious, you mention the P5, but I’m also interested in has it been difficult as you precede with these innovation challenges and you hope to implement the submission, the winning ideas, has it been difficult, or do you think it will be difficult to get other countries on board with implementing these solutions?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well I think it’s always difficult in a government-to-government settings to move out with new ideas, but I will say in the context of the New START Treaty when we were negotiating that in Geneva, both we and the Russians realized that we needed to think about some new ways to get at the problems were tackling in that negotiation. We decide for example that we wanted to be able to count warheads in this treaty rather than just the missile systems and use then a more generalized counting rule to approximate the number of warheads on each missile. So that involved a more detailed on-site inspection regime in the New START Treaty for warheads, or re-entry vehicles as we call them, on their delivery systems, on their missiles. So we are always looking for ways to innovate, and I think this technology revolution means some big new steps in that direction and I don’t think it’s going to be simple to implement them in policy, but never the less I do think there will be some compelling reasons to look at these approaches and to eventually incorporate them into some new agreements. We’ll see how it goes.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good, I think we are about out of time but I wanted to ask if Lovely, Allen, and Chip if you have anything before we finish this up?
Allen Childers: I just wanted to thank again for the opportunity, I think the contest was an outstanding idea, I would like to see more of it, and I would like to see it from other agencies too. I think the State Department has really stepped out onto something that’s quite valuable and as a person who spent a lot of years in the Defense Department, I would like to see them follow your lead. Thank you.
Lovely Umayam: Yea, thank you as well.
Dr. Rudolph "Chip" Mappus: Yea, I was quite optimistic with both the challenge and the outcomes, I think we are on a brink of an opportunity here…
Lovely Umayam: I just wanted to add one more thing, also I’m really excited to know that this challenge is starting off with public engagement, I’ve heard of social verification before and I know the nonproliferation field, that has been a topic of debate. And the challenges of really understanding what that concept is and how do we educate the public and get them interested in the issues. I am glad to see the other winners are interested in that, and I think we are off to a great start. So, thank you.
Daniel Terdiman: Well, thank you for all your thoughts, that you Under Secretary Gottemoeller, and thank you to all those who tuned into watch this great discussion.
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Thank you, Daniel. I had a great time.
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller's Google+ Hangout
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Washington, DC
Daniel Terdiman
: Innovation in arms control as well as to announce the winners of the innovation challenge, I would like to introduce Acting Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Thank you Daniel and thank you everyone for being here. It’s great to try out this new technology. I have to say I have been fascinated by the potential for the information technology revolution to help us out in the world of arms control, verification and monitoring. In fact for a long time, since I was negotiating the New Start Treaty with Russian colleagues in Geneva, I was thinking that a lot was happening out in the information arena that we hadn’t thought about using in the arms control monitoring and verification world. Beyond traditional treaties, like the New START Treaty that are also areas of nuclear safe guards, the International Atomic Energy Agency for example is always looking for ways to hone and modernize and improve its ways of safe guarding nuclear facilities, civil energy facilities around the world. So, I was very interested in work that we can do that would help us in this arena. So, about a year ago we got the idea of putting together a competition, a challenge, an innovation challenge, to see if a community of experts working in these areas, whether in the arms control arena or else in the information and technology arena could help us think about some new ideas for really tackling these tough policy problems, and I am very happy to tell you that while it was quite a bureaucratic tussle as you can imagine to work this out, but for one thing the U.S. Government is very encouraging now of technology innovation challenges , we’ve been working some with the Defense Advanced Research Projects, you can see DARPA has long been at the forefront of efforts to move these information technology challenges, they were very, very helpful and we managed to get it done.
I am very happy to announce the results of our first competition, and we have all three of our competition winners here on the screen. The first, our first prize winner is all the way from Beijing where it is 2 o’clock in the morning, and she has joined us today. Her name is Lovely Umayam, she is a graduate student from the Monterey Institute of International Studies at Middlebury College, and she has been awarded first prize of $5,000 for her creation of "Bombshelltoe". This is an online education platform that examines the intersection culture and nuclear issues in order to facilitate a better understanding of basic arms control and nuclear policy-related issues. So congratulations to Lovely and thank you very much for joining us all the way from Beijing. We will be hearing more from her in a minute, but let me turn to the other two prize winners. The second is Mr. Allen Childers, an aerospace and defense industry consultant from Florida. He has been awarded the runner up prize of $2,500 for his proposal of a mobile application that provides a platform for users to connect and interact, as well as a rewards program for sharing information on various arms control treaty regimes. Our third winner is Dr. Rudolph "Chip" Mappus, a research scientist at Georgia Tech. I should say he is our second runner up, our two runners up of the same status. He is a research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute and he has been awarded the second runner up of $2,500 for his proposal of a unique geographically based online social game for verifying treaty compliance. All three of these prizes that we’ve awarded are related to the education of the public and really figuring out how to get the public more engaged in arms control monitoring and verification, and to develop public understanding of the challenges that face us in this policy arena. So again a very big thanks and expression of appreciation to our three prize winners, and Dan I’m going to turn it back over to you for, for your comments and questions. Thanks a lot.
Daniel Terdiman: Okay, well thank you very much. We did want to hear from each of the winners, I believe each of you have a little, small presentation about your, about your submissions. Lovely, do you want to start us off?
Lovely Umayam: Sure, again thank you so much for this opportunity. I am in Beijing, but it’s totally fine and again I am really excited to be here. So, as Under Secretary Gottemoeller said earlier, my proposal is "Bombshelltoe", which is a nuclear policy blog dedicated to examining nuclear issues through popular culture. In the nonproliferation field, I’ve noticed we take for granted some basic knowledge like the difference between uranium and plutonium, what a nuclear weapon free-zone is, etc. But the public is starting with zero knowledge and usually they get their knowledge from movies and TV shows and so forth, and so "Bombshelltoe" or the goal of "Bombshelltoe" is to foster a more meaningful conversation about arms control issues by exploring the intersection between the two that would hopefully pique the interest of the public into diving deeper into the details of arms control policy, and Under Secretary Gottemoeller is a big component of social verification and its exciting and it’s an idea worth exploration. But, our conceptualization of such an issue needs a pragmatic approach, and what I want to advocate is that we cannot leave social out of social verification, and this means engaging in education for the public. So that’s a snippet of "Bombshelltoe" and I am excited to unleash it in the universe and share it with you all, so thanks again.
Daniel Terdiman: Thank you Lovely, one quick question that I have for you is have you seen other projects like this, that you know involving other issues?
Lovely Umayam: I have actually, one of the inspirations for "Bombshelltoe" was Radio Lab from WNYC and there is also you know Wired Magazine. It is basically taking their complex issues and simplifying it, and and I guess interpreting it with a twist, so it’s a little bit more interesting. And I mean I think that is really where social verification needs to start, if we are going to try to use information technology, at the end of the day its people using such technology. So they need to be well informed and they need to be interested, especially with national security issues. So I hope that, well you know "Bombshelltoe" in and of itself is experimental, I think it’s going to be a challenge to condense the very dense issues about nuclear policy, about arms control policy into a nuclear policy blog, but I sure hope to try.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good, thank you so much. Allen do you want to give us a little of a primer on your project, please?
Allen Childers: Sure, thank you for having me here today and awarding me a prize, I was pleasantly surprised when that happened. I have a background in the military, I have 26 years in the military and part of that time was spent in the State Department and much of that time that I had in the military and as a contract consultant after I left the military was in the arms control world, so I come to it with a little bit different perspective. I thought that a great idea would be to create a game along the lines of "Where is Waldo?", except we would call it "Where are TLI?" or we create a title for something like that, and I look at it as an opportunity to gather information not necessarily to do intelligence gathering or verification of arms control treaties, because I personally believe the government is responsible for that. And we don’t want to create a social network of people who are "pseudo-spies" necessarily because from a military perspective we don’t want our own citizens spying on us and I am certain from my experience with the Russians and other countries we don’t want to put their citizens in a situation where they’re perceived as spying on their own militaries or their own government. So a "Where’s Waldo?" concept came up because when you go online and look at Waldo, he is leaving a number of tools around a number of hints of where he is at all the time and what happens is when you take treaty limited items outside of their normal environment for example you take a warhead off of an ICBM, and you transport it somewhere, we as a country and any other country involved in an arms control agreement would like to understand where that warhead is all the time, when it is not where its suppose to be and that’s really the gap that we have in verification of arms control treaties. Generally we know from data exchanges and from on-site inspections where things are when they are suppose to be there. We have trouble finding out where they’re at when they’re not supposed to be. So, my proposal was basically to create a system of avatars, everyone would log on to a system, a "Where’s Waldo?" type of game as an avatar. So they are not identified as a person providing particular information, we don’t provide them with anything other than a series of points that they can be awarded when they identify "TLI" that is not in place, and we provide them with some kind of idea what a "TLI" not where its suppose to be might look like, for example a warhead would not travel as a warhead on the back of a flatbed truck so that everyone can see, it would travel in a trailer, we would find those kinds of trailers and have people identify if they see that kind of data. So, then we would have to establish a number of ground rules too with our treaty partners, we would have to test the system regularly. I was particularly encouraged last week because I noted in an article released by Reuters that Google, Facebook, and Amazon.com are going to take this kind of approach in a cancer research study, were there is so much data out there that can be shared with social media and people with five minutes or something can review that data and look for particular anomalies in that data and tell a scientist that they see it, so you take millions of people, researching the data for them. And that’s my contribution, thank you again.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good thank you, that sounds very interesting, and Chip would you like to let us in on what you’re working on, please?
Dr. Rudolph "Chip" Mappus: So, thanks again for letting us all be here today, my proposal dovetails with what Allen was proposing. Mine sort of focuses on or is inspired by existing online games that utilize consumer-grade GPS and smartphone technology to hide things in the open, right, so you know these notions of geocaching or QR codes that are hidden in plain sight but are only, players are only aware of them and their significance by locating them. My proposal was to have experts, treaty experts post online locations and tasks for players to complete and then the players would go out, seek out these locations, note the needed information that is necessary for treaty compliance, and then submit it online so that the experts can then again verify that the players have completed the tasks. So it’s sort of a running game now where there are millions of these geocaches located throughout the world and people play it insistently almost and this game, this proposal game is a play on that.
Daniel Terdiman: Well thank you very much. Under Secretary Gottemoeller, I’m curious from your prospective were you surprised to see that two of the three winners had proposed games? I mean was that what you were expecting?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well, honestly I hadn’t thought about games, but they’re two important points that all three of our prize winners will point out for the community -- and first of all that is we need a way to engage the public that really gets them interested because the whole area of nuclear arms control, conventional, chemical biological weapons, it seems so arcane somehow, and you never seem to get the level of interest that we had during the Cold War these days. These days its seems very remote and something that’s not really important to people’s day-in, day-out lives. So I was very pleased, actually, that all three of our prize winners came up with ways to engage the public and engage the public in very lively ways that really point out the relevance, I think, of this arena of arms control policy and nonproliferation policy to everybody’s everyday interests, and so I actually in the end was surprised, I have to say, but in the end I got it. And I said this is really interesting. And this is a great way to engage the public and by the way to get young people interested. Because especially for the younger generation, I think a lot of them think, "Oh man, that’s something from the Cold War," or "That’s something we don’t have to think about today at all," so I really welcome that each of these three prize winners came up with ideas that will engage the public and that will keep the younger generation interested because I’m certainly looking for the next generation of policymakers to take over in this arena when I am ready to retire. The other thing I think is that their work points out is that, especially our latter two prize winners, the role of ubiquitous sensing these days. That we have sensors everywhere -- sensors on smartphones, iPads, a great number of sensors all producing data and information and we have to figure out a way to use that information for all kinds of applications. I think the medical applications are terrific, just mentioned a few moments ago of the use of this great flow of data for cancer research and potentially cancer treatment. I think this is a really exciting area in the medical arena and I say to myself, "Why not apply it to the kind of sensing task we need in the arms control treaty and monitoring arena?" So I really welcome also that they pointed us in that direction in this competition.
Daniel Terdiman: Absolutely, very good. You mention that you want to get young people involved in this. Do you have a sense of whether if there were school-aged people that made submissions to this innovations challenge?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well, I was just delighted that Lovely is our first prize winner and she is a graduate student, as I mentioned at the Monterey Institute, although now doing a year of dissertation research in Beijing, so we had a number of very, very good applications from students all over the place. This particular competition was limited to students in the United States, but we had quite a few good ideas coming in from students and I am very pleased about that. And by the way, we are looking forward to a new competition, so stay tuned for that. I am not ready today to announce the details, but we will certainly be putting out the details of a new competition within a short time. Sometime this spring.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good. Well, we have some questions that were submitted by people by Twitter and also on Google+, and I thought we would give you a chance to answer a few of those. They are not related directly to this challenge, but they are more to the question of arms control and international security. So, one is vaguely related, and so the question is, "What is the most outrageous information and communication technology, or concept that you would have loved to see applied to help solve a global security problem?"
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: The most outrageous? Wow, that’s in the eyes of the beholder, but I think that that’s a great question. I think I will take us back to the notion of ubiquitous sensing and how we make use of this kind of information, because a lot of the challenges we will be facing in the future in the arms control arena, it’s kind of like the "Where’s Waldo?" issue that was described a few moments ago. We are going to very small objects, widely disbursed, things like warheads. President Obama has talked about in the next phase of nuclear arms reductions focusing in on warheads that are in storage facilities or warheads that are held in reserve as one of the goals for the next stage of nuclear arms reduction. Up to this point, we have always focused in on big items, that you can see even from outer space, even from satellites, or from overhead aircraft, like missiles or bombers or big submarines, really large objects. But when we start focusing in on warheads, that are held behind closed doors in storage facilities we are going to have very, very different kinds of challenges, so having widely dispersed sensors that can help us with the right analysis and, of course, the right acquiescence with our treaty partners to get out looking for and finding some of these smaller objects. I think it will be a very important step forward. So, I would say that’s our greatest challenge and so I’m looking very useful, but I think never the less, at this point, becoming well-developed technologies are not new things but are well deployed around the world and we are just looking for better ways to use them.
Daniel Terdiman: Can you step back in time a little bit and explain what the term "societal verification" means?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Yes, societal verification was first developed during the 1950s. One of its first proponents was Joseph Rotblat who was one of the founders of the so called ‘pugwash movement’ that was really one of the first efforts to bring together Soviet scientists, U.S. scientists, and scientists from other countries to tackle the problem of nuclear arms control and nuclear nonproliferation. So "Pugwash" did a great job and Joseph Rotblat very early on said that we need to get the public more involved in and more excited about these issues and really try to get them into -- into cooperating with the government on arms control implementation. It is a challenge, and several of our winners have pointed to this. It is a challenge you want to make sure this can be done in cooperation with governments and make sure that people won’t be accused of contradicting national policy or getting in the way of government policy when they participate in this kind of partnership with government on verification activities. But one thing I like to point out is this notion of societal verification is already well established in the environmental sphere. When we had the big oil spill down in the Gulf of Mexico a couple of years ago, it was local communities who were really engaged and involved in providing information about the conditions on the ground there back to governments, both local city, and in the end the Federal Government in order to provide better data on the oil spill. So, societal verification is established in some fields and I think we need to think about its proper use in this more narrow field, never the less very important one of arms control.
Daniel Terdiman: Got it. And you talk about this idea being around for quite some time and I’m curious why you though, you know, I guess the challenge was announced last August, but why is this the right time to be starting challenges like this? Is it because of technology just become kind of ready or why else do you think?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: We think it’s partially the revolution in information technology. I can see that these kinds of applications are emerging in other fields, in the environment and medicine, two that we already talked about today, and finally I felt this really compelling need to engage the public and to get them interested in this field of policy. The President has been very committed to the so-called "Prague Initiative," that is his idea of eliminating eventually over time nuclear weapons and really insuring we eventually get to zero. So in terms of engaging the public this was all important I think in order to be able to fulfill this task.
Daniel Terdiman: Well, very good. Let me turn to a couple more questions from viewers that are not related to the competition itself. When dealing with other countries to negotiate the control of weapons of mass destruction, who are our greatest enemies and who are our greatest allies, and why?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: I rather say what, rather than who in this case, our greatest ally, in my view is experience. We’ve had forty plus years of experience in reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons, first with the Soviet Union, now with the Russian Federation. This experience over time has really given us a good idea of how to go about it and by the way how to constantly improve it. I really like to think about new methods and technologies for verification and monitoring because there are always better ways to do what we have already done. But I think we have been able to clearly establish with the experience of the last 40 years, that these kind of deals are in our national security interest, so that’s why I say experience has really shown us the compelling reasons that we need to embrace nuclear arms control and to continue to pursue it. And that goes for other weapons of mass destruction too. Chemical weapons have been very much in the press because of what is going on in Syria and before that in Libya. So, it is very important to work on these issues. Our greatest enemy, I think, is time because there is never enough time to address every single problem that needs to be addressed. And certainly in negotiating these arms control treaties, some of them are very complicated and we need to work out a lot of details and you really need to keep your eye on the prize of what you are trying to accomplish in policy terms, and not forget about that, because otherwise you can get wrapped around the axle about all the problems that need to be confronted. And we just have to realize that, although time is an enemy, we can take the time we need to make a really good agreement happen.
Daniel Terdiman: You mention time -- and one of the things that it made me think about is the idea that we talk about it with hacking and computer security a lot -- is that you come up with the solution to a problem, and just as you come up with a solution the bad actors are already moving on to a new kind of attack. Is that kind of something where you worry that as these technologies become available, the people that you're worrying about are already moving onto whole new approaches to cause problems?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well, certainly this has been a very fast moving field and I’m not here today to talk about the challenges affecting the information security, computer security realm but I would say that we have to be smart how we work these areas of policy, the U.S.G. The U.S. Government has been putting a lot of attention into how we tackle the problem of cyber security and the challenges in this arena and we have to stay a couple steps ahead of the game in every way we can, but at the same time I think we have to be embracing the potential here and having to figure out we can make use of these great technologies to help us out with what we need to do.
Daniel Terdiman: But in the arms control arena, the same question, do you worry that as technology is becoming your ally, solving these problems in the country, the terrorist groups are already moving onto new technologies that could, that can…?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: If you’re talking about ways to hide the ball, in other words, to obscure what they are doing, yeah, we’re always concerned about that and we’re always trying to stay a couple steps ahead of the game in that regard as well. Because these are important assets for actors and we worry very much about non-state actors, terrorists who might get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. In fact, that’s why the President has been so intent on working on not only nuclear arms control and elimination, because if you get rid of nuclear weapons you deal with part of that problem worrying about nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, but the other thing he has been working on is nuclear material security. Let’s lock things down, let’s make sure we do everything we can to make sure that nuclear materials don’t get into terrorist hands. You have to stay two steps ahead of those guys at all the time.
Daniel Terdiman: Well great, I think we have time for one more question from our Twitter and Google+ viewers, this question is: "Why are the P5 scared to talk about the consequents of the nuclear weapons that they predicate their security on?"
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: I don’t accept the premise of that question at all, the P5 have been at the forefront of countries that have been working these problems from the get-go, in fact, the United States and the Soviet Union and now the United States and Russia, have been wrestling with this problem for forty years as I mentioned a moment ago, so I don’t accept the premise of the question. I think the question comes from the fact that the P5 and that is the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China have decided not to attend a conference in Oslo on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. The reason is that, we understand very well what the humanitarian consequences are and we are focused on, in a step-by-step way, reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. We’ve been concerned that an activity like the Oslo Conference would obscure this pragmatic step-by-step approach that we feel is the all important way to get our arms around this problem and solve it. But I would like to make one thing really clear, there could be some confusion among friends and colleagues in the nongovernmental community, we are very, very keen to continue to see education on this very important issue to take place among the public, because it is true that the public has lost sight of the dangers of nuclear use, and I think it’s very important for the expert community as well as the allies and colleague in the academic community as well as the government to continue to educate the public about the heavy consequences of nuclear use, so it is a very important goal, but as far as the P5 are concerned we are very knowledgeable about this issue overall as well as being very committed to it being done in a step-by-step way and we don’t want to be distracted from that step-by-step path.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good, do we have time for one more question perhaps?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Yes, I have time for one more question, if we don’t get zeroed out here somehow.
Daniel Terdiman: I’m curious, you mention the P5, but I’m also interested in has it been difficult as you precede with these innovation challenges and you hope to implement the submission, the winning ideas, has it been difficult, or do you think it will be difficult to get other countries on board with implementing these solutions?
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Well I think it’s always difficult in a government-to-government settings to move out with new ideas, but I will say in the context of the New START Treaty when we were negotiating that in Geneva, both we and the Russians realized that we needed to think about some new ways to get at the problems were tackling in that negotiation. We decide for example that we wanted to be able to count warheads in this treaty rather than just the missile systems and use then a more generalized counting rule to approximate the number of warheads on each missile. So that involved a more detailed on-site inspection regime in the New START Treaty for warheads, or re-entry vehicles as we call them, on their delivery systems, on their missiles. So we are always looking for ways to innovate, and I think this technology revolution means some big new steps in that direction and I don’t think it’s going to be simple to implement them in policy, but never the less I do think there will be some compelling reasons to look at these approaches and to eventually incorporate them into some new agreements. We’ll see how it goes.
Daniel Terdiman: Very good, I think we are about out of time but I wanted to ask if Lovely, Allen, and Chip if you have anything before we finish this up?
Allen Childers: I just wanted to thank again for the opportunity, I think the contest was an outstanding idea, I would like to see more of it, and I would like to see it from other agencies too. I think the State Department has really stepped out onto something that’s quite valuable and as a person who spent a lot of years in the Defense Department, I would like to see them follow your lead. Thank you.
Lovely Umayam: Yea, thank you as well.
Dr. Rudolph "Chip" Mappus: Yea, I was quite optimistic with both the challenge and the outcomes, I think we are on a brink of an opportunity here…
Lovely Umayam: I just wanted to add one more thing, also I’m really excited to know that this challenge is starting off with public engagement, I’ve heard of social verification before and I know the nonproliferation field, that has been a topic of debate. And the challenges of really understanding what that concept is and how do we educate the public and get them interested in the issues. I am glad to see the other winners are interested in that, and I think we are off to a great start. So, thank you.
Daniel Terdiman: Well, thank you for all your thoughts, that you Under Secretary Gottemoeller, and thank you to all those who tuned into watch this great discussion.
Acting Under Secretary Gottemoeller: Thank you, Daniel. I had a great time.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
THE STATE DEPARTMENT: POLICY AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Intersection of Policy and Public Diplomacy: The View from State
Remarks
Tara Sonenshine
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Remarks at the Walter Roberts Lecture Series
George Washington University
Washington, DC
January 29, 2013
Thank you, Frank. You have been a steadfast supporter and advocate for public diplomacy and public affairs and I am proud to count you as a friend.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge Walter Roberts. Thanks to your generosity, this fine Institute can continue its great work. You have worked for USIA, for U.S. Presidents on both sides of the aisle, been an administrator, author, teacher, and public diplomacy practitioner, I thank you, and we all thank you, Sir, for your vision, leadership, and service.
Thanks to the GW staff, friends, and colleagues here today. Having spent the last few years at the United States Institute of Peace and now at the State Department, I can say, literally and figuratively, you are great neighbors.
I want to talk about neighborhoods today—global neighborhoods, and how, in these new neighborhoods, traditional foreign policy and new public diplomacy have become inextricably linked to inform, support, and enhance policy in the world through connections to people.
Imagine a neighborhood. Neighborhoods are about people. If want to address our shared challenges, we must engage with the people most affected by our policies. When we listen to people we build trust and understanding, when we support peoples’ efforts to build better futures, we can inform our policies.
When we engage in public diplomacy – in person and through social media – we are a force for peace and progress around the world.
That belief—that we are a force for peace and progress is central to our founding ideas and values, and informs our public diplomacy. And that diplomacy, in turn, is most often the best way to carry out our policy.
I’d like to tell you a story that illustrates how important it is to bridge the intersection between policy and public diplomacy.
I was in Pakistan not too long ago, speaking at an all-girls' university in Lahore. At the time of my visit, tensions were particularly high. The transit points—the so called Ground Lines of Communication —by which the U.S. gets its supplies to and from Afghanistan, through Pakistan—those transit points had become a source of irritation between the U.S. and Pakistan and things were blocked while our governments debated price and terms of passage.
Recent incidents from the Bin Laden raid to friendly fire deaths on the Afghanistan border had deepened the mistrust between our two countries and soured the public mood regarding the relationship. It was a challenging conversation and when we had finished, I invited students to come chat with me, privately. A line formed. And each one asked me quietly – how do I get on one of those exchange programs to the U.S.?
While students were critical of our policies, they still wanted to take advantage of our public diplomacy and come to a country they also revered. How we close that gap between criticism and admiration is our challenge – but I know it starts with our full, committed engagement.
I believe that because of the many challenges we face in places like Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, the world is more in need of public diplomacy than at any point in our shared history.
Public diplomacy was not always in the equation…and certainly not always at the table.
You all know about the "table"—the policy table. Imagine a table—a long "policy" table. It’s oblong, with lots of men in suits and ties around it—diplomats—talking politics, security, economics. That’s the way it was in the days of Ben Franklin. And that’s the way it was until pretty recently. Public diplomacy—where the aspirations of citizens are central to the conversation – did not have a seat at that table. It wasn’t even in the room.
But now, as Tom Friedman noted recently in The New York Times, "we live in an age of social networks in which every leader outside of North Korea today is now forced to engage in a two-way conversation with their citizens."
Citizens are part of the global roundtable—and they are texting about it. They – and other non-state actors – have become an increasingly vital and vocal part of the global equation.
It is more urgent than ever that we better understand them and effectively engage with them across a far wider spectrum of issues.
That includes building environments that help them provide for their families, find economic opportunity, live with the rights and freedoms that any human wants – and is entitled to.
As President Obama said in his recent inaugural address, we must engage because "our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom." "Engagement," the President also said, "can more durably lift suspicion and fear."
Secretary Clinton has described the alternative scenario. "When America is absent, especially from unstable environments," she said, "there are consequences. Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened."
Let me put a final image in your head. Imagine a good old fashioned telescope. Now, imagine three settings on that telescope: one for the short term, another for the midterm, and a third for the long term. Those are the strategic settings of public diplomacy.
So let’s apply those settings in a real setting. Let’s go back to a certain cheaply made, hateful video called "The Innocence of Muslims" that turned viral. When that film was used by some to exploit tensions, it caused outrage and anger in many parts of the world. And in some countries, including several Muslim-majority ones, there were sizeable protests outside our embassies.
So how did our public diplomacy deal with that? First of all, in the short term, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton made clear that we viewed this video as reprehensible and disgusting, and that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with it.
Our diplomats engaged media, officials, and key influencers across regions to convey our condemnation of the video and our lack of involvement in the production or dissemination of the video.
We also used social media – a major 21st century tool in our public diplomacy toolbox – to ensure our message was disseminated quickly and widely.
While decrying the film and its hateful message, we emphasized our eternal values: religious freedom and tolerance; our commitment to multiethnic, multireligious societies; and freedom of speech and expression. We also underscored that ensuring freedom of speech and expression actually enables us to respect each other’s individual beliefs. These were important nuances, and central to our mid- and long-term strategies.
There was an aspect of our midterm diplomacy that we were able to draw upon – and that was our public outreach to religious leaders. In Chad, for example, where almost 60 percent of the population is Muslim, we have long engaged community leaders in conversations about the importance of religious tolerance – both abroad and in the United States. We talk about the value of interfaith dialogue, and the dangers of violent extremism and terrorism.
Through that continuing dialogue, we were able to build trust. We also learned from our Chadian counterparts, and were able to better inform Washington in order to adjust our policies accordingly.
When the protests spread, many religious community leaders – not just in Chad but in many Muslim communities elsewhere – were helpful in lowering the temperature through their own sermons and outreach. Importantly, through our engagement with them, our diplomats heard their perspectives and conveyed their concerns back to our decision-makers in Washington.
That was an example of midterm public diplomacy working for us. It also shows the two-way flow that is so important. But I’d like to point to an even longer term example – the kind that can take effect over lifetimes.
I am talking about our academic exchange programs, and our English programs that reach out to underserved populations. By teaching English, we give young people an entrée to higher education. And by giving them access to education and technical training, we open doors for them to realize economic opportunity.
When we open avenues of economic opportunity to people – especially young people – they are less likely to participate in destroying or terrorizing the societies they now have a stake in. And that also reinforces another U.S. policy objective: countering violent extremism.
Helping people build safe, economically secure futures is a force multiplier for the United States.
When we help empower future generations of economic and political leaders who have had a positive American experience, they are more likely to become viable global partners. And that means being committed to the same things we are, including human rights, democracy, and mutual security and prosperity.
When we empower women and girls, we expand the world’s talent pool of economic, social, and political problem-solvers. And when we strengthen other societies by supporting NGOs that can build civil society, we help provide the building blocks for democratic societies.
Let me close with one other example, where our long-term public diplomacy supports our policy – in a country where we don’t even have a diplomatic presence. And that is Iran.
As you know, the United States and other countries have imposed unprecedented sanctions to censure Iran and to persuade Tehran to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. We have a policy of prevention, built on the dual tracks of pressure and engagement, while keeping all options on the table.
So, how do we engage with people in a country that is closed to us, and where our governments are deadlocked on many issues? Well, in this case, we have created a virtual embassy. We just marked the one year anniversary of our Virtual Embassy Tehran website and our Farsi-language social media platforms which include Facebook, Google-plus, Twitter, and a YouTube channel.
On the embassy website, we’ve had 2 million page hits from 4,000,000 visitors. On Facebook, we now have 456,000 followers and nearly 61,000 of them are inside Iran. We have nearly 30,000 followers on Persian language Twitter. As for the 170 Persian videos we’ve posted on YouTube? We’ve had 800,000 views.
Those are encouraging numbers by any standard. These viewers and followers are learning about our commitment to educational opportunity, freedom of expression, defense of civil liberties, and a voice for the Iranian people.
And we are countering negative regime portrayals of U.S. policy, as well as creating debate and discussion inside Iran to isolate extremists and hardliners. We are patiently reaching out to the Iranian people.
Of course, patience is not the most popular strategy to advocate in Washington. But it’s a large part of what public diplomacy is all about. No matter what the challenges, we can and must continue to engage. As we do so, we must continue to be more nimble in our advocacy of U.S. policy as we work to take charge of the communications space, so that we can be even stronger defenders of our own American values and ideals.
Thank you for listening and I look forward to your questions.
The Intersection of Policy and Public Diplomacy: The View from State
Remarks
Tara Sonenshine
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs
Remarks at the Walter Roberts Lecture Series
George Washington University
Washington, DC
January 29, 2013
Thank you, Frank. You have been a steadfast supporter and advocate for public diplomacy and public affairs and I am proud to count you as a friend.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge Walter Roberts. Thanks to your generosity, this fine Institute can continue its great work. You have worked for USIA, for U.S. Presidents on both sides of the aisle, been an administrator, author, teacher, and public diplomacy practitioner, I thank you, and we all thank you, Sir, for your vision, leadership, and service.
Thanks to the GW staff, friends, and colleagues here today. Having spent the last few years at the United States Institute of Peace and now at the State Department, I can say, literally and figuratively, you are great neighbors.
I want to talk about neighborhoods today—global neighborhoods, and how, in these new neighborhoods, traditional foreign policy and new public diplomacy have become inextricably linked to inform, support, and enhance policy in the world through connections to people.
Imagine a neighborhood. Neighborhoods are about people. If want to address our shared challenges, we must engage with the people most affected by our policies. When we listen to people we build trust and understanding, when we support peoples’ efforts to build better futures, we can inform our policies.
When we engage in public diplomacy – in person and through social media – we are a force for peace and progress around the world.
That belief—that we are a force for peace and progress is central to our founding ideas and values, and informs our public diplomacy. And that diplomacy, in turn, is most often the best way to carry out our policy.
I’d like to tell you a story that illustrates how important it is to bridge the intersection between policy and public diplomacy.
I was in Pakistan not too long ago, speaking at an all-girls' university in Lahore. At the time of my visit, tensions were particularly high. The transit points—the so called Ground Lines of Communication —by which the U.S. gets its supplies to and from Afghanistan, through Pakistan—those transit points had become a source of irritation between the U.S. and Pakistan and things were blocked while our governments debated price and terms of passage.
Recent incidents from the Bin Laden raid to friendly fire deaths on the Afghanistan border had deepened the mistrust between our two countries and soured the public mood regarding the relationship. It was a challenging conversation and when we had finished, I invited students to come chat with me, privately. A line formed. And each one asked me quietly – how do I get on one of those exchange programs to the U.S.?
While students were critical of our policies, they still wanted to take advantage of our public diplomacy and come to a country they also revered. How we close that gap between criticism and admiration is our challenge – but I know it starts with our full, committed engagement.
I believe that because of the many challenges we face in places like Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, the world is more in need of public diplomacy than at any point in our shared history.
Public diplomacy was not always in the equation…and certainly not always at the table.
You all know about the "table"—the policy table. Imagine a table—a long "policy" table. It’s oblong, with lots of men in suits and ties around it—diplomats—talking politics, security, economics. That’s the way it was in the days of Ben Franklin. And that’s the way it was until pretty recently. Public diplomacy—where the aspirations of citizens are central to the conversation – did not have a seat at that table. It wasn’t even in the room.
But now, as Tom Friedman noted recently in The New York Times, "we live in an age of social networks in which every leader outside of North Korea today is now forced to engage in a two-way conversation with their citizens."
Citizens are part of the global roundtable—and they are texting about it. They – and other non-state actors – have become an increasingly vital and vocal part of the global equation.
It is more urgent than ever that we better understand them and effectively engage with them across a far wider spectrum of issues.
That includes building environments that help them provide for their families, find economic opportunity, live with the rights and freedoms that any human wants – and is entitled to.
As President Obama said in his recent inaugural address, we must engage because "our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom." "Engagement," the President also said, "can more durably lift suspicion and fear."
Secretary Clinton has described the alternative scenario. "When America is absent, especially from unstable environments," she said, "there are consequences. Extremism takes root, our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened."
Let me put a final image in your head. Imagine a good old fashioned telescope. Now, imagine three settings on that telescope: one for the short term, another for the midterm, and a third for the long term. Those are the strategic settings of public diplomacy.
So let’s apply those settings in a real setting. Let’s go back to a certain cheaply made, hateful video called "The Innocence of Muslims" that turned viral. When that film was used by some to exploit tensions, it caused outrage and anger in many parts of the world. And in some countries, including several Muslim-majority ones, there were sizeable protests outside our embassies.
So how did our public diplomacy deal with that? First of all, in the short term, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton made clear that we viewed this video as reprehensible and disgusting, and that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with it.
Our diplomats engaged media, officials, and key influencers across regions to convey our condemnation of the video and our lack of involvement in the production or dissemination of the video.
We also used social media – a major 21st century tool in our public diplomacy toolbox – to ensure our message was disseminated quickly and widely.
While decrying the film and its hateful message, we emphasized our eternal values: religious freedom and tolerance; our commitment to multiethnic, multireligious societies; and freedom of speech and expression. We also underscored that ensuring freedom of speech and expression actually enables us to respect each other’s individual beliefs. These were important nuances, and central to our mid- and long-term strategies.
There was an aspect of our midterm diplomacy that we were able to draw upon – and that was our public outreach to religious leaders. In Chad, for example, where almost 60 percent of the population is Muslim, we have long engaged community leaders in conversations about the importance of religious tolerance – both abroad and in the United States. We talk about the value of interfaith dialogue, and the dangers of violent extremism and terrorism.
Through that continuing dialogue, we were able to build trust. We also learned from our Chadian counterparts, and were able to better inform Washington in order to adjust our policies accordingly.
When the protests spread, many religious community leaders – not just in Chad but in many Muslim communities elsewhere – were helpful in lowering the temperature through their own sermons and outreach. Importantly, through our engagement with them, our diplomats heard their perspectives and conveyed their concerns back to our decision-makers in Washington.
That was an example of midterm public diplomacy working for us. It also shows the two-way flow that is so important. But I’d like to point to an even longer term example – the kind that can take effect over lifetimes.
I am talking about our academic exchange programs, and our English programs that reach out to underserved populations. By teaching English, we give young people an entrée to higher education. And by giving them access to education and technical training, we open doors for them to realize economic opportunity.
When we open avenues of economic opportunity to people – especially young people – they are less likely to participate in destroying or terrorizing the societies they now have a stake in. And that also reinforces another U.S. policy objective: countering violent extremism.
Helping people build safe, economically secure futures is a force multiplier for the United States.
When we help empower future generations of economic and political leaders who have had a positive American experience, they are more likely to become viable global partners. And that means being committed to the same things we are, including human rights, democracy, and mutual security and prosperity.
When we empower women and girls, we expand the world’s talent pool of economic, social, and political problem-solvers. And when we strengthen other societies by supporting NGOs that can build civil society, we help provide the building blocks for democratic societies.
Let me close with one other example, where our long-term public diplomacy supports our policy – in a country where we don’t even have a diplomatic presence. And that is Iran.
As you know, the United States and other countries have imposed unprecedented sanctions to censure Iran and to persuade Tehran to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. We have a policy of prevention, built on the dual tracks of pressure and engagement, while keeping all options on the table.
So, how do we engage with people in a country that is closed to us, and where our governments are deadlocked on many issues? Well, in this case, we have created a virtual embassy. We just marked the one year anniversary of our Virtual Embassy Tehran website and our Farsi-language social media platforms which include Facebook, Google-plus, Twitter, and a YouTube channel.
On the embassy website, we’ve had 2 million page hits from 4,000,000 visitors. On Facebook, we now have 456,000 followers and nearly 61,000 of them are inside Iran. We have nearly 30,000 followers on Persian language Twitter. As for the 170 Persian videos we’ve posted on YouTube? We’ve had 800,000 views.
Those are encouraging numbers by any standard. These viewers and followers are learning about our commitment to educational opportunity, freedom of expression, defense of civil liberties, and a voice for the Iranian people.
And we are countering negative regime portrayals of U.S. policy, as well as creating debate and discussion inside Iran to isolate extremists and hardliners. We are patiently reaching out to the Iranian people.
Of course, patience is not the most popular strategy to advocate in Washington. But it’s a large part of what public diplomacy is all about. No matter what the challenges, we can and must continue to engage. As we do so, we must continue to be more nimble in our advocacy of U.S. policy as we work to take charge of the communications space, so that we can be even stronger defenders of our own American values and ideals.
Thank you for listening and I look forward to your questions.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
U.S.-MONTENEGRO RELATIONS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The United States established diplomatic relations with Montenegro in 1905 following its 1878 independence from the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, Montenegro was subsumed into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and U.S.-Montenegro diplomatic relations ended in 1920. The United States reestablished diplomatic relations with Montenegro in 2006 following the dissolution of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro.
The relationship between the United States and Montenegro has promoted peace and prosperity in the region and around the world. U.S. policy toward Montenegro is structured to help the country transition to a prosperous, market-based democracy, fully integrated into Euro-Atlantic institutions including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. The country is a participant in NATO's Partnership for Peace program. The European Union opened accession negotiations with Montenegro in June 2012. Montenegro has demonstrated its commitment to international peacekeeping efforts, including in Afghanistan where it has contributed troops to the International Security Assistance Force.
U.S. Assistance to Montenegro
U.S. Government assistance to Montenegro aims to help the country advance toward Euro-Atlantic integration, increase its ability to fight organized crime and corruption, strengthen its civil society and democratic structures, and provide stability in the Balkans.
Bilateral Economic Relations
A number of U.S. companies are operating in Montenegro, and the Government of Montenegro has put an emphasis on attracting more U.S. investment. The Montenegrin government counts the following as incentives for U.S. investors to do business in Montenegro: a business-oriented economic system, a high level of economic freedom, a stable currency (Euro), macroeconomic predictability, and protected ownership rights. Montenegro has been designated as a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences program, which provides duty-free access to the U.S. market in various eligible categories.
Montenegro's Membership in International Organizations
Montenegro and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Montenegro also is a participant in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace program.
The United States established diplomatic relations with Montenegro in 1905 following its 1878 independence from the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, Montenegro was subsumed into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and U.S.-Montenegro diplomatic relations ended in 1920. The United States reestablished diplomatic relations with Montenegro in 2006 following the dissolution of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro.
The relationship between the United States and Montenegro has promoted peace and prosperity in the region and around the world. U.S. policy toward Montenegro is structured to help the country transition to a prosperous, market-based democracy, fully integrated into Euro-Atlantic institutions including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. The country is a participant in NATO's Partnership for Peace program. The European Union opened accession negotiations with Montenegro in June 2012. Montenegro has demonstrated its commitment to international peacekeeping efforts, including in Afghanistan where it has contributed troops to the International Security Assistance Force.
U.S. Assistance to Montenegro
U.S. Government assistance to Montenegro aims to help the country advance toward Euro-Atlantic integration, increase its ability to fight organized crime and corruption, strengthen its civil society and democratic structures, and provide stability in the Balkans.
Bilateral Economic Relations
A number of U.S. companies are operating in Montenegro, and the Government of Montenegro has put an emphasis on attracting more U.S. investment. The Montenegrin government counts the following as incentives for U.S. investors to do business in Montenegro: a business-oriented economic system, a high level of economic freedom, a stable currency (Euro), macroeconomic predictability, and protected ownership rights. Montenegro has been designated as a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences program, which provides duty-free access to the U.S. market in various eligible categories.
Montenegro's Membership in International Organizations
Montenegro and the United States belong to a number of the same international organizations, including the United Nations, NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization. Montenegro also is a participant in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace program.
Monday, December 24, 2012
SIMULATIONS AND THE BOMB
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Nuclear Weapon Computer Simulations
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
December 20, 2012
Key Point: Advances in simulation and computing capabilities, aided by investments in the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), provide confidence in the ability to model and evaluate the performance and safety of nuclear weapons without nuclear explosive testing.
Since the end of U.S. nuclear explosive testing in 1992, investments in science-based Stockpile Stewardship have led to dramatic improvements in simulation capabilities. Computers have become at least a hundred-thousand times more powerful, and modern integrated design codes now more realistically capture the behavior of real nuclear devices. As of December 2012, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has the world’s fastest supercomputer used for nuclear weapons simulations and modeling. The supercomputer, named Sequoia, is also the second fastest supercomputer in the world overall. As a result of these advancements, our modern, integrated nuclear weapon design codes have reduced a number of adjustment parameters, which previously required a nuclear explosive test to be calibrated. Weapons designers can now conduct hundreds of calculations to determine where the results are most sensitive to model uncertainties or fundamental data. This is a critical element to inform expert judgment and guide SSP experiments.
Today, weapons designers benefit from better simulation tools and computers capable of running highly detailed calculations. Successes to date indicate that a cadre of world-class scientists and engineers can employ physics-based simulations, modern experiments, validations against collections of re-analyzed data from previous underground nuclear explosive tests, and peer reviews to support stockpile decisions well into the future without the need to return to nuclear explosive testing. These computer simulation advances provide the United States with the ability to monitor and maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear explosive testing.
U.S. Nuclear Weapon Computer Simulations
Fact Sheet
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
December 20, 2012
Key Point: Advances in simulation and computing capabilities, aided by investments in the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), provide confidence in the ability to model and evaluate the performance and safety of nuclear weapons without nuclear explosive testing.
Since the end of U.S. nuclear explosive testing in 1992, investments in science-based Stockpile Stewardship have led to dramatic improvements in simulation capabilities. Computers have become at least a hundred-thousand times more powerful, and modern integrated design codes now more realistically capture the behavior of real nuclear devices. As of December 2012, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has the world’s fastest supercomputer used for nuclear weapons simulations and modeling. The supercomputer, named Sequoia, is also the second fastest supercomputer in the world overall. As a result of these advancements, our modern, integrated nuclear weapon design codes have reduced a number of adjustment parameters, which previously required a nuclear explosive test to be calibrated. Weapons designers can now conduct hundreds of calculations to determine where the results are most sensitive to model uncertainties or fundamental data. This is a critical element to inform expert judgment and guide SSP experiments.
Today, weapons designers benefit from better simulation tools and computers capable of running highly detailed calculations. Successes to date indicate that a cadre of world-class scientists and engineers can employ physics-based simulations, modern experiments, validations against collections of re-analyzed data from previous underground nuclear explosive tests, and peer reviews to support stockpile decisions well into the future without the need to return to nuclear explosive testing. These computer simulation advances provide the United States with the ability to monitor and maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear explosive testing.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
U.S. SUPPORTS CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WITH GRANTS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Supports "Sustainable Communities in Central America and the Caribbean" Grants Through the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA)
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012
In a ceremony today at the headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS), Ambassador Carmen Lomellin, U.S. Permanent Representative, announced U.S. support for Sustainable Communities in Central America and the Caribbean, a competitive grants program to enhance hemispheric cooperation on sustainable community development in the context of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA).
Technical review panels selected 14 non-governmental organizations from 10 countries in Central America and the Caribbean to receive grants of up to $50,000. Announced at today’s ceremony, these grants will support innovative community-level initiatives linked to the following priority areas: 1) Clean energy and energy efficiency; 2) Resilience to natural hazards; 3) Sustainable transport solutions; and 4) Waste management and recycling (including electronic waste). Specific projects range from an effort to strengthen the network of micro-hydroelectric systems in the Dominican Republic to the development of a Sustainable Transportation Plan in St. Kitts and Nevis that emphasizes bicycling and walking.
During his keynote address, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative Lawrence J. Gumbiner highlighted U.S. government support for collaborative efforts in the Americas to further creative solutions to global challenges such as climate change and the rising demand for energy and water resources. The Sustainable Communities project will strengthen the capacity of civil society groups to contribute to sustainable development, he added. Gumbiner noted the wealth of knowledge and experience on sustainable city and community development in the hemisphere and invited representatives of OAS Member States, and members of their civil society and private sector, to explore how their countries can contribute to the project by sharing technical expertise and best practices with project implementers.
The OAS Department of Sustainable Development will implement the Sustainable Communities project. A steering committee made up of U.S. technical agencies and U.S.-based NGOs evaluated project proposals and will respond to specific requests for technical assistance from project implementers.
U.S. Supports "Sustainable Communities in Central America and the Caribbean" Grants Through the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA)
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012
In a ceremony today at the headquarters of the Organization of American States (OAS), Ambassador Carmen Lomellin, U.S. Permanent Representative, announced U.S. support for Sustainable Communities in Central America and the Caribbean, a competitive grants program to enhance hemispheric cooperation on sustainable community development in the context of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA).
Technical review panels selected 14 non-governmental organizations from 10 countries in Central America and the Caribbean to receive grants of up to $50,000. Announced at today’s ceremony, these grants will support innovative community-level initiatives linked to the following priority areas: 1) Clean energy and energy efficiency; 2) Resilience to natural hazards; 3) Sustainable transport solutions; and 4) Waste management and recycling (including electronic waste). Specific projects range from an effort to strengthen the network of micro-hydroelectric systems in the Dominican Republic to the development of a Sustainable Transportation Plan in St. Kitts and Nevis that emphasizes bicycling and walking.
During his keynote address, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative Lawrence J. Gumbiner highlighted U.S. government support for collaborative efforts in the Americas to further creative solutions to global challenges such as climate change and the rising demand for energy and water resources. The Sustainable Communities project will strengthen the capacity of civil society groups to contribute to sustainable development, he added. Gumbiner noted the wealth of knowledge and experience on sustainable city and community development in the hemisphere and invited representatives of OAS Member States, and members of their civil society and private sector, to explore how their countries can contribute to the project by sharing technical expertise and best practices with project implementers.
The OAS Department of Sustainable Development will implement the Sustainable Communities project. A steering committee made up of U.S. technical agencies and U.S.-based NGOs evaluated project proposals and will respond to specific requests for technical assistance from project implementers.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
U.S.-YEMEN OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
United States and Yemen Initial Open Skies Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 12, 2012
Today, delegations representing the United States and the Republic of Yemen initialed the text of a U.S.-Yemen Open Skies Agreement. The Agreement, which will be applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity pending entry into force, will liberalize our bilateral aviation relationship.
This agreement facilitates the potential for expansion of air service between our two countries while continuing to safeguard aviation safety and security. As with all such agreements, several steps must be taken before foreign carriers may commence service from their home country to the United States. These steps include obtaining (from the Department of Transportation) economic authority to operate in the U.S.; the Federal Aviation Administration issuing a favorable assessment of the host country’s civil aviation authority safety oversight practices; and, timely carrier notification to the Transportation Security Administration about the new service and verification by the TSA that the carrier has adopted and implemented a TSA-accepted security program for all operations landing and taking off in the United States.
United States and Yemen Initial Open Skies Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 12, 2012
Today, delegations representing the United States and the Republic of Yemen initialed the text of a U.S.-Yemen Open Skies Agreement. The Agreement, which will be applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity pending entry into force, will liberalize our bilateral aviation relationship.
This agreement facilitates the potential for expansion of air service between our two countries while continuing to safeguard aviation safety and security. As with all such agreements, several steps must be taken before foreign carriers may commence service from their home country to the United States. These steps include obtaining (from the Department of Transportation) economic authority to operate in the U.S.; the Federal Aviation Administration issuing a favorable assessment of the host country’s civil aviation authority safety oversight practices; and, timely carrier notification to the Transportation Security Administration about the new service and verification by the TSA that the carrier has adopted and implemented a TSA-accepted security program for all operations landing and taking off in the United States.
U.S.-SEYCHELLES OPEN SKIES AGREEMENT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
United States of America and Seychelles Initial Open Skies Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 12, 2012
Today, delegations representing the United States and the Seychelles initialed the text of a U.S.-Seychelles Open Skies Agreement. The Agreement, which will be applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity pending entry into force, will liberalize our bilateral aviation relationship.
This agreement will allow for the strengthening and expansion of our trade and tourism links with the Seychelles, to the benefit of American and Seychellois businesses and travelers. It will provide a basis for the expansion of air service and should encourage increased price competition by airlines, while safeguarding aviation safety and security.
United States of America and Seychelles Initial Open Skies Agreement
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 12, 2012
Today, delegations representing the United States and the Seychelles initialed the text of a U.S.-Seychelles Open Skies Agreement. The Agreement, which will be applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity pending entry into force, will liberalize our bilateral aviation relationship.
This agreement will allow for the strengthening and expansion of our trade and tourism links with the Seychelles, to the benefit of American and Seychellois businesses and travelers. It will provide a basis for the expansion of air service and should encourage increased price competition by airlines, while safeguarding aviation safety and security.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
STATE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ON JAILED IRANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIIVIST'S DECLINING HEALTH
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
2012 Sakharov Prize Winner Nasrin Sotoudeh's Hunger Strike
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 30, 2012
We are deeply troubled by reports of the rapidly declining health of jailed Iranian human rights defender and 2012 Sakharov Prize winner Nasrin Sotoudeh. Iranian officials have denied Sotoudeh, a leading women’s rights champion, medical care during her more than six-week hunger strike and have kept her in solitary confinement.
We remain concerned for Sotoudeh’s well-being given Iran’s history of withholding treatment from prisoners and allowing them to die from hunger strikes.
We demand the Iranian Government cease its intolerable mistreatment of Sotoudeh and immediately release her and the more than 30 other female political prisoners detained in Evin Prison.
2012 Sakharov Prize Winner Nasrin Sotoudeh's Hunger Strike
Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 30, 2012
We are deeply troubled by reports of the rapidly declining health of jailed Iranian human rights defender and 2012 Sakharov Prize winner Nasrin Sotoudeh. Iranian officials have denied Sotoudeh, a leading women’s rights champion, medical care during her more than six-week hunger strike and have kept her in solitary confinement.
We remain concerned for Sotoudeh’s well-being given Iran’s history of withholding treatment from prisoners and allowing them to die from hunger strikes.
We demand the Iranian Government cease its intolerable mistreatment of Sotoudeh and immediately release her and the more than 30 other female political prisoners detained in Evin Prison.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF HCOC AGAINST BALLISTIC MISSILE PROLIFERATION
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Tenth anniversary of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC)
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 26, 2012
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC), the United States recognizes the HCOC as an outstanding example of international cooperation and applauds the Code’s ongoing efforts to promote transparency and confidence building measures in the area of ballistic missiles.
Since it was launched on November 25, 2002, subscription to the HCOC has grown to 134 countries, and the Code has contributed significantly to international ballistic missile nonproliferation through its efforts to delegitimize such proliferation. The United States looks forward to continued close cooperation with all HCOC-Subscribing States to promote ballistic missile nonproliferation – and through it, global security – and encourages all countries that have not yet done so to subscribe to the Code.
Tenth anniversary of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC)
Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 26, 2012
On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCOC), the United States recognizes the HCOC as an outstanding example of international cooperation and applauds the Code’s ongoing efforts to promote transparency and confidence building measures in the area of ballistic missiles.
Since it was launched on November 25, 2002, subscription to the HCOC has grown to 134 countries, and the Code has contributed significantly to international ballistic missile nonproliferation through its efforts to delegitimize such proliferation. The United States looks forward to continued close cooperation with all HCOC-Subscribing States to promote ballistic missile nonproliferation – and through it, global security – and encourages all countries that have not yet done so to subscribe to the Code.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON'S SPEECH ON 'ECONOMIC STATECRAFT'.
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Delivering on the Promise of Economic Statecraft
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Singapore Management University
Singapore
November 17, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much. Thank you, President De Meyer, for welcoming all of us here to SMU. Thank you, Ambassador Adelman, for your exemplary service here in Singapore, strengthening and deepening the already very strong relationship between our two countries. Thank you also for the Minister of State and the Minister for Education and the Speaker of the Parliament for being here with us. And thanks to the American Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. ASEAN business council for helping to cosponsor this event.
It has been three years since I was last here with President Obama, when we came for our first APEC meeting. And that trip helped launch what has been called our pivot to the Asia Pacific. As Secretary of State, I have visited the region many times. And I was just in Australia with Secretary of Defense Panetta for our annual AUSMIN consultations with our Australian counterparts. Tomorrow I will join President Obama in Thailand. And then we will go together to Burma and on to Cambodia for the East Asia Summit.
Now, I think one of the questions that may be on your and others' minds is: "Why is the American President spending all this time in Asia so soon after winning re-election?" Well, the answer for us is very simple. Because so much of the history of the 21st century will be, is being, written in this region. America's expanded engagement represents our commitment to help shape that shared future. The strategic and security dimensions of our efforts are well known. But the untold story that is just as important is our economic engagement. Because it is clear that not only in the Asia Pacific but across the world, increasingly, economics are shaping the strategic landscape. Emerging powers are putting economics at the center of their foreign policies, and they are gaining clout less because of their size of their armies than because of the growth of their GDP.
For the first time in modern history, nations are becoming major global powers without also becoming global military powers. So, to maintain our strategic leadership in the region, the United States is also strengthening our economic leadership. And we know very well that America's economic strength at home and our leadership around the world are a package deal. Each reinforces and requires the other.
I must say this is a lesson that Singapore learned long ago. Today the non-stop flow of people, goods, and capital through this small nation is proof that a country does not need to be big to be mighty, to be respected, to be a real leader. Every country wants to do business in Singapore, so every country has a stake in cultivating good relationships with Singapore. With only 1/60 of the population of the United States, Singapore is our 15th largest trading partner. More than 2,000 American companies base their regional headquarters here. Two-way trade exceeded $50 billion for the first time last year. And U.S. direct investment surpassed $116 billion over the last decade. That makes Singapore's security and stability a vital interest for the United States. This connection between economic power and global influence explains why the United States is placing economics at the heart of our own foreign policy. I call it economic statecraft.
Now, these ideas are hardly new. After all, it was Harry Truman who said our relations, foreign and economic, are indivisible. But today that carries renewed urgency. Last year I laid out America's economic statecraft agenda in a series of speeches in Washington, Hong Kong, San Francisco, and New York. Since then, we have turned this vision into action in four key areas: first, updating our foreign policy priorities to take economics more into account; second, turning to economic solutions for strategic challenges; third, stepping up commercial diplomacy -- what I like to call jobs diplomacy -- to boost U.S. exports, open new markets, and level the playing field for our businesses; and fourth, building the diplomatic capacity to execute this ambitious agenda.
In short, we are shaping our foreign policy to account for both the economics of power and the power of economics. The first and most fundamental task is to update our foreign policy and its priorities for a changing world. For the last decade, as you know, the United States focused enormous time, resources, and attention on a war in Iraq that is now over, and a war in Afghanistan that is winding down. Responding to threats will, of course, always be central to our foreign policy. But it cannot be our foreign policy. America has to seize opportunities that will shore up our strength for years to come. That means following through on our intensified engagement in the Asia Pacific and elevating the role of economics in our work around the world.
Here in Asia the United States is taking concrete steps to protect and update an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system that has made the region's spectacular growth possible. Through APEC and ASEAN, we are working with partners like Singapore to improve regulatory standards, harmonize customs procedures, and reduce trade barriers. We've ratified a free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea that will improve competitiveness and transparency, while boosting American exports by as much as $10 billion a year. In negotiations with China and India on bilateral investment treaties, we are seeking a level playing field between American companies and their competitors, including state-owned enterprises.
And with Singapore and a growing list of other countries on both sides of the Pacific, we are making progress toward finalizing a far-reaching new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region. It will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the TPP, including China.
The United States is also moving economics to the center of our agenda elsewhere in the world. For example, we want to improve our economic partnership with our allies in Europe. That is every bit as compelling to us as our security partnership through the NATO alliance. So, to that end, we are exploring negotiations with the European Union for a comprehensive economic agreement that would increase trade and spur growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
Africa. Africa is currently home to 7 of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies. I deliberately said that slowly because so many people look surprised when I say it. And so, we are changing the way we do business with Africa. Certainly regarding our development agenda, but also trying to do more to harness market forces and private-sector solutions for these growing African economies.
In Latin America, which remains the destination for 40 percent of all U.S. exports, we have ratified free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, and we have begun discussions with a new group called the Alliance of the Pacific, formed by Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile to expand their competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Now, our next step will be to transform these regional efforts -- the TPP, the EU agreement, our bilateral trade deals -- into a truly global vision. In the same way that the general agreement on trade and tariffs offered a global blueprint following World War II, we need new arrangements to take on the challenges that inhibit trade today, from non-tariff barriers to preferential treatment for state-owned enterprises.
As we do more to define our foreign policy priorities in economic terms, we also need to update the tools we use. So our second main area of action is finding ways to tap economic solutions for strategic challenges. Just look at what's happening now in Burma. The cost of economic sanctions and the benefits of rejoining the global economy helped spur the government to begin opening up. And we are very grateful to the wise counsel we received from Singapore along the way. The United States is responding not just with growing diplomatic engagement, but also with new economic ties that we believe will help encourage further political and market reforms, and thereby improve stability over time.
This July more than 70 executives from 38 leading U.S. companies visited as part of the U.S.-ASEAN business council delegation. And I understand that the American Chamber of Commerce here in Singapore led a similar trip in August. The United States is also supporting World Bank programs that will provide more than $80 million for infrastructure projects in the country's townships, and financial support for small businesses.
Burma is part of a region where progress has been slowed by insecurity and mistrust. But it doesn't have to be that way. As Burma opens up and establishes new ties to its neighbors, it could become a commercial hub linking markets in India and Bangladesh with Southeast Asia. An Indo-Pacific economic corridor powered by new energy and transportation infrastructure and fewer trade barriers could create jobs and help lift millions out of poverty. It could also promote stability and drive cooperation on shared challenges like narcotics and human trafficking, refugees, and natural disasters.
Now, this all might sound ambitious. And, I confess, it is. But we cannot shy away from big goals. The post-World War II generation that built the modern global order and established institutions and agreements that fostered unprecedented security and prosperity are really the examples we should be following, in those footsteps, thinking bigger, working harder to create the arrangements that will give us another 100 years of security and prosperity.
The same goes for another regional vision we call the New Silk Road, a web of trade and transportation links reaching from the steps of Central Asia to the southern tip of India. Forging stronger economic ties across this region is a key element in our long-term strategy for Afghanistan. If you look at the map, you see why Afghanistan has been fought over and part of the great game for so many generations because of its very strategic position right in the middle of this trading route.
So, even as we move forward with the security transition under NATO ISAF in 2014, and the end of our coalition combat mission, we are focused on shoring up Afghanistan's economic future, because we know that, without that, stability and security will certainly be elusive. This is a point that has too often been missed in serious foreign policy debates. The long, hard work of economic development may not be glamorous, but it is essential, even in war zones. And certainly the increasing economic relationship between India and Pakistan is good news, first and foremost for the Pakistani and Indian business people and consumers, but more generally with the hope that those kinds of ties can lead to even greater cooperation in the future.
We are also using new economic tools to address one of the world's preeminent security challenges: Iran. A broad coalition is revolutionizing how the international community enforces sanctions and builds pressure. We went after Iran's central bank and finance sector, and we reached out to private insurers, shippers, oil companies, and financial institutions to help us target pressure points that make it harder for companies and governments to do business with Iran.
Now we see results. Every major importer of Iranian oil has lowered their consumption. All 27 nations of the European Union have joined a boycott. In one year, Iran's oil exports are down by more than one million barrels a day, costing the Iranian Government at least $3 billion each month. And, in fact, because of increased production in other places in the world, we have not seen the spike in oil prices that so many people feared and predicted.
Now, regimes in places like Tehran and Pyongyang, that violate international norms and beggar their people in pursuit of greater military strength pose a stark contrast with emerging economic powers that are delivering benefits for their people.
The example of Iran also illustrates how powerful economic tools can be when we apply them both creatively and collectively. The Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah, the Haqqani network, and others, are all vulnerable to sophisticated and meticulous market pressure. Someone has said that the threats we face are perhaps enhanced because of how interconnected we are in the world because of globalization. But so are the responses. And we have to be smarter about how we identify and use them through international cooperation, robust coalitions, and determined diplomacy.
The third major area of focus for economic statecraft is commercial diplomacy that boosts U.S. exports, opens new markets, and levels the playing field for American businesses. Let me hasten to say this is not just about American prosperity. Although, as you might guess, as the American Secretary of State, that ranks very high on my list of priorities. That is always our goal. But this is about finding more opportunities for all of us to prosper together. It's about helping the next wave of emerging economies achieve the same kind of growth that Singapore has enjoyed. It's about rebalancing the global economy so Americans export more, Asians import more, and we avoid financial crises and build middle classes.
So, the United States is stepping up our game, using our network of more than 270 embassies and consulates to advocate for American firms, and help achieve President Obama's goal of doubling U.S. exports in 5 years. With 95 percent of the world's customers living beyond our own borders, this has become an economic imperative. So our diplomats are working to make it easier for U.S. businesses to find answers and get advice about navigating markets. We're helping them connect with foreign partners and compete for contracts. And whenever a U.S. Government official travels overseas now, we try to include business events on our schedules. In fact, later today I will visit a General Electric aviation facility here in Singapore.
We are sending more trade missions, like the one I mentioned to Burma. And this summer I led the first delegation of American CEOs to the U.S.-ASEAN Business Forum in Cambodia. Three heads of state and more than a dozen key ministers were eager to engage with them. Back in Washington, we have convened conferences bringing together business leaders and government officials from more than 100 countries. We're proud to go to bat for the Boeings and Chevrons and General Motors and so many others. But we're also working to help industries large and small that have not been traditional exporters. Ultimately, this effort is more than hooking a big fish here and there. We want every company -- American, Singaporean, or any other -- to have that level playing field and a chance to compete on the merits. That is a recipe for shared prosperity.
Yet in too many places businesses trying to break into markets face resistance, including trade barriers that are going up not along national borders, but behind them. And these obstacles stem from political choices, not market forces. And it will take serious and sustained diplomacy to address them. Wherever companies face discrimination, the United States will stand up for the rules of an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system, and we expect all like-minded economies to share that responsibility.
Now, recently we saw a break-through when India retooled its policy on foreign direct investment. Their old rules barred companies that carry multiple brands in one store -- like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, or similar foreign companies -- from doing retail business in the Indian market. That limited competition. But, more than that, it prevented the kind of knowledge transfer and supply chain modernization that India needs. So we and -- I should note -- other countries, as well, raised this issue with India's leaders at the highest level for years. And we are pleased that Delhi has now agreed to loosen its restrictions.
But to take advantage of a more level playing field, American businesses must step up, too. Here in Singapore, U.S. firms operate on every corner. But elsewhere, too many are sitting on the sidelines. I hear it over and over when I travel: "Where are the American businesses?" And at a time when America's domestic growth depends more than ever on our ability to compete internationally, this has to change. And when U.S. businesses do compete, we want to work with them to make sure their suppliers at every link in the chain are meeting international standards like labor rights, intellectual property, and environmental impact.
And, finally, a level playing field means lowering the barriers that keep women from fully participating in the global economy. You knew I would get to that, didn't you? Mountains of evidence make this so abundantly clear. No nation can achieve the kind of growth that we all want and need if half the population never gets to compete. And we cannot afford any longer to exclude the energy and talent that women add to our economies.
The World Bank has done some ground-breaking research on this, pointing out what it would mean to tear down the barriers, some of them still very explicit. There are countries that deny women credit, there are countries that prevent women from opening businesses or running them without male fronts. There are countries that prevent women from inheriting businesses. There are so many still existing legal barriers. And then, of course, there are the attitudinal and cultural barriers that are somewhat less obvious, but no less difficult. And in the World Bank's research, tearing down all those obstacles would raise GDP everywhere in the world, including in my own country. In my own country it would be by nine percent.
So, think about what this would mean in a time where we are still facing global economic problems. And so I always say that we've got to do more, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because we cannot afford not to do it.
The fourth and final area we are focused on is making sure America's diplomats and development experts have all the skills and support they need to actually implement economic statecraft. So, we are focused on recruiting, retaining, and rewarding the most talented people we can find. I appointed the State Department's first-ever chief economist. And I combined our work on energy, the environment, and economics under a single under secretary position to maximize synergy and cooperation. We are ramping up our training curriculum for economic officers, and developing new tools and incentives to help them do their jobs. Now, these kinds of changes unfold over years, but they show a commitment to match our practices to our priorities. And they will help hard-wire economic statecraft into American foreign policy.
Now, let me offer three quick examples that really show the intersection of economics and security. Let's start with cyber theft. Now, most countries outlaw breaking into the headquarters of a company to steal proprietary information. Yet when it comes to cyber theft of that same material, many look the other way or even encourage it. This is more than just bad international behavior. It is bad economics. If we set a precedent that cyber theft is acceptable, everyone will eventually suffer. So I named the State Department's first coordinator for cyber issues, and we are advancing concerted strategies to address these really legitimate and troubling concerns.
Next, on energy. We know energy can be a source of healthy competition, with countries racing to develop new technologies and renewables. But it can also be a source of conflict, fueling corruption and instability. And how the world uses energy is a key factor as to whether we will finally address the threat of climate change. So we have created at the State Department a new Bureau of Energy Resources, and made this issue a priority in our diplomacy.
And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism: a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors. And then, diplomatic challenges arise when states abuse their economic advantage to bully their neighbors or box out competitors, like when we see countries cut off gas flows in the middle of winter over a political disagreement. So, the State Department, working with seven other U.S. Government agencies, launched a comprehensive study on state capitalism. And in the coming weeks, we should see a final report with detailed recommendations for how we engage on the challenges posed.
Now, let me add that many of the questions that I have discussed today about the relationship between strategic and economic issues deserve deeper study. Perhaps, President De Meyer, at this institution. Almost a new foreign policy discipline. And I hope scholars at think tanks and universities will help us explore the implications and design more effective responses.
The ambitious agenda we've been working on, and that I have described to you today, will require a sustained commitment from secretary to secretary, from president to president. And the United States has to keep asking tough questions of ourselves and our partners around the world. We need to form coalitions of like-minded nations that deal in the changing dynamics of power and influence. And, as economic strength and global power converge, all countries need to think about the way their domestic decisions reverberate on the international stage. And that is especially true in my own country.
When I was traveling through Asia last summer, during the height of the debate over the debt ceiling back home, leaders from across the region pulled me aside to ask if the U.S. Congress would actually allow America to default on our debt. Let's be clear. The full faith and credit of the United States should never be in question. Today, as Washington gears up for another round of budget negotiations, I am again hearing concerns about the global implications of America's economic choices. Now, I am out of politics, but let me assure you that, for all the differences between the political parties in my country, we are united in our commitment to protect American leadership and bolster our national security. Reaching a meaningful budget deal is critical to both. It will shore up our ability to project economic power around the globe, strengthen our position in the competition of ideas, shaping the global marketplace, and remind all nations that we remain a steady and dependable partner. For us, this is a moment, once again, to prove the resilience of our economic system, and reaffirm America's leadership in the world.
As Ambassador Adelman said, "I've been in the business of advancing American leadership for a long time now. I've seen the ups and downs firsthand, our greatest triumphs and our wrenching heartbreaks. And through it all, I've only grown more convinced that our global leadership depends on our economic strength, and more confident that the United States has what it takes to keep leading in the 21st century."
This much is clear: the future belongs to those who can anticipate opportunities, who follow the trend lines, not just the headlines, countries like Singapore, which transformed itself into an Asian tiger in the decades after independence, and continues to innovate and excel. Global leadership is not a birthright. Not a birthright for the United States or any nation. It must be constantly tended and earned anew. Americans' ability, however, to reinvent ourselves has been a national strength since the first settlers arrived in search of new shores and new opportunities. It is part of our DNA. It is part of who we are, as Americans. And I know the United States will rise, as we always have, to meet the challenges of this new international landscape, firm in our purpose, innovative in our approach, and unwavering in our determination to succeed. And we look forward to a future of peace and prosperity and opportunity for all. Thank you. (Applause.)
Delivering on the Promise of Economic Statecraft
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Singapore Management University
Singapore
November 17, 2012
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much. Thank you, President De Meyer, for welcoming all of us here to SMU. Thank you, Ambassador Adelman, for your exemplary service here in Singapore, strengthening and deepening the already very strong relationship between our two countries. Thank you also for the Minister of State and the Minister for Education and the Speaker of the Parliament for being here with us. And thanks to the American Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. ASEAN business council for helping to cosponsor this event.
It has been three years since I was last here with President Obama, when we came for our first APEC meeting. And that trip helped launch what has been called our pivot to the Asia Pacific. As Secretary of State, I have visited the region many times. And I was just in Australia with Secretary of Defense Panetta for our annual AUSMIN consultations with our Australian counterparts. Tomorrow I will join President Obama in Thailand. And then we will go together to Burma and on to Cambodia for the East Asia Summit.
Now, I think one of the questions that may be on your and others' minds is: "Why is the American President spending all this time in Asia so soon after winning re-election?" Well, the answer for us is very simple. Because so much of the history of the 21st century will be, is being, written in this region. America's expanded engagement represents our commitment to help shape that shared future. The strategic and security dimensions of our efforts are well known. But the untold story that is just as important is our economic engagement. Because it is clear that not only in the Asia Pacific but across the world, increasingly, economics are shaping the strategic landscape. Emerging powers are putting economics at the center of their foreign policies, and they are gaining clout less because of their size of their armies than because of the growth of their GDP.
For the first time in modern history, nations are becoming major global powers without also becoming global military powers. So, to maintain our strategic leadership in the region, the United States is also strengthening our economic leadership. And we know very well that America's economic strength at home and our leadership around the world are a package deal. Each reinforces and requires the other.
I must say this is a lesson that Singapore learned long ago. Today the non-stop flow of people, goods, and capital through this small nation is proof that a country does not need to be big to be mighty, to be respected, to be a real leader. Every country wants to do business in Singapore, so every country has a stake in cultivating good relationships with Singapore. With only 1/60 of the population of the United States, Singapore is our 15th largest trading partner. More than 2,000 American companies base their regional headquarters here. Two-way trade exceeded $50 billion for the first time last year. And U.S. direct investment surpassed $116 billion over the last decade. That makes Singapore's security and stability a vital interest for the United States. This connection between economic power and global influence explains why the United States is placing economics at the heart of our own foreign policy. I call it economic statecraft.
Now, these ideas are hardly new. After all, it was Harry Truman who said our relations, foreign and economic, are indivisible. But today that carries renewed urgency. Last year I laid out America's economic statecraft agenda in a series of speeches in Washington, Hong Kong, San Francisco, and New York. Since then, we have turned this vision into action in four key areas: first, updating our foreign policy priorities to take economics more into account; second, turning to economic solutions for strategic challenges; third, stepping up commercial diplomacy -- what I like to call jobs diplomacy -- to boost U.S. exports, open new markets, and level the playing field for our businesses; and fourth, building the diplomatic capacity to execute this ambitious agenda.
In short, we are shaping our foreign policy to account for both the economics of power and the power of economics. The first and most fundamental task is to update our foreign policy and its priorities for a changing world. For the last decade, as you know, the United States focused enormous time, resources, and attention on a war in Iraq that is now over, and a war in Afghanistan that is winding down. Responding to threats will, of course, always be central to our foreign policy. But it cannot be our foreign policy. America has to seize opportunities that will shore up our strength for years to come. That means following through on our intensified engagement in the Asia Pacific and elevating the role of economics in our work around the world.
Here in Asia the United States is taking concrete steps to protect and update an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system that has made the region's spectacular growth possible. Through APEC and ASEAN, we are working with partners like Singapore to improve regulatory standards, harmonize customs procedures, and reduce trade barriers. We've ratified a free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea that will improve competitiveness and transparency, while boosting American exports by as much as $10 billion a year. In negotiations with China and India on bilateral investment treaties, we are seeking a level playing field between American companies and their competitors, including state-owned enterprises.
And with Singapore and a growing list of other countries on both sides of the Pacific, we are making progress toward finalizing a far-reaching new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region. It will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy. Canada and Mexico have already joined the original TPP partners. We continue to consult with Japan. And we are offering to assist with capacity building, so that every country in ASEAN can eventually join. We welcome the interest of any nation willing to meet 21st century standards as embodied in the TPP, including China.
The United States is also moving economics to the center of our agenda elsewhere in the world. For example, we want to improve our economic partnership with our allies in Europe. That is every bit as compelling to us as our security partnership through the NATO alliance. So, to that end, we are exploring negotiations with the European Union for a comprehensive economic agreement that would increase trade and spur growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
Africa. Africa is currently home to 7 of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies. I deliberately said that slowly because so many people look surprised when I say it. And so, we are changing the way we do business with Africa. Certainly regarding our development agenda, but also trying to do more to harness market forces and private-sector solutions for these growing African economies.
In Latin America, which remains the destination for 40 percent of all U.S. exports, we have ratified free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama, and we have begun discussions with a new group called the Alliance of the Pacific, formed by Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile to expand their competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Now, our next step will be to transform these regional efforts -- the TPP, the EU agreement, our bilateral trade deals -- into a truly global vision. In the same way that the general agreement on trade and tariffs offered a global blueprint following World War II, we need new arrangements to take on the challenges that inhibit trade today, from non-tariff barriers to preferential treatment for state-owned enterprises.
As we do more to define our foreign policy priorities in economic terms, we also need to update the tools we use. So our second main area of action is finding ways to tap economic solutions for strategic challenges. Just look at what's happening now in Burma. The cost of economic sanctions and the benefits of rejoining the global economy helped spur the government to begin opening up. And we are very grateful to the wise counsel we received from Singapore along the way. The United States is responding not just with growing diplomatic engagement, but also with new economic ties that we believe will help encourage further political and market reforms, and thereby improve stability over time.
This July more than 70 executives from 38 leading U.S. companies visited as part of the U.S.-ASEAN business council delegation. And I understand that the American Chamber of Commerce here in Singapore led a similar trip in August. The United States is also supporting World Bank programs that will provide more than $80 million for infrastructure projects in the country's townships, and financial support for small businesses.
Burma is part of a region where progress has been slowed by insecurity and mistrust. But it doesn't have to be that way. As Burma opens up and establishes new ties to its neighbors, it could become a commercial hub linking markets in India and Bangladesh with Southeast Asia. An Indo-Pacific economic corridor powered by new energy and transportation infrastructure and fewer trade barriers could create jobs and help lift millions out of poverty. It could also promote stability and drive cooperation on shared challenges like narcotics and human trafficking, refugees, and natural disasters.
Now, this all might sound ambitious. And, I confess, it is. But we cannot shy away from big goals. The post-World War II generation that built the modern global order and established institutions and agreements that fostered unprecedented security and prosperity are really the examples we should be following, in those footsteps, thinking bigger, working harder to create the arrangements that will give us another 100 years of security and prosperity.
The same goes for another regional vision we call the New Silk Road, a web of trade and transportation links reaching from the steps of Central Asia to the southern tip of India. Forging stronger economic ties across this region is a key element in our long-term strategy for Afghanistan. If you look at the map, you see why Afghanistan has been fought over and part of the great game for so many generations because of its very strategic position right in the middle of this trading route.
So, even as we move forward with the security transition under NATO ISAF in 2014, and the end of our coalition combat mission, we are focused on shoring up Afghanistan's economic future, because we know that, without that, stability and security will certainly be elusive. This is a point that has too often been missed in serious foreign policy debates. The long, hard work of economic development may not be glamorous, but it is essential, even in war zones. And certainly the increasing economic relationship between India and Pakistan is good news, first and foremost for the Pakistani and Indian business people and consumers, but more generally with the hope that those kinds of ties can lead to even greater cooperation in the future.
We are also using new economic tools to address one of the world's preeminent security challenges: Iran. A broad coalition is revolutionizing how the international community enforces sanctions and builds pressure. We went after Iran's central bank and finance sector, and we reached out to private insurers, shippers, oil companies, and financial institutions to help us target pressure points that make it harder for companies and governments to do business with Iran.
Now we see results. Every major importer of Iranian oil has lowered their consumption. All 27 nations of the European Union have joined a boycott. In one year, Iran's oil exports are down by more than one million barrels a day, costing the Iranian Government at least $3 billion each month. And, in fact, because of increased production in other places in the world, we have not seen the spike in oil prices that so many people feared and predicted.
Now, regimes in places like Tehran and Pyongyang, that violate international norms and beggar their people in pursuit of greater military strength pose a stark contrast with emerging economic powers that are delivering benefits for their people.
The example of Iran also illustrates how powerful economic tools can be when we apply them both creatively and collectively. The Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah, the Haqqani network, and others, are all vulnerable to sophisticated and meticulous market pressure. Someone has said that the threats we face are perhaps enhanced because of how interconnected we are in the world because of globalization. But so are the responses. And we have to be smarter about how we identify and use them through international cooperation, robust coalitions, and determined diplomacy.
The third major area of focus for economic statecraft is commercial diplomacy that boosts U.S. exports, opens new markets, and levels the playing field for American businesses. Let me hasten to say this is not just about American prosperity. Although, as you might guess, as the American Secretary of State, that ranks very high on my list of priorities. That is always our goal. But this is about finding more opportunities for all of us to prosper together. It's about helping the next wave of emerging economies achieve the same kind of growth that Singapore has enjoyed. It's about rebalancing the global economy so Americans export more, Asians import more, and we avoid financial crises and build middle classes.
So, the United States is stepping up our game, using our network of more than 270 embassies and consulates to advocate for American firms, and help achieve President Obama's goal of doubling U.S. exports in 5 years. With 95 percent of the world's customers living beyond our own borders, this has become an economic imperative. So our diplomats are working to make it easier for U.S. businesses to find answers and get advice about navigating markets. We're helping them connect with foreign partners and compete for contracts. And whenever a U.S. Government official travels overseas now, we try to include business events on our schedules. In fact, later today I will visit a General Electric aviation facility here in Singapore.
We are sending more trade missions, like the one I mentioned to Burma. And this summer I led the first delegation of American CEOs to the U.S.-ASEAN Business Forum in Cambodia. Three heads of state and more than a dozen key ministers were eager to engage with them. Back in Washington, we have convened conferences bringing together business leaders and government officials from more than 100 countries. We're proud to go to bat for the Boeings and Chevrons and General Motors and so many others. But we're also working to help industries large and small that have not been traditional exporters. Ultimately, this effort is more than hooking a big fish here and there. We want every company -- American, Singaporean, or any other -- to have that level playing field and a chance to compete on the merits. That is a recipe for shared prosperity.
Yet in too many places businesses trying to break into markets face resistance, including trade barriers that are going up not along national borders, but behind them. And these obstacles stem from political choices, not market forces. And it will take serious and sustained diplomacy to address them. Wherever companies face discrimination, the United States will stand up for the rules of an open, free, transparent, and fair economic system, and we expect all like-minded economies to share that responsibility.
Now, recently we saw a break-through when India retooled its policy on foreign direct investment. Their old rules barred companies that carry multiple brands in one store -- like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, or similar foreign companies -- from doing retail business in the Indian market. That limited competition. But, more than that, it prevented the kind of knowledge transfer and supply chain modernization that India needs. So we and -- I should note -- other countries, as well, raised this issue with India's leaders at the highest level for years. And we are pleased that Delhi has now agreed to loosen its restrictions.
But to take advantage of a more level playing field, American businesses must step up, too. Here in Singapore, U.S. firms operate on every corner. But elsewhere, too many are sitting on the sidelines. I hear it over and over when I travel: "Where are the American businesses?" And at a time when America's domestic growth depends more than ever on our ability to compete internationally, this has to change. And when U.S. businesses do compete, we want to work with them to make sure their suppliers at every link in the chain are meeting international standards like labor rights, intellectual property, and environmental impact.
And, finally, a level playing field means lowering the barriers that keep women from fully participating in the global economy. You knew I would get to that, didn't you? Mountains of evidence make this so abundantly clear. No nation can achieve the kind of growth that we all want and need if half the population never gets to compete. And we cannot afford any longer to exclude the energy and talent that women add to our economies.
The World Bank has done some ground-breaking research on this, pointing out what it would mean to tear down the barriers, some of them still very explicit. There are countries that deny women credit, there are countries that prevent women from opening businesses or running them without male fronts. There are countries that prevent women from inheriting businesses. There are so many still existing legal barriers. And then, of course, there are the attitudinal and cultural barriers that are somewhat less obvious, but no less difficult. And in the World Bank's research, tearing down all those obstacles would raise GDP everywhere in the world, including in my own country. In my own country it would be by nine percent.
So, think about what this would mean in a time where we are still facing global economic problems. And so I always say that we've got to do more, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because we cannot afford not to do it.
The fourth and final area we are focused on is making sure America's diplomats and development experts have all the skills and support they need to actually implement economic statecraft. So, we are focused on recruiting, retaining, and rewarding the most talented people we can find. I appointed the State Department's first-ever chief economist. And I combined our work on energy, the environment, and economics under a single under secretary position to maximize synergy and cooperation. We are ramping up our training curriculum for economic officers, and developing new tools and incentives to help them do their jobs. Now, these kinds of changes unfold over years, but they show a commitment to match our practices to our priorities. And they will help hard-wire economic statecraft into American foreign policy.
Now, let me offer three quick examples that really show the intersection of economics and security. Let's start with cyber theft. Now, most countries outlaw breaking into the headquarters of a company to steal proprietary information. Yet when it comes to cyber theft of that same material, many look the other way or even encourage it. This is more than just bad international behavior. It is bad economics. If we set a precedent that cyber theft is acceptable, everyone will eventually suffer. So I named the State Department's first coordinator for cyber issues, and we are advancing concerted strategies to address these really legitimate and troubling concerns.
Next, on energy. We know energy can be a source of healthy competition, with countries racing to develop new technologies and renewables. But it can also be a source of conflict, fueling corruption and instability. And how the world uses energy is a key factor as to whether we will finally address the threat of climate change. So we have created at the State Department a new Bureau of Energy Resources, and made this issue a priority in our diplomacy.
And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism: a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors. And then, diplomatic challenges arise when states abuse their economic advantage to bully their neighbors or box out competitors, like when we see countries cut off gas flows in the middle of winter over a political disagreement. So, the State Department, working with seven other U.S. Government agencies, launched a comprehensive study on state capitalism. And in the coming weeks, we should see a final report with detailed recommendations for how we engage on the challenges posed.
Now, let me add that many of the questions that I have discussed today about the relationship between strategic and economic issues deserve deeper study. Perhaps, President De Meyer, at this institution. Almost a new foreign policy discipline. And I hope scholars at think tanks and universities will help us explore the implications and design more effective responses.
The ambitious agenda we've been working on, and that I have described to you today, will require a sustained commitment from secretary to secretary, from president to president. And the United States has to keep asking tough questions of ourselves and our partners around the world. We need to form coalitions of like-minded nations that deal in the changing dynamics of power and influence. And, as economic strength and global power converge, all countries need to think about the way their domestic decisions reverberate on the international stage. And that is especially true in my own country.
When I was traveling through Asia last summer, during the height of the debate over the debt ceiling back home, leaders from across the region pulled me aside to ask if the U.S. Congress would actually allow America to default on our debt. Let's be clear. The full faith and credit of the United States should never be in question. Today, as Washington gears up for another round of budget negotiations, I am again hearing concerns about the global implications of America's economic choices. Now, I am out of politics, but let me assure you that, for all the differences between the political parties in my country, we are united in our commitment to protect American leadership and bolster our national security. Reaching a meaningful budget deal is critical to both. It will shore up our ability to project economic power around the globe, strengthen our position in the competition of ideas, shaping the global marketplace, and remind all nations that we remain a steady and dependable partner. For us, this is a moment, once again, to prove the resilience of our economic system, and reaffirm America's leadership in the world.
As Ambassador Adelman said, "I've been in the business of advancing American leadership for a long time now. I've seen the ups and downs firsthand, our greatest triumphs and our wrenching heartbreaks. And through it all, I've only grown more convinced that our global leadership depends on our economic strength, and more confident that the United States has what it takes to keep leading in the 21st century."
This much is clear: the future belongs to those who can anticipate opportunities, who follow the trend lines, not just the headlines, countries like Singapore, which transformed itself into an Asian tiger in the decades after independence, and continues to innovate and excel. Global leadership is not a birthright. Not a birthright for the United States or any nation. It must be constantly tended and earned anew. Americans' ability, however, to reinvent ourselves has been a national strength since the first settlers arrived in search of new shores and new opportunities. It is part of our DNA. It is part of who we are, as Americans. And I know the United States will rise, as we always have, to meet the challenges of this new international landscape, firm in our purpose, innovative in our approach, and unwavering in our determination to succeed. And we look forward to a future of peace and prosperity and opportunity for all. Thank you. (Applause.)
Sunday, November 11, 2012
U.S. ANNOUNCES IT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL HUMANITARIAN AID TO SYRIA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 9, 2012
Today at the Syria Humanitarian Forum in Geneva, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly T. Clements announced that the United States is providing more than $34 million in additional humanitarian assistance to help those affected by the conflict in Syria. With this new assistance, the United States is providing more than $165 million in humanitarian aid to help those suffering inside Syria and refugees in the neighboring countries. This assistance is targeting the following priority areas:
Winterization: This additional funding from the United States will help meet winterization needs in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon and keep families warm during the coming winter by providing additional supplies such as blankets, heating stoves, and heavy-duty plastic sheeting to cover windows and other damaged areas of buildings housing those displaced by the Assad regime’s violence inside Syria.
Child Protection and Gender-based Violence Prevention: A portion of these funds will be used to support child protection issues, psychosocial support, and education, as well as measures to prevent gender-based violence.
Health: This additional funding will also support an immunization campaign that will protect up to one million children inside Syria from measles and other preventable diseases. In addition, we are increasing support for the logistical operation that allows life-saving aid to be delivered when and where possible in Syria.
Medical Transport: This funding will also support the transport of wounded Syrians from the Lebanon-Syria border so they can receive the medical attention they desperately need. By funding critical ambulatory services in Lebanon, the United States is helping fill a clear gap in existing humanitarian assistance.
U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance, excluding food assistance, has reached more than one million people inside Syria and approximately 380,000 who have fled to the safety of neighboring countries.
U.S.-funded medical care has already helped approximately 290,000 conflict-affected people throughout Syria. U.S.-funded field hospitals have performed 11,350 surgeries, and our support has trained more than 450 doctors, first responders, and volunteer medical personnel. We have provided medicines, medical supplies, and medical equipment sufficient to assist over 77,000 people inside Syria, and we are providing a wide range of supplies from simple gauze and bandages to treat wounds to advanced equipment like x-ray machines, defibrillators, and surgical tables to help address more complex injuries.
The United States is the largest donor of food assistance to Syria through the World Food Program (WFP), which is reaching 1.5 million displaced and conflict-affected persons within Syria. During the September distribution cycle, WFP food rations were distributed through more than 200 distribution points in all 14 governorates.
In addition, more than 130,000 people in Syria are being helped with U.S.-funded emergency relief supplies such as hygiene kits, infant care kits, bedding sets, mattresses, clothing, and basic household items.
The United States is aggressively pursuing all feasible options to expand the reach of humanitarian aid in Syria, utilizing both traditional and non-traditional humanitarian networks. The United States continues to pursue every available avenue to secure full, safe, and unfettered access for humanitarian organizations to provide relief supplies to the innocent children, women, and men affected by the Assad regime’s violent campaign against the Syrian people.
We recognize the generosity of the governments of Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and other governments for receiving those fleeing the violence in Syria and for hosting and providing assistance to those in need. We commend the efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations and nongovernmental organizations to ease the trauma that the Syrian regime has inflicted on those fleeing the violence. The overwhelming majority of this funding is being directed to UN agencies who are ably leading the humanitarian response. We urge all donors to coordinate closely with the UN-led response to ensure that necessary assistance is reaching those in need in a timely and efficient manner.
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
November 9, 2012
Today at the Syria Humanitarian Forum in Geneva, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly T. Clements announced that the United States is providing more than $34 million in additional humanitarian assistance to help those affected by the conflict in Syria. With this new assistance, the United States is providing more than $165 million in humanitarian aid to help those suffering inside Syria and refugees in the neighboring countries. This assistance is targeting the following priority areas:
Child Protection and Gender-based Violence Prevention: A portion of these funds will be used to support child protection issues, psychosocial support, and education, as well as measures to prevent gender-based violence.
Health: This additional funding will also support an immunization campaign that will protect up to one million children inside Syria from measles and other preventable diseases. In addition, we are increasing support for the logistical operation that allows life-saving aid to be delivered when and where possible in Syria.
Medical Transport: This funding will also support the transport of wounded Syrians from the Lebanon-Syria border so they can receive the medical attention they desperately need. By funding critical ambulatory services in Lebanon, the United States is helping fill a clear gap in existing humanitarian assistance.
U.S.-supported humanitarian assistance, excluding food assistance, has reached more than one million people inside Syria and approximately 380,000 who have fled to the safety of neighboring countries.
U.S.-funded medical care has already helped approximately 290,000 conflict-affected people throughout Syria. U.S.-funded field hospitals have performed 11,350 surgeries, and our support has trained more than 450 doctors, first responders, and volunteer medical personnel. We have provided medicines, medical supplies, and medical equipment sufficient to assist over 77,000 people inside Syria, and we are providing a wide range of supplies from simple gauze and bandages to treat wounds to advanced equipment like x-ray machines, defibrillators, and surgical tables to help address more complex injuries.
The United States is the largest donor of food assistance to Syria through the World Food Program (WFP), which is reaching 1.5 million displaced and conflict-affected persons within Syria. During the September distribution cycle, WFP food rations were distributed through more than 200 distribution points in all 14 governorates.
In addition, more than 130,000 people in Syria are being helped with U.S.-funded emergency relief supplies such as hygiene kits, infant care kits, bedding sets, mattresses, clothing, and basic household items.
The United States is aggressively pursuing all feasible options to expand the reach of humanitarian aid in Syria, utilizing both traditional and non-traditional humanitarian networks. The United States continues to pursue every available avenue to secure full, safe, and unfettered access for humanitarian organizations to provide relief supplies to the innocent children, women, and men affected by the Assad regime’s violent campaign against the Syrian people.
We recognize the generosity of the governments of Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and other governments for receiving those fleeing the violence in Syria and for hosting and providing assistance to those in need. We commend the efforts of the United Nations and other international organizations and nongovernmental organizations to ease the trauma that the Syrian regime has inflicted on those fleeing the violence. The overwhelming majority of this funding is being directed to UN agencies who are ably leading the humanitarian response. We urge all donors to coordinate closely with the UN-led response to ensure that necessary assistance is reaching those in need in a timely and efficient manner.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
U.S. SEC. OF STATE CLINTON AND KOSOVO PRIME MINISTER THACI MAKE REMARKS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Government Building
Pristina, Kosovo
October 31, 2012
PRIME MINISTER THACI: (Via interpreter) Honorable Secretary Clinton, allow me to express my condolences and those of the Kosovar people for the consequences of the hurricane. We pray for them, and we are visit the U.S. – will soon (inaudible) after this hurricane.
Honorable Lady Ashton, Secretary Clinton, 13 years ago, Kosovo was a country that was totally devastated with over a million of its citizens driven away from their homes and thousands of people missing, many unspoken. Thirteen years ago, Honorable Secretary Clinton, you visited my citizens in refugee camps here. Those pictures are unforgettable. Today, you visit them in their own state in the independent and sovereign Kosovo. Kosovo and its citizens will be eternally grateful to the United States of America and the countries of the European Union for the powerful support that they gave to Kosovo on its long journey to freedom and independence.
Despite the significant progress we have made in – together in these 13 years of freedom and the four and a half years of independence, today Kosovo is still not the Kosovo of our dreams. We are persistently working for a European Kosovo, for a Euro-Atlantic Kosovo. We are conscious that we need to do more. There’s a lot of work to do in the rule of law, combating corruption and organized crime. Much work is still expected from us increasing the welfare of our citizens, and (inaudible) including minority communities in the public and institutional (inaudible).
Although extraordinary success has been made in integrating Serbian citizens in the south of the country, still a challenge remains in the north. I am a Prime Minister, Prime Minister of all citizens, both the citizens in the north and in south. And I guarantee (inaudible) to all. We will work extensively in attractive development projects for our citizens in that part of the country as well. We will continue to extend our hand of cooperation and provide services to all. But despite our willingness, the presence of illegal structures financed by Serbia makes our work very difficult there.
Honorable media representatives, I assured Baroness Ashton and Secretary Clinton that the institutions of Kosovo will meet all criteria in order that we may implement the will of the citizens of Kosovo and our vision to integrate as soon as possible in the European Union and in NATO. EU integration has no other alternative. Honorable Ashton, I assure you that Kosovo will continually provide positive arguments so that your work in pushing Kosovo’s EU agenda forward will be easier. We elaborated together, together with Secretary Clinton and Baroness Ashton, that the process of normalizing relations between the State of Kosovo and the State of Serbia is a determining factor of the Europeanization of the region. Kosovo is determined in this process. But let us be clear that (inaudible) will not go back; the state of Kosovo is being consolidated and strengthened every day. Kosovo’s independence and its territorial integrity and the (inaudible) state organization are internationally recognized facts and undisputable.
There are, however, many things that are in the interest of both countries and in the interest of the citizens of both states. Dialogue is the only way forward to integrate into the EU, and it is the main determining catalyzer to integrate in this – in the EU. And normalizing relations between Kosovo and Serbia, it goes in the best interests of Kosovo, of Serbia, of the region. It is also in the best interest for powerful investment from the EU and the U.S., and also in the interest of peace and regional stability and also for the Euro-Atlantic perspective.
So citizens in Kosovo, in Serbia, and in the region, after opening this chapter, will have more hope and more confidence in the future – Euro-Atlantic future of Kosovo.
MODERATOR: Now we invite the Honorable Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton for a press statement.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. And Prime Minister, I’m delighted to be back in Pristina. I am also reminded, as you did, of my visit 13 years ago to refugee camps where the people who are now proud citizens of a new, independent state had fled to save their lives. I’m not sure any people has made as much progress in such a short period of time as the Kosovar people. The United States has been with you on every step of your journey, and we will remain as your partner and your friend as you continue forward.
Ever since I visited two years ago, I’ve been looking forward to returning and continuing the conversations that I’ve had over 13 years with the leaders and people of Kosovo about the future that you are building. I’m here today with the High Representative of the European Union, Cathy Ashton, because the United States fully supports the aspirations of the Kosovar people to be integrated into Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Alliance. We believe the dialogue that the Prime Minister has begun with Cathy Ashton and the Prime Minister of Serbia is absolutely essential. It provides the path to long-term stability, prosperity, and peace for people here and throughout the region. So we are working closely with the European Union and High Representative Ashton to advance the political dialogue that has begun.
And I personally want to commend the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Thaci took a political risk – I know a little bit about political risks – in going to this meeting in Brussels. It was the right decision. It was courageous and it was smart. I also want to commend your President. President Jahjaga has represented Kosovo very well around the world. She has changed minds and hearts about Kosovo and about your future.
My message yesterday in Belgrade is the same as my message here today in Pristina. The United States urges all parties to continue to work to implement the agreements reached to date, to reach agreements in new areas, and to advance concrete measures to normalize relations. Normalization of relations is key to future progress for both Serbia and Kosovo. But we believe in the United States that these steps taken by Kosovo are especially important for you. We think that moving toward the European Union will give you the rewards for the hard work, the sacrifice of the people of this generation and the past and future generations to come. So I urge Kosovo’s leaders to continue to carry out negotiations in good faith. Certainly, addressing the concerns of the Kosovo Serbs will be critical. I will meet with a group of ethnic Serb returnees later today, and will convey America’s commitment to helping build a future in Kosovo and throughout the region where all people of all backgrounds have a chance to succeed.
Let me be absolutely clear, not only here in Pristina but to anyone listening or watching throughout the region: The United States is firmly committed to Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to seeing the rule of law extend throughout Kosovo. We oppose any discussion of territorial changes or reopening Kosovo’s independent status. These matters are not up for discussion. The boundaries of an independent, sovereign Kosovo are clear and set. I appreciate the Prime Minister saying that he is the Prime Minister of the north and of the south, and we look forward to assisting the Prime Minister, his government, and the people of Kosovo as they translate that commitment into reality in both the north and the south.
The United States is very proud of our friendship with Kosovo. We see a country that is young not only in terms of years of being a state, but in terms of demography. You have a young population. The young men and women of Kosovo whom I had a chance to meet with two years ago, when I was here, deserve to be fully integrated into Europe. And that is our goal for you. We want to continue working with you to build and strengthen your democratic institutions and advance the economic welfare of your people. I believe in Kosovo’s future, and the United States remains deeply committed to your success.
Now for me and my family, and many of my fellow Americans, this is more than a matter of foreign policy. It is deeply personal. As I was driving in from the airport last evening, I saw that enormous statue of my husband – (laughter) – standing next to the store called Hillary. (Laughter.) I had a chance to visit both of them last time. It looks like the store is doing well, which I was very happy to see. But we have a personal commitment to your success, and we also know that getting into the European Union is not easy. There have to be changes made. And it’s not only changes by the government, but also changes by the people. But we also know Kosovo’s future lies in Europe, and we are anxious to see you move as quickly as possible in that direction.
So we will stand with you as you make key reforms to improve governance that brings you closer to full Euro-Atlantic integration. We will stand with you as you work with Serbia to resolve practical problems and overcome obstacles, and we will be there for you as you take the necessary steps toward the future you so richly deserve.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: Now I would kindly pass the floor for a press statement to Honorable Lady Catherine Ashton.
HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Well, thank you very much. Can I first of all say how delighted I am to be back, and especially delighted to be back with Secretary Clinton, my friend Hillary, who I know has a very special place in the hearts of the people of Kosovo. Prime Minister, it’s always a pleasure to see you and to have the opportunity to continue our work together.
On this particular trip, a common theme has been our view of the importance of seeing the countries we visited being part of the European Union. And to the people of Kosovo, I say the same thing: Your future lies with the European Union, and we are eager to see you realize that ambition. As Secretary Clinton said, the road is not easy. Every country that comes into the European Union will tell you it gets harder before it gets easier. There are many things that need to be done. But they’re worth doing because at the end of it, you will have a country that is stronger economically, stronger politically, where the rule of law is observed correctly, where human rights are fully respected. And though I would also say that all countries need to continue to be vigilant and to continue on the journey that they are to take in these regards, nonetheless you will arrive at the European Union with great strength. And I personally look forward to that day very much.
The dialogue that we have begun is not easy. It’s not easy for the Prime Minister; it’s not easy for the Prime Minister of Serbia, Prime Minister Dacic, either. And I know that for the people of Kosovo, with the history and the fears that you have, it’s not easy, either. But we commit to you that this dialogue is about making lives better. It’s about normalizing life so that the people who live in the north can go about their daily lives feeling part of a community, feeling part in their lives of a society. And it’s about doing so by sitting down and talking, and talking openly and freely.
And I have to say to all of you that I believe your Prime Minister was extremely brave to come to Brussels and to be willing to come into the room and have that conversation. I also believe the Prime Minister of Serbia was brave, too. It was a good meeting. It was a first good meeting. There will be more, and soon. And its purpose will be, as I have said, to make things better. I hope you will give him your full support. I hope the Prime Minister can count on all the politicians and the people to go forward, and in doing so, to know that it’s not just the European Union that will be working hard on this, but that we will be in close contact with our friends, our partners in the United States of America, who play such a vital role in supporting not just Kosovo, but actually the European Union as a whole.
So thank you very much, Prime Minister, for all that you’re doing. Secretary Clinton, as this is our last press conference on this particular trip, what a pleasure it’s been to travel with you and to work so closely with you. And to all of you, I wish this country every possible success.
MODERATOR: Thank you. (Inaudible.)
Remarks With Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton
Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Government Building
Pristina, Kosovo
October 31, 2012
PRIME MINISTER THACI: (Via interpreter) Honorable Secretary Clinton, allow me to express my condolences and those of the Kosovar people for the consequences of the hurricane. We pray for them, and we are visit the U.S. – will soon (inaudible) after this hurricane.
Honorable Lady Ashton, Secretary Clinton, 13 years ago, Kosovo was a country that was totally devastated with over a million of its citizens driven away from their homes and thousands of people missing, many unspoken. Thirteen years ago, Honorable Secretary Clinton, you visited my citizens in refugee camps here. Those pictures are unforgettable. Today, you visit them in their own state in the independent and sovereign Kosovo. Kosovo and its citizens will be eternally grateful to the United States of America and the countries of the European Union for the powerful support that they gave to Kosovo on its long journey to freedom and independence.
Despite the significant progress we have made in – together in these 13 years of freedom and the four and a half years of independence, today Kosovo is still not the Kosovo of our dreams. We are persistently working for a European Kosovo, for a Euro-Atlantic Kosovo. We are conscious that we need to do more. There’s a lot of work to do in the rule of law, combating corruption and organized crime. Much work is still expected from us increasing the welfare of our citizens, and (inaudible) including minority communities in the public and institutional (inaudible).
Although extraordinary success has been made in integrating Serbian citizens in the south of the country, still a challenge remains in the north. I am a Prime Minister, Prime Minister of all citizens, both the citizens in the north and in south. And I guarantee (inaudible) to all. We will work extensively in attractive development projects for our citizens in that part of the country as well. We will continue to extend our hand of cooperation and provide services to all. But despite our willingness, the presence of illegal structures financed by Serbia makes our work very difficult there.
Honorable media representatives, I assured Baroness Ashton and Secretary Clinton that the institutions of Kosovo will meet all criteria in order that we may implement the will of the citizens of Kosovo and our vision to integrate as soon as possible in the European Union and in NATO. EU integration has no other alternative. Honorable Ashton, I assure you that Kosovo will continually provide positive arguments so that your work in pushing Kosovo’s EU agenda forward will be easier. We elaborated together, together with Secretary Clinton and Baroness Ashton, that the process of normalizing relations between the State of Kosovo and the State of Serbia is a determining factor of the Europeanization of the region. Kosovo is determined in this process. But let us be clear that (inaudible) will not go back; the state of Kosovo is being consolidated and strengthened every day. Kosovo’s independence and its territorial integrity and the (inaudible) state organization are internationally recognized facts and undisputable.
There are, however, many things that are in the interest of both countries and in the interest of the citizens of both states. Dialogue is the only way forward to integrate into the EU, and it is the main determining catalyzer to integrate in this – in the EU. And normalizing relations between Kosovo and Serbia, it goes in the best interests of Kosovo, of Serbia, of the region. It is also in the best interest for powerful investment from the EU and the U.S., and also in the interest of peace and regional stability and also for the Euro-Atlantic perspective.
So citizens in Kosovo, in Serbia, and in the region, after opening this chapter, will have more hope and more confidence in the future – Euro-Atlantic future of Kosovo.
MODERATOR: Now we invite the Honorable Madam Secretary Hillary Clinton for a press statement.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. And Prime Minister, I’m delighted to be back in Pristina. I am also reminded, as you did, of my visit 13 years ago to refugee camps where the people who are now proud citizens of a new, independent state had fled to save their lives. I’m not sure any people has made as much progress in such a short period of time as the Kosovar people. The United States has been with you on every step of your journey, and we will remain as your partner and your friend as you continue forward.
Ever since I visited two years ago, I’ve been looking forward to returning and continuing the conversations that I’ve had over 13 years with the leaders and people of Kosovo about the future that you are building. I’m here today with the High Representative of the European Union, Cathy Ashton, because the United States fully supports the aspirations of the Kosovar people to be integrated into Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Alliance. We believe the dialogue that the Prime Minister has begun with Cathy Ashton and the Prime Minister of Serbia is absolutely essential. It provides the path to long-term stability, prosperity, and peace for people here and throughout the region. So we are working closely with the European Union and High Representative Ashton to advance the political dialogue that has begun.
And I personally want to commend the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Thaci took a political risk – I know a little bit about political risks – in going to this meeting in Brussels. It was the right decision. It was courageous and it was smart. I also want to commend your President. President Jahjaga has represented Kosovo very well around the world. She has changed minds and hearts about Kosovo and about your future.
My message yesterday in Belgrade is the same as my message here today in Pristina. The United States urges all parties to continue to work to implement the agreements reached to date, to reach agreements in new areas, and to advance concrete measures to normalize relations. Normalization of relations is key to future progress for both Serbia and Kosovo. But we believe in the United States that these steps taken by Kosovo are especially important for you. We think that moving toward the European Union will give you the rewards for the hard work, the sacrifice of the people of this generation and the past and future generations to come. So I urge Kosovo’s leaders to continue to carry out negotiations in good faith. Certainly, addressing the concerns of the Kosovo Serbs will be critical. I will meet with a group of ethnic Serb returnees later today, and will convey America’s commitment to helping build a future in Kosovo and throughout the region where all people of all backgrounds have a chance to succeed.
Let me be absolutely clear, not only here in Pristina but to anyone listening or watching throughout the region: The United States is firmly committed to Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to seeing the rule of law extend throughout Kosovo. We oppose any discussion of territorial changes or reopening Kosovo’s independent status. These matters are not up for discussion. The boundaries of an independent, sovereign Kosovo are clear and set. I appreciate the Prime Minister saying that he is the Prime Minister of the north and of the south, and we look forward to assisting the Prime Minister, his government, and the people of Kosovo as they translate that commitment into reality in both the north and the south.
The United States is very proud of our friendship with Kosovo. We see a country that is young not only in terms of years of being a state, but in terms of demography. You have a young population. The young men and women of Kosovo whom I had a chance to meet with two years ago, when I was here, deserve to be fully integrated into Europe. And that is our goal for you. We want to continue working with you to build and strengthen your democratic institutions and advance the economic welfare of your people. I believe in Kosovo’s future, and the United States remains deeply committed to your success.
Now for me and my family, and many of my fellow Americans, this is more than a matter of foreign policy. It is deeply personal. As I was driving in from the airport last evening, I saw that enormous statue of my husband – (laughter) – standing next to the store called Hillary. (Laughter.) I had a chance to visit both of them last time. It looks like the store is doing well, which I was very happy to see. But we have a personal commitment to your success, and we also know that getting into the European Union is not easy. There have to be changes made. And it’s not only changes by the government, but also changes by the people. But we also know Kosovo’s future lies in Europe, and we are anxious to see you move as quickly as possible in that direction.
So we will stand with you as you make key reforms to improve governance that brings you closer to full Euro-Atlantic integration. We will stand with you as you work with Serbia to resolve practical problems and overcome obstacles, and we will be there for you as you take the necessary steps toward the future you so richly deserve.
Thank you.
MODERATOR: Now I would kindly pass the floor for a press statement to Honorable Lady Catherine Ashton.
HIGH REPRESENTATIVE ASHTON: Well, thank you very much. Can I first of all say how delighted I am to be back, and especially delighted to be back with Secretary Clinton, my friend Hillary, who I know has a very special place in the hearts of the people of Kosovo. Prime Minister, it’s always a pleasure to see you and to have the opportunity to continue our work together.
On this particular trip, a common theme has been our view of the importance of seeing the countries we visited being part of the European Union. And to the people of Kosovo, I say the same thing: Your future lies with the European Union, and we are eager to see you realize that ambition. As Secretary Clinton said, the road is not easy. Every country that comes into the European Union will tell you it gets harder before it gets easier. There are many things that need to be done. But they’re worth doing because at the end of it, you will have a country that is stronger economically, stronger politically, where the rule of law is observed correctly, where human rights are fully respected. And though I would also say that all countries need to continue to be vigilant and to continue on the journey that they are to take in these regards, nonetheless you will arrive at the European Union with great strength. And I personally look forward to that day very much.
The dialogue that we have begun is not easy. It’s not easy for the Prime Minister; it’s not easy for the Prime Minister of Serbia, Prime Minister Dacic, either. And I know that for the people of Kosovo, with the history and the fears that you have, it’s not easy, either. But we commit to you that this dialogue is about making lives better. It’s about normalizing life so that the people who live in the north can go about their daily lives feeling part of a community, feeling part in their lives of a society. And it’s about doing so by sitting down and talking, and talking openly and freely.
And I have to say to all of you that I believe your Prime Minister was extremely brave to come to Brussels and to be willing to come into the room and have that conversation. I also believe the Prime Minister of Serbia was brave, too. It was a good meeting. It was a first good meeting. There will be more, and soon. And its purpose will be, as I have said, to make things better. I hope you will give him your full support. I hope the Prime Minister can count on all the politicians and the people to go forward, and in doing so, to know that it’s not just the European Union that will be working hard on this, but that we will be in close contact with our friends, our partners in the United States of America, who play such a vital role in supporting not just Kosovo, but actually the European Union as a whole.
So thank you very much, Prime Minister, for all that you’re doing. Secretary Clinton, as this is our last press conference on this particular trip, what a pleasure it’s been to travel with you and to work so closely with you. And to all of you, I wish this country every possible success.
MODERATOR: Thank you. (Inaudible.)
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)