SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON'S INTERVIEW ON CNN

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Interview With Jill Dougherty of CNN
Interview Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Istanbul Congress Center
Istanbul, Turkey
April 1, 2012
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you very much for doing this. I want to start with the sanctions, with the pressure. If you look at all of this pressure, something doesn’t seem to be working because Assad is still there, and notably, you don’t have any major defections from the key top leadership, the people who are close to him. Why is that? Could one of the factors be that the United States and others are saying “we don’t want military action, and that could be emboldening him?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, I think the sanctions are beginning to have an effect, but we have to do more to implement them, and that’s why we formed a sanctions committee today. And the United States will be working with the Arab countries, the European countries, North African, and others to have them understand the most effective way to implement sanctions. Because, as one of them said to me, “The Americans have a lot of experience in doing sanctions. We don’t.” So we’re making progress.
Also the individual sanctions – the travel bans, the visa bans, the kinds of direct personal sanctions – are beginning to really wake people up. They’re looking around thinking for the rest of my life, I’m only going to be able maybe to go to Iran; that doesn’t sound like a great idea. So we hear a lot from the inside that these sanctions are happening in a timely way. Also, the reserves of the country are being drawn down, marketplaces are not as full of goods as they once were. So this does take time. We’re well aware that time is going by, people are being killed, it just is absolutely horrific what’s happening. But the Istanbul meeting today was quite consequential in terms of the outcomes, and really increasing the enforcement of sanctions was one of the best.

QUESTION: Let’s look at the opposition. A number of them are expats, people who have lived out of the country for years and years. Why should anybody who’s inside Syria right now trust them? And do they actually know the real situation on the ground?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what’s happening is that the Syrian National Council is expanding. I just met with four representatives, including a young woman who just escaped from Homs. I mean, she is someone who is bearing witness to the horrors of what the Assad regime did to the neighborhoods of her city. And she had very poignant stories of close friends who were tortured and are in hospital, and if they’re discovered as having been in the opposition, will be killed. I mean, it’s a terrible human tragedy, but she is a witness.

So I think, along with the people who started the Syrian National Council, who are in a position to do so – because they had been driven out by the Assads, father and son, over the course of many years – they’re now being joined and, frankly, their credibility is being enhanced by both civilian and military defections. And we think that’s significant.

QUESTION: If you stand back and look at this, you have right now – you talked about those broken promises, the broken promises – if you stand back and look at it, there’s kind of a pattern emerging. And you could say Syria, broken promises by President Assad, you would assert. You have broken promises, you also would assert, from Iran on the nuclear program. And you have North Korea, which also has broken promises.
So in this pattern, what explains that pattern? It’s similar to what I was asking first off, which is: Is there something that this Administration is doing, which is kind of standing back, not being as aggressive as some people might want you to be, that is emboldening them, allowing them to say we’ll just play out the clock?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I think if you look at what this Administration did, we put together an international coalition – a consensus, really, against both Iran and North Korea that had not existed before with UN Security Council resolutions, very tough sanctions enforcements. But you’re dealing with two regimes that are very difficult to reign in because they have no regard for even their own promises and obligations. With North Korea, that goes back decades. It’s been a constant challenge, and it’s been a process of really trying to prevent them from going too far with their provocative actions that could cause another war in the Korean Peninsula, which – you go to the memorial in Washington and you know what that cost the United States and our allies.

With Iran, we are very carefully building on and then acting on the pressure that we have put in place. We will begin to know, with the resumption of the P-5+1 talks, whether or not there is a deal to be had here. This is something that has to be explored. I think one of the reasons that the Iranians are even coming back to talk is because of the sanctions. But as President Obama has said, all options are on the table. Our policy is not containment with Iran. It is prevention of their getting a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: But there is that “All options are on the table” that continues to be the mantra, but nothing happens.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but Jill, I don’t think you want to rush to some of the options that are on the table. I think it’s very important and it’s a requirement of responsible leadership that you exhaust every diplomatic pathway. That is what we are doing. We are very clear about that. We want to have a peaceful resolution. We want Iran to begin to reenter the international community, to stop threatening their neighbors. As you know, I was in Riyadh yesterday. They’re not only worried about the nuclear program; they’re worried about Iran destabilizing countries, they’re worried about it exporting terrorism. And we’re going to test all of that just as hard as we can. I can’t, sitting here today, exactly predict to you what the outcome will be, except I know that we have to keep trying the diplomatic route, knowing that our policy is clear about no nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: And speaking of Iran, are you nervous that Israel will, on its own, take some action, but leave it to the United States to finish that action?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think Israel understands why we think it’s important to pursue the diplomatic route as far as we possibly can in a timely way. We’re not going to enter into endless talks that never see any kind of outcome. But we do want, with the full backing of the international community – because remember the P-5+1 include China and Russia. And they are on record publicly as saying they don’t want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. So I think Israel understands that there is a necessity for us to pursue the P-5+1, and we have certainly made it clear that – to them that all options are on the table, and we would be pursuing the diplomatic option.

QUESTION: I want to turn the corner to Russia. I was just there covering the election, in fact. And you have these interesting comments coming out from a candidate for president, Mr. Romney, who says that Russia is the biggest – the worst geopolitical foe the United States has. I don’t – let’s – I know you don’t like to talk politics.

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But what do you think of that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, without getting into the political campaign, because that’s for others to comment on, I think if you take a look at the world today, we have a lot of problems that are not leftovers from the past, but are of the moment. We’ve just been talking about one, namely Iran. And in many of the areas where we are working to solve problems, Russia has been an ally. They’re in the P-5+1 talks with us, they have worked with us in Afghanistan and have been very helpful in the Northern Distribution Network and in other ways. So I think it’s somewhat dated to be looking backwards instead of being realistic about where we agree, where we don’t agree, but looking for ways to bridge the disagreements and then to maximize the cooperation.

QUESTION: Mr. Putin, soon to be President Putin again, accused you personally of sending some type of signal to the Russians to bring them out onto the streets.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And now, you have the United States – this Administration – pushing to release, I think, it is $50 million in democracy support funds, which is guaranteed, of course, not to go over well in Moscow. Why shouldn’t they look at this money and say that the United States – that maybe Hillary Clinton wants to send another signal? In other words, you’re stirring up trouble.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have to say I was a little perplexed that I would be imputed such power that a mere signal, a mere word, would cause thousands of people to turn out. In fact, I think the demonstrators in the street got it right. They laughed at that. I mean, they knew why there were there. They want democracy, they want freedom, they want a voice in their affairs, and we all support that. And we hope that in the years to come, there will be greater openness in Russia. The Russian people are so smart. You lived there. You know what incredibly talented people, well educated, the ability to really help shape the 21st century – stop the brain drain. Create an environment in which Russians are made to feel that they can build their own country, make a real stake in the future there. And that has nothing to do with us. It has to do everything with the Russian people themselves.

And we in the United States believe that every country would be better off if there were greater freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, because I think we represent that. We have had a great run, and I want it always to continue. I want the United States always to represent these values and to live them. And therefore, we’re going to continue to promote them around the world.

QUESTION: Quick question on Pakistan. The United States apparently is agreeing to a different way of using drones, a very controversial issue. When that happens, could that be to the detriment of the national security of the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jill, I’m not going to comment on any intelligence matter. That would not be appropriate. But I can assure you that the Obama Administration will not enter into any agreement that would be to the detriment of the national security of our country. I think this President has demonstrated conclusively that he’s ready to take the tough decisions when America’s security is at stake.

QUESTION: One last question. You were just in Burma not too long ago, historic elections. What are your thoughts as you look at that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m very hopeful for the people. The early reports are mostly positive. We want to see these elections conducted in a free, fair manner that is validated by the international community, and we want to see continuing progress. I was very touched by the visit that I made and the commitments that I received from members of the government who were quite sincere in their desire to move their country forward.
I know how difficult it is. I know that there are some who don’t agree with it, who will try to undermine it. That seems to be human nature everywhere in the world. But if this election goes as well as it is reported to have from the early reports, that will be a significant step. And I promised, when I was there meeting with leaders in Nay Pyi Taw, that the United States would match action for action. And we will do that.
QUESTION: Well, thank you very much Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

U.S. OFFICIALS'S REMARKS ON PUTIN'S ELECTION WIN AND IT'S IMPLICATIONS

The following excerpt is from a U.S. State Department e-mail:
Putin's Return: The Political and Commercial Implications for America
Remarks Philip H. Gordon
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Remarks at Bipartisan Policy Center
Washington, DC
March 15, 2012
Moderator: [in progress] lively debate over whether some new form of human rights sanction needs to immediately be put into effect were Congress to lift Jackson-Vanik. So first of all, can you give us a sense of where the administration is at in terms of the big picture positioning? Is there still a reset possible with President Putin returning to official power in the Kremlin? And in that context, where does this debate in Washington fit in?

Assistant Secretary Gordon: Thanks, Susan. I would be happy to do that. Indeed, I appreciate the invitation to put it in that broader context. This is an important thing we’re trying to do with Russia, but there are a lot of important things we’re trying to do with Russia and they are related.

Let me start, though, by saying how much I admire the report by the task force. As we head into this debate in Congress there is no doubt going to be a lot of polemics and politics and what is called for is a serious, thoughtful assessment with even some facts in it. I think that’s what you all have produced and it’s going to be very valuable and I would encourage members of Congress, the media and others to rely on it. I really think it’s an important contribution on this important issue.

I said I wanted to put this in context, Susan, and what I would say about that is, you all are very well familiar with the way we and the Obama administration have tried to approach the issue of Russia in general. The relationship was strained when the President took office, which he regretted, and thought was not in the U.S. interest because we have so many potential areas of common interest with Russia, whether that’s in the economic area or nonproliferation or counterterrorism. So what he set out to do was to find those areas of common interest, try to reach practical, real substantive agreements while also being very clear that there would be things we would disagree on and we wouldn’t sweep them under the carpet as we pursued these things.

We’re actually very proud of what, in three years, we have accomplished in that regard, whether it’s the New START Treaty or cooperation on Afghanistan which has been very significant to our efforts there; or the 123 Nuclear Agreement on civil nuclear cooperation; Russian support on North Korea; and, particularly Iran, to a degree that I don’t think was imaginable a few years before; the Bipartisan Presidential Commission which has strengthened our relations in areas from environment to sports and culture and business; and, then the WTO agreement which as you and the Secretary and others have said, has been on the agenda for a very long time. We worked very hard, in our own interest, to reach an agreement that we think would benefit -- much as Russia, and we think it would -- but ourselves and other members to the international community by providing greater opportunity for trade and bringing Russia into a binding organization governed by rule of law and open trade. So that, after 20 years of trying, both in the United States and in Russia, we think is a major accomplishment and very consistent with what I described as our overall effort with Russia.

So where does that leave us now? I can talk, and I’m sure you’ll have questions about the broader fate of the reset and how we’re doing in other issues, and I’m happy to engage on that, but since we’re really here to talk about Jackson-Vanik and the WTO, let me just give you the bottom line on that.

Having reached this agreement to bring Russia into the WTO it is in our interest to graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik so that our firms will benefit, and I would say period. The President, especially in this tough economic climate is determined to do everything he can for American firms and American exports, and were we to fail to graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik right now, we would be disadvantaging American companies, without costing Russia anything. It’s not in that sense at all a gift to Russia, it is in the fundamentally economic and security interest of the United States and I am quite confident that that’s what Senator Baucus will hear from the businesses today, which include the leadership of some major American companies that want to see this get done.
I think you cited some of the opposition figures in Russia who have said the same thing. The statement they put out last week said that leaving Jackson-Vanik on the books as it is and keeping it applying to Russia would “not be helpful in any way”, and we think that’s right: it would not be helpful in any way.
So, very straightforward and clear, it’s in our interest to graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik.

I do want to say, though, because this issue is now debated in the context of what we’re doing on democracy and human rights in Russia. I want to be clear on that, too. Even as we’ve pursued this better relationship with Russia and concrete agreements with Russia we’ve been very clear about the importance of democracy, human rights, and civil society in our foreign policy. We’ve done quite a lot in that regard. Since 2009 we’ve spent more than $200 million seeking to promote democracy, human rights and civil society on the recent elections.

From the start we’ve said, the President said that even as we pursue these concrete agreements we will be clear when Russia is doing things that we don’t believe are in our interest or that we disagree with. We’ve done so on a range of issues, on the question of Georgia, and on the question of democracy. So in December when there were parliamentary elections that we did not think were entirely free and fair, we said so. The Russian government didn’t appreciate it, but I think we’ve been consistent to our principles on that issue.

We have proposed, as you know, using some of the resources that were generated from the U.S.-Russia investment fund and asked Congress to consider taking those resources which would be some $50 million and using it as a further effort to promote democracy, civil society and human rights in Russia.

On some of the specific measures in the Magnitsky Bill that has been referred to, which is sometimes linked to the question of lifting Jackson-Vanik, we have also been very clear that it is the policy of the United States to deny visas to people guilty of serious human rights violations. In the Presidential Proclamation last August in the Immigration and Nationality Act, we have the provisions to do that and we have done so and will do so.
So I want to be very clear, even as I say that Jackson-Vanik should be lifted simply unrelated to anything else because it’s in our interest, at the same time, of course, we strongly support the goals of the Cardin legislation. We have been very active on democracy on human rights, we will continue to be active on democracy and human rights, but the bottom line on the question of Jackson-Vanik: it is in our interest to graduate Russia as soon as possible.

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT CONGRATULATES RUSSIAN PEOPLE ON ELECTION

The following excerpt is from a U.S. Department of State e-mail:

“Presidential Elections in Russia
Press Statement Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC
March 5, 2012
The United States congratulates the Russian people on the completion of the Presidential elections, and looks forward to working with the President-elect after the results are certified and he is sworn in.

The United States endorses the preliminary report of the observer mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and welcomes the many other assessments of the Russian presidential election by Russian election monitors. We note the statement by the head of delegation for PACE that the election had a clear winner with an absolute majority. We also note, however, the OSCE’s concerns about the conditions under which the campaign was conducted, the partisan use of government resources, and procedural irregularities on election day, among other issues.

We urge the Russian Government to conduct an independent, credible investigation of all reported electoral violations. As underscored in the OSCE report, we also note the new steps that the Central Election Commission took to increase transparency of the voting process since the parliamentary elections last December. We urge Russian authorities to build on these steps to ensure that the procedures for future elections will be more transparent.

We are encouraged to see so many Russian citizens voting, monitoring voting in their local precincts, exercising their constitutional right to free assembly, and expressing their views peacefully about the political and electoral processes. The number of Russian election observers who monitored this vote is unprecedented and a sign that Russian society seeks to participate in the improvement of Russia’s democratic institutions. We also recognize the government’s efforts to reform the political system, including the reintroduction of direct elections for governors, the simplification of party registration procedures, and the reduction in the numbers of signatures needed to register presidential candidates.”