Friday, 29 April 2011

Press Releases: The Recent Elections in NigeriaThu, 28 Apr 2011 14:43:50 -0500

The Recent Elections in Nigeria
Special Briefing
Johnnie CarsonAssistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs
Washington, DC
April 28, 2011
MS. FULTON: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. Very pleased today to have with us Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson to talk about the recent elections in Nigeria. He was on hand to observe personally, so he’ll be able to give you his on-the-ground accounts of the results. So without further ado, Assistant Secretary Carson.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Thank you very, very much. Glad to be here with you this afternoon to talk a little bit about the recent elections in Nigeria. Nigeria has just completed its most successful elections since its return to multiparty democracy in 1999. Despite some technical imperfections, those elections represent a substantial improvement over the flawed 2007 electoral process. This reverses a downward democratic trajectory and provides the country a solid foundation for strengthening its electoral procedures and democratic institutions in the years to come. The Nigerian people have shown to the world their resilience and will to have their voices heard. These elections were a real opportunity to choose their leaders.
This week, Nigerian voters returned to the polls for the fourth time and final time to select their state assembly members and governors. On April 26th, all but two states held elections. Elections in Kaduna and Bauchi states occurred April 28th to give additional time for security to return to those two areas. International and domestic observers reported the April 26th elections to be generally well organized, albeit with a lower turnout in various locations compared with voter turnout earlier this month.
Following the deplorable post-election violence of the previous week, we are heartened that many Nigerian voters went to the polls to vote in an environmentally – environment largely free of violence. We remain concerned about allegations of fraud and ballot box snatching in various jurisdictions, and we strongly urge Nigerian authorities to investigate and take corrective actions on all of these allegations. We commend the Independent National Electoral Commission and especially its chairman, Professor Jega, and the security services for addressing challenges and improving their efforts with each progressive election.
We are confident that INEC leaders will continue to take steps to further improve the electoral process to ensure that some political actors do not divert to their old – revert to their old ways of subverting the will of the Nigerian electorate. We are partners in the international community, and will not hesitate to take appropriate action against individuals of any political party who seek to undermine the integrity of the electoral process, whether at the state, national, or local elections.
Again, we congratulate the people of Nigeria on holding very successful elections. Thank you.
QUESTION: Secretary Carson, two questions. One, the CPC has said that it has evidence of irregularities and that it plans to go to court over those. So question one is: To what extent do you think that the existing irregularities cast a shadow on President Jonathan’s victory? Second, and in a way the more important question is: To what extent do you think that he is likely to be inclusive going forward so as to help lay to rest or to help unify the country? Would you expect or hope, for example, that when he names a cabinet he will reach out to opposition figures? Can you give us your sense of that?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: I hope that INEC will take seriously all allegations of election irregularity. There is no doubt in my mind that there were some imperfections, some technical problems, and probably some justified cases of rigging. But it is up to the election commission to investigate those. I do not believe that any of the irregularities or technical imperfections undermine the overall outcome of this election and that the elections do reflect the will of a majority of the Nigerian people.
I cannot say what kind of cabinet or government President Jonathan will put in place. But I do note that his vice president is, in fact, a former northern governor and that the constitution does call for the president of the country to select from individual states various cabinet members. I hope that he will act in both a responsible and inclusive manner in the selection of those individuals for his cabinet and that in doing so, he will be reaching out to heal the political divisions that were uncovered during the election process.
MS. FULTON: In the back.
QUESTION: I have a question actually about Sudan. Before we came out here, the Treasury Department pulled the Bank of Khartoum off of the sanctions list, and I wonder if you can explain that move, and then more broadly how Sudan is doing on this roadmap toward normalization with the U.S.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Let me say that I’m not aware of this recent decision to pull the Bank of Khartoum off the sanctions list, and so I will not comment on that.
With respect to the roadmap, we continue to see progress in the implementation of the roadmap, and we continue to encourage the Government of Sudan to continue to fulfill its obligations that remain under the roadmap. One of the most important aspects of this was the successful referenda election in South Sudan that went from January 9 to 15. That went extraordinarily well. It was largely free of violence – large turnouts, well organized, and reflected the will of the people of the South to secure their independence. We continue to encourage very strongly that the Khartoum government, the NCP, and the Southern Sudanese Government, the SPLM, to work to resolve the remaining key issues that are a part of the conclusion of the CPA. This means resolving the Abyei crisis before July 9 and resolving the issues of oil and wealth-sharing, border demarcation, as well as issues related to citizenship.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that one? Just to stay with the question of Abyei, President Bashir is quoted today as having said, quote, “If there’s any attempt to secede Abyei within the borders of the new state, we will not recognize the new state,” close quote. What is your response to that, and does that not sort of ratchet up tensions ahead of July?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Let me just say that those comments are not helpful at all, and they only serve to inflame and heighten tensions. It is important that both sides – those in Khartoum and those in Juba – focus intensely on trying to resolve the key issues that have not been completed under the CPA. Abyei is one of them. This must be done before July 9, and it is important that President Bashir and the President of South Sudan Salva Kiir continue to meet, negotiate to resolve these issues as quickly as possible.
MS. FULTON: Back to Nigeria?
QUESTION: Yeah. Back to Nigeria. How much do you expect these elections in Nigeria to promote efforts towards democracy in the broader region? Can you –
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: I think the success of the Nigerian elections are primarily of importance to the Nigerian people, but they also send a very strong signal across Africa. Nigeria is one of the two most important countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It is also the most populous country in Africa with 150 million people. It’s also the second largest Muslim country in Africa after Egypt.
The people of Nigeria have clearly demonstrated a desire to have a democratic government, to participate in democratically-run elections, and I think this reflects a desire of many people across Africa. It also is an indication, too, that if Nigeria, with its large size and population, can, in effect, run and manage successful democratic elections, that it is possible for many of the other smaller states to do so as well. It also indicates that the democratic trajectory not only in Nigeria, but across West Africa has not stalled but continues to rise.
QUESTION: Might you be soft-pedaling the violence a little bit? I’m reading some wire material today about perhaps 500 people killed and Christian churches set afire. And also people from the elections say that they’re very discouraged by this and that they prefer to not have an election if this sort of thing happens. Might you be looking through rose-colored glasses at this sort of thing?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: Absolutely not. But let me first say we deplore the violence that occurred particularly after the conclusion of the presidential elections a week and a half ago. We saw widespread violence throughout much of northern Nigeria. Both the president and the main opposition candidates – both called on their supporters to not support violent activities and to work to restore peace as quickly as possible.
I think that there has been a history of violence associated with Nigerian elections in the past. But in this election, we have clearly seen a much more responsible security force and a security presence in and around the electoral sites. So it’s important that violence not be a part of the democratic process. We deplore it, and I think senior officials in Nigeria have also deplored it as well. We hope that these elections will be a baseline for greater improvement in both their technical procedures as well as in their security as well.
MS. FULTON: Do we have time for maybe one more question?
QUESTION: Can I ask about Uganda? There are reports this morning that a fourth opposition leader has been arrested, and my question is about the U.S. – the Administration’s response. Are we considering any kind of pressure on the Ugandan Government?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: We have seen the reports of the arrest of several former presidential candidates for attempting to carry out peaceful demonstrations in Kampala that were designed to highlight rising oil and food prices. We have also seen with great concern and regret the very serious and apparent mistreatment of one of those candidates, Dr. Besigye. We have expressed our concern about what appears to be harassment of President – of Dr. Besigye. I have, myself, spoken to the Ugandan foreign minister about this and have urged that the Ugandan Government act both in a responsible and civil fashion in dealing with the arrest of individuals attempting to carry out peaceful protests.
QUESTION: When did you speak to the foreign minister about that, and was that specifically about the case that you referenced?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: I spoke to the foreign minister today, and it was specifically concerning the apparent ill treatment of Dr. Besigye as well as the government’s reaction to peaceful protests by others.
QUESTION: And did the foreign minister give you any reason to believe that the government would seek to treat such people better and to show greater respect toward peaceful protesters?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY CARSON: He did indeed. He said that he hoped that President Museveni would be meeting with the opposition political parties and leaders on Tuesday of next week. I urged political outreach and reconciliation to resolve the differences that the government has with opposition leaders. I also encouraged that there be a scope for civil peaceful protests and that government reaction to those protests should be tempered, responsible, and civil.
MS. FULTON: Okay. And thank you for your time, Assistant Secretary Carson.
QUESTION: Thank you.

Prince William and Kate Middleton have been pronounced man and wife at Westminster Abbey.
Some 1,900 guests watched the couple exchange their vows, with many millions watching at home

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:01:53 -0500

Terrorist Attack in Marrakech, Morocco
Press Statement
Hillary Rodham ClintonSecretary of State
Washington, DC
April 28, 2011
The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s terrorist attack that killed and injured innocent people at a café in Marrakech, Morocco. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of this cowardly attack and stand with the people of Morocco at this difficult time. Acts of terrorism must not be tolerated wherever and whenever they occur.
U.S. Embassy personnel continue to work with Moroccan authorities to obtain additional information and the United States offers our full assistance to the Moroccan Government as it works to investigate this attack and bring those accountable to justice.

Thursday, 28 April 2011

Dear friends

Choco-coat your tweets this Easter and help end child slavery in the chocolate industry!
This Easter we're launching our new 'choco-coat' campaign to raise awareness of child slavery in the Ivory Coast's cocoa industry.

Using the choco-coat twitter app you can write rude and silly tweets for your mates and transform them into something sugary sweet. When your friends receive their choco-coated tweets they will see what you really said about them and can find out more about our campaign.

What has this got to do with ending child slavery in the chocolate industry? Well… cocoa traders operating in the Ivory Coast (who buy cocoa from small farms where children in slavery are commonly found and sell it onto the chocolate brands we all know) often choco-coat their words in terms of the little they do to end child slavery. We need to bring the cocoa traders out of the shadows and make them more
accountable for child slavery.

Get choco-coating and pass in on!

Find out more about child slavery in the cocoa industry and take action to send a letter to cocoa traders here.

Our Director's marathon challenge

He did it! In spite of the knee injury incurred during the run Aidan, Anti-Slavery's director, somehow dragged himself over the line and finished the London Marathon last Sunday.

You can read about how it went on his blog here, and you can still sponsor him from your mobile by texting AIDAN to 70303 for a £3 donation.*

If you would like to become an Anti-Slavery runner yourself then just email Jakub Sobik at We still have places for the Great Manchester Run on 15th May and other runs too!

* The donation will cost £3 plus a text message at the standard rate. Anti-Slavery International (Registered Charity 1049160) will receive a minimum of £2.60 from each text. Please make sure that you have the bill payer's permission before making this donation. Campaign ends 30th April 2011.

New Anti-Slavery film: 'Cost of Living'

Watch our shocking new short film uncovering the trafficking of Nepali migrant workers into the Middle East. This film was made in partnership with the ITUC, directed by Pete Pattison and narrated by actor Hugh Quarshie.

Watch it on our You Tube channel here

EVENT: Ending Domestic Slavery, 14th May, Liverpool

Please join our fantastic panel to find out more about domestic slavery and human trafficking, and how you can support the Home Alone campaign. Speakers include:

• Louise Ellman MP and member of Parliamentary Trafficking group
• Aidan McQuade, Director of Anti-Slavery International
• Pete Pattison, Photographer
• Marissa Begonia, Justice for Domestic Workers

Date & time: Saturday 14th May, 2 - 4.30pm (free refreshments and Home Alone exhibition viewing from 2pm, panel discussion at 3pm)
Venue: International Slavery Museum (4th floor conference theatre), Albert Dock, Liverpool, L3 4AX
Registration: This event is free but please email Sam Turner at to register

Help our partner in Peru win the Global Giving fundraising competition

Our longstanding partner in Peru, AGTR, runs 'La Casa de Panchita' which offers crucial support to child domestic workers. Due to funding cuts they urgently need our support to ensure they stay open and can continue to help vulnerable children escape 14 hour working days, avoid abuse, attend school, and earn fair pay.

They are currently entered into Global Giving's online Fundraising competition to win a $2000 prize. Right now they are in an amazing 2nd place but they need just 25 more donors of $10 or more (approx £6) to win before 30th April when it closes. Please click here to help.

Thank you for your support in the fight against slavery.

Gemma Wolfes
Campaigns & Outreach Officer

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

The following new Congressional Research Reports (CRS) were added to the FPC's "Newest CRS Reports" page at:

April 20, 2011


- Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, April 15, 2011
- Effects of Radiation from Fukushima Daiichi on the U.S. Marine Environment, April 15, 2011
- France: Factors Shaping Foreign Policy, and Issues in U.S.-French Relations, April 14, 2011
- Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, April 7, 2011
- Kenya: Current Conditions and the Challenges Ahead, April 15, 2011
- Political Transition in Tunisia, April 15, 2011
- Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy, April 7, 2011
- The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Issues in the U.S. Ratification Debate, April 15, 2011

Other Reports:

- Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, March 22, 2011
- Cote d’Ivoire’s Post-Election Crisis, April 5, 2011
- Nigeria: Elections and Issues for Congress, April 1, 2011
- Sudan: The Crisis in Darfur and Status of the North-South Peace Agreement, April 8, 2011

- The Depreciating Dollar: Economic Effects and Policy Response, April 15, 2011

- Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements, March 23, 2011
- Military Justice: Courts-Martial, An Overview, March 31, 2011

- International Drug Control Policy, March 21, 2011

- The Japanese Nuclear Incident: Technical Aspects, April 5, 2011
- Japan 2011 Disaster: CRS Experts, April 7, 2011
- Japan’s 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami: Economic Effects and Implications for the United States, April 6, 2011
- Japan’s 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami: Food and Agriculture Implications, April 13, 2011
- The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications, March 24, 2011
- U.S.-Vietnam Economic and Trade Relations: Issues for the 112th Congress, April 5, 2011

- Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Developments, March 23, 2011

- Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, April 7, 2011
- Effects of Radiation from Fukushima Daiichi on the U.S. Marine Environment, April 5, 2011

- Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests, April 15, 2011
- Cyprus: Reunification Proving Elusive, April 7, 2011
- Turkey-U.S. Defense Cooperation: Prospects and Challenges, April 8, 2011

- State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2011 Budget and Appropriations, March 23, 2011

- Asylum and “Credible Fear” Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy, April 6, 2011
- Diversity Immigrant Visa Lottery Issues, April 1, 2011

- Iran Sanctions, April 4, 2011
- Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, March 30, 2011

- African American Members of the United States Congress: 1970-2011, April 8, 2011
- Congressional Budget Resolutions: Historical Information, April 4, 2011
- “Gang of Four” Congressional Intelligence Notifications, March 18, 2011

- FY2012 Budget Documents: Internet and GPO Availability, March 22, 2011

- The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States, March 31, 2011

- ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues, April 14, 2011
- Central America Regional Security Initiative: Background and Policy Issues for Congress, March 30, 2011
- Colombia: Issues for Congress, March 18, 2011
- Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues, April 7, 2011

List of Reports compiled by Miriam Rider, Technical Information Specialist, Foreign Press Centers, 202-504-6315; email:

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Remarks With Haitian President-Elect Michel Martelly After Their Meeting

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of StateTreaty Room

Washington, DC

April 20, 2011


SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon, everyone. It is a great pleasure and an honor for me to welcome the President-elect to the State Department on behalf of the United States Government, and to formally congratulate President-elect Martelly on his victory in the election.

I also congratulate the people of Haiti on the election. It not only affirmed and strengthened the foundations of Haiti’s democracy; it also helped shine light on the work that has been done and the work that still has to be done to recover from the damage of the earthquake and firmly set Haiti on a path to long-term stability and development. And perhaps most importantly, this election offered the people of Haiti an opportunity to give voice to their dreams for their country’s future. And now it will be up to Mr. Martelly and his government to do everything in their power to help achieve those dreams.

This election comes at a critical moment. In the 15 months since the earthquake, there has been progress in important areas. Twenty percent of the rubble, more than 2 million cubic meters, has been cleared, and that was through a program that employed more than 350,000 people that the United States was proud to support. A new industrial park near Cap Haitien, through a joint effort by the Government of Haiti, the United States, and the Inter-American Development Bank has been created. It has its first tenant, the global textile firm Sae-A, which alone is projected to create 20,000 permanent export-oriented jobs. And we expect more companies to be drawn to Haiti because of a very important piece of legislation passed by Congress last year called the Haiti Economic Lift Program, the HELP program, which significantly increased U.S. trade preferences for exports of apparel from Haiti. We also want to acknowledge the successful response by the Haitian Ministry of Health and Population and the international community to curtail the cholera epidemic.

Now these are successes that deserve to be celebrated, but we also know that there is a lot that lies ahead for the new president, for the government, and the people of Haiti. Still, there’s a lot of rubble to be cleared. There are still 650,000 people living in camps. The hurricane season is once again approaching. We want to do everything we can to be a good partner for Haiti as it takes steps that it must take, making it easier, for example, to transfer ownership of state-owned land for affordable housing, to streamline the process for registering new businesses, getting construction permits approved, attracting investment and encouraging growth. We also know that the prisons in Haiti are overcrowded. Eighty percent of those detained have yet to face trial. Updating criminal codes, processing the backlog of demands, and implementing other judicial reforms will go a long way toward creating a functioning and more humane justice system.

We know this takes leadership, which we have seen Mr. Martelly exhibit in his very vigorous campaign. We know it takes political will, which we know he has, a commitment to transparency and good governance, and to getting results for people. I am very encouraged by the campaign that Mr. Martelly ran, his emphasis on the people and their needs, his willingness to be very clear in what he hoped to achieve on their behalf, and now he has a chance to lead. And we are behind him. We have a great deal of enthusiasm. This is not only a goal of our foreign policy, but it is a personal priority for me, my husband, and many of us here in Washington.

Now some of you may know that Mr. Martelly’s campaign slogan was “Tet Kale.” Now I’m told the literal translation of that slogan is “Baldhead,” which doesn’t need any further explanation. (Laughter.) But “Tet Kale” is also an expression that means “All the way.” And the people of Haiti may have a long road ahead of them, but as they walk it, the United States will be with you all the way. Thank you, sir. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT-ELECT MARTELLY: (Via interpreter) Thank you very much. I would like to thank especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for having hosted me and my team. This is the second time that we meet since your visit in Haiti. I would like to extend my thanks to the Obama Administration and to the President himself. Once again, the elections of November and March demonstrated the fierce determination of the Haitian people to build its own democracy.

Now, it is up to me to transform my campaign promises into an action plan. Clearly, I have huge challenges in front of me, but I intend to meet them. In spite of the generous donations of the American citizens, which have reached $1.2 billion received by 53 NGOs, and in spite of the donation by the Government of the United States of $1.5 billion, we still have 1.7 million people who still live under tents after 15 long months of waiting. The cholera epidemic, if it is not contained and if Haitians are not vaccinated, this epidemic threatens to extend itself to the entire country during the upcoming rainy and hurricane season. In addition, starting on June 1st, the country will have to confront up to 16 hurricanes scheduled – anticipated next summer. The reconstruction process is despairingly slow.

These were the complaints that were expressed by a desperate population throughout my election campaign. This is why recovering and restarting the economy is a fundamental necessity for my government. This is why I plan on working relentlessly towards the reconstruction of the framework of international aid, to give new life to the business sector, and to develop the capabilities of government institutions and of civil society.

Madam Secretary of State, I am truly counting on you to ensure that this restructuring of foreign aid be truly effective for Haiti. Bilateral cooperation also involves fighting against drugs and corruption, respect for human rights, the establishment of the rule of law, the increased and necessary role of our Diaspora community, TPS, deportees, good governance, recovering agriculture at a special moment where worldwide prices are drastically increasing, and the establishment of a climate favorable for potential and future investors. Our discussions focused on the urgent need to ensure that the aid will be effective for our citizens and to avoid waste.

Finally, I discussed with the Secretary of State President Barack Obama’s offer to create a partnership with Haiti. My new vision for my country is to engage in all of the useful and necessary reforms to ensure that Haiti will be a full member of the modernity of the 21st century.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your very warm welcome. (Applause.)

MR. TONER: We have time for just a couple questions, first one to Jill from CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. On Libya, you, it was announced today, have decided to recommend the provision to the President – recommend nonlethal aid for the opposition. Why did you decide to do that, and why now? Isn’t this really a tacit admission that right now, this situation is a stalemate and you, in effect, must do this for an opposition that is incapable of doing it itself?

And then just a quick one on Syria – the emergency law is lifted, the killings go on. Where are we going with this? Isn’t it – the situation now going backwards? What just happened?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, first with respect to Libya, we are moving to authorize up to $25 million in nonlethal commodities and services to support the Transitional National Council and our efforts to protect civilians and the civilian populated areas that are under threat of attack from their own government in Libya. Now the $25 million in goods and services will be drawn down from items already in government stocks that correspond with the needs that we have heard from the Transitional National Council. As you know, we have our special representative Chris Stevens in Benghazi, as well as a USAID team. They have been meeting continuously with representatives there as to what is required in order to support their needs and protect civilians.

Now some of the items are medical supplies, uniforms, boots, tents, personal protective gear, radios, halal meals. There are no new purchases. This is not a blank check. But this action is consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which among other actions, authorized member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. The Department of State and the Department of Defense are working closely together with other partner nations in order to coordinate on what kind of nonlethal assistance is most necessary, and who among the international community can provide which goods and services.

Now, I think it’s important to point out that this opposition, which has held its own against a brutal assault by the Qadhafi forces, was not an organized militia. It was not a group that had been planning to oppose the rule of Qadhafi for years. It was a spontaneous response within the context of the broader Arab spring. These are mostly businesspeople, students, lawyers, doctors, professors, who have very bravely moved to defend their communities and to call for an end to the regime in Libya, and we are going to continue to take actions consistent with UN authorization to try to fulfill the international commitment.

Now with respect to Syria, we strongly condemn the ongoing violence committed against peaceful protestors by the Syrian Government. We also condemn any use of violence by protestors. We have been consistent, ever since the events of the last months have begun and have continued, that we are calling for an end to violence, we’re calling for peaceful protests, and a political process that can respond to the legitimate needs, interests, and aspirations of the people of the region. And we regret the loss of life and extend our condolences to the families and loved ones of all of the victims.

We are particularly concerned about the situation in Homs, where multiple reports suggest violence and casualties among both civilians and government personnel. It is difficult to independently confirm these accounts because journalists are not being allowed free access to many of these areas. The Syrian Government must allow free movement and free access; it must stop the arbitrary arrests, detentions, and torture of prisoners; and it must cease the violence and begin a serious political process through concrete actions to demonstrate its responsiveness to the legitimate issues that have been raised by the Syrian people seeking substantial and lasting reform.

MR. TONER: From the Miami Herald.

QUESTION: Hi, thank you for taking the questions. This is for both the Secretary of State and the President-elect. One of the points of contention for the Haitian Government has been very interested in getting U.S. aid, direct aid, to the Haitian Government, and I was wondering if that was talked about, and also if there was any talk during your talk of – the President-elect has suggested some sort of a Haitian military group restarting, and if there was talk of that.

PRESIDENT-ELECT MARTELLY: (Via interpreter) With respect to the first part of your question, I would say that American aid has been coming to my country for decades now in various forms, via USAID or through other structures. We talked about various projects, projects that are underway, projects that are on the verge of completion. And I also talked about my priorities, the priorities that I emphasized during my campaign, which were education, relocation of the people who were living under the tents and, of course, restarting agriculture. So those are some of the priorities that I emphasized during my campaign.

As to the second part of your question, I would say that right now, MINUSTAH is the country, is in Haiti. It is playing an important role. It is safeguarding the peace, maintaining peace in the country. So when the time will come to consider a rebuilding of a new force, we will talk about those issues in a timely fashion.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I would only add to what the President-elect has said, that the United States has pledged not only a partnership, but one where we look to assist him in achieving his priorities for the people of his country. We have also suggested that we can work with the large international and NGO community together so that everyone is committed to pursuing in a transparent, open way the priorities that the President-elect has determined will make the biggest difference in the lives of Haitians. He is committed to results, he wants to deliver for the Haitian people, and we are committed to helping him do so.

Thank you all, very much.

Monday, 25 April 2011

STOKE CITY’S FA Cup heroes can now give you a sneak preview of their stunning away kit for the 2011-12 season . . . but you will only have to wait until the weekend to see how good it really looks for yourselves.

That is when supporters get their first chance to purchase the new adidas kit when it goes on sale in the three Official Club Stores and will also be available to order online at

Captain Ryan Shawcross gave the away strip his seal of approval after joining central defensive partner Robert Huth and winger Jermaine Pennant for the official launch photo-shoot.

“I am sure the supporters will love it,” commented Shawcross after trying it on for the first time. “It looks very impressive and I think it shows once again how this Club is moving forward.”

As you can see from our picture, Huth is offering the first glimpse of what the new away shirt will look like and fans will see for themselves when they hit the Club Stores on Saturday.

City’s Head of Commercial Andrew Billingham said: “This is another big step forward for the Club and I am sure all our supporters going to the away matches at Aston Villa and Blackpool over the next fortnight will want to get their hands on the new shirt.

“We have worked closely with our Principal Club Partner Britannia to incorporate their brand into the new look to the shirt and we are delighted with the result.”

U.S.-Netherlands Joint Statement on Supporting Women's Political Empowerment in Emerging Democracies

Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC

April 21, 2011


Following their bilateral meeting in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal issued the following joint statement:

The foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world is the recognition that all men and women are born free and equal in rights and dignity. Women, like men, have individual and common roles, expectations and interests in society. In processes of democratization, conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and security, sustainable solutions are not possible if women’s voices are discounted or ignored.

Experience shows that integrating women into transition, reconciliation and peacebuilding processes from the start helps promote long-term peace and stability by ensuring a focus on critical broader priorities and needs. Where women are oppressed and marginalized, societies become more dangerous and breed intolerance. The subjugation of women is a threat to the common security of our world, because the suffering and denial of the rights of women, and the instability of nations, go hand in hand. There is also a mountain of data that correlates investments in and inclusion of women with positive outcomes in poverty alleviation and a country’s greater prosperity.

Yet still, the UN Development Fund for Women found in 2010 that women comprise less than 10% of negotiators and less than 3% of the signatories to peace agreements. In a similar vein, we see that substantial women’s participation in transitional processes is often lacking, even in situations where women have played an important role in ousting oppressive regimes.

Women leaders and women politicians can change the focus of politics. Women have their own talents and abilities, and they can insert different perspectives and issues into the political debate. Increasing women’s political participation, however, needs to go beyond mere numbers to encompass the complex relationship between power, poverty and participation. While women’s enhanced political participation and representation are essential preconditions to achieve this, institutional and cultural transformation are often required to create an enabling environment for women’s economic and political empowerment.

In the last decades there have been waves of turbulent developments where the people demanded democratic change. These include events in Eastern Europe after 1989 and democratic developments and peace processes in various countries of Latin America, Asia, and Africa that have highlighted both the opportunities and challenges women have faced, and continue to face, in emerging democracies.

The international community has an important role to play in promoting a political role for women in those countries at all stages of political transition and peacebuilding. In doing so, we advance our collective security and prosperity around the globe. This is why the United States and the Netherlands have been at the forefront of promoting the rights and inclusion of women, supporting women’s initiatives and aspirations, in countries and regions as diverse as Afghanistan, Sudan, Colombia, Iraq, and the Great Lakes, and continuing to promote these issues within the Community of Democracies.

In recent months, dramatic events sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have seen millions of men and women march in the streets demanding institutional reform. Both women and men have suffered under repressive governments in this region. Moreover, women have coped with discriminatory laws and deeply entrenched gender inequality. According to the UNDP Arab Human Development Reports, the gender gap is one of the three reasons for the slow progress in human development indicators in the MENA region.

The Netherlands and the United States share the view that the participation of women in political and economic processes is particularly urgent in the MENA region in these times of transition and reconciliation. We intend to work together to promote women’s empowerment in the region, based on the experience of our ongoing and cooperative efforts throughout the world.

The United States and the Netherlands recognize that a multi-faceted, collaborative approach drawing upon local expertise and networks and leveraging various resources and activities is urgently needed to address women’s participation in the various reform processes across the MENA region. We plan to identify areas of collaboration that leverage ongoing initiatives focused on increasing women’s participation in the political and social arenas. Particular emphasis is to be given to providing technical and capacity-building assistance for women-led and women-focused NGOs, which historically have been underutilized and which are critical to effective and sustainable progress for women in the region.

Key areas for collaboration:

1. Ensuring women’s human rights, especially in the legal, political and economic spheres,

2. Fostering women leaders and political leadership training,

3. Building the capacities of women’s civil society organizations, and

4. Engaging civic education initiatives – aimed at both female and male audiences – to raise awareness about women’s participation as key to a stable and prosperous society.

The Netherlands and the United States intend to focus our mutual efforts on working with local leaders and organizations. These women and their organizations are considered as the key stakeholder and therefore the main “owners” of their process. We believe that working with women and civil society organizations builds capacity for good governance for all citizens, irrespective of gender, and that as the political reform process moves peacefully forward, the human rights of all, including those of women, can be protected.

PRN: 2011/615

Saturday, 23 April 2011

On Saturday, April 23rd and Sunday, April 24th at 7:30 pm the Maysles Cinema will be screening the film, Frederick Douglass and the White Negro, directed by John J Doherty followed by The San Patricios: The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion, directed by Mark R. Day. On Saturday, April 23rd the screening will be followed by a talk with Sandy Boyer and Kevin Keating.

"I See White People" kicked-off in January and resumes every quarter (April, July, October). This series will include films, speakers, writers and performers. Normally, in societal discourse, whiteness goes unnoticed and white people are rarely viewed as "an ethnic group" or "racial category" with all the attendant stereotypes and assumptions that follow. This virtual invisibility allows whiteness to become an assumed cultural standard by which all others are judged, usually unfavorably. This invisibility of whiteness is in many ways the backbone of white privilege and foundational to both perceived white supremacy and white racism.

The history of the Irish in this country, and in Ireland as well, is an interesting example of just how socially-constructed "whiteness" can be. For a long time, and up until today in some ways, Irish people, and some other European peoples, were not considered part of "white" race and thus were dehumanized, discriminated against and in the case of the Irish colonized by the English. As part of a group outside of the white race, which was primarily conceived of as white Anglo-Saxon protestant, there was more possibility for and actually existing solidarity between Irish, African-Americans and other people of color. However, there is also a history of violence, struggle and racism that paved the way on the Irish road towards being accepted as white in this country. Before Irish were subsumed under the category of "white" there was also a distinctiveness of Irish culture that was totally separate from mainstream white American culture (that continues to this day to some extent), although many aspects of Irish culture are now indistinguishable parts of American life. So as much as this history looks at the struggles of Ireland and the Irish and their troubled relationship/solidarity with other oppressed non-white communities, it also a celebration of the distinctiveness of Irish culture as separate and distinct from the culture of undefined "normal" White America.

So on Saturday, April 23rd and Sunday, April 24th at 7:30 pm Maysles Cinema will be screening the film, Frederick Douglass and the White Negro, directed by John J Doherty. This film covers the life and times of the famous former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass focusing in large part on the time he spent in Ireland and the influence this had on him. The film looks at Frederick Douglass's relationship with Ireland and the Irish as a prism through which to analyze the relationship between African-Americans and Irish-Americans as well as the similarities and differences between the state of African slaves in the United States and state of Irish laborers and the Irish generally at that point in history. The San Patricios: The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion directed by Mark R. Day will be screened next. This film tells the little known story of 500 immigrant soldiers (mostly Irish) who deserted during the United States-Mexico war to fight on behalf of Mexico. On Saturday, April 23rd the screenings will be followed by a talk with Sandy Boyer who is the host of WBAI's Radio Free Eireann program which cover the Irish Freedom Struggle from a republican point of view and connects that struggle with other freedom struggles around the world. The other speaker is Kevin Keating, the director of Giuliani Time who is also developing an upcoming narrative film about the San Patricios titled Turncoats.


I See White People

A quarterly series on the visibility of white racism, white privilege and unacknowledged white cultures in documentary and fiction film.

(This Quarter: How the Irish Became White!)

Frederick Douglass and the White Negro

John J Doherty, 2008, 52 min.

Frederick Douglass and the White Negro tells the story of this 19th century leader, and author of "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave," and his escape from slavery, leading to refuge across the Atlantic Ocean in Ireland on the eve of the Great Famine. The film focuses on the powerful influence Ireland had on him as a young man. It also explores the turbulent relationship between African Americans and Irish Americans in general. The relationship is exposed as a complex and tragic sequence of events culminating in the bloodiest riot in American history on the streets of New York City. This transatlantic story covers the race issue and is as relevant today as it was when Douglass escaped to Ireland.


The San Patricios: The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion

Mark R. Day, 1996, 48 min.

This film investigates the historic U.S.-Mexican War, the desertion of five hundred immigrant soldiers (mostly Irish) from the American army to the Mexican side, and the way historians view this event today. The deserters, who made up St. Patrick's Battalion, are considered traitors in the States, and heroes in Mexico. This documentary tells the complex story and invites viewers to come to their own conclusion about the Irish-American soldiers who changed their name from St. Patrick's Battalion to St. Patricios, and who switched their allegiance overnight.

Saturday's Post-Screening Discussion: Q&A with Sandy Boyer and Kevin Keating

Sandy Boyer

is the co-host and producer of WBAI's Radio Free Eireann which covers the Irish freedom struggle from an Irish republican point of view. Radio Free Eireann also uses the Irish experience to relate to various liberation struggles around the world. Sandy Boyer has led campaigns to free Irish political prisoners including the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, and Roisin McAliskey. He has taught Irish history at the Irish Arts Center and lectured on Irish politics and history at numerous colleges and universities and contributed articles on the Irish struggle to publications in Ireland and the US including New Politics, The Irish People, Fortnight, Fourthwrite and The Blanket.

Kevin Keating

is the director of the documentary Giuliani Time, and did cinematography for When We Were Kings

and Harlan County,U.S.A. He is developing a narrative film project about the Patricios titled "Turncoats."

Maysles Cinema
343 Lenox Ave
(127th and 128th streets)
New York, NY 10027

U.S. Senior Advisor on Darfur Travels to Rwanda, Qatar, and Sudan

Media Note
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC

April 20, 2011


Ambassador Dane Smith, the U.S. Senior Advisor on Darfur, departs for Rwanda today on his latest trip to support international efforts to reach a definitive end to conflict in Darfur. Ambassador Smith will first visit Kigali, where he will meet with Rwandan government officials to thank them for their support to the African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) and discuss peacekeeping in that region of Sudan.

The Senior Advisor will then travel to Doha to encourage the Sudanese government and Darfuri armed movements to make progress on political talks aimed at reaching a ceasefire and negotiated settlement that will lead to improvements in the security and humanitarian situation in Darfur.

Finally, Ambassador Smith will travel to Sudan to promote peace and security in Darfur. He will visit several internally displaced persons camps to emphasize the need for Sudan to allow unrestricted access to UNAMID and humanitarian agencies in order to protect civilians and provide humanitarian assistance to people in need. This will be his fourth trip to Darfur in the past four months.

Friday, 22 April 2011

London Mayor Boris jOHNSTONE was in Tottenham as part of His Q&A with the ressidents

Ben Tv team ebere and Doreen wre also there to attend
The Audience

Conversations on Diplomacy" Moderated by Charlie Rose

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of StateFormer Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger

Washington, DC

April 20, 2011


Video from the “Conversations on Diplomacy” is available on the Charlie Rose Show homepage at

MR. ROSE: We’re at the State Department in Washington, D.C. for a special edition of Charlie Rose. It is called "Conversations on Diplomacy." We inaugurate the series with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Other former Secretaries of State will follow. It is an opportunity to hear these men and women who have served as Secretary of State talk with Secretary Clinton about today’s issues, the philosophical framework for decision-making, our changing world and new realities. Also, to look back at the history of each. What can we learn from their experience? How do they view with 20/20 hindsight their action and their failure to act?

Secretary of State is a remarkable position held by a stunning group of Americans from Thomas Jefferson to George Marshall to Hillary Clinton, also other familiar names in American history like John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, Dean Acheson, Ed Muskie, and many more. They have come from an extraordinary diversity of experience, from university professor to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, from politics to law. After the recent death of Warren Christopher, there are eight living Secretaries of State. There are, of course, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, George Shultz, and Henry Kissinger.

These conversations are being recorded at the State Department where room by room you can see America’s history and the object of history, and also a wonderful collection of American paintings and decorative art. The rooms are named for former Secretaries of State. The John Quincy Adams room is home to the desk at which the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the American Revolutionary War. The treaty was signed by John Jay, John Adams, and Ben Franklin. These rooms have witnessed historic meetings between American officials and foreign ministers and heads of state. We take note of the 50th anniversary of these rooms and the Patrons of Diplomacy Initiative.

We begin our conversations on diplomacy with Secretary of State Clinton and former Secretary of State Kissinger. Secretary Clinton came to this office after serving as first lady of Arkansas and the United States, and the United States senator from New York. She was appointed by President Obama after a spirited contest for the Democratic nomination for president.

Secretary Kissinger was a Harvard professor, National Security Advisor for President Nixon, and Secretary of State in the administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

I first want to thank Secretary Clinton for allowing us to come here at the State Department in these historic rooms.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Charlie, we delighted to have you here for these conversations, and especially in these rooms which have seen a lot of history and which continue to help us chart our way forward. And I’m especially pleased to welcome back Dr. Kissinger for today’s discussion.

MR. ROSE: How do you see this world that has emerged? What are the factors, what’s the opportunity for the United States? Where do we want to go and how do we want to use our resources?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think about that question every day because, although there is a very clear continuity in American foreign policy that I would argue goes back to the very beginning of our country, every era presents its own challenges and opportunities. And today in this first part of the 21st century we clearly continue to spend an extraordinary amount of our time on state-to-state relationships. But we increasingly are focused on networks, on multilateral relationships and organizations, on charting the changes that are sweeping the world, many of them driven by technology and trying to understand the implications of those changes for the decisions that we make here.

There are many more actors who have a role to play and who are demanding that that role be recognized today. And we have to keep up with it. The flood of information that now comes to us, not just from traditional media but from all of the new forms of media, we’re just as likely to see events starting from Twitter feeds as from the statements of heads of state. And, therefore, we’ve had to adjust, and it has been one of my goals as Secretary of State to really look at 21st century statecraft and to recognize the increasing role that people-to-people diplomacy plays in assisting the United States in understanding trends, and in influencing decisions.

So it’s been -- I would hesitate to characterize completely, but it’s been a very active and challenging period for the last two-plus years.

MR. ROSE: I somewhere read that you’ve gone over the 512,000 miles.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, but who’s counting?


MR. ROSE: And 83 countries.


MR. ROSE: Secretary Kissinger, when you were Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, there were two great superpowers Russia and the United States. Today, people say that there are limits on our power and that the United States has to live in a different world.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Well, first of all, let me say what a pleasure it is to be back here. And as part of the community of former Secretaries of State who have a nonaggression treaty with each other --


MR. ROSE: A nonaggression treaty?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: They know what this job is like, and they know how close the decisions are that need to be made. So in all cases they would have great sympathy for their successors, and in this case it goes back a long time.

Now, when I served, we had two great superpowers, and we lived with the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe, which is, from that point of view, less likely today. But even then there were limits to American power, and the art of foreign policy is to operate at the limit of your power but not to go beyond it, and to recognize that other countries must feel they’re part of the international system or the tensions become unmanageable.

What is unique about this period, I think, is that for the first time in history, there are huge changes going on simultaneously in every part of the world, and that these changes are not of the same nature. In Europe, where the state system originated, the state is losing its significance, and they’re trying to form a larger unit. In the Middle East, the states never took hold in the same manner and on the same pages, and there is a religious overtone to the contest. In Asia the states have a character more similar to what the European states used to have.

So all I’m saying is that when the Secretary today has to make a decision, she is not talking about the same phenomenon in every part of the world. She has to understand the different cultures, the different histories, and she has to try to bring that into a coherent relationship. And for

Americans who did not until fairly recently have to engage in foreign policy on a regular basis, that is a tough road.

MR. ROSE: Secretary Clinton, what do you think the world and member states of the world community expect from the United States? What kind of leadership?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that the United States remains a dominant power in the world today, the dominant power on many measures. But as Henry said, the art of diplomacy is to balance the power you have with the aims you seek in an attempt to bring as many people with you in a common effort and to draw lines where one must to protect your interests and your security and advance your values. I think there is a lot of questioning and even some anxiety in the world today, particularly among leaders and among intellectuals about what it is that we are trying to achieve. Where is America heading? What are our goals?

Because we’re living in a time of such rapid change, and I think President Obama has rightly captured the feeling of that by the embodiment that he represents of that change and by his very focused effort to reach out to the rest of the world while demonstrating America’s continuing influence and power. So what do people expect of us? Sometimes what they publicly say they expect of us is very different than what they privately say they expect of us. We all the time --

MR. ROSE: Can you explain that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yes, to some extent.


We all the time encounter in relations with other countries a desire for the United States to take a position on an issue that may be of importance to them, and even to us, and they think it’s very important that we become involved, and usually on their side. But I’ve also seen those who say publicly we don’t want the United States involved, and then privately to us are very much begging us to be involved.

So I think there’s an uncertainty on a lot of different levels right now about power, about the future of states, about the role of religion, which is increasingly challenging in many parts of the world, about, you know, the rise of powers like China and the role that India and Brazil and others will play. So there’s a lot of questioning, but it’s been my experience in the last two and a half years that more often than not, people come expecting the United States to be if not fixing problems, to be part of fixing whatever problems an individual state has or a region has. And our biggest -- one of our biggest foreign policy challenges right now is to get our own house in order. That is something that we -- I feel very strongly about, I know the President does as well, because we have to consolidate our own economic and political position in order to be able to continue to influence events in the future.

MR. ROSE: As you have said and the President said no country can long maintain, you know, its geopolitical position if its economy is suffering.

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s right. Well, but it’s also important to keep the

American people feeling very positive about the direction of our own country because that influences what kind commitment a government can make. Even in the most authoritarian regimes around the world people are listening to the opinions of their public because those publics now have many more ways of expressing that opinion. And so there’s a growing effort to make sure that your views and your actions at home and abroad are aligned with what public opinion is.

MR. ROSE: The Arab spring, from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain, how do you see this? What is a strategic opportunity for the United States? And let’s take Libya first.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Whether it’s Libya or Tunisia or Egypt or Syria or Yemen, there is an overall arc of action occurring, some of which are hopeful and some of which are very troubling. And I think Henry can look at that from a broader strategic perspective.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I look at it -- the Secretary has to make the day-to-day decisions as such a crisis develops. From my present posture I look at it as a historian primarily, and so there are a number of rules that I apply to revolutions.

One is you cannot judge the outcome of a revolution by the proclamations of those who make it. Secondly, those who make it rarely survive the process of the revolution, and so that the second wave of the revolution is tremendously important. Third, the greater the upheaval that the revolution causes, the more likely is it that the -- in order to restore order and a sense of legitimacy, that -- that a lot of force gets used. So when one looks at the process -- so I look at the process not in terms of what to do tomorrow because that I couldn’t really affect and I wouldn’t really know.

But I would make some judgments as to where this is going. And I was in a program with you earlier, and I warned against the extreme enthusiasm in some of the media about the inevitable progress that this was going to have in every -- in every part of the world. So I think we are

now in scene one of act one of a five-act drama that will develop over a considerable period of time and in which we have to determine our interests, our range of influence, and what conflicting motivations may be involved.

MR. ROSE: Speak to our interests and our influence.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if we’re looking at our interests, our interests are to see a peaceful, stable transition to a more representative form of government in which institutions are able to democratize over time and people are given the opportunity to make more decisions about their own lives, but to do so in a way that does not exacerbate preexisting differences, particularly sectarian differences, that doesn’t create more discrimination against any group, including women, but instead leads to a broader base for stability of the right kind, a market economy that can function without the pressures from corruption, the ability of a government to be responsive to the needs of its people instead of just to a privileged elite, and a sense that the population itself is becoming more integrated into the larger world.

I mean, one of the problems about the Middle East and North Africa is that this region of the world did not grow and prosper during the last 50 years when all of the rest of the world did. Now, with great resources in some but not all of the countries, there was a more -- a more of a focus on development which produced goods for people. But in many of the countries there was further and deeper poverty, and there was no real effort to chart a course of development that would move people upward on the scale of accomplishment, educational attainment, and the like.

So you’re looking at a part of the world that the Arab Development Reports started saying in 2002 was really being left out. So it was only a matter of time before people who are now connected by the Internet, who had access to satellite television, were going to say, “Wait a minute. Is there something different between us and the Chinese or the Koreans or the Colombians or the Brazilians? The answer is no. So why is it we are not in some way making this kind of material progress, let alone democratic progress?”

So it’s been -- it’s been a long time coming. The frustration has now come through very loudly and clearly. But Henry’s caution is the right caution because nobody knows how this is going end. And the voices of stability can be pro-change but in a gradual way, or anti-change, trying to hang on to the status quo. So what we try to do all time is to chart a course emphasizing nonviolence, emphasizing inclusive political and economic reform. And some of it is happening, and a lot of it is still unclear to us.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I agree with what the Secretary has said. I would just add that there’s another -- there’s an additional dimension, namely that as we are trying to achieve the objectives there is simultaneously going on a strategic competition between some of these states -- Saudi Arab and Iran, between some of the religions. And we have in some cases a national interest in the outcome of these conflicts so that in dealing with all the issues that the Secretary has mentioned, and with which I agree, we also have to do it in such a way that we don’t tilt the strategic conflict in a direction that is unfavorable to us.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And that is exactly right, because, make no mistake about it, we see Iran as the major threat to the region. And nothing that has happened in the Arab awakening in any way diminishes that threat in the short term. In fact, we see Iran trying to take advantage of what is going on, which is the height of hypocrisy, but that has never stopped the regime before. And what they are doing is trying to somehow connect their failed revolution of 1979 with the movements for aspiration and change that are now sweeping the region.

So we have a lot of good friends in this region, people that we may not agree on every issue when it comes to politics or economics, by any means, but, you know, they’re good friends of the United States. They have been for many decades. And what we are saying both publicly and privately is don’t do anything that gives any ammunition, so to speak, to the Iranians, because we don’t want the Iranians to be given one iota of credit for what is a non-Iranian phenomenon. It is an Egyptian phenomenon, a Tunisian phenomenon, a Libyan phenomenon. And so when we look at this, we have -- it’s like playing multidimensional chess of an unprecedented scope, because you’re on a tight wire. You’re trying to hold the board. You’re trying to figure out how to make the moves, and people are yelling at you from a 360-degree angle.


And so there is a lot here that we try to sort out and to understand both in the short term -- what do we say today, because we’re living in a media environment where if you haven’t respond to the latest tweet in the last 30 seconds, somehow you’re not keeping up with what’s going on in the world when that is no way to make any decisions, let alone those of such strategic importance. So we’re looking at it in the very, very short term, and trying to make decisions that are going to be in the best interest of the United States first and foremost, but also in the best interest of the values and the interests that people we identify with are promoting while keeping in mind this larger strategic framework.

MR. ROSE: But that’s the point some people raise, is there a conflict between our values and our interests?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, ultimately, no, but are we take talking in a 5-year, 10-year, or 50-year framework? I’m sitting looking at the front row here with a lot of ambassadors and the second row as well of countries who are going through their own versions of change, some of them very dramatically, like Egypt, some of them over time, like China.

But there’s no doubt that we believe eventually free-market economies will prove to be the most effective means of both generating and distributing wealth, that democracy defined by the conditions of a country, but as inclusive as possible, will end up being the most stable form of government. But is that a 5-year, a 10-year, a 50-year, a 100-year enterprise? There’s no way any of us sitting here today can predict that.

MR. ROSE: Did we miss a sense that this was coming? Should we, as a country and administration have known this was coming?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: As a historian, you could say when a regime has been in power for 30 years and is not changing as fast as the circumstances would indicate, that something ought to be done. And as a professor you can say it should have been done. As a practitioner, I’m more sympathetic. I’m sure that when you came in, you knew some of the difficulties. But you had to make your own priorities of what you had to deal with first. So in that sense you can say yes, one should have known, but one never expects it. And after all, the political parties -- a colleague of mine visited Egypt during the week of when the upheaval started, and she actually had come from the CIA, so she was a trained person. She went to the political parties and said to them, “I understand a day of rage has been advertised.” And all the political parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood said that’s for children. That’s not going to amount to anything.

I guess in a historical sense one should have known something was going to happen. But to translate that into an American action that would guide a historical process, that’s a very tough, and it’s always very hard to deal with problems.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I wanted to answer, too, the question about interests because there’s a-- there’s a situation that we’re dealing with every day here at the State Department, and that’s Afghanistan and Pakistan. There was a consensus in our foreign policy establishment that we were going to do whatever we could to help the Mujaheddin drive out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. It was a bipartisan commitment. It was entered into with great certainty, that it was the right thing to do. And it contributed significantly to the eventual not only withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan but the internal problems that exacerbated the tensions within the soviet union that led to its collapse.

So in hindsight we often say to ourselves, OK, that was what we viewed as in our interest, and we did it. And then we made another decision, which was OK, the Soviet Union has collapsed, so we do not need to expend treasure and maybe lives doing anything else in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so we withdrew. And the vacuum that was filled by the Taliban, the warlords, et cetera, the safe haven for Al-Qaida and all the rest is something that people now say to me, they say, well, did we make a mistake in the 1980s, and should we not have done what we did with the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? But it’s one of these questions that is unanswerable because you made -- we made the decision at the time based on our analysis of those circumstances. Where we fell short, which is often the case in trying to analyze what comes next, is looking over the horizon, doing every scenario, every kind of war game, which is hard to do on an ongoing basis because you’re so caught up in the day-to-day. But there were certainly people who then said, well, that was a terrible mistake that you left Pakistan and left Afghanistan and then look what happened.

So we pursue our interests. Of course our interests in seeing the collapse of the Soviet Union can’t in some way trump our interests in avoiding 9/11. But some people conflate those and say you should have known one led to the other. So there are all these questions that we’re constantly asking ourselves and trying to get the best possible answers to.

MR. ROSE: Let me turn to Libya, because it is every time on the front pages of the newspapers. What is your assessment of what ought to be done if our interest is regime change?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: If our interest is regime change --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Which of course is not our interest.

MR. ROSE: OK, but that’s why we’re having the conversation.


SECRETARY KISSINGER: First of all, I don’t consider Libya central to the issues that we’ve discussed. I think it’s of some importance, but it’s peripheral to what we discussed about Egypt, the Gulf, and so forth. I think that whatever one’s view about the wisdom of engaging in military action there, once we are involved, we -- it’s better if the Qadhafi regime is removed, because I don’t think any constructive evolution is now possible as long as he is -- as long as he is there. And, therefore, on the whole, I would say the scale of effort that is needed to bring that about, but if that isn’t possible, then some political solution should be sought. What I don’t like is an open-ended situation which is a daily irritant of fluctuating second-level military operations. So one or the other should be achieved.

MR. ROSE: Are we looking at a stalemate?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I think it’s too soon to tell. I think that, as I counseled my foreign minister colleagues in Berlin last week, I mean, we want to get to a point where there is a resolution, and it has to be a political resolution. But it may not be as quick as all of us would like to see it. And I think there’s a lot of effort being put into the political outreach that is going to be necessary to try to resolve this. I agree with, you know, Henry’s assessment that, you know you can’t be a little of this and a little of that. There does have to be an effort made to reach a resolution, and that is ongoing.

MR. ROSE: Can you have a resolution with Qadhafi still in the country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t think so.

MR. ROSE: But the motivation is not to regime change?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are operating under the United Nations authority, and that is not part of the United Nations authority.

MR. ROSE: But it seems that Britain and France are operating beyond the United Nations authority.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they are certainly making, you know, their decisions to support, as they see it, the United Nations. Their decisions to send in military advisers they characterize as an effort to protect civilians, because part of what everyone has seen is that there’s no experience in the opposition military personnel. And so there is a desire to try to help them be more organized, and we support that. We’re not participating in it but we support it.

MR. ROSE: We’re not likely to be drawn into it.


MR. ROSE: The Palestinians are going to the United Nations probably in September for a vote on statehood. What do you think is going to happen? What should happen? And what should the United States do?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: First of all, this is an issue that the Secretary will have to decide in the next weeks. And so I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to say what we should do. I’ll make a general statement not about what should we do at the U.N. but what I think some of the surrounding issues are to be.

If there is an agreement, however it comes about, there will have to be some guarantees that it’s the only way it can be made tolerable and acceptable. At the present moment it is very difficult for most of the Arab states to give reliable guarantees because they are in great turmoil themselves. So the question is: Can some other guarantees be substituted for this, at least at a minimum, time lag that exists? And on the other hand, endless continuation of the present situation is -- it’s not acceptable to any of the parties concerned.

But how to navigate in that, I really think it would be wrong for me to sit here and make a recommendation for something that is so short term in front of us.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Let me just make a few general comments, because we are on record as having said that we do not support any unilateral effort by the Palestinians to go to the United Nations to try to obtain some authorization, approval, vote, with respect to statehood, because we think you can only achieve the two-state solution, which we strongly advocate, through negotiation. And we have been urging both the Israelis and the Palestinians to get on with the business of actually negotiating. Both of them, for their own reasons, have been somewhat concerned about proceeding in negotiations and laying out positions on very sensitive matters even before the upheaval in the region. But it is absolutely clear now that with all of the uncertainty both are trying to analyze what this means for their future position.

And so, I would hope -- and President Obama has said that he will continue to press both sides, which is what we believe we have to do, that everyone would realize that negotiations are the only way, but more than that, they are an immediate need to return to, because our assessment is that it is in the best interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, even in the midst of everything going on in the region, to try to turn to the hard work of determining borders, determining the security requirements, and dealing with all the other issues that they have to face.

MR. ROSE: And it’s in our national interest to see an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and a Palestinian state.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It has been American policy for more than 20, 30 years now.

MR. ROSE: Let me take you to Vietnam and a speech. Tell us what you are articulating as America’s policy, foreign policy, with respect to Asia, to the region, its relationships with other states, and its assessment of China’s intentions?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, it was important in this Administration that we make clear that the United States is both a Pacific and an Atlantic power. And I made my first trip very shortly after becoming Secretary of State to Asia with that message. Understandably, the prior administration had been very focused on Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there was a feeling by a number of leaders and influential people in the region that the United States was receding from Asia. And that was never a decision. That was never intended. But we needed to make that very clear.

So we’ve done things that they’re not going to get maybe headlines in the newspapers here at home, but joining the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with the ASEAN nations, with the Southeast Asian nations, which no administration had done, but which sent a very strong signal. We are part of the Pacific world. We have a history here, and we’re going to stay involved -- joining the East Asian Summit, another multilateral organization. So our goal was to make it absolutely indisputable that the United States has interests and we have alliances and partnerships that we are going to continue to invest in.

MR. ROSE: Were you drawing a red line at any point?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I mean, no, because we think that there is an opportunity here in Asia to see a very cooperative approach toward the future, which is why when I became Secretary and looked at our engagement with China it was very heavily weighted on the economic side, as everybody knows. And what we wanted to do was to marry the economic side with the strategic side, and so the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that Treasury Secretary Geithner and I co-chair was a result of that. And we’ve had two successful meetings, the first here, the second in Beijing, and then the third will be in Washington in early May.

And, you know, we have an opportunity to develop exactly what both President Obama and President Hu Jintao said we wanted: a positive, cooperative, comprehensive relationship. And there’s a lot more dialogue going on at all levels now between the United States and China. Do we still have differences? Of course we do. Are we going to stand our ground on some of those differences? Of course there is no question of that. But as much as we can be constantly interacting and solving problems together, both bilaterally and multilaterally, the more our relationship will mature, and I think that’s a very important goal for us to have going forward.

MR. ROSE: You just wrote a book on China and the future. How do you see the possibilities and what are the risks?

SECRETARY KISSINGER: I have to tell you, I’m getting to the age where I start telling stories about myself.


I once went with President Nixon to a military command where the general was dying to make a big technical explanation, which I knew the president might not want to hear in full detail. So I said, let me ask the questions, and you just answer my questions. So I asked my question, and he said, “May I have the first slide, please?”


The relationship with China has, for one thing, has been pursued by eight administrations on an essentially bipartisan basis. It’s one of the most consistent aspects of American foreign policy. When it started in 1971, we were -- China and the United States were brought together by a common adversary. And so that produced a certain agenda. At that time China was a very underdeveloped nation, and the idea that one day one would talk of it as the second largest and potentially largest economic power would have been inconceivable in 1971. It’s only really in the last 10 years that China has emerged as an economic superpower, and, therefore, has a capacity to participate on an international scale which did not exist before.

So now both of our countries have a huge challenge. Normally, the emergence of new powers has led -- has been characterized by enormous rivalries. And there are points where we impact on each other in a way that could generate rivalries. On the other hand, there is no constructive outcome to a long, drawn-out contest between the United States and China. So both of our countries have an obligation to try to construct an international environment in which parallel evolutions, I don’t say necessary, but parallel evolutions we contribute to peace -- to peace and progress. And that has difficulties because our societies have had quite different origins. By Chinese standards we have negligible history, very, very, very short.

So America is very pragmatic. China has a 4,000-year history, and China - deals with problems as a historic phenomenon. So we are very problem oriented. The Chinese are conceptually oriented. And I have noticed we sometimes have problems because the Chinese – we will do three or four different things for totally disparate reasons -- receive the Dalai Lama, arm sales to Taiwan, currency exchange -- they all are done for different reasons.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. Absolutely.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: Not connected with each other.


SECRETARY KISSINGER: The Chinese say there has to be a common theory here. And then they deal with the theory. They don’t deal with the three problems.

MR. ROSE: Which is an interesting idea. As you travel from country to country, whether it’s China or the Middle East, have to correct impressions of your motivation and your actions.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we try to correct impressions. Sometimes we are successful and sometimes we are not. But I think this point that Henry’s making is not only important for China, because I see it myself. I see it all the time, that there are assumptions about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it that have absolutely never crossed our minds but which our friends on the other side of the table are thinking and therefore we have to know they’re thinking in order to disabuse them of that.

I’ll give you a quick, trivial example. My first trip to China as Secretary of State, I’m sitting there with the foreign minister. He says we think it’s a very unfortunate decision that the United States has made and reflects on our relationship that you’re not participating in the Shanghai Expo. First of all, I didn’t know there was going to be a Shanghai Expo. It had never been raised to me in the month and a half I had been Secretary of State. And a decision had been made in the prior administration that we don’t do expos anymore. So here’s China about to hold this very significant expo, and we and I think Andorra are the only countries not participating.


And to explain to a group of high Chinese officials that it wasn’t a decision that carried with it anything other than our Congress’s allergy to expos anywhere in the world was nearly impossible. So I spent the first six months putting together an expo, something that was not in the job description.


But it was a very important signal of our commitment to the relationship even though it doesn’t fall into one of the 10 or 20 issues that we might be listing.

But the point is a broader one than what Henry has made just about China because this happens with every culture. I mean, even though we live in this ocean of information right now where people wear jeans, where they all talk on cell phones, where young people are connected like never before in history, there are still very significant historical, cultural, political, even psychological differences. So we have to constantly not only be trying to disabuse others of assumptions about us, but also we have to in our own heads question assumptions about others. So it’s an ongoing conversation. But Henry’s an expert on that.

MR. ROSE: If you look back on your experience as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, what is the lesson learned that might be most valuable to Secretary Clinton?


SECRETARY KISSINGER: We’ve been talking -- I think the lesson which she experiences, I’m sure, every day is -- and we talked about it earlier -- how to get attention to middle-term problems? Basically, a great part of foreign policy is made by the Secretary approving cables that are written in response to incoming issues. So I would say a great part of the day is spent on that. Then when you add interdepartmental testimony, how do you free time to think about the long-term problems and to think about them in a way that is operationally significant? You can always bring a group of professors in and listen for an hour or two, but how to do it in a way so that your key operating personnel is not totally obsessed with the immediate issues and spend some real time on middle-term issues, and how to free your own thinking enough, that, I think, is the biggest challenge that a secretary has in the management of it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I agree with that completely. We talk a lot around here about the urgent, the important, and the long term, and there are so many issues that fall into each of those, and some fall into all three categories. And the last thing you want is to be a prisoner of your inbox because the amount of paper that comes your way -- and it still is a paper culture because of all of the traditions and habits and the clearance process, which goes on inside the State Department -- could imprison you. And to try to lift your head up enough just to see slightly into the middle term let alone over the horizon is a very challenging exercise. But if we don’t do it, we are sunk.

SECRETARY KISSINGER: And to get your operating personnel to do it, not just the Secretary.


SECRETARY KISSINGER: So that the operating people who are overwhelmed every day with issues to take a perspective.

MR. ROSE: I’m left with two thoughts about this. Number one, you once said that you have to -- once you become Secretary of State or a high-level official that you’re really operating on the intellectual capital you had going in because there’s little opportunity to gain more, yes?


MR. ROSE: And what you said, interesting, about being Secretary of State is you wanted to be proactive, not reactive.


MR. ROSE: How are you doing on that that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in some of the areas that we identified, you know, like technology, for example, when I set up this unit inside the State Department of these young technology gurus, a lot of people thought it was trivial, unimportant. And then the Iranian election protests began, and the way those protesters communicated was all through, you know, the means of social media. And it became important to have people in the State Department, which when I arrived didn’t even get blackberries to everybody -- to all of a sudden have to feel the connection to what was going on in the streets at that moment. And we’ve only seen that accelerate.

So we identified with some key issues that we thought were not on anybody’s agenda to try to drive. But they are not in the realm of strategic decision making. They’re more emphasis, like, obviously, I want to integrate women and girls into every aspect of American foreign policy because it’s the best bet you can make and developing countries and democratizations. So there are these issues that are cross-cutting issues.

But the problem Henry has identified is the problem I live with every day. And we also, in our system, people serve maybe for two years, and then they get another assignment. If they’re in the building they get sent to language school to learn Arabic or learn Chinese. And then they’re out of the decision-making. They’re out of the operational control and they’re preparing for what comes next. So there’s a lot of churn, there’s constant churn. So to try to have a steady course with people coming in and people leaving in our complex intergovernmental system, which we only briefly mentioned, takes an enormous amount of effort. And we try to bring that effort to it, but it’s hard.

MR. ROSE: Secretary Kissinger, thank you very much. Secretary Clinton, thank you very much. And thank you for coming.

This is the first of a series of conversations, "Conversations on Diplomacy," Secretary Clinton, and former secretaries of state. We thank you for joining us. And we’ll see you next time.

Thank you.


PRN: 2011/617