Foreign Policy
Documents & Texts from America.gov
29 January 2010
Secretary Clinton on the Future of European Security
L’Ecole Militaire
Paris, France
Related:
• Factsheet on the Secretarys Speech
on European Security
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Charillon. And
it is a great pleasure to be here at this historic setting, and I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss a matter of great consequence to the United States, France,
and every country on this continent and far beyond the borders: the future
of European security.
Now, this is not only here at L’Ecole Militaire an architectural and historical
treasure, one that when I was much younger I would walk by and looked at as I wandered
the neighborhoods. But this is also a place that speaks to the long and proud
partnership between the French and American militaries on behalf of our mutual
defense and freedom. Two hundred and fifty years ago, young men from across
France began arriving here to be trained as soldiers and officers of the French
military. And only a few years later, you stood with us during our war of
independence. Soldiers from both nations fought together to liberate Paris
65 years ago. Today, they fight together in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida
and the syndicate of terrorists and offer the Afghan people the hope of a stable
future.
As founding members of the NATO Alliance, our countries have worked side by side
for decades to build a strong and secure Europe and to defend and promote democracy,
human rights, and the rule of law. And I am delighted that we are working
even more closely now that France is fully participating in NATO’s integrated
command structure. I thank President Sarkozy for his leadership and look
forward to benefiting from the counsel of our French colleagues as together we
chart NATO’s future.
Today, thanks to the partnership between our nation and others, Europe is stronger
than ever. The bitter divides of the Cold War have been replaced by unity,
partnership, and peace. Russia is no longer our adversary but often a partner
on key global issues. Nations that once were members of the Warsaw Pact and
eyed NATO with suspicion are now active members of our Alliance. And the
European Union has grown to include 27 nations, from the British Isles to the Baltic
states, and is poised to become even more dynamic with the ratification of the
Treaty of Lisbon. As I recently expressed to the new EU High Representative
Baroness Catherine Ashton, the challenges we face in our Euro-Atlantic relationship
demand collective responses, and the European Union is an invaluable and increasingly
effective force for global progress.
So the accomplishments of the past half century have showcased how vital European
security is, not only to the individual nations, but to the world. It is,
after all, more than a collection of countries linked by history and geography. It
is a model for the transformative power of reconciliation, cooperation, and community.
But at the same time, much important work remains unfinished. The transition
to democracy is incomplete in parts of Europe and Eurasia. Arms control regimes
that once served us well are now fraying. And in too many places, economic
opportunity is still too narrow and shallow.
Adding to these ongoing challenges, the institutions that guarded Europe’s
and North America’s security during the 20th century were not designed with
21st century threats in mind. New dangers have emerged, such as global terrorism,
including cyber terrorism and nuclear terrorism; climate change; global criminal
networks that traffic in weapons, drugs, and people; threats to Europe’s
energy supply, which, if exploited, could destabilize economies and stoke regional
and even global conflict. Tanks, bombers, and missiles are necessary but
no longer sufficient to keep our people safe. Our arsenal must also include
tools that protect cyber and energy networks, halt the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, counter the threats of terrorism and destructive ideologies,
in part by confronting the political, economic, and social conditions that give
rise to such ideologies in the first place.
The transatlantic partnership has been both a cornerstone of global security and
a powerful force for global progress. Now we are called to address some of
the great challenges in human history. And to meet them, we are required
to modernize and strengthen our partnership.
New thinking is underway on both sides of the Atlantic. NATO is revising
its Strategic Concept to prepare for the alliance’s summit at the end of
this year here at (inaudible). I know there’s a lot of thinking going
on about strategic threats and how to meet them. Next week, at the Munich
Security Conference, leaders from across the continent will address urgent security
and foreign policy challenges. France has urged all of us for a high-level
discussion to address European security. Other nations have proposed new
approaches and agreements. Russia has recently suggested both a new European
security treaty and a new NATO-Russia treaty.
The United States, too, has also been studying ways to strengthen European security
and, therefore our own security, and to extend it to foster security on a global
scale. Today, I’d like to discuss the core principles that guide the
United States today as we consider the future of European security and our role
in shaping, strengthening, and sustaining it.
But first, let me address some questions raised in recent months about the depth
of the United States commitment to European security. Some wonder whether
we understand the urgent need to improve security in Europe. Others have
voiced concern that the Obama Administration is so focused on foreign policy challenges
elsewhere in the world that Europe has receded in our list of priorities.
Well, in fact, European security remains an anchor of U.S. foreign and security
policy. A strong Europe is critical to our security and our prosperity. Much
of what we hope to accomplish globally depends on working together with Europe. And
so we are working with European allies and partners to help bring stability to
Afghanistan and try to take on the dangers posed by Iran’s nuclear ambition. We
are working with Europe to help meet the crisis of climate change and revitalize
the global economy. And we’re working in the fight against extreme
poverty, gender-based violence, and pandemic disease. Human rights and universal
values, shared as part of our common history between Europe and the United States,
must always be a cornerstone of our security efforts, because if Europe is not
secure, Europe cannot lead. And we need European leadership in the 21st century.
But European security is far more than a strategic interest of my country. It
is also an expression of our values. We stand with Europe today, as we have
stood with Europe for decades, because enduring bonds connect our nations and our
peoples. We are united by an understanding of the importance of liberty and
freedom. We have fought and died for each other’s liberty and freedom. These
are ties that cannot and never should be broken. And we seek both to venerate
and reinforce them by helping to maintain peace and security in Europe, today and
all the tomorrows to come.
But as we move forward, a set of core principles will guide us in our approach
and in our joint effort. First, the cornerstone of security is the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of all states. Much of the suffering that occurred
in Europe during the 20th century emanated from a failure to respect borders or
to honor the right of all nations to pursue their own foreign policies, choose
their own allies, and provide for their own self-defense. These are fundamental
rights of free nations and must and will remain vigilant in our efforts to oppose
any attempt to undermine them.
The United States has demonstrated our adherence to this principle in recent years
with our support for new European democracies seeking to chart their own political
futures, free from external intimidation or aggression. We have repeatedly
called on Russia to honor the terms of its ceasefire agreement with Georgia, and
we refuse to recognize Russia’s claims of independence for Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. More broadly, we object to any spheres of influence claimed in Europe
in which one country seeks to control another’s future. Our security
depends upon nations being able to choose their own destiny.
For years, Russia has expressed a sense of insecurity as NATO and the EU have
expanded. But we strongly believe that the enlargement of both has increased
security, stability, and prosperity across the continent, and that this, in turn,
has actually increased Russia’s security and prosperity.
Furthermore, the right of all countries to enter into alliances of their own choosing
has been endorsed by Russia and all members of the OSCE at the 1999 Istanbul summit. NATO
must and will remain open to any country that aspires to become a member and can
meet the requirements of membership. But we do not seek to create divisions
between neighbors and partners. Russia’s confidence in its security
enhances our own.
So that brings us to our second principle: Security in Europe must be indivisible. For
too long, the public discourse around Europe’s security has been fixed on
geographical and political divides. Some have looked at the continent
even now and seen Western and Eastern Europe, old and new Europe, NATO and non-NATO
Europe, EU and non-EU Europe. The reality is that there are not many Europes;
there is only one Europe. And it is a Europe that includes the United States
as its partner. And it is a Europe that includes Russia.
For in this century, security cannot be a zero-sum game. The security of
all nations is intertwined. And we have a responsibility to work to enhance
each other’s security, in part by engaging with others on these new ideas
and approaches.
Now, the Russian Government under President Medvedev has put forth proposals for
new security treaties in Europe. Indivisibility of security is a key feature
of those proposals. And that is a goal we share, along with other ideas in the
Russian proposals which reaffirm principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the NATO-Russia
Founding Act. However, we believe that these common goals are best pursued
in the context of existing institutions, such as the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council,
rather than by negotiating new treaties, as Russia has suggested – a very
long and cumbersome process.
I want to emphasize, though, even though we may have differences with Russia,
the United States is very proud of what our two countries have accomplished together
during the past year. The Obama Administration inherited a deteriorating
relationship with Russia, and we immediately set out to build a more substantive
and constructive relationship based mutual respect and mutual interests. Together,
we have made progress on a range of such matters, including helping to address
Iran’s nuclear program through the P-5+1, sharing a concern about stabilizing
Afghanistan, confronting North Korea’s defiance of its international obligations,
negotiating a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, tackling non-traditional threats
such as pandemic disease, cyber warfare, and the trafficking of children.
We will build upon this foundation as we seek to revitalize the NATO-Russia Council,
so it can make concrete contributions to areas where we are working together and
need to be doing even more, such as in missile defense, counternarcotics, and Afghanistan. And
we are committed to exploring ways that NATO and Russia can improve their partnership
by better reassuring each other about respective actions and intentions, through
greater military transparency, the sharing of information, and other means of building
trust and confidence. Now, I don’t need to state, but I will, that
the United States and Russia will not always agree. We have different histories,
different experiences and perspectives. Our interests will not always overlap. But
when we disagree, we will seek constructive ways to manage our differences.
Third, we will maintain an unwavering commitment to the pledge enshrined in Article
5 of the NATO treaty that an attack on one is an attack on all. When France
and our other NATO allies invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the attacks of
September 11th, 2001, it was a proclamation to the world that our promise to each
other was not rhetorical, but real. And the people of Europe brought great
comfort to the people of the United States by reminding us that even in such a
difficult hour, we were not alone. I was a senator representing the state
of New York at that time, and I well remember the extraordinary outpouring of support
that the people of New York specifically received. And for that, I thank
you. And I assure you and all members of NATO that our commitment to Europe’s
defense is equally strong.
As proof of that commitment, we will continue to station American troops in Europe,
both to deter attacks and respond quickly if any occur. We are working with
our allies to ensure that NATO has the plans it needs for responding to new and
evolving contingencies. We are engaged in productive discussions with our
European allies about building a new missile defense architecture that will defend
all of NATO territory against ballistic missile attack. And we are serious
about exploring ways to cooperate with Russia to develop missile defenses that
enhance the security of all of Europe, including Russia.
Missile defense, we believe, will make this continent a safer place. That
safety could extend to Russia, if Russia decides to cooperate with us. It
is an extraordinary opportunity for us to work together to build our mutual security.
In the 21st century, the spirit of collective defense must also include non-traditional
threats. We believe NATO’s new Strategic Concept must address these
new threats. Energy security is a particularly pressing priority. Countries
vulnerable to energy cut-offs face not only economic consequences but strategic
risks as well. And I welcome the recent establishment of the U.S.-EU Energy
Council, and we are determined to support Europe in its efforts to diversify its
energy supplies.
Fourth, we are committed to practicing transparency in our dealings in Europe,
and we call on other nations to do the same.
In this interconnected age, and particularly on this integrated continent, a threat
that originates in one country can quickly become a regional or even global crisis. To
keep Europe safe, we must keep the channels of communication open by being forthright
about our policies and approaches.
That begins with transparency. The United States supports a more open exchange
of military data, including visits to military sites and observation of military
activities and exercises because when nations are uncertain about the military
capabilities of their neighbors, that uncertainty can foster suspicion and even
lead to conflict. As we work together to advance security across the continent,
we must be able to trust each other enough to share information that could in real
time make a difference in protecting the lives of our citizens.
To this end, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty needs our attention. For
more than 20 years, the CFE Treaty has been a cornerstone of conventional arms
control, transparency, and confidence-building. But this valuable regime
is in danger of crumbling. Two years ago, Russia suspended the implementation
of the CFE Treaty, while the United States and our allies continue to do so. The
Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was not only a tragedy but has created a further obstacle
to moving forward.
We must not allow the transparency and stability that the CFE regime has provided
to erode further. We should revive discussions on the way forward with our
allies, Russia, and other signatories. Our goal should be a modern security
framework that takes into account developments in Europe since the original treaty
was drafted, limits military deployments, and strengthens the principles of territorial
integrity, non-first use of force, the right of host countries to consent to stationing
foreign troops in their territory.
It is only through such an approach that we can provide the reassurance that no
country is secretly preparing its forces to attack another. I meet with foreign
ministers and defense ministers and heads of state on a regular, ongoing basis. And
there is still a great deal of concern on the part of Central and Eastern Europeans
that something may be happening they’re not aware of, that some action may
be taken that is directed at them. So to achieve our goal of greater transparency,
we will consult closely with our allies on how we can best put this fundamental
principle into practice.
Fifth, people everywhere have the right to live free from the fear of nuclear
destruction.
The nuclear arms race that characterized the Cold War cast a shadow over the lives
of people everywhere, especially those living in Europe and the United States. I
remember very well as a child doing drills in my school that, in retrospect, were
absurd but were meant to prepare us in the event of a nuclear attack. Getting
under one’s desk, for example. Well today, the United States and Russia
are close to concluding a new START treaty to dramatically reduce the size of our
strategic nuclear arsenals. But now we face increased threats – that
nuclear materials will fall into the wrong hands or that certain states will develop
or even choose to use them.
In his speech in Prague last year, President Obama declared the long-term goal
of a world without nuclear weapons. As long as these weapons exist, the United
States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal to deter any adversary,
and we will guarantee that defense to our allies. But we will begin the work
of reducing our arsenal. And as we do so, we will spare no effort to prevent
the spread of nuclear weapons and to secure existing stockpiles and materials.
In April in Washington, President Obama will host a Nuclear Security Summit to
draw high-level attention to the threat posed by nuclear terrorism and to galvanize
support for tough measures to secure vulnerable nuclear material across the globe. And
in May, we will reaffirm and reinforce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at its
review conference. And we continue to work with other nations and the United
Nations to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials to terrorists
and non-nuclear states.
We will seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to negotiate a Fissile
Material Cutoff Treaty. And we are conducting a comprehensive Nuclear Posture
Review to chart a new course that strengthens deterrence and reassurance for the
United States and our allies while reducing the role and number of the nuclear
weapons we have.
We will continue our intensive efforts to prevent Iran to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons capability. And I applaud President Sarkozy’s leadership
on this issue, which will continue when France assumes the presidency of the United
Nations Security Council next month.
Sixth and finally, true security entails not only peaceful relations between states
but opportunities and rights for individuals who live within them.
A secure nation defends human rights and allows its citizens to select their leaders. It
allows citizens to express their views freely and participate fully in public debates,
both in person and online. It offers its citizens the opportunity to live
in healthy communities, receive an education, hold a job, raise a family if they
choose, travel freely, and make the most of their God-given potential.
Development, democracy, and human rights comprise a mutually reinforcing cycle
that is critical to security everywhere. When that cycle is broken, a nation
is not secure. The essential building blocks for long-term progress and prosperity
are missing. And we have seen with countries such as Yemen that one nation’s
struggle to maintain order and provide for its people has consequences beyond its
borders. A country that stifles its people’s voices, suppresses dissent,
and asserts authoritarian control over citizens, is not a strong country but a
weak country, no matter the size of its army or the scale of its ambitions.
Now, Europe understands this, that security is about more than military might,
that it is also about human potential. In Europe, security is provided by
an array of institutions – including NATO, the European Union, the OSCE – that
provide the full range of tools to meet common challenges.
Consider the former Communist countries of Central Europe, now democracies that
offer their citizens a better quality of life. They were drawn to the EU
because of the political, economic, and social opportunities it represents. They
received legal, social, and technical assistance in building democratic institutions
and the rule of law. They inherited the riches of a single market and the
unifying experience of a common European identity. These are such powerful
forces for progress and stability. Europe has harnessed them through the
creation of effective institutions. So now the United States works with
NATO, the EU, and the OSCE to extend this kind of comprehensive human security
to other places.
We are continuing the enterprise that we began at the end of the Cold War to expand
the zone of democracy and stability. We have worked together this year to
complete the effort we started in the 1990s to help bring peace and stability to
the Balkans. And we are working closely with the EU to support the six countries
that the EU engages through its Eastern Partnership initiative.
We stand with the people of Ukraine as they choose their next elected president
in the coming week, an important step in Ukraine’s journey toward democracy,
stability, and integration into Europe. And we are devoting ourselves to
efforts to resolve enduring conflicts, including in the Caucasus and on Cyprus.
Our work extends beyond Europe as well. With the EU, we are fighting poverty
and strengthening institutions in Yemen, Haiti, and Pakistan, among others. With
NATO and other European partners, we’re working side by side to encourage
accountable, effective governments
in Afghanistan. European and American voices speak as one to denounce
the gross violations of human rights in Iran. European and American governments
and non-governmental actors operate together and in parallel to promote economic
and democratic development in Africa.
And we look forward to doing even more together as the EU develops its capacities
for global engagement, including by sending its own highly qualified diplomats
to serve alongside their counterparts from individual European nations.
Our combined efforts can help put an end to the scourge of human trafficking,
a threat to public safety and a crime that degrades and dehumanizes its victims.
We believe that our commitment to expanding opportunity compels us to reach out
to those who too often go unseen and unsupported, particularly in countries marked
by poverty, political oppression, and violent extremism. Women and girls,
who are one of the world’s greatest untapped resources, deserve our investment
in their potential. There’ve been so many studies about how raising
the status of women produces greater development and greater stability.
We also strengthened – we wish to strengthen the stability of the OSCE to
defend and promote human rights in the world. The commitment to human rights
enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act is one of the best things that the Euro-Atlantic
community has accomplished together. Now we are called to renew that commitment
by empowering the OSCE to increase its work in the world.
So we are coming forward with proposals for strengthening its efforts in three
areas – military, economic and environmental, and human rights. We
support the creation of an OSCE crisis prevention mechanism that, in situations
of tension between OSCE states, would empower the OSCE to offer rapid humanitarian
relief, help negotiate ceasefires, and provide impartial monitoring. We also
propose that the OSCE chair-in-office have the capacity to facilitate consultations
in the case of serious energy or environmental disruption, dispatch special representatives
to investigate reports of egregious human rights violations, and provide a forum
for emergency consultations.
Looking back on all we have achieved together over the past 65 years, it is remarkable
how much has been accomplished – Europe emerging from the ruins of war to
become a showcase for peace and opportunity and prosperity. The condition
of modern Europe, however, is not a miracle handed to the people of Europe. It
is the result of years of careful, courageous work by leaders and citizens, in
this country and others, to create institutions and erect policies that brought
together former adversaries and united them in common cause. Now it is our turn. It
is our responsibility to continue that tradition of leadership and renew those
institutions for a new era. As we proceed, let us remember why we began this
project in the first place, and why it is still vitally important today.
This partnership is about so much more than strengthening our security. At
its core, it is about defending and advancing our values in the world. I
think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend those values in
the world. I think it is particularly critical today that we not only defend
those values, but promote them; that we are not only on defense, but on offense. There
is so much that the West has to be proud of and to lay a claim to.
We believe and we have the evidence to prove it that democracy works and can deliver
for citizens if leaders are committed to the enterprise, and if democracies are
about more than just elections; if we build institutions of independent judiciaries
and free media and protection of minority rights and so much else, that we have
worked and labored to create.
We are closer than ever to achieving the goal that has inspired European and American
leaders and citizens – not only a Europe transformed, secure, democratic,
unified and prosperous, but a Euro-Atlantic alliance that is greater than the sum
of its parts, that stands for these values that have stood the test of time, and
worked strategically to move toward a vision that may need to be updated and modernized,
but is timely. The United States is honored to stand by your side as we take
the next steps towards fulfilling that vision. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible.) Thank you very much (inaudible)
key speech and (inaudible). (In French.)
QUESTION: (In French.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes a microphone.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Madam Secretary, we hear very
often that America and the EU should be complementary with (inaudible) that have
not yet reached this complementarity. What should be, then, from your views
to achieve better complementarity between these two organizations?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. I would start
by saying that these, of course, are decisions for the Europeans to make with respect
to the EU. When it comes to NATO, I think that greater integration on the
European continent provides even more opportunity for the level of cooperation
to increase. We value our bilateral relationship and we will always maintain
them, stay focused on them, because even in a time of greater European integration,
there are obviously differences when it comes to certain national matters that
have to be respected.
But I think, given the complexity of the world today, closer cooperation and more
complementarity between the EU and NATO is in all of our interests to try to forge
common policies – economic and development and political and legal on the
one hand in the EU, and principally security on the other hand in NATO. But
as I said in my remarks, they are no longer separated. It’s hard to
say that security is only about what it was when NATO was formed, and the EU has
no role to play in security issues.
Take, for example, energy security. I mean, it would be the EU’s responsibility
to create policies that would provide more independence and protections from intimidation
when it comes to energy markets from member nations. But I can also see how
in certain cases respecting energy, there may be a role for NATO as well. So
as we refashion, rethink the way forward in this century, I think we should respect
and honor the foundation institutions, but we should be unafraid to ask a lot of
the questions about how can they function better.
And certainly, when one thinks of NATO as a response in the Cold War to the Warsaw
Pact nations which no longer exist in the form that it was, and with the new threats
that we have to confront, the strategic review that is now ongoing by NATO which
will be presented at the NATO summit in Lisbon at the end of this year should be
a hard rethinking. I mean, if it just repeats that we have to do better what
we’ve always done, it will be a lost opportunity. And under the Lisbon
treaty, with more focus and specific leadership attached to foreign policy and
development assistance, there will be a way to better coordinate.
So I think that your question is a very timely one and one that calls us to be
creative and to work closely together and hopefully make the changes that are called
for.
QUESTION: (In French.)
QUESTION: I’m an American so I’ll put my question
in English. Thank you for coming, Madam Secretary. Amy Green, Ph.D.
student in political science here in France. Given the interconnectivity
of global challenges, it seems evident that the United States and Europe, in the
context of NATO, can’t solve all the problems alone. Is there support
in the Administration for extending the boundaries of NATO to non-Western countries,
emerging powers like Brazil, India, other democracies that might fulfill their
criteria?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think there is an awareness of the
global nature of a lot of these problems, but a great reluctance to go beyond the
geographic reach of NATO. Now, we still have work to do in the Balkans. There
are issues regarding Georgia and Ukraine’s aspirations. So there are
still a lot of areas that require attention from NATO. But your question
really raises an important issue: How do we cooperate across geographic distance
with countries in other hemispheres, different geopolitical challenges? And
there is a modern living example of that with the NATO ISAF commitment in Afghanistan.
There are many reasons on the substance, I would argue, why this is an important
mission for NATO. But clearly, there were more countries than just NATO members
who have a stake in a stable Afghanistan. So as Australia sends troops, we
are working through how to coordinate with non-NATO members. And I think
that in addition to the substantive commitments, there will be a number of lessons
learned from how that worked and what didn’t work going forward.
In many ways, it’s quite remarkable, the success of this alliance. Yesterday
at the London conference on Afghanistan, as you know, the United States, under
President Obama, has agreed to put 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan. And
member nations, NATO and ISAF – the international partners – have come
up with a total of 9,000 more troops. How you integrate commands, how you
utilize the different contributions that countries are making is a leadership and
management challenge.
But I think it’s an important test for the world. NATO is leading
the way, but NATO has to determine in what ways it can cooperate with others. I
think that the world that we face of failing states, non-state actors, networks
of terrorists, rogue regimes – North Korea being a prime example – really
test the international community. And it’s a test we have to pass. Now,
there are some who say this is too complicated, it is out of area, it is not our
responsibility. But given the nature of the threats we face, I don’t
think that’s an adequate response.
Take cyber security, for example. We have to figure out how to cooperate
not just in physical space, but in virtual space. The threats from cyber
security breaches, concerted attacks on networks and countries, are likely to cross
borders. We have to know how to defend against them and we have to enlist
nations who are likeminded to work with. Similarly, with energy problems,
attacks on pipelines, attacks on container ships, attacks on electric grids will
have consequences far beyond boundaries. And it won’t just be NATO
nations. NATO nations border non-NATO nations.
So how do we begin to re-imagine the world that we’re in, not just try to
keep adding to the structure of the world we inherited? When you mention
countries like Brazil and India, how do we find common cause? Now, the U.S.
peacekeeping missions are a very important way to combine military under UN military
leadership for countries that might not be able to take on a mission themselves,
but with combined capacity, can. Brazil, under a Brazilian general, has
done an excellent job in leading the UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti for a
number of years, providing the only source of solid, sustainable security as they
work to train a police force. There’s no army in Haiti. So honing
one’s skills so that they could be put to work, I think, will be one of the
responsibilities we have to address.
And finally, there’s a tremendous opportunity for us to improve our disaster
mitigation and response abilities. We have a lot of common desire to respond
to disasters, as we’ve seen in the wake of Haiti. Countries immediately
sprang into action. I commend France for the excellent response and the aid
that was sent. The disaster relief could not have been done solely by civilians. It’s
impossible. The disaster consequences were so profound that without military
assets, there is no way food, water, or rescue missions could have been delivered.
So how do we better coordinate? No matter whose military it is, no matter
whose flag it’s under, how do we better coordinate? How do we think
this through? And that is something that countries across the world should
be interested in addressing. So there are so many implications of what we
must do, and I think it’s going to require leadership from both military
and civilian experts to help us find our way forward.
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, my name is Michel (inaudible). I’m
president here at (inaudible) studies here, military school and the institute of
higher national defense studies.
I have a question about China: China is becoming a major global problem;
I think one of your first trips was to China, and not only in economic terms. So
which is the new – where is the best framework, institutional framework to
not only accommodate China, but to engage it? Is it United Nations? Is
it G-20, is it G-2, or EU-China bilateral relations, or maybe a mix of all that? Thank
you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think your last point is the right
point. It needs to be a mix of all that. I think that there are many
different institutional arrangements that would be beneficial to include China
in. There are Asia-Pacific institutions that – like ASEAN, APEC, East
Asia summits – that are important for China to play a role in and to be better
connected with their neighbors. The G-20 is an attempt to better manage the
range of problems that no existing institution on its own can do. The G-8
left too many people out. The UN is often not able to function on an ongoing
basis the way that we would like. But the UN also has a tremendous capacity
to bring China in around the table.
So I think that the short answer is we should try many different approaches. It
will be increasingly important for China to become more transparent about its military
ambitions and budgets. It is difficult to create and sustain military-to-military
engagement with China, but I think every institution you just named, plus bilateral
relationships, should try to include that. It will take time, but I think
it’s very important.
I think that China has certainly made clear that it’s willing to participate
more on a range of issues than it had before. During our negotiations about
sanctions for North Korea, obviously the United States, South Korea, and Japan
were committed to moving forward to try to alter North Korea’s behavior. But
after study and consultations, so was China – a remarkably positive step
for them to take. And they have been equally responsive with respect to the
enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1874 which embodies those sanctions.
With respect to Iran, thus far, the P-5+1, which as you know is France, Germany,
United Kingdom, EU, United States, Russia, and China, has been united. Now,
as we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the results that
some had hoped for, and move toward the pressure and sanctions track, China will
be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed
Iran would have in the Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of
their oil supply, that it will produce an arms race; other countries will feel
the necessity to seek their own nuclear weapons programs; Israel will feel an existential
threat to its very existence. All of that is incredibly dangerous.
So the argument we and others are making to China is we understand that right
now, that is something that seems counterproductive to you, sanction a country
from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs,
but think about the longer-term implications.
We have in the last year worked very hard to establish what we call a positive,
cooperative, comprehensive relationship with China. We will always have
disagreements, as we will with probably any country, even a close friend like France. But
with China, we want the relationship to continue despite the disagreements. So
that’s – for example, if we arrange a meeting between our President
and the Dalai Lama, that is a difference in perspective, a respect for his religious
leadership, and we do not think it should derail the relationship.
But this is kind of a learning experience for all of us, including China. China
has emerged as a global leader on the world stage at a time when the world is so
much more complicated. I mean, if we were in a bipolar world, everybody would
know what they were supposed to do. But we’re not. So China
is, like the rest of us, trying to figure out how do you protect your national
interests and yet recognize the consequences for your national interests from actions
outside your borders, and cooperate with others to achieve goals that actually
are in your interests? It’s a complicated equation for all of us today.
We had an incident I’m sure you’ve read about concerning Google and
concerns about actions constraining information, which we very forthrightly presented
to the Chinese in public and in private, but I made the additional point that as
China grows, they will have companies that will operate globally, that will need
the same kind of protection that we expect for our companies operating globally.
So we’re asking for kind of an over-the-horizon view, which is always the
hardest thing to do in politics, because politics is about the moment, unfortunately,
too often. But I think that it’s this kind of engagement and respectful
sharing of views that is at the heart of any kind of coordination or cooperation
with China.
QUESTION: Bonjour. So I’m (inaudible), first-year
medical student. So I would like to know your opinion about the European
army that France and Germany have been trying to build for the last 50 years and
to know the opinion of the U.S. about this.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, this is a European matter. It
certainly is a French and German matter. And I respect the decision making
of allies like France and Germany, so it is really within those two countries’ sphere
of authority.
I think the U.S. view is that we would not want to see anything supplant NATO. If
it were able to supplement NATO, that would be different. But given the strains
that already exist on NATO’s budget and military expenditures in our countries,
we think it’s smarter to figure out how to use the resources we have more
effectively, use the alliance that we’re members of in a more strategic way. But
again, that is ultimately a decision of the French and the German people.
QUESTION: Madam, hi, (inaudible). So you mentioned
among the common challenges extreme poverty and importance to strengthen the potential
of women and girls around the world. And I agree that a common value that
United States and Europe share is a shared vision of women, of women rights. And
I know that you were a supporter of Muhammad Yunus activities in microcredit and
that President Obama’s mother was a pioneer in this. So what can be
the role of a cooperation between Europe and the United States on this particular
aspect?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s a wonderful question
because one of the areas that we would like to see greater cooperation between
Europe and the United States is in development. We think that if we were
more thoughtful about how we utilized our own national resources in coordination
with other nations’ resources, we would get greater results. If you
take any country that is a poor developing country, there’s a great spirit
of generosity among Europeans and Americans. We actually help people who
have no other capacity to help themselves, who are also not in countries that we
consider strategically important to us, but who are suffering. And I would
hope that on a bilateral basis, and now particularly through the EU with the post-Lisbon
structure, we could be thoughtful about how to do that.
I’ve talked a lot about this with Foreign Minister Kouchner, who of course
has a great history in healthcare, and France has done wonderful work on healthcare
in Afghanistan, wonderful work. The French hospital that the people of France
built is now training Afghan doctors and nurses and taking care of so many people.
Well, would it make sense for the United States to rush in and build our own hospital? No,
it would make sense for us to support the French initiative. Yet, at the
same time, we’re doing a lot of investment now in agriculture, because in
Afghanistan, 60 to 70 percent of the people make their living from agriculture. And
we not only want to enhance their incomes; we want to turn them away from poppy
production. So we’re sending agriculture experts, we’re helping
to build irrigation systems, we’re providing new, stronger seeds. We’re
doing a lot. So would it make sense for France to have a parallel program? No. But
to help us and bring the expertise is absolutely welcomed.
So when it comes to women and girls in some of the countries that are most at
risk, there is so much to be done, it’s almost overwhelming. I was
in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is the epicenter of gender and sexual-based
violence against girls and women in the world right now, and there is a lot that
we have to do because there is so little to start with. So we should plan
together and try to figure out how we can influence the government, the military,
provide protection for people on the ground and provide treatment for those who
have been assaulted. Bernard Kouchner and I worked together in the wake of
the terrible instance in Guinea, where government-sponsored murders and rapes took
place at a peaceful demonstration. And we worked very closely together with
African countries to try to work out a way to resolve the conflict without bloodshed,
because we knew that among the first victims would be girls and women again.
So our hope is that through our bilateral aid, we cooperate more, through multilateral
institutions like the World Bank or UNDP or UNIFEM or other – UNICEF, et
cetera, we really begin to put in systems of accountability to absolutely evaluate
outcomes. That’s harder to do than it sounds, but we must take that
on because we owe it to our citizens and our taxpayers to say look, we want to
help the women of the Congo or we want to help build schools in Afghanistan, and
we can show you what we’re accomplishing. We owe it to those people,
especially in these economic times of difficulty when so many of our own citizens
are worried and suffering.
But there’s a great opportunity here, so I think that we should work together. And
obviously, from my perspective, focusing on girls and women makes a great deal
of sense because it’s the fastest way to get money into the hands of children,
family members, communities, and I think it’s an obligation and responsibility
as well.
MODERATOR: (Inaudible) already 4 o’clock and we would
like you to talk for hours and days, and you have so many obligations that (inaudible). So
now, I would like to thank you very deeply in the name of this institute, in the
name of all authority and all teams. I’d like to thank, of course,
the two teams, French and American, that (inaudible) work together. Thank
you so much. You know how important (inaudible). (Applause.)
# # # | 
Documents & Texts