Joint Statement on the U.S.-Mexico Bilateral High Level Dialogue on Human Rights
The text of the following statement was released by the Governments of Mexico and the United States of America on the occasion of the 8th Annual U.S.-Mexico Bilateral High Level Dialogue on Human Rights.Begin text:
Today the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted the 8th annual Bilateral High Level Dialogue on Human Rights between Mexico and the United States.
Authorities from Mexico and the United States participated in a frank and constructive dialogue regarding issues of mutual interest in the field of human rights, both at the bilateral and multilateral level. During this year’s meeting, both countries stressed their commitment to strengthen cooperation, reaffirm joint values, and continue to work in the effective promotion and protection of human rights.
During the dialogue, Mexico and the United States exchanged points of view on the work of the relevant organs of the United Nations (UN)—including the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly—and of the Organization of American States (OAS), in order to strengthen their relevance for addressing global and regional challenges in the field of human rights as well as to promote democracy in the Western Hemisphere.
At the meeting, Mexico and the United States reviewed issues such as international migration; the human rights of LGBTI persons and the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; and the protection of vulnerable groups such as child migrants. Both countries also discussed the need to find sustainable solutions to the financial situation of the organs of the Inter-American System.
A wide bilateral agenda was also discussed during the dialogue, including issues such as the death penalty and consular notification; the human rights of migrants and the use of force at the border; and the improvement of police practices and the criminal justice system, particularly with regard to the treatment of minorities. The two governments discussed actions to prevent and eradicate torture and forced disappearances and to protect human rights defenders and journalists, noting the important work of civil society in addressing human rights concerns. Both sides agreed to the importance of successful investigations leading to prosecutions of individuals engaged in crimes such as torture and forced disappearances. In addition, both governments recognized Mexican government efforts to ensure the establishment of the follow-up mechanism for the Iguala case in response to recommendations by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.
Both delegations reaffirmed the importance of cooperation with international human rights mechanisms, including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as giving adequate attention to recommendations issued by such bodies.
Finally, on this occasion both countries shared their efforts in response to the challenges presented by international migration and asylum seekers. They reaffirmed the need to work together to follow up on their commitments from the 71st session of the General Assembly in September—particularly in working toward the adoption of a global compact for safe, ordered, and regular migration in 2018. In addition, both sides acknowledged the leadership of President Barack Obama in convening the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees. The Summit, which was co-hosted by President Peña Nieto, illustrated the importance of multilateral actions and concrete commitments in addressing the global challenge of responding to the needs of refugees.
The delegation of Mexico was led by Ambassador Miguel Ruiz-Cabañas Izquierdo, Undersecretary for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and included Roberto Campa Cifrián, Undersecretary for Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior; José Guadalupe Medina Romero, Deputy Attorney General for Federal Crimes of the Attorney-General’s Office; as well as high level representatives of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Presidency, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of the Navy, and other officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The United States Delegation was co-led by Roberta S. Jacobson, Ambassador of the United States in Mexico and Tom Malinowski, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The delegation included Michael G. Kozak, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; John Kreul, Principal Director for Western Hemisphere Issues, Department of Defense; Colleen Hoey, Director of the Office of Mexican Affairs in the Department of State; as well as officials from the Embassy of the United States in Mexico.
Daily Press Briefing - October 27, 2016
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 27, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
TRANSCRIPT:
2:17 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Afternoon. Just a short travel announcement here, and we’ll get right after it. I think you probably saw our announcement, but the Secretary will be traveling to Tipperary, Ireland on the 30th of October, where he will meet with the Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan for a discussion about the Northern Ireland peace process and a range of regional and global issues. While he’s there, the Secretary will also accept the Tipperary International Peace Award, which will be awarded by the Tipperary Peace Convention to honor the Secretary’s efforts to end conflicts in a number of countries.
The Secretary will then travel to London on the 31st to meet with international counterparts for a discussion about the situation in Libya and ways to improve support for the Government of National Accord. While he’s there, he will also accept two awards, the Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership and the Chatham House Prize, which I think we’ve already talked a little bit about.
And as you know, the Chatham House Prize is given to a statesperson for significant contributions to the improvement of international relations. The Secretary was named the 2016 recipient jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership is being given to Secretary Kerry for his lasting contributions to diplomacy, public service, and human rights. The medal recognizes those individuals who follow in Benjamin Franklin’s footsteps by exemplifying great vision, cross-cultural understanding, effectiveness, and intellectual rigor.
While he’s in London, the Secretary will also have an opportunity to sit down with the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and, together with the mayor, engage in a discussion with London youth on current issues, including climate change and countering violent extremism.
So it’s a short trip but lots going on inside of it, and the Secretary is looking forward to that. They will leave Saturday evening.
QUESTION: Will he be home in time for Thanksgiving – for – not for Thanksgiving, for Halloween – excuse me?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think – I think he’s going to miss trick-or-treating. I’ll take a look at --
QUESTION: But he’s being honored for public service and human rights and --
MR KIRBY: But he’s going to miss out on the M&Ms and the candy bars.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I don’t think he’s going to make it back in time for that.
Matt.
QUESTION: I just wanted – you’ve seen the reports, the news about this shooting outside the embassy in Nairobi?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you can offer us any details that you might have about what happened there.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me get you that. Where is it, Elizabeth? Here it is, right on the top. I looked in Africa; she put it right in top under American citizens.
So we can confirm that there was a shooting incident today near our U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. Kenyan security personnel responded swiftly, and the incident appears now to be over. No embassy personnel were injured in this attack, and we know of no other U.S. citizens that were involved. The embassy is closed for the evening, and the ambassador and senior staff are reviewing their operations for tomorrow. Obviously, we’re going to continue to closely monitor the situation, and we will release information as needed to help U.S. citizens make informed travel decisions.
Last thing I’ll say is it’s obviously very early here in the wake of this incident and the investigation by Kenyan authorities is just now starting. So we’ll be in close communication with Kenyan authorities as they look at this, and we’re going to obviously await the results of that investigation to assess any possible follow-on actions by the embassy.
QUESTION: But you have no idea as to the motive of this – the guy who was – why he was there, what he --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything that I can report specifically about motive or what the intention was.
QUESTION: Can you be clear just on – our reporting at least says that a knife-wielding man whom Kenyan police described as a criminal was shot dead outside the embassy in Nairobi. You described it as a shooting incident. I just want to be clear. The – is it your understanding that there were shots exchanged, or was this, as we’ve been told, a man with a knife who was shot dead by security personnel?
MR KIRBY: My understanding is, early on, that the individual was brandishing a knife and it was security forces which engaged with gunfire. But again, very early on. I think we need to let the investigators do their job. But that’s my early understanding.
QUESTION: And it’s your understanding that he was – that the man was indeed killed?
MR KIRBY: That’s my understanding, that the man brandishing the knife was killed by security forces.
QUESTION: And then last thing. And I realize you said that it’s early in the investigation, but do – as of now, do you have any reason to suspect that the man had links to terrorist or militant groups?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ve seen the press reporting of what he is reported to have exclaimed right before security forces engaged, but I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of that. I don’t know. And I don’t know at all what motivations might have been behind this. Why don’t we just let the investigators do their jobs? Okay?
Matt, did you have something else?
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to get at the – what has become the daily non-update/update, I guess, on the discussions about Syria, and in particular the situation in Aleppo, the discussions that are going on in Geneva, but also if there have been any additional conversations.
MR KIRBY: The meetings in Geneva continue. I don’t have anything specifically to read out. They’re still talking. We still have gaps we’re trying to close, and I don’t have additional conversations to read out with respect to the Secretary.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked about that Amnesty International report.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have --
MR KIRBY: About the civilian casualties?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: This is about the report that the Pentagon’s under-counting? Is that the one you’re talking about?
QUESTION: I believe it was a report that talked about a number of civilians being killed in strikes that you guys have said that you were involved in. I believe that’s the – the one that you were asked about yesterday, and you said you were looking at the report. And I’m just wondering if you have any update.
MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update. I think we’re still going through that. But I’m not sure you and I are talking about the same one. I believe what you’re talking about is we were being asked about an Amnesty report that said the Pentagon was under-counting --
QUESTION: It may have been that.
MR KIRBY: And as far as I know, both here at the State Department and the Pentagon are still going through that. And as I said yesterday – I’ll take the opportunity to say it again – we take all credible allegations seriously, and, unlike other nations, we actually investigate them. And when we learn our lessons from them, we tell people what we’ve learned and we try to fix it. But I just don’t have an update.
QUESTION: Can I – can we go back to Aleppo? Yesterday there was a very contentious meeting at the UN Security Council, particularly charges of war crimes by UN – U.S. Ambassador to the UN Sam Power. Essentially, Russia – I’m sure you’ve seen the comments. Russia was kind of taking credit for the pause in airstrikes, and basically, Ambassador Power says well, you know, you don’t get congratulations for stopping for a week from committing war crimes.
So I’m just wondering, was that a personal reflection? Has this Administration concluded that Russia is, indeed, committing war crimes in Syria? There have been other countries – Britain, France, their foreign ministers have said that what’s going on in Aleppo is considered war crimes, and now in the wake of the attack in Idlib on the school, killing over a dozen children, I’m wondering if – how that affects your calculations.
MR KIRBY: Over two dozen is the latest count that I have in that school in Idlib. Look, I think the Secretary has been equally as candid and forthright about this and saying that what he’s seeing can be – can only be couched as violations of international law. The term “war crimes” itself has a very legalistic definition, and it’s not for me at this podium or for us here at the State Department to make that definitive qualification.
QUESTION: Well, why is not for you, but it was for Ambassador Power to say that yesterday?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think Ambassador Power was simply restating what we have all said is our assessment, that these are violations of international law. But the --
QUESTION: No, she specifically said war crimes. And I know that we go back on this back and forth. Is there an effort within this building to make a determination of whether that’s war crimes and whether that would be referred to the International Criminal Court? I mean, I know you’re trying to parse this out, but I mean, she said war crimes; the Secretary said that an investigation of war crimes is appropriate.
MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And this has gone beyond violations of international law now. I’m wondering where you are in your trajectory in terms of trying to make a determination.
MR KIRBY: It’s not up to the State Department to make a determination, Elise. But as the Secretary has said, he does believe that what’s going on is worthy of investigation by the international community. And the determination of war crimes is – that’s a – it’s a – it needs to be made by appropriate – by an appropriate judicial process, not by one cabinet agency just making a declaration of it.
I think we’ve been very clear, and I don’t think you have to look any further than transcripts to see where the Secretary’s head is on what’s going on here. But he recognizes that war crimes has a very legalistic definition and that – that’s why he wants it to be investigated. He wants it to be looked at. He wants there to be a determination by the international community one way or the other.
QUESTION: Well, where are – okay, well, where are you on that? I mean, the Secretary made some kind of vague remark saying, well, we should consider whether we want to investigate this as war crimes. Is the U.S. calling for a formal investigation of whether war crimes are being committed? I mean, you wouldn’t be alone. There’s the British, there’s the French, today UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said something about if this school attack was deliberate it would be considered a war crime, you have the head of UNICEF – so, I mean, it’s not like you’re out on a limb here. And where are you in terms of working with the international community to see if war crimes are being committed?
MR KIRBY: We are still having conversations inside the international community about next steps, and I’m not going to get ahead of that.
QUESTION: Can we stay with Aleppo and Syria?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Russian President Putin is quoted as having said today that Russia has no option but to clear Aleppo of what he described as a, quote, “nest of terrorists,” close quote, despite the fact that civilians are also present in the city. Do you have any comment on his apparent intent to continue the attack on Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, his comments are not inconsistent with the actions that we’ve seen in recent days, if not weeks, by the Russian military and the Assad regime. I think the Secretary addressed this himself in saying that, when asked about this flotilla that was heading ostensibly into the Mediterranean, that if that’s their intention to reduce Aleppo to rubble, then they will do nothing more than encourage the opposition to keep fighting, make a cessation of hostilities all the more elusive if not impossible, and bolster the rise of extremism in Aleppo as well as prolong a war that should not be – I mean, you would think, you would hope that that – that the Russians would see that’s clearly not in their interests. But the president’s comments today are sadly all too in keeping with the actions we’ve seen out of Russian military forces.
QUESTION: And the Russian defense ministry spokesman is quoted as saying that Russia, Russian planes did not enter the Syrian region where the school was hit yesterday. I’ve seen that the White House has since said that they believe it was either Russian or Syrian planes. Do you believe the Russian denial that their planes were in that area? And therefore, do you conclude that it was Syrian planes or do you have an open mind and you haven’t made a – reached a judgment on this?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would completely concur with my White House colleague that we – we’re not sure exactly whose aircraft it was, but we know information that we have makes it – indicates that it was either Russian or Syrian, and I just don’t know.
QUESTION: Well, has anybody else – I mean, is there a suggestion that --
MR KIRBY: I think the coalition has already spoken to the fact that they had no aircraft in the area, and the only other ones it could be is Russia and Syria. I just don’t know which.
Okay. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, General Townsend stressed the importance of liberating Raqqa as quickly as possible and he said that the YPG is the only force on the ground that is capable of doing that with U.S. air support. But the political leadership of the YPG has said they can’t move on Raqqa while Turkey is attacking them in other places. So there seems to be a more general strategic problem. Why should the YPG fight and die to liberate Raqqa without getting anything in exchange?
MR KIRBY: That is a classically loaded question, isn’t it? Look, first of all, I’m not going to get ahead of military operations. I saw what comments were made by defense leaders yesterday and I’m not going to speculate about timing or composition or any of the operational details with respect to Raqqa. The Secretary himself has said publicly that we know we need to remove Daesh from Raqqa, their so-called capital of the caliphate – the so-called caliphate in Syria. But I’m not going to get ahead of that.
Number two, with respect to operations against Daesh, as I have said I don’t know how many times this week, we want – especially in that part of Syria, in that particular area, but everywhere, we want military activity to be coordinated. And uncoordinated military activity is counterproductive to the larger, overarching goal, which is going after Daesh. And this gets to the continued reports of clashes between Syrian fighters on the ground and also Turkish forces. We believe that these uncoordinated activities are not helping us with the overall goal.
Now, as to who should do what and why should they do it, and why shouldn’t they do it, I think obviously every group that’s involved in the fight against Daesh, every entity, every nation, has to make decisions for themselves about what they will do or what they won’t do. I can’t get into their heads on that. What I can tell you is that broadly speaking, the coalition, which is now 66 nations strong, and does include groups on the ground in Syria – obviously, who aren’t nations; I understand that – maintain and should maintain their focus on Daesh as a common enemy. And that’s what we want everybody to be focused from a military perspective.
But I can assure you that, without getting into operational details, whatever the coalition decides to do with respect to Daesh in Syria, it will be as a coalition, and it will be as a team. And that’s the only way that we’re going to be able to sustain a lasting defeat of this group.
QUESTION: Well, my question actually echoes a recent column by David Ignatius, who is raising the same --
MR KIRBY: I’ve read it.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay.
MR KIRBY: I’ve read it.
QUESTION: Is raising the same issue. I know it was a difficult problem dealing with ISIS in this area, and tendency to postpone the most difficult aspects of that problem, but don’t you need some kind of Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation in order to present to the YPG something reasonable in exchange for the sacrifices they’re being asked to make?
MR KIRBY: There – first of all, we obviously respect and admire the sacrifices that they have made. And we recognize that they have been brave and courageous in the field. And we have supported them through air power, and I believe the general said yesterday that we’ll continue to do that – that the coalition will continue to support from the air what they’re able to do on the ground, and that will continue.
Now, you talked about Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation. I think it’s no secret to anybody that there have been tensions there between the Kurds and between – and Turkey. And we have long talked about the fact that we recognize that, and that we have had discussions with Turkish leaders about their apprehensions and their concerns. We’ve also said that it’s important as a coalition that we stay focused on Daesh, and that to the degree everybody is capable of doing it, laying aside other issues, other contentions, and focusing on Daesh as required. And again, as a coalition, we’re going to continue to make that case to every member.
QUESTION: Well, I understood that President Erdogan and President Obama had a very long phone conversation last night, and perhaps President Obama explained the importance of this to the Turkish president. But if he had earlier on told Erdogan, who seemed to have a picked a fight with the Kurds in order to bolster – boost his domestic position that this was just unacceptable to – in current circumstances, might the situation now not be easier?
MR KIRBY: I – look, we could Monday morning quarterback this all day long, and I’m not going to do that. Yes, the President had a good discussion with President Erdogan last night. I think the White House put out a readout of that. I’m not going to go beyond that. Turkish concerns about Kurdish forces are longstanding, and we understand that. We recognize that. And we have – have and will continue to talk to them about those concerns. But what we continue to believe is most important is that everybody focus on the fight against Daesh, that that’s where everybody’s attention ought to be.
Now, Turkey is facing real terrorist threats from the PKK and we recognize the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization. And we have, once again – we will call for, we have called for, the PKK to lay down their arms, to renounce terrorism, and to go back to the negotiating table. That’s what needs to happen long term for the kind of peace and security and stability that I think the Turkish Government and the Turkish people want and deserve.
But we’re going to continue to have these discussions and we’re going to continue to press the case for the – a united coalition effort against Daesh. That’s the common enemy. That’s the enemy of all the members of the coalition, and so it would follow that you’d want everybody focused on that common threat.
QUESTION: Do you have a – just a general comment on the main thrust of Mr. Ignatius’s column, which is that the United States has a history of using, exploiting, and then abandoning military allies in the Middle East?
MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to – I don’t know that I’d characterize his conclusions the same way, but I would argue that --
QUESTION: Wait, wait. You don’t know if you would characterize it in exactly the same way?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t characterize it the same way.
QUESTION: You would not. Oh, okay. All right, well, I just was kind of surprised that you weren’t denying it.
MR KIRBY: With all due respect, with all due respect to Mr. Ignatius – and I know he’s done some excellent reporting out of the region and that he talks to many people there, I fully respect what he says and where he gets his information. But I think – and I’m not saying that he said writ large that America has this reputation of abandoning allies, and I don’t think it’s borne by history, any reading of American history.
QUESTION: Well, do you acknowledge the perception that this is – even if you don’t agree with the conclusion, that is the perception in the region?
MR KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak for the perception of every person in the region. I am certainly not doubting the veracity of those who Mr. Ignatius talked to or who have also expressed similar opinions. But – and I’m not going to try to get into the mind of everybody in the region. I can tell you that unequivocally the United States still maintains significant interests in the region. We have significant commitments that we continue to meet in the region, not just in – with respect to Syria. And I don’t think anybody can reasonably look at recent history and say that the United States is abandoning our friends and partners or abandoning our responsibilities or the leadership role that we have taken, whether it’s Secretary Kerry leading efforts to establish the ISSG and to try to get a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria, whether it’s the United States leading, putting together this 66-member nation coalition to fight Daesh in the region, or any number of other issues that we’re leading the way on in the Middle East to try to get to better outcomes.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we move to Asia, or are there more Syria questions?
MR KIRBY: Asia.
QUESTION: Okay. China again seems to be making a mockery out of these UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea. According to the Korea International Trade Association as reported by Yonhap, Chinese export of jet fuel to the DPRK jumped nearly 400 percent in September for a year earlier; $9.7 million last month. And what are your concerns about this? What is the U.S. doing to try to close these loop holes? The only the loopholes that are supposed to be humanitarian concerns. It’s hard to argue that infants are going to eat jet fuel in North Korea. And can you give us an update on basically what communications you’re having with the Chinese about this?
MR KIRBY: We routinely have conversations with the Chinese about the importance of continuing pressure on the DPRK. We continue to urge the entire international community to fully implement and comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 2270. Chinese officials themselves have made clear that they intend to implement that resolution, and we’re engaged in an ongoing --
QUESTION: When? When are they going to implement them?
MR KIRBY: That they are going – that they have said they’re – that they’re – they are going to meet their obligations and --
QUESTION: And did they say when they were going to do that? Because in addition to the jet fuel, I understand that coal has also risen. Imports of North Korean coal to China have also increased since the resolution was actually passed, right?
MR KIRBY: I’m not familiar with that particular fact, Elise. What I can tell you is the Chinese have stated their intention to fully comply and to meet their requirements under the --
QUESTION: Well, but I mean, is it --
MR KIRBY: Under the resolution and our expectation and the expectation of the international community is that they’ll do that --
QUESTION: But will --
MR KIRBY: -- and we have routine conversations with them. The deputy secretary is in the region. He will have these kinds of conversations as well with Chinese officials.
QUESTION: I understand. But I mean, I’m glad that they told you that they plan on doing it, but did they give you any kind of road map to when they’re going to do it? Because when was --
MR KIRBY: We have already seen them implement measures of the resolution. We’ve already seen them implement. Now --
QUESTION: But, I mean, one of the main ones was coal, for instance. And, I mean, like I said, it’s not just – I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it, but officials in your own building are saying that North Korean coal has increased into China since the resolution was passed. So, I mean, I’m glad that they told you that they’re going to do it, but do you – how do you use your leverage to get them to actually do it? Because it’s clear that they’re not doing it up till now. What do --
MR KIRBY: There’s been a historic issue with the – with some nations meeting all their obligations under UNSCR resolutions, and I’ve talked about it here publicly, that in the past we’ve not seen China completely comply. And when we have concerns about compliance, we’re not going to be bashful about expressing them. We continue to have discussions with the Chinese about their obligations and their commitments under this particular resolution and every other one before it. And we’re going – and we’ll continue to have those conversations.
QUESTION: But has there been specific communication about coal and jet fuel going to North Korea?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I’m not going to read out diplomatic conversations.
QUESTION: Well, isn’t that what your talks are about, specifically strengthening those on the – on this new UN resolution – isn’t it specifically about strengthening those provisions?
MR KIRBY: Yes. We are talking to the international community and to other members of the UN Security Council about making sure we are staying in compliance with the resolutions already passed, and considering the developing and application of additional, maybe even tougher sanctions. So obviously we’re going to have to continue to talk to Chinese leaders in particular about this, since China does have – perhaps more than other – any other member has an economic stake here – I mean, with a border with the north. And there have been problems with Chinese compliance in the past. I’m not going to dodge that, and we’re going to continue to talk to them about their commitments going forward.
QUESTION: Kirby, it’s my understanding that coal is permitted under the so-called livelihood clause of the most recent resolution, right?
MR KIRBY: That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But I’m not an expert on this and I can’t speak to specific coal shipments today.
QUESTION: Well, okay. I think that’s the case. So my next question was: Is jet fuel permissible under – I guess it’s different, because you’re talking about coal exports from North Korea to China, but are – from your understanding, and if you don’t know, could you take it – are Chinese jet fuel exports to North Korea permissible under existing legislation and under the existing sanctions resolution?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ll have to see.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I’m just not an expert on the language. I’ll have to check.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. First, follow-up on this. A few months ago, I had raised this question about the – there is a corridor of trade between North Korea and China, and has the U.S. tried to ask for international monitors on that corridor? Because that’s from – through which everything is going on.
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such request. I’m not aware of any such request.
QUESTION: Because the sanctions do not matter to North Korea with China having an open trade corridor going on.
MR KIRBY: I think I’ve addressed this issue as far as I can today.
QUESTION: Okay. The other one is about the diplomatic tit for tat going on between India and Pakistan. India expelled a diplomat, Pakistan expelled a diplomat, and now it’s a rising tension. So are you worried about it? Do you have any comments on that?
MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the reports of these decisions. These are sovereign decisions that nation-states make, and these are issues that we’re going to leave to India and Pakistan to work out.
QUESTION: But in the past, usually these decisions are followed by firing across the line, across the borders, and then escalating into further. So --
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we don’t want to see that happen, but let’s not get ahead of events.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: These are issues that we believe India and Pakistan need to discuss, need to talk about, need to work out between themselves. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Back to North Korea, if that’s okay. I’d like to circle back to the he said/he said between you and DNI Clapper a few days ago. I know you can’t talk about specific intelligence, but can you broadly say that you share most of the same intelligence throughout the Administration?
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters – (laughter) – one way or the other from up here.
QUESTION: The reason I ask this is because how can two people have – or two organizations have essentially the same intelligence and come to wildly different conclusions? He’s saying there is no – there’s no hope for denuclearization on the peninsula; you said a few minutes later that the U.S. remains committed to it. Who should we believe? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Both.
MR KIRBY: Thank you, Arshad. Look, I think we all share concerns about the direction that the north is taking, all of us. And the concerns expressed by DNI Clapper are not new concerns, and we share them. We do share concerns about the increasing provocative nature of not just their rhetoric but their actions with respect to developing nuclear weapons. No question about that.
And what’s why we continue to work inside the international community to put more pressure – to apply more pressure on the North. And that’s why we’re having an active conversation in the UN about the possibility for additional sanctions. And that’s why we maintain a robust military presence on the peninsula, because we have real security commitments to our South Korean allies and to the region to be able to respond militarily if that’s required.
So I think everybody has – everybody shares the same sense of urgency here. I didn’t see a big gulf between what the director said and what we’ve been saying all along. The question that was posed to me was: Is that U.S. policy, that we’re just – that we’re going to give up on trying to achieve a verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. And the answer is very simple: No, it’s not. And that’s not just the State Department, it’s not just one agency; it’s the entire U.S. Government. Our policy is the same. We want to see a verifiable denuclearization on the peninsula.
Now, it is – I don’t think it should come as a shock to anybody that people may have different views about the odds of achieving that, but that is the goal, and that’s what we’re after. And the best way to do that is a return to the Six-Party Talk process. And we’ve said all along we’re ready to do that. The onus is on the North to prove that they’re able and willing, and thus far they have not proven willing to do that.
QUESTION: Is part of this trying to influence the debate for the next administration, which by my calculations, I think, is the thirteenth that will be dealing with the North Korean issue?
MR KIRBY: Is what --
QUESTION: Is it trying to influence the debate for the next administration?
MR KIRBY: What is?
QUESTION: Like this – you say there’s no gulf, but one says that – that it’s not possible. You’re saying you’re still committed to it. Usually these aren’t in public, these sort of disagreements. So I’m just --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I take issue with the fact that there’s some big disagreement here. But let’s put that aside for a second.
I – the concerns about what’s going on in North Korea are not set by, established by, affected by the political calendar here in the United States. I’m well aware we have an election coming up, and I think we’re all well aware that in January we’re going to have a new president. And that new president will have to make decisions about where things are going with respect to North Korea.
But what we’re focused on is what has been, not just on this Administration but administrations past, is a consistent policy of applying pressure to the North and trying to achieve a verifiable, complete denuclearization of the peninsula, which we think is in the best interest not only of the people who live on the peninsula, North and South, but everybody in the region, if not here in the United States.
So I just don’t see it the same way you do. I got that he offered a frank assessment. That’s his job. He’s the head of intelligence for the United States of America and his job is to be candid. His job is to look at threats and his job is to assess where things are going. But that doesn’t mean that he was saying any – that he was denouncing or walking back or changing our policy objectives, which is that denuclearization. So I just don’t see it the same way you do.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, on the ROK and Japan, do you have anything on the fact that your allies are going to restart GSOMIA --
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear you.
QUESTION: -- GSOMIA, the military information sharing?
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. You’re going to have to repeat your question. I didn’t get it.
QUESTION: All right. Can you hear me better now?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on the fact that the ROK and Japan are going to start talks on GSOMIA, the military information sharing?
MR KIRBY: Oh, okay. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Thanks. Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we did note the recent announcement by the governments of the Republic of Korea and Japan to resume negotiations on what’s called a bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement, which is I think you called GSOMIA. I’ll defer to you on how to pronounce that acronym.
We believe that this potential agreement would strengthen cooperation between our two closest allies in Northeast Asia, particularly in light of the growing threat posed by North Korea. So we welcome the fact that they’re having those discussions.
Okay. I got time for just a couple more.
QUESTION: Staying in the region, do you have a readout on Deputy Secretary Blinken’s trilateral in Tokyo with his Korean and Japanese counterparts?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. So on the trilateral meeting, the deputy secretary had productive discussions with both his counterparts from Japan and from South Korea. They reaffirmed the importance of our trilateral cooperation in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region, particularly regarding the threat posed by the DPRK nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They also reiterated the important contributions our trilateral cooperation continues to make on global issues, including things like climate change, global health, and women’s empowerment. So good discussions. Okay.
QUESTION: Wait. (Laughter.) I ain’t going to let you get out of here that easily.
MR KIRBY: First and last.
QUESTION: I’ve got two – they’re brief, though.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: They both kind of --
MR KIRBY: I’ve heard that before.
QUESTION: They both kind of involve the UN. One, you may have seen that Burundi formally notified the UN today that they were withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, which prompted Ambassador Power to suggest that the Burundian Government was memorializing its – I can’t remember her exact words – something like its passion or its approval or for – approval of impunity. Do you have anything to add to her comments?
MR KIRBY: Well, no, I don’t think I can improve upon that. I mean, obviously we’re following these developments – these – this closely. And again, I wouldn’t also get ahead of events or speculate one way or the other, but I mean, I think we share her general sense of concern.
QUESTION: All right, I think, actually, it was something about their opposition to accountability or something like that. Anyway, but you don’t – you do not have anything more to add?
MR KIRBY: I don’t.
QUESTION: All right. And then earlier this week, there was a UN expert speaking up at the UN in New York about Haiti and the cholera epidemic. And in his comments, he described the UN response as a disgrace and also alluded to or suggested – hinted may be another word – that the reason the UN took the position that it took when people tried to get some accountability for the introduction of cholera into Haiti was at the behest of the United States. Can you address that? Is that correct? Did you pressure or push the UN into not responding?
MR KIRBY: No, we did not. We have been very clear that we do not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this particular case. We do not take a position.
QUESTION: But you did take a position in favor of the United Nations, correct?
MR KIRBY: What we’ve said is we support efforts by the special rapporteur to give greater prominence to the plight of those living in extreme poverty. We have said before that we welcomed the secretary-general’s acceptance of the UN’s moral responsibility for the cholera outbreak and his recent statement expressing regret for the loss of life. We’ve also said that we recognize more must be done and we support the UN’s ongoing efforts to design an assistance package to assist those most affected by cholera including in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. So we look forward to receiving the secretary-general’s proposal for the provision of a package of assistance and support to Haitians most affected by the cholera.
QUESTION: Thanks and then the --
QUESTION: Wait, sorry just on that. Why, just so I’m clear – I think Matt’s fundamental question was: Did the U.S. Government at any time discourage the UN from taking responsibility, right? Was that fundamentally your question?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: And did you ever do that in the past?
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that we discouraged them from taking responsibility. I said we’ve – we welcomed that --
QUESTION: No, I get that --
MR KIRBY: -- the secretary-general said it was a moral responsibility. But with respect to the actual claims, we did not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this case.
QUESTION: But couldn’t you – couldn’t you discourage them from taking responsibility even if you don’t take a position on the underlying claims? Look, you could say, “Look, I don’t know who did this, but it’s going to be bad if you take responsibility, so don’t do that.”
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, could we have? I don’t know. I suppose we could have. I’m not aware that we did. What I can tell you is we did not take a position on the underlying claims and we did welcome the secretary-general’s actions and his comments on this matter going forward.
QUESTION: The last one – and this is extremely brief – is that you talked several times about this – the anti-ISIS coalition being 66 nations. Is that up recently?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Have new members --
MR KIRBY: Afghanistan joined several months ago, making it 66.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR KIRBY: All right, thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)
MR KIRBY: Afternoon. Just a short travel announcement here, and we’ll get right after it. I think you probably saw our announcement, but the Secretary will be traveling to Tipperary, Ireland on the 30th of October, where he will meet with the Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan for a discussion about the Northern Ireland peace process and a range of regional and global issues. While he’s there, the Secretary will also accept the Tipperary International Peace Award, which will be awarded by the Tipperary Peace Convention to honor the Secretary’s efforts to end conflicts in a number of countries.
The Secretary will then travel to London on the 31st to meet with international counterparts for a discussion about the situation in Libya and ways to improve support for the Government of National Accord. While he’s there, he will also accept two awards, the Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership and the Chatham House Prize, which I think we’ve already talked a little bit about.
And as you know, the Chatham House Prize is given to a statesperson for significant contributions to the improvement of international relations. The Secretary was named the 2016 recipient jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership is being given to Secretary Kerry for his lasting contributions to diplomacy, public service, and human rights. The medal recognizes those individuals who follow in Benjamin Franklin’s footsteps by exemplifying great vision, cross-cultural understanding, effectiveness, and intellectual rigor.
While he’s in London, the Secretary will also have an opportunity to sit down with the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and, together with the mayor, engage in a discussion with London youth on current issues, including climate change and countering violent extremism.
So it’s a short trip but lots going on inside of it, and the Secretary is looking forward to that. They will leave Saturday evening.
QUESTION: Will he be home in time for Thanksgiving – for – not for Thanksgiving, for Halloween – excuse me?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think – I think he’s going to miss trick-or-treating. I’ll take a look at --
QUESTION: But he’s being honored for public service and human rights and --
MR KIRBY: But he’s going to miss out on the M&Ms and the candy bars.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I don’t think he’s going to make it back in time for that.
Matt.
QUESTION: I just wanted – you’ve seen the reports, the news about this shooting outside the embassy in Nairobi?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you can offer us any details that you might have about what happened there.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me get you that. Where is it, Elizabeth? Here it is, right on the top. I looked in Africa; she put it right in top under American citizens.
So we can confirm that there was a shooting incident today near our U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. Kenyan security personnel responded swiftly, and the incident appears now to be over. No embassy personnel were injured in this attack, and we know of no other U.S. citizens that were involved. The embassy is closed for the evening, and the ambassador and senior staff are reviewing their operations for tomorrow. Obviously, we’re going to continue to closely monitor the situation, and we will release information as needed to help U.S. citizens make informed travel decisions.
Last thing I’ll say is it’s obviously very early here in the wake of this incident and the investigation by Kenyan authorities is just now starting. So we’ll be in close communication with Kenyan authorities as they look at this, and we’re going to obviously await the results of that investigation to assess any possible follow-on actions by the embassy.
QUESTION: But you have no idea as to the motive of this – the guy who was – why he was there, what he --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything that I can report specifically about motive or what the intention was.
QUESTION: Can you be clear just on – our reporting at least says that a knife-wielding man whom Kenyan police described as a criminal was shot dead outside the embassy in Nairobi. You described it as a shooting incident. I just want to be clear. The – is it your understanding that there were shots exchanged, or was this, as we’ve been told, a man with a knife who was shot dead by security personnel?
MR KIRBY: My understanding is, early on, that the individual was brandishing a knife and it was security forces which engaged with gunfire. But again, very early on. I think we need to let the investigators do their job. But that’s my early understanding.
QUESTION: And it’s your understanding that he was – that the man was indeed killed?
MR KIRBY: That’s my understanding, that the man brandishing the knife was killed by security forces.
QUESTION: And then last thing. And I realize you said that it’s early in the investigation, but do – as of now, do you have any reason to suspect that the man had links to terrorist or militant groups?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ve seen the press reporting of what he is reported to have exclaimed right before security forces engaged, but I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of that. I don’t know. And I don’t know at all what motivations might have been behind this. Why don’t we just let the investigators do their jobs? Okay?
Matt, did you have something else?
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to get at the – what has become the daily non-update/update, I guess, on the discussions about Syria, and in particular the situation in Aleppo, the discussions that are going on in Geneva, but also if there have been any additional conversations.
MR KIRBY: The meetings in Geneva continue. I don’t have anything specifically to read out. They’re still talking. We still have gaps we’re trying to close, and I don’t have additional conversations to read out with respect to the Secretary.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked about that Amnesty International report.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have --
MR KIRBY: About the civilian casualties?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: This is about the report that the Pentagon’s under-counting? Is that the one you’re talking about?
QUESTION: I believe it was a report that talked about a number of civilians being killed in strikes that you guys have said that you were involved in. I believe that’s the – the one that you were asked about yesterday, and you said you were looking at the report. And I’m just wondering if you have any update.
MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update. I think we’re still going through that. But I’m not sure you and I are talking about the same one. I believe what you’re talking about is we were being asked about an Amnesty report that said the Pentagon was under-counting --
QUESTION: It may have been that.
MR KIRBY: And as far as I know, both here at the State Department and the Pentagon are still going through that. And as I said yesterday – I’ll take the opportunity to say it again – we take all credible allegations seriously, and, unlike other nations, we actually investigate them. And when we learn our lessons from them, we tell people what we’ve learned and we try to fix it. But I just don’t have an update.
QUESTION: Can I – can we go back to Aleppo? Yesterday there was a very contentious meeting at the UN Security Council, particularly charges of war crimes by UN – U.S. Ambassador to the UN Sam Power. Essentially, Russia – I’m sure you’ve seen the comments. Russia was kind of taking credit for the pause in airstrikes, and basically, Ambassador Power says well, you know, you don’t get congratulations for stopping for a week from committing war crimes.
So I’m just wondering, was that a personal reflection? Has this Administration concluded that Russia is, indeed, committing war crimes in Syria? There have been other countries – Britain, France, their foreign ministers have said that what’s going on in Aleppo is considered war crimes, and now in the wake of the attack in Idlib on the school, killing over a dozen children, I’m wondering if – how that affects your calculations.
MR KIRBY: Over two dozen is the latest count that I have in that school in Idlib. Look, I think the Secretary has been equally as candid and forthright about this and saying that what he’s seeing can be – can only be couched as violations of international law. The term “war crimes” itself has a very legalistic definition, and it’s not for me at this podium or for us here at the State Department to make that definitive qualification.
QUESTION: Well, why is not for you, but it was for Ambassador Power to say that yesterday?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think Ambassador Power was simply restating what we have all said is our assessment, that these are violations of international law. But the --
QUESTION: No, she specifically said war crimes. And I know that we go back on this back and forth. Is there an effort within this building to make a determination of whether that’s war crimes and whether that would be referred to the International Criminal Court? I mean, I know you’re trying to parse this out, but I mean, she said war crimes; the Secretary said that an investigation of war crimes is appropriate.
MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And this has gone beyond violations of international law now. I’m wondering where you are in your trajectory in terms of trying to make a determination.
MR KIRBY: It’s not up to the State Department to make a determination, Elise. But as the Secretary has said, he does believe that what’s going on is worthy of investigation by the international community. And the determination of war crimes is – that’s a – it’s a – it needs to be made by appropriate – by an appropriate judicial process, not by one cabinet agency just making a declaration of it.
I think we’ve been very clear, and I don’t think you have to look any further than transcripts to see where the Secretary’s head is on what’s going on here. But he recognizes that war crimes has a very legalistic definition and that – that’s why he wants it to be investigated. He wants it to be looked at. He wants there to be a determination by the international community one way or the other.
QUESTION: Well, where are – okay, well, where are you on that? I mean, the Secretary made some kind of vague remark saying, well, we should consider whether we want to investigate this as war crimes. Is the U.S. calling for a formal investigation of whether war crimes are being committed? I mean, you wouldn’t be alone. There’s the British, there’s the French, today UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said something about if this school attack was deliberate it would be considered a war crime, you have the head of UNICEF – so, I mean, it’s not like you’re out on a limb here. And where are you in terms of working with the international community to see if war crimes are being committed?
MR KIRBY: We are still having conversations inside the international community about next steps, and I’m not going to get ahead of that.
QUESTION: Can we stay with Aleppo and Syria?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Russian President Putin is quoted as having said today that Russia has no option but to clear Aleppo of what he described as a, quote, “nest of terrorists,” close quote, despite the fact that civilians are also present in the city. Do you have any comment on his apparent intent to continue the attack on Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, his comments are not inconsistent with the actions that we’ve seen in recent days, if not weeks, by the Russian military and the Assad regime. I think the Secretary addressed this himself in saying that, when asked about this flotilla that was heading ostensibly into the Mediterranean, that if that’s their intention to reduce Aleppo to rubble, then they will do nothing more than encourage the opposition to keep fighting, make a cessation of hostilities all the more elusive if not impossible, and bolster the rise of extremism in Aleppo as well as prolong a war that should not be – I mean, you would think, you would hope that that – that the Russians would see that’s clearly not in their interests. But the president’s comments today are sadly all too in keeping with the actions we’ve seen out of Russian military forces.
QUESTION: And the Russian defense ministry spokesman is quoted as saying that Russia, Russian planes did not enter the Syrian region where the school was hit yesterday. I’ve seen that the White House has since said that they believe it was either Russian or Syrian planes. Do you believe the Russian denial that their planes were in that area? And therefore, do you conclude that it was Syrian planes or do you have an open mind and you haven’t made a – reached a judgment on this?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would completely concur with my White House colleague that we – we’re not sure exactly whose aircraft it was, but we know information that we have makes it – indicates that it was either Russian or Syrian, and I just don’t know.
QUESTION: Well, has anybody else – I mean, is there a suggestion that --
MR KIRBY: I think the coalition has already spoken to the fact that they had no aircraft in the area, and the only other ones it could be is Russia and Syria. I just don’t know which.
Okay. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, General Townsend stressed the importance of liberating Raqqa as quickly as possible and he said that the YPG is the only force on the ground that is capable of doing that with U.S. air support. But the political leadership of the YPG has said they can’t move on Raqqa while Turkey is attacking them in other places. So there seems to be a more general strategic problem. Why should the YPG fight and die to liberate Raqqa without getting anything in exchange?
MR KIRBY: That is a classically loaded question, isn’t it? Look, first of all, I’m not going to get ahead of military operations. I saw what comments were made by defense leaders yesterday and I’m not going to speculate about timing or composition or any of the operational details with respect to Raqqa. The Secretary himself has said publicly that we know we need to remove Daesh from Raqqa, their so-called capital of the caliphate – the so-called caliphate in Syria. But I’m not going to get ahead of that.
Number two, with respect to operations against Daesh, as I have said I don’t know how many times this week, we want – especially in that part of Syria, in that particular area, but everywhere, we want military activity to be coordinated. And uncoordinated military activity is counterproductive to the larger, overarching goal, which is going after Daesh. And this gets to the continued reports of clashes between Syrian fighters on the ground and also Turkish forces. We believe that these uncoordinated activities are not helping us with the overall goal.
Now, as to who should do what and why should they do it, and why shouldn’t they do it, I think obviously every group that’s involved in the fight against Daesh, every entity, every nation, has to make decisions for themselves about what they will do or what they won’t do. I can’t get into their heads on that. What I can tell you is that broadly speaking, the coalition, which is now 66 nations strong, and does include groups on the ground in Syria – obviously, who aren’t nations; I understand that – maintain and should maintain their focus on Daesh as a common enemy. And that’s what we want everybody to be focused from a military perspective.
But I can assure you that, without getting into operational details, whatever the coalition decides to do with respect to Daesh in Syria, it will be as a coalition, and it will be as a team. And that’s the only way that we’re going to be able to sustain a lasting defeat of this group.
QUESTION: Well, my question actually echoes a recent column by David Ignatius, who is raising the same --
MR KIRBY: I’ve read it.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay.
MR KIRBY: I’ve read it.
QUESTION: Is raising the same issue. I know it was a difficult problem dealing with ISIS in this area, and tendency to postpone the most difficult aspects of that problem, but don’t you need some kind of Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation in order to present to the YPG something reasonable in exchange for the sacrifices they’re being asked to make?
MR KIRBY: There – first of all, we obviously respect and admire the sacrifices that they have made. And we recognize that they have been brave and courageous in the field. And we have supported them through air power, and I believe the general said yesterday that we’ll continue to do that – that the coalition will continue to support from the air what they’re able to do on the ground, and that will continue.
Now, you talked about Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation. I think it’s no secret to anybody that there have been tensions there between the Kurds and between – and Turkey. And we have long talked about the fact that we recognize that, and that we have had discussions with Turkish leaders about their apprehensions and their concerns. We’ve also said that it’s important as a coalition that we stay focused on Daesh, and that to the degree everybody is capable of doing it, laying aside other issues, other contentions, and focusing on Daesh as required. And again, as a coalition, we’re going to continue to make that case to every member.
QUESTION: Well, I understood that President Erdogan and President Obama had a very long phone conversation last night, and perhaps President Obama explained the importance of this to the Turkish president. But if he had earlier on told Erdogan, who seemed to have a picked a fight with the Kurds in order to bolster – boost his domestic position that this was just unacceptable to – in current circumstances, might the situation now not be easier?
MR KIRBY: I – look, we could Monday morning quarterback this all day long, and I’m not going to do that. Yes, the President had a good discussion with President Erdogan last night. I think the White House put out a readout of that. I’m not going to go beyond that. Turkish concerns about Kurdish forces are longstanding, and we understand that. We recognize that. And we have – have and will continue to talk to them about those concerns. But what we continue to believe is most important is that everybody focus on the fight against Daesh, that that’s where everybody’s attention ought to be.
Now, Turkey is facing real terrorist threats from the PKK and we recognize the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization. And we have, once again – we will call for, we have called for, the PKK to lay down their arms, to renounce terrorism, and to go back to the negotiating table. That’s what needs to happen long term for the kind of peace and security and stability that I think the Turkish Government and the Turkish people want and deserve.
But we’re going to continue to have these discussions and we’re going to continue to press the case for the – a united coalition effort against Daesh. That’s the common enemy. That’s the enemy of all the members of the coalition, and so it would follow that you’d want everybody focused on that common threat.
QUESTION: Do you have a – just a general comment on the main thrust of Mr. Ignatius’s column, which is that the United States has a history of using, exploiting, and then abandoning military allies in the Middle East?
MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to – I don’t know that I’d characterize his conclusions the same way, but I would argue that --
QUESTION: Wait, wait. You don’t know if you would characterize it in exactly the same way?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t characterize it the same way.
QUESTION: You would not. Oh, okay. All right, well, I just was kind of surprised that you weren’t denying it.
MR KIRBY: With all due respect, with all due respect to Mr. Ignatius – and I know he’s done some excellent reporting out of the region and that he talks to many people there, I fully respect what he says and where he gets his information. But I think – and I’m not saying that he said writ large that America has this reputation of abandoning allies, and I don’t think it’s borne by history, any reading of American history.
QUESTION: Well, do you acknowledge the perception that this is – even if you don’t agree with the conclusion, that is the perception in the region?
MR KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak for the perception of every person in the region. I am certainly not doubting the veracity of those who Mr. Ignatius talked to or who have also expressed similar opinions. But – and I’m not going to try to get into the mind of everybody in the region. I can tell you that unequivocally the United States still maintains significant interests in the region. We have significant commitments that we continue to meet in the region, not just in – with respect to Syria. And I don’t think anybody can reasonably look at recent history and say that the United States is abandoning our friends and partners or abandoning our responsibilities or the leadership role that we have taken, whether it’s Secretary Kerry leading efforts to establish the ISSG and to try to get a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria, whether it’s the United States leading, putting together this 66-member nation coalition to fight Daesh in the region, or any number of other issues that we’re leading the way on in the Middle East to try to get to better outcomes.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we move to Asia, or are there more Syria questions?
MR KIRBY: Asia.
QUESTION: Okay. China again seems to be making a mockery out of these UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea. According to the Korea International Trade Association as reported by Yonhap, Chinese export of jet fuel to the DPRK jumped nearly 400 percent in September for a year earlier; $9.7 million last month. And what are your concerns about this? What is the U.S. doing to try to close these loop holes? The only the loopholes that are supposed to be humanitarian concerns. It’s hard to argue that infants are going to eat jet fuel in North Korea. And can you give us an update on basically what communications you’re having with the Chinese about this?
MR KIRBY: We routinely have conversations with the Chinese about the importance of continuing pressure on the DPRK. We continue to urge the entire international community to fully implement and comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 2270. Chinese officials themselves have made clear that they intend to implement that resolution, and we’re engaged in an ongoing --
QUESTION: When? When are they going to implement them?
MR KIRBY: That they are going – that they have said they’re – that they’re – they are going to meet their obligations and --
QUESTION: And did they say when they were going to do that? Because in addition to the jet fuel, I understand that coal has also risen. Imports of North Korean coal to China have also increased since the resolution was actually passed, right?
MR KIRBY: I’m not familiar with that particular fact, Elise. What I can tell you is the Chinese have stated their intention to fully comply and to meet their requirements under the --
QUESTION: Well, but I mean, is it --
MR KIRBY: Under the resolution and our expectation and the expectation of the international community is that they’ll do that --
QUESTION: But will --
MR KIRBY: -- and we have routine conversations with them. The deputy secretary is in the region. He will have these kinds of conversations as well with Chinese officials.
QUESTION: I understand. But I mean, I’m glad that they told you that they plan on doing it, but did they give you any kind of road map to when they’re going to do it? Because when was --
MR KIRBY: We have already seen them implement measures of the resolution. We’ve already seen them implement. Now --
QUESTION: But, I mean, one of the main ones was coal, for instance. And, I mean, like I said, it’s not just – I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it, but officials in your own building are saying that North Korean coal has increased into China since the resolution was passed. So, I mean, I’m glad that they told you that they’re going to do it, but do you – how do you use your leverage to get them to actually do it? Because it’s clear that they’re not doing it up till now. What do --
MR KIRBY: There’s been a historic issue with the – with some nations meeting all their obligations under UNSCR resolutions, and I’ve talked about it here publicly, that in the past we’ve not seen China completely comply. And when we have concerns about compliance, we’re not going to be bashful about expressing them. We continue to have discussions with the Chinese about their obligations and their commitments under this particular resolution and every other one before it. And we’re going – and we’ll continue to have those conversations.
QUESTION: But has there been specific communication about coal and jet fuel going to North Korea?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I’m not going to read out diplomatic conversations.
QUESTION: Well, isn’t that what your talks are about, specifically strengthening those on the – on this new UN resolution – isn’t it specifically about strengthening those provisions?
MR KIRBY: Yes. We are talking to the international community and to other members of the UN Security Council about making sure we are staying in compliance with the resolutions already passed, and considering the developing and application of additional, maybe even tougher sanctions. So obviously we’re going to have to continue to talk to Chinese leaders in particular about this, since China does have – perhaps more than other – any other member has an economic stake here – I mean, with a border with the north. And there have been problems with Chinese compliance in the past. I’m not going to dodge that, and we’re going to continue to talk to them about their commitments going forward.
QUESTION: Kirby, it’s my understanding that coal is permitted under the so-called livelihood clause of the most recent resolution, right?
MR KIRBY: That’s my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But I’m not an expert on this and I can’t speak to specific coal shipments today.
QUESTION: Well, okay. I think that’s the case. So my next question was: Is jet fuel permissible under – I guess it’s different, because you’re talking about coal exports from North Korea to China, but are – from your understanding, and if you don’t know, could you take it – are Chinese jet fuel exports to North Korea permissible under existing legislation and under the existing sanctions resolution?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’ll have to see.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I’m just not an expert on the language. I’ll have to check.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. First, follow-up on this. A few months ago, I had raised this question about the – there is a corridor of trade between North Korea and China, and has the U.S. tried to ask for international monitors on that corridor? Because that’s from – through which everything is going on.
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such request. I’m not aware of any such request.
QUESTION: Because the sanctions do not matter to North Korea with China having an open trade corridor going on.
MR KIRBY: I think I’ve addressed this issue as far as I can today.
QUESTION: Okay. The other one is about the diplomatic tit for tat going on between India and Pakistan. India expelled a diplomat, Pakistan expelled a diplomat, and now it’s a rising tension. So are you worried about it? Do you have any comments on that?
MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the reports of these decisions. These are sovereign decisions that nation-states make, and these are issues that we’re going to leave to India and Pakistan to work out.
QUESTION: But in the past, usually these decisions are followed by firing across the line, across the borders, and then escalating into further. So --
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we don’t want to see that happen, but let’s not get ahead of events.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: These are issues that we believe India and Pakistan need to discuss, need to talk about, need to work out between themselves. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Back to North Korea, if that’s okay. I’d like to circle back to the he said/he said between you and DNI Clapper a few days ago. I know you can’t talk about specific intelligence, but can you broadly say that you share most of the same intelligence throughout the Administration?
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters – (laughter) – one way or the other from up here.
QUESTION: The reason I ask this is because how can two people have – or two organizations have essentially the same intelligence and come to wildly different conclusions? He’s saying there is no – there’s no hope for denuclearization on the peninsula; you said a few minutes later that the U.S. remains committed to it. Who should we believe? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Both.
MR KIRBY: Thank you, Arshad. Look, I think we all share concerns about the direction that the north is taking, all of us. And the concerns expressed by DNI Clapper are not new concerns, and we share them. We do share concerns about the increasing provocative nature of not just their rhetoric but their actions with respect to developing nuclear weapons. No question about that.
And what’s why we continue to work inside the international community to put more pressure – to apply more pressure on the North. And that’s why we’re having an active conversation in the UN about the possibility for additional sanctions. And that’s why we maintain a robust military presence on the peninsula, because we have real security commitments to our South Korean allies and to the region to be able to respond militarily if that’s required.
So I think everybody has – everybody shares the same sense of urgency here. I didn’t see a big gulf between what the director said and what we’ve been saying all along. The question that was posed to me was: Is that U.S. policy, that we’re just – that we’re going to give up on trying to achieve a verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. And the answer is very simple: No, it’s not. And that’s not just the State Department, it’s not just one agency; it’s the entire U.S. Government. Our policy is the same. We want to see a verifiable denuclearization on the peninsula.
Now, it is – I don’t think it should come as a shock to anybody that people may have different views about the odds of achieving that, but that is the goal, and that’s what we’re after. And the best way to do that is a return to the Six-Party Talk process. And we’ve said all along we’re ready to do that. The onus is on the North to prove that they’re able and willing, and thus far they have not proven willing to do that.
QUESTION: Is part of this trying to influence the debate for the next administration, which by my calculations, I think, is the thirteenth that will be dealing with the North Korean issue?
MR KIRBY: Is what --
QUESTION: Is it trying to influence the debate for the next administration?
MR KIRBY: What is?
QUESTION: Like this – you say there’s no gulf, but one says that – that it’s not possible. You’re saying you’re still committed to it. Usually these aren’t in public, these sort of disagreements. So I’m just --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I take issue with the fact that there’s some big disagreement here. But let’s put that aside for a second.
I – the concerns about what’s going on in North Korea are not set by, established by, affected by the political calendar here in the United States. I’m well aware we have an election coming up, and I think we’re all well aware that in January we’re going to have a new president. And that new president will have to make decisions about where things are going with respect to North Korea.
But what we’re focused on is what has been, not just on this Administration but administrations past, is a consistent policy of applying pressure to the North and trying to achieve a verifiable, complete denuclearization of the peninsula, which we think is in the best interest not only of the people who live on the peninsula, North and South, but everybody in the region, if not here in the United States.
So I just don’t see it the same way you do. I got that he offered a frank assessment. That’s his job. He’s the head of intelligence for the United States of America and his job is to be candid. His job is to look at threats and his job is to assess where things are going. But that doesn’t mean that he was saying any – that he was denouncing or walking back or changing our policy objectives, which is that denuclearization. So I just don’t see it the same way you do.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, on the ROK and Japan, do you have anything on the fact that your allies are going to restart GSOMIA --
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. I couldn’t hear you.
QUESTION: -- GSOMIA, the military information sharing?
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. You’re going to have to repeat your question. I didn’t get it.
QUESTION: All right. Can you hear me better now?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on the fact that the ROK and Japan are going to start talks on GSOMIA, the military information sharing?
MR KIRBY: Oh, okay. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Thanks. Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we did note the recent announcement by the governments of the Republic of Korea and Japan to resume negotiations on what’s called a bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement, which is I think you called GSOMIA. I’ll defer to you on how to pronounce that acronym.
We believe that this potential agreement would strengthen cooperation between our two closest allies in Northeast Asia, particularly in light of the growing threat posed by North Korea. So we welcome the fact that they’re having those discussions.
Okay. I got time for just a couple more.
QUESTION: Staying in the region, do you have a readout on Deputy Secretary Blinken’s trilateral in Tokyo with his Korean and Japanese counterparts?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. So on the trilateral meeting, the deputy secretary had productive discussions with both his counterparts from Japan and from South Korea. They reaffirmed the importance of our trilateral cooperation in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region, particularly regarding the threat posed by the DPRK nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They also reiterated the important contributions our trilateral cooperation continues to make on global issues, including things like climate change, global health, and women’s empowerment. So good discussions. Okay.
QUESTION: Wait. (Laughter.) I ain’t going to let you get out of here that easily.
MR KIRBY: First and last.
QUESTION: I’ve got two – they’re brief, though.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: They both kind of --
MR KIRBY: I’ve heard that before.
QUESTION: They both kind of involve the UN. One, you may have seen that Burundi formally notified the UN today that they were withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, which prompted Ambassador Power to suggest that the Burundian Government was memorializing its – I can’t remember her exact words – something like its passion or its approval or for – approval of impunity. Do you have anything to add to her comments?
MR KIRBY: Well, no, I don’t think I can improve upon that. I mean, obviously we’re following these developments – these – this closely. And again, I wouldn’t also get ahead of events or speculate one way or the other, but I mean, I think we share her general sense of concern.
QUESTION: All right, I think, actually, it was something about their opposition to accountability or something like that. Anyway, but you don’t – you do not have anything more to add?
MR KIRBY: I don’t.
QUESTION: All right. And then earlier this week, there was a UN expert speaking up at the UN in New York about Haiti and the cholera epidemic. And in his comments, he described the UN response as a disgrace and also alluded to or suggested – hinted may be another word – that the reason the UN took the position that it took when people tried to get some accountability for the introduction of cholera into Haiti was at the behest of the United States. Can you address that? Is that correct? Did you pressure or push the UN into not responding?
MR KIRBY: No, we did not. We have been very clear that we do not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this particular case. We do not take a position.
QUESTION: But you did take a position in favor of the United Nations, correct?
MR KIRBY: What we’ve said is we support efforts by the special rapporteur to give greater prominence to the plight of those living in extreme poverty. We have said before that we welcomed the secretary-general’s acceptance of the UN’s moral responsibility for the cholera outbreak and his recent statement expressing regret for the loss of life. We’ve also said that we recognize more must be done and we support the UN’s ongoing efforts to design an assistance package to assist those most affected by cholera including in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. So we look forward to receiving the secretary-general’s proposal for the provision of a package of assistance and support to Haitians most affected by the cholera.
QUESTION: Thanks and then the --
QUESTION: Wait, sorry just on that. Why, just so I’m clear – I think Matt’s fundamental question was: Did the U.S. Government at any time discourage the UN from taking responsibility, right? Was that fundamentally your question?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: And did you ever do that in the past?
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that we discouraged them from taking responsibility. I said we’ve – we welcomed that --
QUESTION: No, I get that --
MR KIRBY: -- the secretary-general said it was a moral responsibility. But with respect to the actual claims, we did not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this case.
QUESTION: But couldn’t you – couldn’t you discourage them from taking responsibility even if you don’t take a position on the underlying claims? Look, you could say, “Look, I don’t know who did this, but it’s going to be bad if you take responsibility, so don’t do that.”
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, could we have? I don’t know. I suppose we could have. I’m not aware that we did. What I can tell you is we did not take a position on the underlying claims and we did welcome the secretary-general’s actions and his comments on this matter going forward.
QUESTION: The last one – and this is extremely brief – is that you talked several times about this – the anti-ISIS coalition being 66 nations. Is that up recently?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Have new members --
MR KIRBY: Afghanistan joined several months ago, making it 66.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR KIRBY: All right, thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)
Secretary's Remarks: On the Occasion of Turkey's Republic Day
Press StatementJohn Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 27, 2016
On behalf of President Obama and the American people, I congratulate the people of Turkey as you celebrate the 93rd anniversary of the founding of your republic on October 29.
As a long-time Ally, the United States remains steadfast in support of Turkey’s democratically elected government and institutions—institutions enshrined in Turkey’s constitution. And we express again our condolences to the friends and loved ones of those who were injured or who died during the coup attempt last July.
Our two countries continue to work side by side to address a range of challenges including the Syrian civil war, the global refugee crisis, and the threat posed to law-abiding people everywhere by violent extremist groups. Especially in the wake of recent terrorist attacks inside Turkey, the United States is committed to standing with you as we strive together—in partnership with others in the world community—on behalf of justice, security, and the rule of law.
The American people place a high value on their many connections to you—through trade and tourism, academic exchanges, and cultural and familial ties. As you mark this special day, you have our very best wishes for a happy, prosperous, and safe year to come.
Special Advisor Heumann Travel to Finland
Special Advisor for International Disability Rights Judy Heumann will travel to Finland, October 29–November 3, to deliver remarks at the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) expert seminar “Our right to participate – promoting the participation of persons with disabilities in political and public life.”The seminar is organized in cooperation with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and the Finnish Human Rights Center. It will mark the launch of an OSCE-wide initiative addressing participation of persons with disabilities in political and public life. The aim of the seminar is to gather a broad and diverse range of experts to discuss the challenges and good practices related to participation in political and public life of persons with disabilities, and to provide recommendations for OSCE’s activities on this topic going forward. The Special Advisor will also meet with Finnish government officials and civil society to discuss promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities.
On the Government of Burundi's Banning of Human Rights NGOs
The United States is deeply concerned by the Government of Burundi’s announcement that it has banned five domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and suspended five others that work in the fields of human rights, election monitoring, and anti-corruption. Civil society organizations, including the ones suspended, play an essential role in defending the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of all Burundians, and their closure would further shrink Burundi’s greatly diminished democratic space without addressing or ameliorating the ongoing political crisis.The United States urges the Government of Burundi to reconsider its decision to ban and suspend these NGOs, and to engage constructively in the dialogue led by East African Community facilitator and former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa. A resolution to Burundi’s crisis is genuinely possible through reconciliation and cooperation.
Secretary Kerry Travel to Ireland and the United Kingdom
Press StatementJohn Kirby
Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
October 27, 2016
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Tipperary, Ireland, on October 30 to meet with Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan for a discussion about the Northern Ireland peace process and a range of regional and global issues. While in Ireland, the Secretary will also accept the Tipperary International Peace Award, which will be awarded by the Tipperary Peace Convention to honor the Secretary’s efforts to end conflicts in a number of countries.
The Secretary will then travel to London, U.K., on October 31 to meet with international counterparts for a discussion about the situation in Libya and ways to improve support for the Government of National Accord. While in London, he will also accept two awards: the Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership and the Chatham House Prize.
The Chatham House Prize is given to a statesperson for significant contributions to the improvement of international relations. Secretary Kerry was named the 2016 recipient jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership is being given to Secretary Kerry for his lasting contributions to diplomacy, public service, and human rights. The Medal recognizes those individuals who follow in Benjamin Franklin’s footsteps by exemplifying great vision, cross-cultural understanding, effectiveness, and intellectual rigor. The Secretary will also meet with London Mayor Sadiq Khan and, together with the Mayor, will engage in a discussion with London youth on current issues, including climate change and countering violent extremism.
Secretary's Remarks: Remarks With Students at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics
RemarksJohn Kerry
Secretary of State
Chicago, Illinois
October 26, 2016
MODERATOR: It is an honor to welcome a Secretary of State to the University of Chicago. It is part of the mission of the Institute of Politics to facilitate these kinds of opportunities for you to interact with practitioners and leaders, and so we’re really pleased on that account. But I – our other mission is somewhat larger than that, which is: We live in a somewhat dispirited time in our politics. I don’t know if any of you have felt that – (laughter) – in which it’s easy to see politics as something squalid, as an exercise in self-aggrandizement. The Institute of Politics is dedicated to the proposition that politics is something much more than that; politics at its best is the way we grab the wheel of history and steer it in the right direction. And we make progress when leaders of conscience, committed public servants, execute on that and help steer us in that direction.
John Kerry is a public servant. He’s been a public servant all his life, from the time that he served in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War; he has been a prosecutor, a lieutenant governor. George, who will introduce him, will give you the full bio – United States senator. I got to work with him when I was a senior advisor to the President, the two years I spent in Washington. And he is someone – John Kerry understands what politics is at its best and what public service is all about, and in that sense he is a wonderful example for all of us as to why politics is important. And beyond that he is an optimist. There’s an old joke – it’s probably been beaten to death – about the kid who comes up on a pile of manure, and to everybody else it looked just like a pile of horse manure, and the kid starts digging through the manure saying, “There must be a pony in here.” The definition of an optimist. John Kerry is an optimist. (Laughter.)
Maybe it’s an apt analogy. Maybe it’s an apt analogy given the state of a very unsettled world. But he has been as Secretary of State an indefatigable force to find positive ways forward, and in that he’s earned my admiration, I hope your admiration. But I’m eager to hear him talk about his experiences and where we as a country are going, where the world is going.
A couple housekeeping notes: The Secretary is going to take your questions after a moderated discussion with Walter Isaacson, who is one of the great public thinkers of our time, one of the great journalists of our time. Please keep your questions short and to the point, and by questions we mean something that ends in a question mark and not an exclamation point. (Laughter.) Please remember to turn off or silence your phones, as well. We don’t want those interruptions.
And now to formally introduce our special guest is George – how does George pronounce his last name?
PARTICIPANT: Adames.
MODERATOR: Adames. Thanks, George. (Laughter.) George is a third year in the college; he’s majoring in public policy and geography. He’s from Augusta, Georgia and is a member and a leader of the IFPs Student Advisory Board and has been a wonderful contributor to the Institute of Politics. So please, join me in welcoming George to the platform. (Applause.)
MR ADAMES: At times, it can be difficult to have sustained faith in government bureaucracy. Today, young people can be discouraged by divisive rhetoric or partisan gridlock in a time when we especially need more youth to be invested in living lives of public service. Many young people just haven’t had great experiences with government. I’d say I’m pretty lucky in that regard. This summer, I had the opportunity to work under someone with a strong commitment to public service who truly understands the need to sustain young people’s faith in government. Sure, he wasn’t my direct supervisor, and the State Department hierarchy made it so there were a few degrees of separation between us, but Secretary of State John Kerry’s strong leadership and values were felt throughout the entire department.
Secretary Kerry grew up in a family of public service. His father was a Foreign Service officer and his mother was a social activist. After graduating from Yale University, Secretary Kerry served as a lieutenant in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War. For his service he was awarded several combat medals including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. After returning to the United States, Secretary Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and participated in anti-war activism.
Secretary Kerry began his career in electoral politics at the age of 29 by mobilizing young people as he campaigned in the 1972 Democratic primary for Massachusetts 5th congressional district. He won the primary and moved towards the general election on a progressive platform that called for national health insurance, a jobs program to clean the Merrimack River, and rent control in Massachusetts cities. However, he lost the seat to the Republican candidate and proceeded to obtain a law degree from Boston College.
After working in the District Attorney’s office and dabbling in radio, Secretary Kerry went on to become the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, where he was very active on environmental issues. He was then elected to the United States Senate, where he served from 1985 to 2013. After running for president against incumbent George W. Bush in 2004, Secretary Kerry remained in the Senate, where he was active in both domestic and international issues, serving as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
In 2012, John Kerry was nominated by President Obama to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. In his time within the State Department, Secretary Kerry has placed emphasis on peace in the Middle East, cyber security, climate change, and in educational diplomacy. He has traveled over 1.3 million miles to 90 countries across the globe. His tenure has been marked by historic milestones in U.S. relations to Cuba, in addressing climate change, and negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement.
After interning at the State Department, my faith in government is not only sustained but strengthened. Secretary Kerry leads by example, and that was evident in my colleagues and their faith in the work that they’re doing. Throughout his career, Secretary Kerry has demonstrated his strong commitment to public service and his conviction in government efficacy. This commitment is one that we can all strive towards in hopes of making our world more just.
Today’s discussion will be moderated by Walter Isaacson. Mr. Isaacson has had an extensive career in journalism working with publications such as Sunday Times of London, Time Magazine, where he served as the political correspondent and national editor. In 2001, he became the CEO and chairman of CNN, a position he held until 2003, where he stepped down to be the CEO of the Aspen Institute.
Please join me in welcoming Walter Isaacson and Secretary of State John Kerry to the stage. (Applause.)
MR ISAACSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. It’s a great (inaudible). As George said, you grew up in a divided city of Berlin when your father was a Foreign Service officer. Things were dangerous back then, but now they’ve become more complicated. How does this new complexity after the end of the Cold War play out in a place like Syria?
SECRETARY KERRY: Wow. (Laughter.) Can I begin just by saying thank you to all of you? Thanks for being here. I want to thank David Axelrod for his tremendous contributions to our country by leaving journalism and lending his political genius to President Obama’s efforts and to the last few years. And I’m delighted – you’re all very lucky to have him at the Institute of Politics here. And, David, thank you for everything you’ve done. And, Walter, thank you for being here and for being part of this. And thank you, guys – my deputy chief of staff is a University of Chicago graduate student alum, so I’m happy to be here. He told me that.
Well, I grew up and I was – the early times when I was in Berlin when I was about 12 years old, 13 years old, but I noticed very, very clearly the tensions of that time. I mean, there were Russian signs warning you not to come into the Russian sector. It was a divided city – French, British, U.S., Russian – which reflected the divisions after the war. And it was a tense place; it was the Cold War at its height. And we would take a train from Frankfurt in Germany through the East Sector into this divided city. It was an island, if you will, in the midst of totalitarianism and all of the tensions of the then-burgeoning Cold War. So I, as a kid, just picked up the differences between East and West.
MR ISAACSON: You once rode your bicycle across --
SECRETARY KERRY: I did. I once used my diplomatic passport and went through checkpoint Charlie into the East Sector. But actually, I got scared. I mean, I noticed it was dark and foreboding, and there were very few cars and people were dressed in much darker clothes, and there were far fewer people just sort of walking around in the street. And I felt this ominous sense of danger. I didn’t like it and I literally, so I said, “I’m going to get out of here.” And I turned around and went back into the – into the American sector, proudly told my father what I had done, and was promptly grounded and my passport was taken away from me because I could have been in an international incident had I stumbled into the wrong people in the wrong way.
That world was a bipolar world – the Soviet Union, the West. And we were the most powerful entity on the planet. We still are, but differently. Then, we were the only economy that was viable and it was at the height of the Marshall Plan, and we were busy rebuilding Germany, rebuilding Europe, rebuilding Japan – which, by the way, still stands as one of the great enterprises of American foreign policy. And we inherit, as a result, and I – we – all of you need to be prepared to remind our fellow citizens in America of the value of investing in the future of other countries, because that is what produced a democratic Germany that’s the strongest country in Europe today and a huge partner on so many things. And it is what produced Europe and ultimately the European project, which today has these tensions because of Brexit, and which produced in Japan a constitution modeled on ours, obviously, largely contributed to by General MacArthur, and we wound with a Japan that is an enormously close and important ally to us. So there you see in the written story of the value of foreign assistance and of engagement with other countries.
But today – to come back to Walter’s question – today we see a world where power is less hierarchical and far more diversified in its – in the manner in which it presents itself, and often exhibited in bottom-up, not top-down ways that has a profound impact on governance. You couple that with those little machines that most of you are holding in your hands or many of you are that can give you instant access to any – the answer to any question you have on your mind. I mean, how many dinner table conversations are settled by googling the answer? I mean, we all do that. And so information comes differently.
I was commenting early over at the IOP that back when I was in college, a President Kennedy or a President Nixon or a President Johnson or whatever could log a call from the communications office to the head of CBS or NBC and saying we need a block tonight, and they’d get a half hour of TV for the president. You’d have ABC, NBC, CBS, and public television. And the next morning, everybody in the country was talking about what the president said at the water cooler and their coffee break. It doesn’t happen now. That’s why you’ve seen President Obama go on The View or you see him on The Late Show or the Late Late Show, whatever, because that’s how you have to piecemeal, try to reach Americans to communicate.
So the world we’re seeing today is just so different, with the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, forces that had been pent up for years like Tito, a dictator of then-Yugoslavia, were unleashed. And now with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Kosovo and these incredible tensions with an ethnicity and tribalism and religious extremism and co-opting that is changing the presentation of people everywhere.
And you couple that with modernity – I mean, what we’re seeing – part of what we see in the Trump campaign and in the Brexit campaign is a reaction of people to this change, which many people don’t understand, many people can’t control, many people are scared of, and you can’t blame them. I mean, jobs have changed. Technology has changed life. Productivity increases come through mostly technology, and so the nature of work has changed. And if you think it’s changed now – I hate to say this to you, but watch what happens as artificial intelligence comes online and as we see the next generation of technology in use.
So you all and we are together living through a moment of profound, dramatic transformation in the organization of citizens around what we call government. And for those of you – I heard the comments of David in the beginning about how dispiriting perhaps some of it is. Well, yeah, but let me ask you about the alternative. What’s the alternative? Most countries in the world conglomeratized have tried every single ism there is – socialism, communism, and not isms – democracy and so forth. And I’m proud to say that we have more democracies now than we did 15, 20 years ago by far. But it doesn’t mean we’re automatically winning the struggle for how people think they’re going to organize their lives.
But what are you going to do if you don’t have that? What are you going to do if you can’t get up on the soapbox and put your idea out? What are you going to do if you can’t freely go out and organize a precinct and get people to go vote and make a choice? So yeah, it’s plenty messy; but as opposed to every other alternative, it’s the best shot we have – individual human beings – to be able to weigh in and affect their lives.
So the question is: Are you going to do that? Are you going to hold people accountable to a higher standard? And we can have a long conversation about that, but the world today is a much more complicated world than the world that my parents grew up in and I grew up in, and we need to adjust to that and recognize it. We need to move decisions faster, we need to be bolder, we need to be more engaged, not less engaged in the world. Because I’ll tell you, there’s no “over there” anymore. Everybody’s connected. And anything that can happen in some other place that you call “over there” can actually happen in your backyard.
MR ISAACSON: So how does this play out in Syria? How many wars are we fighting there?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Syria is so much more complicated than people think. I mean, it’s easy to sort of – we’re all frustrated, and frustrated by Assad, frustrated by the Russians, the Iranians, everything that’s happening there, the violence that exists. But it’s not a simple sort of okay, let’s sit at the table and have you resolve it, because you have Kurds versus Kurds, Kurds versus Turkey, Turkey versus Kurds; you have Iran versus Saudi Arabia and vice versa; you have Iran and Hizballah, and Hizballah which affects Israel, it affects us because it is a designated terrorist organization.
Then you have Daesh/ISIL with most people against ISIL, though the Russians and the Assad regime have not principally been going after Daesh and ISIL. They have principally been shoring up Assad and going after the legitimate moderate opposition, which is against Assad. That’s another reflection of the complication.
Then you have the aspirations of Turkey and the aspirations of Qatar juxtaposed to the aspirations of some other Gulf state countries or members of the Arab – of the Gulf coalition. And then, of course, you have Sunni and Shia and the complications of Assad and Alawite minority having ruled in a fairly ruthless way over the years against a 65 percent Sunni majority of the country, some of whom have affiliated themselves with Assad, so there’s not a unified Sunni presence. And then, of course, you have the Sunni countries that are supporting an opposition – Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia principally – all of which makes this gigantically complicated.
MR ISAACSON: But if you’re going to sort it out, it would seem you would need not only diplomacy, but diplomacy backed by the threat of force. And three years ago when we were about to use the threat of force in Syria after the red line had been crossed, the President pulled back from that. Do you think that that’s been a problem, that there hasn’t been that on the table – the notion that we would go in with force if need be?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin first of all with just the issue of the red line and the issue of chemical weapons and the President’s decision to use force, which, by the way, is often forgotten, before I talk about the issue of force overall.
This is a narrative that has somehow gained legs, which I hear about all the time. So the simple answer to your question is: Has it had an impact that the President decided not to bomb? The answer is yes. But in my judgment, and I know the President’s, mistakenly so, because in fact, the President made the decision to use force, and he announced publicly that he was prepared to use force, and all he did was not decide – he never decided not to use the force. He decided after David Cameron took the vote to the parliament in Britain on a Thursday and lost the vote that being a democracy and having had a consultation with members of Congress – a phone call that I was on with about a hundred members of Congress, many of whom were saying, “Well, you’ve got to come to us, you’ve got to talk to us,” particularly in the wake of a failed vote in England, it became even more imperative that the President asked the Congress for the authority.
MODERATOR: But still that was a decision not to use force by that --
SECRETARY KERRY: No, it wasn’t. I disagree with that, because two days later, three days later, I was in London and I did a press conference in London. And Margaret Brennan of CBS asked at that press conference, “Secretary, is there a way for Assad to avoid being bombed?” And I said, “Yes, he could decide to get all the chemical weapons out of the country.”
MR ISAACSON: Now, did you know at that point by talking to Lavrov, your Russian counterpart, about this, that the Russians might take you up on that?
SECRETARY KERRY: Lavrov and I had had that conversation. We had talked about it several weeks earlier. The President had had that conversation in St. Petersburg with President Putin. They had talked about it and passed on to us – to Lavrov and me – the gist of their conversation.
So it was obviously – I didn’t just drop that out there as a sort of throwaway. I knew that if we could get that decision, we could actually get our goal achieved. And our goal – everybody – was to get all the chemical weapons out of Syria. If we had in fact simply bombed, we would not have gotten the chemical weapons out. We were trying to send a message to Assad not to use them and to give him a clear sense that if he used them again, even worse could happen. So it was a deterrent step, but it was not a solution to the problem of how do you get all the chemical weapons out.
So Lavrov and I met in New York, we negotiated, and we came up with an arrangement to have the OPCW manage the extraction of all of the weapons. We set up a schedule with details, we signed the agreement, and guess what? The OPCW managed for the first time in the history of conflict to get weapons of mass destruction out of a country in their entirety during a conflict, and the OPCW won the Nobel Prize for doing so. Now, which solution is better? (Applause.)
I mean, it seems to me that – and this notion – but – and I have to be honest here. There is and has been a lingering sense in the minds of people in the Middle East that the President didn’t want to bomb and decided effectively not to, and that that has lingered as, I think, a very unfair anchor around our policy, because in point of fact, the President never decided not to and asked the Congress for the permission, and we couldn’t get the Congress – we couldn’t get the votes in the Congress.
MR ISAACSON: You mentioned a moment ago artificial intelligence, and we’re reading a lot about, even now, our warfighting in Syria is being done by unmanned drones and unmanned planes. Do you think the world needs a new arms control regime to deal with robots and autonomous artificially intelligent fighters?
SECRETARY KERRY: I personally do. I have not – this is not a vetted position in the Administration, it has not been through the interagency process, but I think we are going down a very dangerous road in terms of the mechanization of warfare and what it may do to raise the level of risk for people overall. And I think we have to be very, very careful about it, just as we have to be very careful about cyber.
Now, in the case of cyber, we entered a negotiation with President Xi and the Chinese last year which was very successful, and we established a set of principles between our countries as to what sort of needed to be reined in and what we needed to restrain and what the norms were for behavior between nations. And by and large, I mean, this has had a positive impact ultimately.
MR ISAACSON: With China?
SECRETARY KERRY: With China. But – and I think it’s a precursor to what may be possible and necessary in terms of restraining the antiseptic component of warfare that may, in fact, increase the proclivity of people to be able to take risks and to be willing to take lives remotely. And I think we have to think very, very carefully about that as a society and as a world because it has its dangers.
MODERATOR: Speaking of cyber, have you discussed with your counterpart Lavrov in Russia the cyberattacks on the American election system, and have you told --
SECRETARY KERRY: Yes.
MODERATOR: -- him there would be consequences?
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, absolutely. The issue of consequences are very clear. We would not have – the President would not have authorized a release of the assessment to the Intelligence Community if we didn’t feel that it was serious and also if we didn’t feel that it was certain. So the emails themselves and the releases that we are seeing of private emails through the WikiLeaks process, we have no doubt has Russian involvement and direct involvement.
With respect to the election process itself, we want to be very clear to people that we haven’t made any assessment and we do not believe that a country can directly impact the counting of votes themselves because those are state-run operations and they are not on the open internet. They’re not on the internet. Now, do other things happen in the voting process in America still? Sadly, the answer is yes. Have we perfected our own elections? No, we haven’t, and we need to continue to work at it.
But we’ve made huge leaps. We are much more organized, much more clearer in the rules. We have early voting in many states. I mean, our process is becoming more and more sophisticated and more and more accountable and transparent, and we should be very proud of that.
MR ISAACSON: Let me get you to the nitty-gritty of what you have to do each day and things you have to balance, because you’re trying to deal with Russia and Syria, and you’re pulling them back and forth and you pull back and forth. At the same time, the President is trying to decide whether to release this finding that the Russians are part of and messing with our election and maybe we’ll retaliate. Do you have to sometimes say in an interagency meeting, “Wait a little bit, I’ve got to get this done with Lavrov first”?
SECRETARY KERRY: On some options that we may be making choices about, the answer is yes. Timing is sometimes very important. I mean, these are relationships, after all. They may be relationships between nations, but nation-states respond like all human beings because they are run by human beings. And so if you slap a leader publicly in some very denigrating way, you can anticipate that you’re probably not going to get something done in the next week or two that you were hoping to get done. So timing is important and messaging is important. The manner of diplomacy often frustrates people because of that, but those are our realities.
Now, obviously, for us to have released this information, it went through a very serious vetting process, and the interagency has always – everybody understood that messing with our democracy, getting to the core of our process, is a red line that we were not going to suggest you can’t. There’s some diplomatic nicety that supplants that, and that’s why the President made a decision that we needed to make it crystal clear and send a very clear warning of our unwillingness to tolerate it.
MR ISAACSON: (Inaudible) retaliate?
SECRETARY KERRY: We have many different ways of taking actions, which, as the President said, we will reserve to our timing and place. And --
MR ISAACSON: What did you learn in Vietnam that you applied to things like the Iran deal?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, so much. I mean, if you’re fighting a war that you judged was a mistake and that ultimately that your country comes to understand was a mistake, you need to, if you’re ever in a position of responsibility, which is something I swore to myself I would do as a young naval officer and later in life, make sure that you’re not guilty of doing the same things or falling into old patterns of thinking that put another generation in harm’s way appropriately. And obviously, there are instances where that debate has been hot and heavy in our country since then.
But I think the war in Vietnam was a failure of leaders to really understand what was happening there. It was a failure to – maybe read Graham Greene’s book or to read Bernard Fall or any number of people who have accurately written about the French experience and what Vietnam was all about. So we blithely went in there and our view of the Cold War, seeing almost everything in terms of the West versus Communism. And there was Communism as part of this, but that’s not all it was about. It was, in fact, a civil war. It was a fight for the reunification of the country. It was a fight for national identity. It was a fight for ideology. And there were other things all there.
And I think we became excessively engaged in the management of the government, in choices that just didn’t make sense, because you had Russia and China – then the Soviet Union and Red China as we called it – line up behind the North, clearly supporting this war of liberation, and we tried to come in and define it differently.
MR ISAACSON: It blinded us to the split between China and the Soviet Union at the time. Do you see in Iran that this may have caused an opening? And do you think you might go to Iran either before you leave as Secretary or sometime early next year?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I have not considered any trip yet to Iran. But Iran is a really interesting study in all of this, because Iran is a 5,000-year-old country, civilization – obviously, not a country as Iran but a civilization. And ever since 1979 and the revolution, which, by the way came about because we were not perhaps as thoughtful as we might have been in who we were backing and what kind of practices were being carried out and so forth, and we had been involved as a – the CIA was directly involved in the removal of a Prime Minister Mossadegh, 1953. And so there was a history there. And in 1979, when they took over our embassy and took some hostages, that had a profound effect on our own politics – one of the principal reasons that President Carter lost to Ronald Reagan.
MR ISAACSON: Are they natural allies for us in (inaudible) the Persian (inaudible)?
SECRETARY KERRY: No. Well, there’s a huge gap between quote, “Persian people” writ large and the revolutionary government that is pursuing a pretty hardline approach to the world and to America and to the region. So I would just say here that you have to look at Iran very, very closely. There are people in Iran who want a different Iran, an Iran that reaches out to the world, an Iran that’s engaged with people, an Iran that can re-enter the global community with respect and with acceptance.
There are those who are the hardliners who fight that every step of the way. They fought the nuclear agreement that we arrived at, and they fight any contact with the West and they vilify anybody who is engaged in contact with the West, even as they are involved in a major transformational effort for their economy and their society to try to engage with the world. So there’s a tension there in Iran, and the Iranians have to work that out. It’s not going to be worked out by us.
But I urge all of you – I think there’s a – I think it’s in The New York Times today – there is a big article about Iran and this tension and how it is playing out, and I urge you to read it.
MR ISAACSON: And also I’m going to tell – now, we want to make sure everybody gets involved to ask the questions. Microphones have been put out, so start lining up at the microphone if you would.
Hello. I’m used to people in Aspen who don’t raise their hands. So instead of asking my last question, I’m going to say go for it.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Kerry. Thank you so much for being here with us today. My name is Matt (inaudible). I’m a second year student at the law school. Why isn’t our support for Afghanistan’s central government akin to our support for South Vietnam?
MR ISAACSON: Why is our support --
QUESTION: Why is it not akin --
MR ISAACSON: Afghanistan not another Vietnam support?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, for a lot of reasons. First of all, the Taliban supported Usama bin Laden and al-Qaida, and they gave al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden refuge. They protected him. They sided with them. We tried very hard to say, look, this is a terrorist entity, nobody in the world should be supporting them, but Mullah Omar and the Taliban made the decision to be supportive of them. And at that point, they became a problem for us.
They are not also willing to enter into the normal political process, which they have ample opportunity to do. And we’ve reached out to them in any number of ways in the last years to try to engage in a legitimate negotiation for a legitimate outcome that represents aspirations of all of the entities within Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has held several elections. And they most recently had an election, which I helped to broker a compromise for where there were doubts about who was elected and how, and we created – a unity government was created, and that unity government has said they’re ready to reconcile and to have a full embrace of the Taliban --
MR ISAACSON: Led by a good guy.
SECRETARY KERRY: Pardon?
MR ISAACSON: Led by a good guy.
SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. And so – but none of that took place. That was not what was happening or could happen in a place like Vietnam.
MR ISAACSON: And one problem with history is overlearning the lessons and being disengaged from the world because you think everything is Vietnam.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you. So I’m wondering whether you think that the recent decision by Duterte of the Philippines to disassociate more from us and associate more with Russia and China will influence other countries like Vietnam to do the same thing? And if so, what you can do to deter that.
MR ISAACSON: Good question.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the answer is no, I don’t expect it for a lot of different reasons. First of all, I’m not sure that it represents fully the broad feeling of the people of the Philippines. And certainly, the military and others are very much supportive of the relationship with the United States and of the interests in our defense treaties and so forth.
I believe that – and by the way, with respect to the question of Vietnam or other countries, I just met with the executive director of the Communist Party of Vietnam yesterday at the State Department. We had a lunch for him. We had a meeting, a bilateral, and he could not have been more clear about furthering their friendship with the United States and their desire to be more engaged with us on counterterrorism, various training exercises, legacy issues of the war. We’re working very, very closely with Vietnam as well as with the rest of the ASEAN nations.
So I think that we’ll work through this moment. I don’t think – I talked to the foreign minister of the Philippines just the other day. We had a very cordial but firm conversation about the challenges that this presents in terms of where this relationship is going to be going, and he made it quite clear that they are anxious to work through this, and I believe we will. So I don’t see this as a lasting breach or some permanent separation in any way whatsoever.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, Mr. Isaacson, thank you so much. David Blair of the Telegraph in May of 2016 spoke about how Assad was using sarin against ISIL targets and --
SECRETARY KERRY: I can’t quite hear you. You’ve got to try to find a way to --
QUESTION: Yeah. David Blair of Telegraph reported how Assad was using sarin nerve agent against ISIL targets, and Time Magazine in September talked about the use of chlorine gas in rebel territories. My question to you, Secretary Kerry: Does this undermine the integrity of the deal that we reached with Syria? And how should the next president respond to future use of chemical weapons?
MR ISAACSON: Is Syria still using chemical weapons?
SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah, no, it’s a really good question. It’s a very good question. The answer is no, it doesn’t undermine the integrity of the deal we reached because the deal we reached requires all declared chemicals that were under the Chemical Weapons Convention to be removed. Chlorine by itself is not on that list. It doesn’t fit under the Chemical Weapons Convention until it is mixed with precursor chemicals of another kind, which then make it a toxic substance.
So it is not, in and of itself, required to be removed, which is why it wasn’t. But now that the Assad regime has mixed it with these other chemicals and has it, yes, it clearly puts it under. And the OPCW, in fact, has a joint investigation mechanism which we set up with Russia, which I called to Foreign Minister Lavrov’s attention the other day, that we both agreed was the appropriate mechanism for resolving these differences, and they have said Assad has used it and they cited two particular occasions. We believe it’s happened on many more than the two occasions. But in fairness, we also believe that ISIL has used it on a couple of occasions – much less than Assad, but it hasn’t been proven yet. But we believe it, and there needs to be an investigation of that too. And under any circumstances, it needs to be removed now because of the way in which it is being used.
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, thank you for coming to speak with us, and my question for you is that currently, the U.S. and Iran have a common interest in fighting the Islamic State; but as there are many tensions between our countries, it’s kind of unclear what that relationship is. So can you please clarify the working relationship between the U.S. and Iran in the fight against ISIL?
SECRETARY KERRY: We do not have – I think you’ve defined it. We do not have – (laughter) – we do not have a formal relationship. We are not coordinating. And yes, we have a common interest. And they’re pursuing their interests without coordination, without engagement with us, and we are pursuing ours.
Now, we would love to see Iran be constructive in helping to resolve the major issue of a political settlement in Syria. And Iran is at the table with us, with Russia in the International Syria Support Group, in an effort to bring all of the stakeholders to the table for the simple theory that you’ve got to be realistic about this. You can’t resolve this without the parties being engaged. We sometimes get criticized – why are you sitting down with the Russians and why are you talking to them? Well, we’re sitting down with them because they’re there, because they’re flying bombing missions, because they are supporting Assad, because they made the difference for Assad at a point that he was very weak. And if you don’t talk to them, you don’t have a prayer of advancing the ceasefire or of settling the war.
So this is life, folks, and particularly diplomacy. Richard Nixon went to then-Red China and there was consternation in the minds of conservatives in various parts of America for his doing that, and Kissinger was somewhat vilified for proposing it and so forth, but they did it. And look, it opened up the communication and a channel which we’re still working on, but with one of the most powerful countries on the planet because it has the second-largest economy and it also has a major nuclear arsenal and huge, obviously, military and other kinds of interests in the world, so you got to deal with them. Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev, negotiated a major arms control agreement, improbable as people thought it could be.
So you’ve heard the expression, maybe a Democrat administration or a Republican administration can get something done depending on a particular issue, because it’s like Nixon going to China. It surprises people because of its pragmatic, Machiavellian-esque, practical approach. And sometimes it takes people on a certain side of an issue to be the people to go do that to make the difference. And that’s why we’re engaged the way we are.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Kerry. I just have a question on Iraq. One of the big criticisms of President Obama and the Administration is that leaving Iraq left, like, a vacuum that has allowed ISIS to take control of certain parts of the Middle East. Using hindsight, would you have changed our approach to leaving Iraq or not leaving Iraq, and how to, like – how we maintained kind of a presence in the area?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let’s understand history here, which is very important in all of these evaluations. George W. Bush made the decision to leave Iraq. And the process of leaving Iraq was put in place, with the exception of the status of forces agreement that needed to be completed, and we – and the Obama Administration negotiated this before I came in as Secretary. That during the 2009 to ’12 first term. And during that time the Iraqis refused to allow our soldiers to have the protections that we normally negotiate in every status of forces agreement so that our forces are not subject to imprisonment or false accusation or lawsuit or whatever in another country. They didn’t get there.
Now, even – let’s assume they’d gotten there, and some troops had been left. None of them under the George Bush agreement and under the prior agreement were going to be combat troops; none of them. So no combat forces would have been there. Now, could they have provided some training or would there have been some ongoing training? Yes, but there was a fundamental problem, a structural problem, in Iraq, and that was Prime Minister Maliki, who played the Shia card to such a fare-thee-well that the army had basically become his personal military and sectarian.
And when ISIL began to march or swamp through Mosul, none of that Shia army that was the national army of Iraq stood their ground and fought for Sunni Mosul. On a sectarian basis, they decided they’re not worth it, we’re getting out of here and saving our skins. And the army basically folded.
And I believe it folded primarily because it had been weakened over a period of time by the lack of adequate training and accountability through the process that the Maliki government put in place. And one of the reasons why we did not support Maliki for continuing as prime minister when the change took place and Prime Minister Abadi came in as a result, because of the utter failure of that government to deliver in so many different ways. That’s really what happened in Iraq, not the failure of American forces to be there, who wouldn’t have been combat forces in the first place.
MR ISAACSON: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, so we all know that the JCPOA kind of – sorry, the Iran deal kind of limited the ways in which the United States can truly, I guess, punish and push on Iran towards moving away from state-sponsored terror. What mechanisms are left over the next decade to try to pressure them to stop funding terrorism? And what – and where do you see the – where do you see the state of Iran when – the Iran deal when a lot of the provisions expire in a few decades or in a decade?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, both – they’re good questions, but let me just be very, very clear to you. We, in the Iran negotiation, made it crystal clear to the Iranians that the problem we’re trying to solve is not the – in that specific negotiation was not the arms that they ship somewhere or the support for Hizballah or the other things. If so, we’d still be there. We’d be at that table today arguing.
We thought that the principal threat to the region was the fact that Iran was two months away from being able to make bombs, that they had enough fissionable material to be able to make up to 12 bombs. And so for Israel and for the rest of the region, we thought the urgency is to get that program out of the way, because all the other issues would be greatly affected in any negotiation by whether or not they have a nuclear weapon. So if you didn’t get rid of the nuclear weapon, you were going to have a very different negotiation about Hizballah, about Israel, about terrorism, than you do now.
And it’s to Iran’s credit, by the way – they don’t get credit for it, but I’m going to say here that it’s to their credit that the supreme leader made the decision that they didn’t want a nuclear weapon, they weren’t going to have a nuclear weapon, and that they were ready to negotiate an arrangement where we could prove they were on a peaceful track.
Now, that one comes --
QUESTION: Is not wanting a nuclear weapon peaceful?
SECRETARY KERRY: Beg your pardon?
QUESTION: Is the mere lack of a nuclear weapon the same thing as --
SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, no, not at all.
QUESTION: -- being peaceful?
SECRETARY KERRY: And that’s why I’m coming – let me finish the answer.
QUESTION: Sorry. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: The arms embargo stayed in place. We didn’t get rid of that. In fact, we specifically fought over how long it was going to stay in place. Because under the previous arrangement, it was going to evaporate. We actually kept it in place for eight years during the course of this agreement. We also kept in place the sanctions of the United States against Iran for sponsorship of terrorism. And we also kept in place the sanctions for human rights. So we didn’t take away anything that we have in place with respect to those other things. And in fact, since the agreement, because they fired missiles, we’ve put additional sanctions in place. So we haven’t moved one iota towards a lessening of what we care about with respect to the overall security of the region.
And let me come to the long term here. So Iran has to now live by a limitation of 3.67 percent enrichment for 15 years. They have to live by a stockpile that can’t be more than 300 kilograms of enriched material for 15 years. They have to have television and visibility on their production of their centrifuges for 20 years, and they have to have every trace of their uranium that they produce in their country is tracked and recorded from cradle to grave for 25 years.
So when people say well, this is going to end in 10 years, in 15 years – no it’s not. Not only that, we didn’t – we have created what’s called the Additional Protocol of the agreement, which is the IAEA. The IAEA Additional Protocol requires that at any time we have a suspicion that they may be trying to break out or that they are enriching beyond what they should be, or that they have more uranium than they should be, we are entitled to inspect, to ask a question and to go inspect it. That’s for the lifetime of this agreement.
So if, after 15 years of 20 years of watching what they’re doing, we see an uptick of one percentage point or two or whatever, and we begin to say red flag, red flag, these guys may be moving towards trying to do something, we have enough time and enough tools at our disposal to be able to find out what is really happening. And if we needed to, we have the exact same options available to us in 15 years, 10 years, 20 years, as we have available to us today.
The issue is: Is Iran going to change in this period of time? Is what – is there reform efforts that Rouhani is pursuing? Are they – is the region going to change in this time? I mean, I hope – I’m an optimist, I know, but I would hope that within the next 15 years we’re going to resolve a lot of these differences. We can get away from this sectarianism. We can begin to deal with the problem of Israel-Palestine and get a peace agreement that would change the dynamics of Hizballah and Lebanon and the region and other challenges we have.
So you’ve got to believe in the possibility of changing things, and I believe we have a sufficient hedge against the notion that it won’t change, that Israel is protected, we are protected, the region is protected, and that’s why I think it’s a good agreement.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Kerry. One of the biggest issues that we as students face now, despite utter ignorance on more than half of our Congress’s part, is climate change. And that pertains both to domestic policy and foreign policy. So moving forward past the Paris Climate Change agreement, how is climate change going to be a challenge to your successor and what are they going to have to do to face such an enormous problem?
MR ISAACSON: And you’ve had a great week (inaudible) things happening on the climate front that --
SECRETARY KERRY: Boy, do we ever. I mean, climate is one of the greatest stories of the Obama Administration and the President. I mean, I’m really proud to serve with a president who has done more to set aside land, to protect the parks, to create new parks, to set aside ocean, to create marine protected areas of the ocean, and to move us forward on a climate action agenda in this country than any other president in American history. And it’s an enormous accomplishment.
And just in the last months, and I can tell you because I’ve been a part of this – I became involved in the climate debate in the 1980s. As a lieutenant governor, I actually led a governor’s task force on the Clean Air Act, on sulfur acid rain. You don’t hear about acid rain today. Why? Because we actually created an amendment that dealt with acid rain by creating a trading mechanism, which we couldn’t even touch today, that worked and that eliminated the problem.
But we – I watched through the years as we – I went to the 1992 Rio conference, which was the first Earth Summit. I went to all the other Conference of the Parties – not all of them but almost all of them afterwards, in Buenos Aires, in Potsdam, in Copenhagen. Copenhagen was a failure five years ago. Why? (Inaudible) six ago. Because countries were fighting each other over this concept of common but differentiated responsibility, who would do what, and nobody was willing to accept an agreement that was mandatory. So it failed – terrible failure.
China was leading the charge of the G77 against the efforts of the developed world to try to get an agreement. And President Obama famously crashed into a meeting they were having to try to get something done. So when I came in as Secretary, one of the very first things I did was call my counterparts in China and say we have to create a working group on climate and I’m going to come over there, and we’ve got to announce this and make an agreement. We’re going to try to get our presidents to be able to announce their reductions for the Paris negotiations.
One year later, the Chinese agreed. One year later, we had President Obama and President Xi standing up in Beijing announcing that China and the United States had agreed on an approach to Paris and that they both were going to have different, but real reductions in emissions in order to deal with climate. That set the tone. That changed the whole playing field. That was presidential leadership.
And the result was we went to Paris, and I was there for those negotiations. We hammered out an agreement, improbable as people thought it was, that sends a message to the global marketplace, folks. Does it, in and of itself, keep the reduction of climate – of warming of temperatures to two degrees centigrade? No, I wish it did. But it doesn’t. But do you know why I’m excited about it? Why I believe in it? Because the message to the market place is 186 countries, each with their individual plans, are moving to new energy, to alternative and renewable and sustainable.
And the message to the marketplace is absolutely unmistakable, which is why last year, we had a record level of investment in clean energy, alternative energy, renewable energy – $358 billion invested. And it’s the private sectors that’s going to solve this, folks. It’s going to be Elon Musk or it’s going to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who’s going to come alive with a battery storage that is game-changing, or with some kind of distributive power system that is so much cheaper than what we have today. I’m convinced of this.
And that’s why I believe we can get there. And in the last several months, we have now brought the Paris agreement way ahead of schedule. We have to get 55 countries representing 55 percent of the emissions to agree to put this into effect. We’ve done it. And on November 4th, whenever it is, it’s going into effect.
We also won a agreement with a market-based mechanism to deal with reducing emissions from aircraft, airplanes, the ICAO, the international air agreement. So we’re going to have reduction of air – emissions from airplanes. And I went to Kigali the other day and we managed to reach agreement with 190 countries on HFCs being taken out of refrigerant so that we are able to cool ourselves with a different substance that is not 100 times worse than carbon dioxide.
So we’re moving in the right direction. I think it’s very exciting and I think there’s reason to have hope for it. But you all, every single one of you, have to hold the next administration’s feet to the fire and make certain that they continue to have the same commitment that President Obama has exhibited in moving us forward.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks for coming today. It’s not every day that I get to ask the Secretary of State a question. I was just wondering about – so I read an article by Jeffrey Goldberg on the cover of The Atlantic, and one of the things the article talks about is one of the things President Obama is most proud of is ignoring your repeated pleas for force in Syria. And that kind of represents a larger narrative about kind of restraint in using military force and the American story with regard to the Obama Administration. I wanted to ask, given the two presidential candidates we have now, whether you think that kind of idea will stick, whether it will be – or we as a country will continue to move towards more and more restraint or will go back to kind of seeing ourselves as the world’s policeman?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to – no, I’m not going to get into what I advised the President or didn’t advise the President. It’s inappropriate for me to do that, and there’s plenty of time after the Administration is over for re-evaluating the history of it or writing the history of it. Suffice it to say that I don’t think the United States in recent years as, quote, “playing the world’s policeman.”
I think that we live in a world that is, ever since 9/11, just very different, defined differently. The threats are real and we ignore them at our peril. We weren’t exactly at war with al-Qaida on the day of September 11th 2001 when they drove those airplanes into our buildings and changed the life of America in the ways they did. It happened because we were seen as the enemy for a lot of different reasons.
And that’s that clash partly of modernity I talked about. It’s a lot of different ingredients. It’s a hijacking of Islam to boot. But my point to you is that I think the United States has a very critical role of leadership to play in helping to make the world safer. And that’s not being a policeman, but that is being engaged with countries to help them to develop themselves and to be able to deal with their problems. Let me give you an example. There are 1.5 billion kids in the world who are 15 years old or less, and a large percentage of them are not going to go to school tomorrow like you, or today, and probably not for 10 years if at all. And you’ve got to ask yourselves what happens if those kids are grabbed by the internet and by ISIL’s site that is not stopped from proselytizing? What happens if they think being a lone wolf and walking into a movie theater in Chicago is a good idea and shooting a bunch of people? Because it’s happened. Not here, but it’s happened.
So is it being the world’s policeman to say that we ought to adhere to the 2030 development goals of the United Nations which suggest that we need to help people develop their health care system, their education system, to have governance that works, to have human rights that are respected? I don’t think that’s being the world’s policeman. I think that’s important in our own national security interests and I think it’s also the right and moral thing to do.
So I just would be careful about the labels that you apply to some of the things we need to do in order to advance our interests and our values. Diplomacy is the advancing of your nation or your entity’s values and interests. Sometimes the interest is (inaudible) and sometimes the values are not there, and there’s a mix on any given issue.
But I will respectfully suggest to you that as you weigh that balance and think about things ahead, there may be times when the United States of America needs to use force. I’ll give you an example. President Clinton ultimately decided to use force against Serbia and in Kosovo in order to be able to save lives when a genocide was taking place, or a near genocide.
Now, I don’t think that’s, again, the world’s policeman. I think that’s living up to the high standards and values of our country, and I think it’s necessary at times for us to do that if we’re going to give meaning to the words after World War II and the Holocaust “never again” or if we’re going to give meaning to the judgment of President Clinton after Rwanda, I made the mistake, we should have gone in and done something. And that’s why I think we have to think about these things very, very hard.
MR ISAACSON: You, sir, have the privilege of the last question.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. Secretary, thank you for being here. My name’s Richard. I’m in the second year in college. Now, the question I have for you is this: Do you believe that Russia’s invasion of Crimea, and including when it comes to the Ukraine, is the response of their aggression and desire to expand their hegemonic power in the region or a defensive response to the intervention of the United States, the EU, NATO, and other international bodies in the Ukraine, in Georgia, and other neighboring states?
SECRETARY KERRY: I think it’s a mix, to be honest with you. I don’t think it’s one thing only. It’s very complicated. Crimea and Russia has a complicated history, as you know, and President Putin’s views of the Motherland and his responsibilities are complicated. And there is certainly a measure of his narrative, his view of the world, which is NATO and Georgia and all these other things as you’ve described not going down very well with him. And so – but I would also separate Crimea from the Donbas. I think that those are – also they present different equities. Both (inaudible) by the way, but different in terms of the context.
So I think our policy – by the way, and let me just say to everybody here, I think when you think about criticisms of the Administration and so forth, I will take a minute here and just say this. I think that the Administration’s policy has frankly worked. The – it hasn’t rolled it back but it stopped what could have been an exceedingly dangerous confrontational moment and has reduced it to this sort of tug-of-war or back-and-forth, which I think ultimately has a way to resolve itself. We’re working very hard on the Minsk agreement implementation, and we hope that we can advance that for the next administration that comes in.
But I just want to say to all of you that as you look at the world today, the reason I am optimistic is this, and I want to take a moment just to say it. I believe the United States is more engaged in more places on more big issues to greater consequence than at any time in our history. And we’re making a difference and the world is making a difference with respect to many of these challenges. To wit, Ebola. People predicted that a million people were going to die by the Christmas of two years ago. And guess what. It didn’t happen. We stopped it because President Obama had the courage to send 3,000 troops in and build the capacity to deliver health care.
AIDS – 15 years ago it was a forbidden word, you couldn’t talk about it. It was death, a death sentence. Now we’re on the cusp of the first generation in history being born AIDS-free in Africa. We are coping with the Zika virus now.
We have stood up to the freedom of navigation challenges of the South China Sea. We are increasing our focus on North Korea, on the DPRK and the problem of their nuclear program. We’ve succeeded in getting the weapons out of Syria – the chemical weapons. We’ve been able to do the Iran deal. We’ve made huge progress in Nigeria against Boko Haram, huge progress in Somalia against al-Shabaab. We are working diligently right now – our people are meeting to try to get an agreement on Yemen and an agreement on Libya. I will be meeting in London next Monday on the subject of Libya. We’re constantly working these issues.
Even as we have passed the TPP, which is 40 percent of global GDP into one agreement, we’re raising the standards – labor standards, environment standards. I could run a list. Afghanistan, where we brokered this unity government. And you could run through a long list of places, folks, where our engagement is the reason things are happening.
And I say this respectfully to other countries, but I often say about American exceptionalism we’re not exceptional because we sit around and beat our chests and brag that we’re exceptional, and it doesn’t sit very well with other countries when we do that. We’re exceptional when we do exceptional things, which is usually. And you can go back through the recent history of our planet; this country, our country, the United States of America, makes an extraordinary difference day-to-day in the lives of people in so many different places, and I’m proud of it and you should be.
And we do that for one penny on the dollar of the taxes that are paid, one penny for everything we do abroad, for embassies and everything we do to represent our country, all of our programs – education, children, women. More women going to school in Afghanistan. In 2001 there were no women going to school, no girls, and there were about a million-something boys. Now they’re up around 7.5, 8 million kids going to school; 40 percent of whom are girls. And that’s been happening for over 10 years. Imagine what happens in that country after 10 years. A kid who was 10 years old is 20 today and maybe going to college or something.
So I’d just say to you that you ought to feel better about where we’re heading. Technology is changing things. We’re curing diseases. We’re moving forward. What we need to do is not be less engaged; we need to be more engaged and help more countries move faster to embrace modernity, to be able to have their young citizens see opportunity in the future, not desolation. And I invite all of you here, come to the State Department, join USAID, be part of this effort in the future, because there are few things where you can work day-to-day with as much sense of reward and make as much difference to your country, and I want you to do that. (Applause.)
MODERATOR: I want to say before you continue (inaudible) this is the best set of questions I’ve ever heard – (laughter) – and it was the best dialogue with the Secretary of State since maybe Henry Kissinger mumbled to himself “hello” in the halls or something. (Laughter and applause.)
MR ISAACSON: My only regret is the Secretary’s obvious lack of enthusiasm for his work. (Laughter.) I was – I want to just echo what Walter said. It’s such a gift to be here with all of you because you ask smart, provocative questions, and more than that, he speaks with a seriousness about these matters that are going to fall into your hands before long. It gives all of us great hope for the future. I want to thank Walter for his excellent questions and his presence here today. And I want to thank Secretary Kerry, not just for his generosity of his time today and your insightful interview, but as this Administration winds down, for a lifetime of service for which – for which all of us should be very, very grateful. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Secretary's Remarks: St. Vincent and the Grenadines Independence Day Message
Press StatementJohn Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 27, 2016
On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of St. Vincent and the Grenadines as you celebrate the 37th anniversary of your nation’s independence.
The United States and St. Vincent and the Grenadines enjoy a strong relationship based on our shared respect for universal human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. My government is proud to work alongside yours to promote inclusive economic growth, support a free and vibrant civil society, and protect our hemisphere through programs such as the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative.
On this special day, I send warm wishes for a joyful day and a safe and prosperous year to come.
Secretary's Remarks: Remarks at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs
RemarksJohn Kerry
Secretary of State
Hilton Chicago Hotel
Chicago, Illinois
October 26, 2016
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good evening, everybody. And thank you, very, very much to Ivo Daalder. Thank you, sir, Mr. Ambassador. And thanks to the Chicago Council for Global Affairs for inviting me here. And a profound thank you to Ambassador Lou Susman for his very generous introduction. And most importantly, Marge and Lou, thank you for many, many years of extraordinary friendship. I really value it. And I think everybody is grateful for the service of both of these ambassadors. Thank you.
With respect to my being here, I have to tell you I was surprised that you guys showed up given the Cubbies. (Laughter.) I figured that – I was surprised at the generous welcome, because I thought the only people who would come would be White Sox fans – (applause) – but I’m pleasantly, pleasantly surprised. More to say about that.
Ivo is one of our top foreign policy experts of the generation, and I had the occasion to be at his residence in Brussels with President Karzai and the then chief of staff of Pakistan’s armed forces, and we abused his premises significantly for hours while we negotiated. But I’m grateful for the job he did. He was an outstanding United States ambassador to NATO.
And Lou, folks, if you don’t know it, is a Chicago fixture. He is a former emissary to the United Kingdom to the Court of St. James, a lawyer, a businessman, and as I mentioned, a longtime friend. He is also one of those very irritating people who no matter what he tries he succeeds at it. (Laughter.)
So Ambassador Daalder and Susman, you guys make a great team. And my deepest respects to you, and thank you for continuing with the council in providing leadership. We really appreciate it.
To my former colleague on Capitol Hill, Senator Dick Durbin, to Secretary Bill Daley, to Ambassador Jim Dobbins, members of the consular corps, and to all of you, thank you very much for your warm welcome to Chicago, the hometown of my boss. (Applause.)
I’m not saying this for your consumption; I say it anywhere and everywhere. President Obama is going to go down in history as one of America’s significant and most accomplished chief executives. (Applause.) And lucky guy, he’s only in his fifties. He’s got a lot more to contribute to the country, so we’re all lucky.
And over the years, I have heard President Obama talk a lot about Chicago, as you could imagine. And I am sure he has heard me as a champion of Boston complaining about Chicago’s unconscionable kidnapping of Theo Epstein and Jon Lester. (Laughter.) Envy is a terrible thing, folks. (Laughter.)
We all know that for many decades, Boston and Chicago were linked by an evil curse hatched by demons dwelling thousands of miles beneath the Earth’s crust. (Laughter.) And a dozen years ago, with Theo’s help, Boston broke from the spell. And skies opened, the lotus blossoms fell like rain. (Laughter.) And because some of you may be superstitious – which actually means all of you are superstitious – I will say no more except to say: Forget about yesterday. Your Cubbies are wicked awesome, as we say in Boston. (Applause.) And I promise to get you home tonight before the seventh inning stretch. (Laughter.)
Now, my focus this evening is on diplomacy, the art of negotiating and building relationships. It is a skill that some people have and others do not. For example, when Ulysses S. Grant was a boy, he lived across the state in Galina. And at the age of eight, he got permission from his dad to buy a neighbor’s horse. So he went to the neighbor’s farm and he told the guy there, “Papa says I can offer you $20 for the colt, but if you don’t take it, I’m to offer twenty-two-and-a-half. And if you don’t take that, I’m to give you 25.”
Now, my friends, with that kind of transparency, we could put WikiLeaks out of business. (Laughter.) But I’ve got to tell you, it makes you wonder how the North ever won the Civil War. (Laugher.) Now, we can all read about the Civil War and have, and we can all sit in the grandstands and watch the World Series, but actually, we’re here tonight not as spectators. We’re here as real-life participants in a troubled world. And we know that we have choices to make as citizens and as a country that can spell the difference between security and suffering, progress and stagnation, in an era of rapid, breathtaking transition. And that breathtaking transition is at the heart of a lot of the discontent that we see playing out in the most disturbing and unattractive ways.
But we have to take seriously what’s underneath it. The stark and bipolar divide of the Cold War that I encountered when I first arrived in the United States Senate that I grew up with, as a kid who grew up through the Cold War, but which I arrived at in the Senate more than 30 years ago, that bipolar, simple world has disappeared, and I don’t think anyone regrets that. But we are confronted today by a globe that is both no less dangerous and far more complex, where the power to influence events is less hierarchical, far more broadly dispersed, and change is at least as likely to be driven from the bottom as it is from the top.
For better and often for worse, non-state actors have assumed a more prominent role on the global stage. Chicago’s MacArthur Foundation is one of the happier examples. And the astonishing march of technology has and continues to revolutionize the workplace, and seemingly it has shrunk time and space, and that makes neighbors of all of us. Political instability, economic hardships, and even climate change have caused record numbers of people to migrate across borders in search of a better life. And all of this has made the job of governing in a way that meets public expectations harder than it has ever been before.
Here in the United States, we saw our nation attacked on 9/11 and our armed forces enter a fight at great cost in Afghanistan and Iraq. In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of Daesh/ISIL and again experienced the tragedy of terrorist murders close to home. We are confronted as well by the specter of cyber warfare, and by the unwelcome return of vicious sectarian violence and extreme nationalism.
It is little wonder that some yearn for what seems like a far simpler time. But it would be foolish to think that we can move ahead with our eyes firmly fixed on the rearview mirror. International challenges can’t be wished away, they can’t be ignored. They have to be met with honesty and determination and confidence. And that is the approach that our country at its best has always taken. As a famous son of Illinois once said, “optimist” is just another name for an American. And I agree – on at least this point – with Ronald Reagan. (Laughter.)
Put simply, the tasks that we face in the world today are more diverse and more complicated than those that our predecessors wrestled with. And frankly, our strategies have to reflect that and they don’t always. Some problems are relatively narrow in scope or they’re confined to a particular region, but a few – such as those that are posed by poor governance, of which there is far too much in this world right now – corruption, climate change, violent extremism; these are problems and challenges that are literally generational in their scope, and they require both short-term and long-term actions – something that our politics is finding it really difficult to deal with to our great detriment as a country.
At times we will be able to count on global institutions, but more often we’re going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting ourselves. That’s what I’ve learned as Secretary. In every case, we have to act with our nation’s values and our best interests in mind. And I want to be crystal clear that is exactly what we are doing.
Now, we’ve all heard some people accuse the United States of standing aloof from the world’s problems or somehow being in retreat. I’ve heard that narrative. I hear people say why is the United States disengaging? Why are you pulling back? And I scratch my head, and I say, where are these people coming from? But those assertions are, to use a diplomatic term of art, absolute nonsense. The truth is that the United States today is more deeply engaged in more places simultaneously on more critical issues with greater consequence than ever before in the history of this nation, and I know that. (Applause.)
Now, let me run through that a little bit so it’s not just a sentence, it’s not rhetoric. Consider for a moment the world’s most dynamic region.
The Asia Pacific is essential to the security and the prosperity of the United States – period. Of our top ten trading partners in the world, five of them are in Asia. The globe’s most populous country and its largest democracy are located there. In East Asia, we have enduring defense alliances with Japan and the Republic of Korea that we continue to strengthen and reaffirm and that we have strengthened and reaffirmed in this administration twice since I have been Secretary.
We have a regional diplomatic agenda that covers everything from nonproliferation to the prevention of human trafficking. Just two days ago I chaired – because I chair the Interagency Task Force – we had the Attorney General of the United States, the head of the FBI, the Treasury Department, the entire government – Education Department, Commerce – all at the same table talking about how we’re going to deal with human trafficking and end the scourge of modern-day slavery in the year 2016. I don’t know any other nation. (Applause.) You tell me what other nation has every arm of its government sitting around the same table on the same day wrestling with a global international issue and offering leadership as we have been on the issue of trafficking. Young women who are sold into slavery and sex traffics; a young man with a shackle around his neck that The New York Times chronicled so effectively, who was two years at sea, shackled to a boat where he was made to fish illegally and as a slave. You can run through 27 million stories, folks. I don’t know them all, but I know that each is as horrible as the other, and so do you. And these are people who are powerless; people from whom it is only a country like us that is willing to work to try to stand up and bring them out of the shadows and liberate them that we are their only hope, their only possibility of survival in situations where otherwise they might be forgotten to anybody and everybody – a speck of history that disappeared in some horrible moment that we don’t even witness.
We are cooperating with local (inaudible) leaders to restrain North Korea’s dangerous nuclear program and we’re adding muscle to one of the toughest economic sanctions regimes ever imposed, and we led the effort to achieve that. We consult regularly with regional partners to prevent misunderstandings that would lead to even greater tensions in the South China Sea. And we are helping to guide Myanmar’s historic transition from global outcast to emerging democracy. Just yesterday, I met with leaders from Vietnam to deepen our ties to a one-time adversary with whom we have found areas of common ground that not long ago would have seemed literally unimaginable.
Yesterday, I sat across a man who told me he fought in Quang Tri in the north of Vietnam while I was in the south, improbable as it might have been years ago for me to imagine we would sit across the table from each other and talk about how we really make peace. We left there in 1975 – as you all know, ’73 – we left in ’75, the fall of Saigon, then-Saigon, and the rest is history. Well, I’m proud that the United States saw the President of the United States Barack Obama, together with the Secretary of State who fought in that war in Hanoi, in Ho Chi Minh City, forging stronger ties with what is now a raging capitalist country that is changing rapidly. And that is how you really make peace, my friends – by building, by diplomacy. (Applause.)
In September, I sat down with New York – in New York with representatives from many Asian nations, and they reiterated a message that I have heard over and over again as Secretary of State. They welcome America’s presence in their region. And they don’t go to bed at night wondering about when we’re going to leave; they worry that we might leave. They don’t want any one country to try and dictate to others what they can and cannot do. And they see the United States of America as a balancing and stabilizing force, but they’re also concerned about what the future is going to bring. And the question they ask, the critical test of our commitment above all others, is whether we will formally approve the Trans Pacific Partnership or the TPP.
Now, let me tell you, this 12-nation agreement which we sought, which we led to create, which we have put our credibility on the line in order to build this 40 percent of global GDP entity that will create a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. It’s a global economy, and this agreement includes three of the biggest trading partners of Chicago – Canada, Mexico, and Japan. Unlike any trade agreement that our country has ever previously signed, TPP includes unprecedented labor and environmental protections within the four corners of the agreement, unlike the others. It mandates a level playing field between private sector companies and state-owned companies. Who do you think benefits from that? We don’t have state-owned companies. Other countries do. And now we create a level playing field. And provided Congress approves it, this pact will abolish 18,000 foreign taxes on American goods and services, making it easier for our farmers, our ranchers, and our businesspeople to be able to export overseas.
That is why the TPP is both a good deal for the American economy and it is a litmus test of our country’s capacity to lead. Make no mistake; if we’re going to live up to our responsibilities in Asia, if we’re going to treat our partners with the respect that they deserve while earning their respect at the same time, and if we’re going to do what is necessary to protect our interests, we have to maintain a steady and a reliable presence in that region. And I’ll just share with you our involvement can’t be in one sector and not in others. We can’t focus on one country and not be inclusive. We can’t focus on security at one moment and then ignore the economic dimension. You can’t turn it on and off like a faucet. Whenever and wherever vacuums exist in this world today, others will move to fill them in ways that may not embrace the rule of law and that will certainly not reflect the kind of high trading standards that we, the United States, seek.
If we were to see the TPP rejected, it would be a gigantic self-inflicted wound on our nation – a setback to our own interests in the region, where our credibility as a country on any agreement we’re trying to negotiate would be in doubt. It would amount to a conscious turning of our backs on the Asia Pacific at the very moment that we ought to be linking arms. It would be an act that would hurt American workers, slow our economy, hinder our ability to advance the full range of U.S. objectives in a region that is just, by common sense, with five of the fastest-growing nations in the world, a region that is important to our future.
Now, the good news is most of our citizens realize this. A recent survey by this council showed that a majority of Americans favor the TPP and believe that free trade is beneficial – and as I say free, I say fair, because it’s important that it be an agreement like the TPP, where you have labor standards and environment standards. But it is beneficial to our economy and is helpful to America’s standard of living.
And those people who are the majority in America who say they do support it realize that if America is going to keep growing – just think about this, it’s sort of basic common sense. You want the economy to grow, folks? Then you have to be able to sell to the places where 95 percent of the world’s customers live, and that’s not in the United States. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers live in other countries – beyond our borders – and we can’t grow our economy unless we’re willing to engage in trade. So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. That’s not what this is about. The problem is not that the average American worker is penalized by trade itself. The average American worker is penalized by a system that doesn’t allow them to share in the benefits of that trade, which sees the top 1 percent take most of the benefits away with them. And what we need is a measure of fairness in our tax structure, in our social structure, education, ongoing education, that provides opportunity for all Americans, so that whatever disruption or dislocation might come is adjusted for because we understand what we’re doing.
So I call on Congress when it returns to Washington after the election to take up and approve the TPP. It is the right thing to do for America – and no matter what the loudest voices may be shouting – it is also the popular choice. (Applause.)
Now even – but even as we demonstrate sustained leadership on the rebalance of our national security policy towards the Asia Pacific, we have to confront a lot of other tests as well. And none is more urgent than responding to the threat that is posed by violent extremists. This is a danger that has evolved steadily since 9/11 and we work constantly to defend against it, both here and at home; and in helping Nigeria to push back against the terrorist kidnappers of Boko Haram, which we are doing successfully; of helping Somalia to reclaim land from al-Shabaab, which we are doing successfully; of helping Afghanistan to safeguard its citizens from the Taliban; to help friends in the Middle East who are confronted by the most ruthless terrorist organization of all.
I want you to think back to the summer of 2014, ask yourself who is retreating. In 2014, Daesh terrorists were rampaging across Syria and Iraq, and you remember seeing on TV the Toyotas and the black flags and the sweeping columns moving through town after town plundering cities, murdering and torturing the innocent, and claiming to establish a caliphate that would rule all Islam. We heard dire predictions that Baghdad was about to fall and that young people from every single corner of the globe were going to flock to Daesh to kill and die in the name of hate.
It was a time to provide leadership, and that is exactly what President Obama did when he ordered U.S. planes to engage and bomb those terrorists and help rescue an endangered group of Yazidis on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq, where we stopped a slaughter from taking place. We led the effort to mobilize a diverse coalition that now numbers 67 countries. And together with our partners on the ground, we took on the terrorists and began to liberate the cities that they had occupied – Kobani, Tikrit, Fallujah, Ramadi, and more. And today, the citizens who were driven out have returned to those communities. Day after day, we have been eliminating the leaders of Daesh, choking their finances, disrupting their supply lines, hammering their oil facilities, and reducing their recruitment to a trickle.
And from the outset, we warned that eliminating Daesh completely wasn’t going to happen overnight; it was going to take a number of years. And that remains the case. But I’m telling you, the terrorists haven’t been able to launch a significant offensive and hold territory since May of last year. We have closed off the strategic border between Syria and Turkey.
And just last week, Iraqi and Peshmerga forces began a campaign to free Mosul, the so-called spiritual capital of Daesh’s phony caliphate and its largest remaining stronghold. Now this is going to be a difficult and consuming assault against a dug-in foe; but I’ll tell you this, our resolve could not be more firm. Daesh is opposed to every value human civilization aspires to. Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians; Jews because they are Jews; Yazidis because they are Yazidis; Shiite Muslims because they are Shiite Muslims; and Sunni Muslims if they reject Daesh’s ugly view of the world. Daesh sells little girls into slavery and brags about it. It cuts off the heads of innocent people in public, and sometimes forces children to watch and to even participate in executions. I said it earlier this year and I will say it again: Daesh is guilty of genocide and we will hold Daesh accountable. (Applause.)
My friends, it matters that every time we defeat these terrorists in one place, we seize files that help us to disrupt the networks that they are trying to establish in others; we learn more about how Daesh operates and who is aiding or conspiring with them. No one hears much about the attacks that don’t happen. We’re glad; we like it that way. But by sharing information, our coalition is helping to deter and break up plots on a regular basis before anyone gets hurt.
We are also engaged in a nonstop effort to rebut the lies that fuel propaganda. Here, too, we are making gains. Daesh’s presence on social media has plummeted and it has become apparent that its pledge to create Paradise on Earth is crumbling into a hand full of dust.
So here’s the bottom line: Because of the determined use of our diplomacy backed by our armed forces and the commitment of our partners, and the leadership that we have provided, we are going to win the fight against Daesh. And we are going to prevail without altering the nature of our societies, without succumbing to bigotry, without closing our borders, without betraying the democratic values that terrorists have vowed to destroy.
We will also persist in our effort to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Syria, and I believe we will find a way to ultimately end the most severe humanitarian crisis since World War II. It is a crisis, I might add, that is not going to be solved by just writing checks for refugees. We’re the largest donor in the world to the Syrian refugees. But what we have to do is stop the flow of refugees; we have to end the war. And this is as complicated a bit of diplomatic business as I’ve ever seen.
The situation in Syria is made worse by the multi-sided nature of the fighting as well as the utter depravity of the Assad regime, and there are so many different forces there. But precisely because the war is so complex, clear principles are required to end it. And because some outside powers have been playing an unhelpful role, international cooperation is essential as well. That’s why a year ago, we, the United States, brought together a group of stakeholders – the International Syria Support Group. It includes every single country that is involved in the conflict, including Russia and Iran.
And some people say, “Well, why are you sitting at the table with those guys?” Because they’re involved. Because without them being part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Each and every one of those countries promised to support a cessation of hostilities, the unfettered delivery of humanitarian aid, and negotiations that would lead to a political transition. Now, these remain the right principles for ending the war; but as the world knows far too well, the promises made on paper have not yet been matched by actions on the ground.
And this failure to keep faith has been both deeply tragic and unbelievably frustrating, piling misery on top of misery, and squandering opportunities for progress when they’re staring us right in the face. And despite the many setbacks, my friends, there’s a simple reality. The need for diplomacy remains, because the fact remains that a military solution in the judgment of most people is simply not possible – at least not if Syria is ever to be a whole country again.
This is complicated because there are many wars taking place simultaneously in the same place – Kurd on Kurd, Kurd on Turkey, Iran versus Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia versus Iran; Iran and Hizballah versus Israel versus us and those who have labeled Hizballah a terrorist organization; a lot of people against Assad; the whole world against Daesh; Daesh against Assad and civilization and everybody else; Shia versus Sunni; Persian Shia versus Arab Sunni. I think that’s more than six.
So let me be clear: There’s nothing inevitable about this war. The Syrian disaster resulted from choices that people made. And what people have the power to choose, they have the ability to change. I don’t think it’s hard to envision the changes that we need: a real and lasting ceasefire, representatives from both sides coming together in Geneva and coming together in the country, coming together in the country to defeat the terrorists and coming together in Geneva to define the transitional governing body of the Geneva Communique; to agree on new leadership and on new forms of governance; and to prepare for elections.
And why can I say that? Because every single country at the table of the International Syria Support Group has said they support that – elections, a transition government, a whole Syria, respect for rights of all minorities, secular, non-sectarian. The problem is there remains a mountain of mistrust between where we are and where we need to get to. And as we try to chip away at that mountain, we will make – I will make and President Obama will make zero apology for using every single diplomatic tool at our disposal to try to end this war. And we make no apology for not giving up when hospitals are being bombed, when children are still dying in the streets, and more and more refugees are added to the most horrific mass exodus in modern times. We owe the world our best effort to end this war, and we will continue to provide it. (Applause.)
Now, the impact of our diplomacy is also being felt in Europe, which is in the process of responding to an array of economic and other dilemmas, including the influx of refugees from Syria, from the Middle East, from Afghanistan, from Africa, and the decision, of course, by Great Britain to leave the European Union.
And we take these concerns very seriously, but they don’t diminish our faith in the future of the European project or the resilience of the transatlantic relationship partnership. I was in Brussels earlier this month, and I found that the sense of common purpose across the Atlantic is being demonstrated every single day. The United States and Europe continue to maintain tough economic sanctions against Russia because of its aggression in Ukraine, and our unity has been made even stronger by Russian President Putin’s repeated efforts to interfere in the functioning of our democratic systems. In July, at the NATO Summit in Warsaw, we agreed to bolster our security efforts in the Baltics and in Central Europe, and we’re doing that. We’re emphasizing energy diversification, helping to lead countries that have a one-place energy source and try to diversify for them in order to avoid the potential of being exposed to economic blackmail. And as I’ve said clearly on both sides of the English Channel: Brexit does not alter in the least American’s unwavering commitment to a strong Europe, a strong United Kingdom, and close diplomatic cooperation on matters of importance to all of us.
One illustration of that kind of diplomatic cooperation was the nuclear agreement that was referred to in Lou’s introduction regarding Iran. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action would never have gotten off the ground without firm European support for the sanctions that helped to bring Iran to the bargaining table. And that support was critical because before negotiations began, Iran had developed the ability to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb in just two months. In fact, they had enough nuclear material for 12 bombs. That’s where we were. The clock was ticking. So we made the decision to negotiate, and it is a good thing we did.
Under the plan that we reached, Iran agreed to ship 98 percent of its enriched uranium out of the country, to shut down two-thirds of its centrifuges, to take the core of its plutonium nuclear reactor and fill it with concrete rendering it unusable forever, and they acceded to a state-of-the-art, rigorous verification regime.
Now, as we know, this was a contentious debate here in this country. Many people argued against negotiating with Iran, let alone coming to an agreement, saying it would be a terrible mistake. I’ll tell you, to my core, I still believe they were and are wrong. The Iran agreement wasn’t a miscalculation. It has made the whole world safer, and it shows the value of diplomatic engagement even – and perhaps especially – when the governments involved disagree with another on as many issues as we did. When we came together to begin this negotiation, we hadn’t even talked formally to an official of Iran in 35 years.
Now, I’m not standing here pretending to you that diplomacy can solve every problem. It can’t. But the peaceful breakthroughs that it can provide are well worth the attempt. Nothing has ever been accomplished by an unwillingness to try. And I’ve always said I’d rather be caught trying.
Our diplomacy is also making a difference on global issues, and at the top of that is the historic progress that we are now beginning to make with regard to climate change.
Here in Chicago, as elsewhere around the world, you’ve experienced record high temperatures. If the present trend continues, average thermometer readings in the Midwest are going to reach those traditionally associated with the deep South. Each last month was the hottest month in human history – July the hottest month in recorded history. May, June, run the list – so much so that the last 10 years add to the fact that not only was last year the hottest year in human history, the last 10 years are the hottest year – or the hottest decade. And guess what? The decade before that is the second-hottest in human history, and the decade before that is the third-hottest in human history. You’d think with those trend lines that everybody would catch on. But in fact, we had a political party in our country that didn’t allow – not one single candidate running for president – to say anything about climate change. And in the debates that we just had for president, out of six hours of debates, the vice president and president combined, not one single question was asked about climate change.
Now, here in Chicago, you’ve been responding to this challenge by implementing flood protection measures, by planting trees, by committing to green technology. But for these steps to be fully effective, they’re going to have to be matched by a concerted international campaign that is now, because of our efforts, gathering steam. And no one country can solve this problem alone. If we went to zero tomorrow, we’d still have a major problem.
Last December in Paris, the United States joined governments from nearly 200 nations in approving the most far-reaching agreement on climate change ever negotiated. And to arrive at that point, we had to put the environment where it belonged: right at the top or near top of our foreign policy agenda.
In 2009 in Copenhagen – I remember being there – the world convened to talk about climate change but adjourned in total disarray, a famous implosion where the Chinese were involved with the G77 in moving in the opposite direction. So recognizing that, one of my first initiatives as Secretary of State was to prevent that from happening again. I went to Beijing to create in the early – within a month and a half or so of being Secretary, we created a bilateral working group in order to see if it was possible for us to find a different way to move forward with the exact purpose of trying to have our presidents be able to announce the level of reductions that we would jointly engage in.
Well, that effort paid off when, in January of 2015, President Obama and President Xi stood side by side in Beijing, representing the world’s two largest economies and the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, and together we set ambitious targets for action while encouraging other countries to do the same. That is what broke open the possibility of the Paris Agreement.
And the Paris Agreement was a diplomatic milestone, but it’s still far from the finish line. We began this year hoping to take additional strides. First, we wanted to ensure that enough countries would formally ratify the Paris Agreement so that we could bring it into force by the end of the year. That required a whirlwind effort to gain the approval of cabinets and parliaments, the kind of process that often consumes – ask Ivo or ask Lou – could consume a decade. We did it in 10 months.
Our second goal was to map out a path towards carbon-neutral growth for the international aviation industry. We achieved that goal in September.
And two weeks ago, I flew to Rwanda in pursuit of our third goal: a plan to phase down the use of heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons in air conditioners, refrigerators, and other devices. And this is probably the single-most important step that we could take to limit the severity of global warming in ways because it, by itself, if properly implemented, will save one-half a degree Centigrade in the warming of Planet Earth. This negotiation also was the product of years of painstaking diplomacy, and it, too, had a positive outcome.
So as I said earlier, shielding our planet from the worst consequences of climate change is a generational challenge. But in the three decades that I have been working on this issue, I have never seen the kind of positive momentum that we have now. Across the globe, leaders from the private sector, from civil society, the scientific community, the religious organizations, and governments at all levels are all together moving in the same direction. Yes, there are still pockets of blindness and denial, some right here in America, as I mentioned. And yes, the agreement does not by itself guarantee that we will halt the temperature increase at 2 degrees Centigrade.
But by acting boldly on all three fronts – Paris Agreement, civil aviation, hydrofluorocarbons – we have sent an unmistakable, powerful message to entrepreneurs and investors everywhere in the world that now is the time to revolutionize the way we produce and use energy. And as I have said many times, the solution to climate change is staring us in the face. It’s not something we have to discover in the future. It’s here, it’s now, it’s energy policy, it’s moving to make better choices about how we power our transportation, our buildings, our electricity. That’s the solution. And the sooner we move to a low-carbon, no-carbon economy, the sooner we will solve this problem for future generations. (Applause.)
And by the way, it is the biggest market in the history of human beings. The market that grew my state of Massachusetts unbelievably and even our country in the 1990s was a $1 trillion market with a billion users. That was the high-tech market – computers, personal computers, and communications. This market is a 4 to 5 billion user market today going up to 9 billion users, and it’s a multi-trillion-dollar market today and it’s going to go up into the 40, 50 trillion mark in terms of investment over the course of the next years. This is the way you put people back to work. If there is one piece of advice I will have for my successor, it will be to ensure that environmental diplomacy remains an integral part of our foreign policy, because we cannot safeguard the future of this planet for our children and our grandchildren if we fail to defend the fundamental principles of a safe and clean Mother Earth. (Applause.)
Now, you should know – now, maybe you’re beginning to get the sense of our engagement. What I’ve discussed so far is really just the tip of a very big iceberg. Every day, the State Department’s Foreign and Civil Service professional are hard at work on issues affecting places like Colombia, where we’re aiding President Santos’s effort to end a 50-year war, the longest-running civil conflict in our hemisphere; Cuba, where we have restored diplomatic relations for the first time in more than half a century; Yemen, where we’re trying to work every day now to establish a roadmap towards a durable peace; Libya, where we are working to strengthen the government of national accord, and I will be meeting in London on Monday of next week on that very subject; Sub-Sahara Africa, where we’re training young leaders, promoting connectivity, supporting the empowerment of women; Central Asia, where we’re engaged on energy security and helping civil society to take root.
And as the men and women who work in our country’s diplomatic posts can attest to you, being the face of America abroad is an honor, yes, but it’s also a continual challenge filled with personal sacrifice and even risk. I have nothing but admiration for the members of our overseas teams, which is why I think the Chicago Council’s new Youth Diplomats program to help prepare the leaders of tomorrow is a fantastic idea. Let no one doubt the effort by the United States to assist people in other nations makes a major difference to them, but also it makes a major difference to us. And it has done much to shape what our country means to the world.
Back in 1949, a junior State Department official named Benjamin Hardy had an idea. He thought that some of the concepts behind America’s New Deal might work if they were applied internationally. He proposed a large-scale program that would harness popular, quote, “enthusiasm for social and economic improvement,” and thereby repulse Communism and create a decent life for the Earth’s millions.
Mr. Hardy sent his suggestion up the State Department chain-of-command only to see it come back down with the deadly words, “Needs further study.” He sent it up again; it came down again. And here I assure you that nothing like this would ever happen in the flawlessly managed State Department of today – (laughter) – but after trying and failing a third time to get support from above, he did something which I do not recommend to anyone’s who’s aggrieved in my department, he reached directly out to the White House. And the next thing he knew, President Harry Truman was unveiling a program of international assistance as the featured fourth point in his Inaugural Address.
This was truly something new. Never before had a country launched a major effort to help people to whom it had no special ties except a shared interest in peace and prosperity. And it’s no accident that that country was the United States of America.
I’m not going to tell you that in the time since we’ve solved every problem or that every indicator of international progress is due to America. No, it’s not. But I do know, because I’ve seen it firsthand in country after country, the difference that our leadership and our resources have had a lot to do with what is happening for the good in so many places in the world today. Children born today can expect to live longer and healthier lives than in any previous generation. Did you know that? Compared to just 20 years ago, we have cut in half the number of mothers who die during childbirth and the number of infants who perish because of malnutrition. We’ve vastly expanded access to education for girls and boys. In Afghanistan in 2001, only about a million kids went to school, and they were all boys. Now there are more than 9 million kids in school, and 40 percent of them are girls. (Applause.)
We have driven extreme poverty below 10 percent for the first time in human history. We defied predictions to save hundreds of thousands of people who were at risk of Ebola. Remember they said a million people were going to die two Christmases ago, and we never got close to that because President Obama dared to send 3,000 troops over to build health care delivery capacity, and doctors and nurses and aides provided courageous assistance to save lives. We joined forces with the global health community to turn the tide in the fight against HIV/AIDS. I remember 15, 20 years ago it was death sentence and people didn’t even want to talk about it. Now we can look forward, thanks to our program that we put together first in the Senate and then globally, to the first “born free from AIDS” generation in more than three decades. (Applause.)
And with the help that we have just received from Congress, you can bet we are going to go after the Zika virus with all the energy that we have, because the prospect of becoming a parent should be a source of joy for everyone everywhere, not a source of fear. (Applause.)
This, my friends, is really just scratching the surface of a record in which all Americans can take pride. And yes, it comes at a cost. But do you know that amazing surveys show that many of our citizens think we devote a full quarter or even a third of our federal budget to foreign aid? Do you know what the reality is? One single penny of every dollar that our government spends abroad in terms of diplomacy and all of the programs and all of our aid – one single penny of every dollar is used for international operations and includes everything from counterterrorism to assistance to providing security at our embassies and paying for the staffs of embassies around the world. One penny out of every dollar. One percent. Without doubt, the biggest and best single bargain in the government today.
Now, in October of 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt arrived in Chicago to dedicate the Outer Drive Bridge. He was expected to talk about local issues, but instead he had a global message in mind. Congress had earlier approved a neutrality law prohibiting the Executive from sending aid to the democratic countries of Europe. And there were many in our country who said that to remain safe, America should close its eyes to the storms gathering abroad and avoid making an enemy of Hitler.
Standing in front of an array of microphones, legs supported by clamps, hands gripping the podium for support, Roosevelt warned that a “reign of terror and international lawlessness” was threatening “the very foundations of civilization.” In vivid terms, he denounced the rise of fascism in Europe, aggression in the Pacific, and the slaughter of defenseless civilians in Abyssinia and China. He said that trying to ignore these outrages would bring not peace, but more of the same – and he compared them to a disease that people everywhere should join in isolating.
FDR’s so-called “quarantine” speech, as it came to be known, was denounced by many as “warlike,” and his summons to action was rebuffed by the European advocates of appeasement. But as history was soon to demonstrate, Roosevelt’s every word was proven true.
As I enter my final three months as Secretary of State, I am as convinced now, as FDR was then, of the need for peace-loving people on every continent to band together to reject the apostles of hate, the authors of aggression, the manipulators of truth who threaten to hold us back and do us harm. We need to fulfill the responsibility that we all share to uphold the global norms, to defend freedom in all of its dimensions, and to respect the rights and the dignity of every single human being.
Also like Roosevelt, I recognize – as I think everyone here does – the importance of flexible and creative U.S. leadership in making that happen. Our country is blessed with an $18 trillion economy. We should be asking ourselves not how quickly or sharply we can shed the responsibilities of leadership, but rather how much more can we do. We have our own storm clouds and our own foundations of civilization to protect. And let us never forget that America is the exceptional nation that so many people in public life like to talk about, but we’re not exceptional because we make speeches about being exceptional, and we’re not exceptional when we shove our face in other people’s faces and tell them how exceptional we are. We are exceptional when and because we do exceptional things. That’s what makes America exceptional. And America can do more, even today, with greater impact. But we have to be willing to put resources on the table and empower people to live our vision – not view it with envy from the outside.
I believe that we should look to the future with every ounce of optimism that has always inspired and energized our nation, but we should also acknowledge that we will not be able to chart a sure course for others unless we are at peace with ourselves.
A great American from this state once warned, in the words of the scriptures, that, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Whatever happens in the next two weeks, our country is going to have to begin a process of healing, of reconnecting with one another, of listening, of forgiving, and remembering that every action we take is being carefully observed by our global allies and adversaries, and that what they see will have a direct impact on our future ability to be able to lead.
I think that we have one of the greatest stories in the world to tell. The strength of America, unlike some places where they’re defined by ethnicity or by centuries of homogeneity – we are not. We are defined by an idea, unlike most other countries, and that idea is about freedom and the pursuit of happiness and all people being created equal with the opportunity to make the most of themselves.
Ladies and gentlemen, American greatness is not an entitlement and it cannot be taken for granted. It has to be demonstrated; it has to be earned by every generation. And one of the great strengths I hear from other people whenever I travel is how they see in America a country that is always changing, always moving forward, always looking to the future, always able to redefine itself. That effort demands the best from us and it demands the best within us. The world will be watching to see whether we, the American people, remain up to that challenge. There is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that the answer is yes, but we are going to do a better job – all of us together, I believe – or we need to all do a better job in proving it to people.
This Administration still has miles to go before we pass into history, and I intend to work with the president as he does until January 20th to advance the cause of our country. And in doing so, I will be grateful for as long as I live for the privilege I have been given to serve, just as I am now grateful for your hospitality in welcoming me to the matchless city of Chicago. Thank you and go Cubs. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Please, please, please (inaudible).
MR DAALDER: Mr. Secretary, I think I speak for all of us here to thank you for your service and for this really rousing call for continued strong American leadership and engagement in the world. We have a couple more minutes, so we’ve gotten some questions that we’ve collected, and I wanted to start with a question of a young man who is a political science student here in – at DePaul University who wants to think about his future by asking you something about his past. He asks: “How has your experience as a Vietnam veteran influenced you not only throughout your life, but particularly your service as Secretary of State?”
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it’s a great question. Thank you for the question. I did a podcast earlier today with David Axelrod in which we talked a little bit about this. It requires a little bit of biography. But when I – I signed up for the United States military in 1965, not too long after Lyndon Johnson said we need 500,000 troops in Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin incident had allegedly happened. And I was, like many, many, many of my classmates, actually, I was surprised when I went back and looked in our reunion book how many classmates served. And I think it was part of our generation’s sense of responsibility – lucky enough to go to great university, mindful of President Kennedy’s call to action that we would bear any price and – pay any price, bear any burden, and recognizing we were in the Cold War and seeing things in a fairly simplistically defined way – East, West, Soviet Union versus the West, bipolar, pretty simple stuff, defend against Communism – and we tended to see most of our challenges within that lens.
Well, by time – the first draft card hadn’t been burned. I think it was first burned in about 1967. And by 1968, when I was training – when I left for Vietnam for a tour of duty in the Gulf of Tonkin in a ship, and then when I went over as skipper of a small gun boat, 1968 was an incredible year, as you all know from history and some of you from living it. Medgar Evers was assassinated, Martin Luther King was assassinated, Robert Kennedy was assassinated. There was tumultuous convention right here in this city. And I was in uniform and watching all of this and listening to the stories of those who were coming back from Vietnam and sharing with us what their experience was.
So when I went over in-country as we called in October, I think it was, of 1968, I saw a very different set of circumstances from those that we had mostly read about or had described to us. And I really found myself – as we did all of us who were there – wrapped up in a civil war with very few options in a sense and a war that, in my judgment, we were simply not going to win the way it was being fought and with the choices and options that we had, and perhaps couldn’t be in the long run depending on how you saw the North-South civil component of it.
So what I learned was, in answer to your question, and what I vowed was as a young man, that if I was ever in a position of responsibility to make a judgment about putting people like me in harm’s way again, I was going to make sure that we understood what we were doing, and I was going to make sure that we had the right lens and the right understanding of what it was. We haven’t done that, obviously, in every case, but I think that the notion – I think – when I testified before Congress and before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, I laid out my reasons for opposition to the war as a veteran. As I was leading a group of veterans and a small group of my friends – we brought about 5,000 veterans to Washington. We camped out on the Mall and we stared down the Supreme Court and the Washington police and the administration, and stayed on the Mall and delivered a message to Congress about the war. And it was a breakthrough moment where people began to really understand what was happening.
I think that the lesson I learned is – are several. Number one, make sure you really ask the right questions, examine all the possibilities, and get an understanding of the place you’re thinking about going so you understand what the dynamics are, what the downside risks are, and what is the what then, what next. Once you’ve succeeded in your immediate goal, how do you manage it as you go forward?
I also learned that not everything is Vietnam, and that’s a very important lesson, folks. Some people get trapped in that place in history, and I thought it was very important not to be trapped, that sometimes we do have to use force. I supported what we did in Kosovo and Serbia. I thought it was critical to save lives. And as you all know, President Clinton greatly regrets the fact that they didn’t respond in Rwanda. There are times when I think we do have a responsibility and we have to do some things that we don’t like to do. But it depends on what the stakes are, and you have to examine them very, very carefully.
So the real – I also learned an indelible lesson, because we were the veterans who first called to attention of the nation the treatment of vets in the VA hospitals, the lack of adequate allowances to go to school, the lack of adequate staffing in the hospitals, the absence of any kind of thank you or homecoming for a group of veterans who fought as hard as any other people in war at any other time, and I learned indelibly that this country should never, ever again confuse the war with the warriors. And I think we have learned that lesson, and it’s a good one. (Applause.)
MR DAALDER: Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service. Thank you for joining us here today. I very much appreciate you coming to Chicago. Particularly on this night, you’ve kept an audience for a long time, and particularly what’s going on right now.
SECRETARY KERRY: Do we have a score?
MR DAALDER: They’re winning, 2-nothing. Thank you. (Applause.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Two-nothing. That’s a good note to end on. Thank you. (Applause.)
Remarks With Students at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics
RemarksJohn Kerry
Secretary of State
Chicago, Illinois
October 26, 2016
MODERATOR: It is an honor to welcome a Secretary of State to the University of Chicago. It is part of the mission of the Institute of Politics to facilitate these kinds of opportunities for you to interact with practitioners and leaders, and so we’re really pleased on that account. But I – our other mission is somewhat larger than that, which is: We live in a somewhat dispirited time in our politics. I don’t know if any of you have felt that – (laughter) – in which it’s easy to see politics as something squalid, as an exercise in self-aggrandizement. The Institute of Politics is dedicated to the proposition that politics is something much more than that; politics at its best is the way we grab the wheel of history and steer it in the right direction. And we make progress when leaders of conscience, committed public servants, execute on that and help steer us in that direction.
John Kerry is a public servant. He’s been a public servant all his life, from the time that he served in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War; he has been a prosecutor, a lieutenant governor. George, who will introduce him, will give you the full bio – United States senator. I got to work with him when I was a senior advisor to the President, the two years I spent in Washington. And he is someone – John Kerry understands what politics is at its best and what public service is all about, and in that sense he is a wonderful example for all of us as to why politics is important. And beyond that he is an optimist. There’s an old joke – it’s probably been beaten to death – about the kid who comes up on a pile of manure, and to everybody else it looked just like a pile of horse manure, and the kid starts digging through the manure saying, “There must be a pony in here.” The definition of an optimist. John Kerry is an optimist. (Laughter.)
Maybe it’s an apt analogy. Maybe it’s an apt analogy given the state of a very unsettled world. But he has been as Secretary of State an indefatigable force to find positive ways forward, and in that he’s earned my admiration, I hope your admiration. But I’m eager to hear him talk about his experiences and where we as a country are going, where the world is going.
A couple housekeeping notes: The Secretary is going to take your questions after a moderated discussion with Walter Isaacson, who is one of the great public thinkers of our time, one of the great journalists of our time. Please keep your questions short and to the point, and by questions we mean something that ends in a question mark and not an exclamation point. (Laughter.) Please remember to turn off or silence your phones, as well. We don’t want those interruptions.
And now to formally introduce our special guest is George – how does George pronounce his last name?
PARTICIPANT: Adames.
MODERATOR: Adames. Thanks, George. (Laughter.) George is a third year in the college; he’s majoring in public policy and geography. He’s from Augusta, Georgia and is a member and a leader of the IFPs Student Advisory Board and has been a wonderful contributor to the Institute of Politics. So please, join me in welcoming George to the platform. (Applause.)
MR ADAMES: At times, it can be difficult to have sustained faith in government bureaucracy. Today, young people can be discouraged by divisive rhetoric or partisan gridlock in a time when we especially need more youth to be invested in living lives of public service. Many young people just haven’t had great experiences with government. I’d say I’m pretty lucky in that regard. This summer, I had the opportunity to work under someone with a strong commitment to public service who truly understands the need to sustain young people’s faith in government. Sure, he wasn’t my direct supervisor, and the State Department hierarchy made it so there were a few degrees of separation between us, but Secretary of State John Kerry’s strong leadership and values were felt throughout the entire department.
Secretary Kerry grew up in a family of public service. His father was a Foreign Service officer and his mother was a social activist. After graduating from Yale University, Secretary Kerry served as a lieutenant in the United States Navy during the Vietnam War. For his service he was awarded several combat medals including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. After returning to the United States, Secretary Kerry joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and participated in anti-war activism.
Secretary Kerry began his career in electoral politics at the age of 29 by mobilizing young people as he campaigned in the 1972 Democratic primary for Massachusetts 5th congressional district. He won the primary and moved towards the general election on a progressive platform that called for national health insurance, a jobs program to clean the Merrimack River, and rent control in Massachusetts cities. However, he lost the seat to the Republican candidate and proceeded to obtain a law degree from Boston College.
After working in the District Attorney’s office and dabbling in radio, Secretary Kerry went on to become the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, where he was very active on environmental issues. He was then elected to the United States Senate, where he served from 1985 to 2013. After running for president against incumbent George W. Bush in 2004, Secretary Kerry remained in the Senate, where he was active in both domestic and international issues, serving as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
In 2012, John Kerry was nominated by President Obama to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. In his time within the State Department, Secretary Kerry has placed emphasis on peace in the Middle East, cyber security, climate change, and in educational diplomacy. He has traveled over 1.3 million miles to 90 countries across the globe. His tenure has been marked by historic milestones in U.S. relations to Cuba, in addressing climate change, and negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement.
After interning at the State Department, my faith in government is not only sustained but strengthened. Secretary Kerry leads by example, and that was evident in my colleagues and their faith in the work that they’re doing. Throughout his career, Secretary Kerry has demonstrated his strong commitment to public service and his conviction in government efficacy. This commitment is one that we can all strive towards in hopes of making our world more just.
Today’s discussion will be moderated by Walter Isaacson. Mr. Isaacson has had an extensive career in journalism working with publications such as Sunday Times of London, Time Magazine, where he served as the political correspondent and national editor. In 2001, he became the CEO and chairman of CNN, a position he held until 2003, where he stepped down to be the CEO of the Aspen Institute.
Please join me in welcoming Walter Isaacson and Secretary of State John Kerry to the stage. (Applause.)
MR ISAACSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. It’s a great (inaudible). As George said, you grew up in a divided city of Berlin when your father was a Foreign Service officer. Things were dangerous back then, but now they’ve become more complicated. How does this new complexity after the end of the Cold War play out in a place like Syria?
SECRETARY KERRY: Wow. (Laughter.) Can I begin just by saying thank you to all of you? Thanks for being here. I want to thank David Axelrod for his tremendous contributions to our country by leaving journalism and lending his political genius to President Obama’s efforts and to the last few years. And I’m delighted – you’re all very lucky to have him at the Institute of Politics here. And, David, thank you for everything you’ve done. And, Walter, thank you for being here and for being part of this. And thank you, guys – my deputy chief of staff is a University of Chicago graduate student alum, so I’m happy to be here. He told me that.
Well, I grew up and I was – the early times when I was in Berlin when I was about 12 years old, 13 years old, but I noticed very, very clearly the tensions of that time. I mean, there were Russian signs warning you not to come into the Russian sector. It was a divided city – French, British, U.S., Russian – which reflected the divisions after the war. And it was a tense place; it was the Cold War at its height. And we would take a train from Frankfurt in Germany through the East Sector into this divided city. It was an island, if you will, in the midst of totalitarianism and all of the tensions of the then-burgeoning Cold War. So I, as a kid, just picked up the differences between East and West.
MR ISAACSON: You once rode your bicycle across --
SECRETARY KERRY: I did. I once used my diplomatic passport and went through checkpoint Charlie into the East Sector. But actually, I got scared. I mean, I noticed it was dark and foreboding, and there were very few cars and people were dressed in much darker clothes, and there were far fewer people just sort of walking around in the street. And I felt this ominous sense of danger. I didn’t like it and I literally, so I said, “I’m going to get out of here.” And I turned around and went back into the – into the American sector, proudly told my father what I had done, and was promptly grounded and my passport was taken away from me because I could have been in an international incident had I stumbled into the wrong people in the wrong way.
That world was a bipolar world – the Soviet Union, the West. And we were the most powerful entity on the planet. We still are, but differently. Then, we were the only economy that was viable and it was at the height of the Marshall Plan, and we were busy rebuilding Germany, rebuilding Europe, rebuilding Japan – which, by the way, still stands as one of the great enterprises of American foreign policy. And we inherit, as a result, and I – we – all of you need to be prepared to remind our fellow citizens in America of the value of investing in the future of other countries, because that is what produced a democratic Germany that’s the strongest country in Europe today and a huge partner on so many things. And it is what produced Europe and ultimately the European project, which today has these tensions because of Brexit, and which produced in Japan a constitution modeled on ours, obviously, largely contributed to by General MacArthur, and we wound with a Japan that is an enormously close and important ally to us. So there you see in the written story of the value of foreign assistance and of engagement with other countries.
But today – to come back to Walter’s question – today we see a world where power is less hierarchical and far more diversified in its – in the manner in which it presents itself, and often exhibited in bottom-up, not top-down ways that has a profound impact on governance. You couple that with those little machines that most of you are holding in your hands or many of you are that can give you instant access to any – the answer to any question you have on your mind. I mean, how many dinner table conversations are settled by googling the answer? I mean, we all do that. And so information comes differently.
I was commenting early over at the IOP that back when I was in college, a President Kennedy or a President Nixon or a President Johnson or whatever could log a call from the communications office to the head of CBS or NBC and saying we need a block tonight, and they’d get a half hour of TV for the president. You’d have ABC, NBC, CBS, and public television. And the next morning, everybody in the country was talking about what the president said at the water cooler and their coffee break. It doesn’t happen now. That’s why you’ve seen President Obama go on The View or you see him on The Late Show or the Late Late Show, whatever, because that’s how you have to piecemeal, try to reach Americans to communicate.
So the world we’re seeing today is just so different, with the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, forces that had been pent up for years like Tito, a dictator of then-Yugoslavia, were unleashed. And now with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Kosovo and these incredible tensions with an ethnicity and tribalism and religious extremism and co-opting that is changing the presentation of people everywhere.
And you couple that with modernity – I mean, what we’re seeing – part of what we see in the Trump campaign and in the Brexit campaign is a reaction of people to this change, which many people don’t understand, many people can’t control, many people are scared of, and you can’t blame them. I mean, jobs have changed. Technology has changed life. Productivity increases come through mostly technology, and so the nature of work has changed. And if you think it’s changed now – I hate to say this to you, but watch what happens as artificial intelligence comes online and as we see the next generation of technology in use.
So you all and we are together living through a moment of profound, dramatic transformation in the organization of citizens around what we call government. And for those of you – I heard the comments of David in the beginning about how dispiriting perhaps some of it is. Well, yeah, but let me ask you about the alternative. What’s the alternative? Most countries in the world conglomeratized have tried every single ism there is – socialism, communism, and not isms – democracy and so forth. And I’m proud to say that we have more democracies now than we did 15, 20 years ago by far. But it doesn’t mean we’re automatically winning the struggle for how people think they’re going to organize their lives.
But what are you going to do if you don’t have that? What are you going to do if you can’t get up on the soapbox and put your idea out? What are you going to do if you can’t freely go out and organize a precinct and get people to go vote and make a choice? So yeah, it’s plenty messy; but as opposed to every other alternative, it’s the best shot we have – individual human beings – to be able to weigh in and affect their lives.
So the question is: Are you going to do that? Are you going to hold people accountable to a higher standard? And we can have a long conversation about that, but the world today is a much more complicated world than the world that my parents grew up in and I grew up in, and we need to adjust to that and recognize it. We need to move decisions faster, we need to be bolder, we need to be more engaged, not less engaged in the world. Because I’ll tell you, there’s no “over there” anymore. Everybody’s connected. And anything that can happen in some other place that you call “over there” can actually happen in your backyard.
MR ISAACSON: So how does this play out in Syria? How many wars are we fighting there?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Syria is so much more complicated than people think. I mean, it’s easy to sort of – we’re all frustrated, and frustrated by Assad, frustrated by the Russians, the Iranians, everything that’s happening there, the violence that exists. But it’s not a simple sort of okay, let’s sit at the table and have you resolve it, because you have Kurds versus Kurds, Kurds versus Turkey, Turkey versus Kurds; you have Iran versus Saudi Arabia and vice versa; you have Iran and Hizballah, and Hizballah which affects Israel, it affects us because it is a designated terrorist organization.
Then you have Daesh/ISIL with most people against ISIL, though the Russians and the Assad regime have not principally been going after Daesh and ISIL. They have principally been shoring up Assad and going after the legitimate moderate opposition, which is against Assad. That’s another reflection of the complication.
Then you have the aspirations of Turkey and the aspirations of Qatar juxtaposed to the aspirations of some other Gulf state countries or members of the Arab – of the Gulf coalition. And then, of course, you have Sunni and Shia and the complications of Assad and Alawite minority having ruled in a fairly ruthless way over the years against a 65 percent Sunni majority of the country, some of whom have affiliated themselves with Assad, so there’s not a unified Sunni presence. And then, of course, you have the Sunni countries that are supporting an opposition – Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia principally – all of which makes this gigantically complicated.
MR ISAACSON: But if you’re going to sort it out, it would seem you would need not only diplomacy, but diplomacy backed by the threat of force. And three years ago when we were about to use the threat of force in Syria after the red line had been crossed, the President pulled back from that. Do you think that that’s been a problem, that there hasn’t been that on the table – the notion that we would go in with force if need be?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me begin first of all with just the issue of the red line and the issue of chemical weapons and the President’s decision to use force, which, by the way, is often forgotten, before I talk about the issue of force overall.
This is a narrative that has somehow gained legs, which I hear about all the time. So the simple answer to your question is: Has it had an impact that the President decided not to bomb? The answer is yes. But in my judgment, and I know the President’s, mistakenly so, because in fact, the President made the decision to use force, and he announced publicly that he was prepared to use force, and all he did was not decide – he never decided not to use the force. He decided after David Cameron took the vote to the parliament in Britain on a Thursday and lost the vote that being a democracy and having had a consultation with members of Congress – a phone call that I was on with about a hundred members of Congress, many of whom were saying, “Well, you’ve got to come to us, you’ve got to talk to us,” particularly in the wake of a failed vote in England, it became even more imperative that the President asked the Congress for the authority.
MODERATOR: But still that was a decision not to use force by that --
SECRETARY KERRY: No, it wasn’t. I disagree with that, because two days later, three days later, I was in London and I did a press conference in London. And Margaret Brennan of CBS asked at that press conference, “Secretary, is there a way for Assad to avoid being bombed?” And I said, “Yes, he could decide to get all the chemical weapons out of the country.”
MR ISAACSON: Now, did you know at that point by talking to Lavrov, your Russian counterpart, about this, that the Russians might take you up on that?
SECRETARY KERRY: Lavrov and I had had that conversation. We had talked about it several weeks earlier. The President had had that conversation in St. Petersburg with President Putin. They had talked about it and passed on to us – to Lavrov and me – the gist of their conversation.
So it was obviously – I didn’t just drop that out there as a sort of throwaway. I knew that if we could get that decision, we could actually get our goal achieved. And our goal – everybody – was to get all the chemical weapons out of Syria. If we had in fact simply bombed, we would not have gotten the chemical weapons out. We were trying to send a message to Assad not to use them and to give him a clear sense that if he used them again, even worse could happen. So it was a deterrent step, but it was not a solution to the problem of how do you get all the chemical weapons out.
So Lavrov and I met in New York, we negotiated, and we came up with an arrangement to have the OPCW manage the extraction of all of the weapons. We set up a schedule with details, we signed the agreement, and guess what? The OPCW managed for the first time in the history of conflict to get weapons of mass destruction out of a country in their entirety during a conflict, and the OPCW won the Nobel Prize for doing so. Now, which solution is better? (Applause.)
I mean, it seems to me that – and this notion – but – and I have to be honest here. There is and has been a lingering sense in the minds of people in the Middle East that the President didn’t want to bomb and decided effectively not to, and that that has lingered as, I think, a very unfair anchor around our policy, because in point of fact, the President never decided not to and asked the Congress for the permission, and we couldn’t get the Congress – we couldn’t get the votes in the Congress.
MR ISAACSON: You mentioned a moment ago artificial intelligence, and we’re reading a lot about, even now, our warfighting in Syria is being done by unmanned drones and unmanned planes. Do you think the world needs a new arms control regime to deal with robots and autonomous artificially intelligent fighters?
SECRETARY KERRY: I personally do. I have not – this is not a vetted position in the Administration, it has not been through the interagency process, but I think we are going down a very dangerous road in terms of the mechanization of warfare and what it may do to raise the level of risk for people overall. And I think we have to be very, very careful about it, just as we have to be very careful about cyber.
Now, in the case of cyber, we entered a negotiation with President Xi and the Chinese last year which was very successful, and we established a set of principles between our countries as to what sort of needed to be reined in and what we needed to restrain and what the norms were for behavior between nations. And by and large, I mean, this has had a positive impact ultimately.
MR ISAACSON: With China?
SECRETARY KERRY: With China. But – and I think it’s a precursor to what may be possible and necessary in terms of restraining the antiseptic component of warfare that may, in fact, increase the proclivity of people to be able to take risks and to be willing to take lives remotely. And I think we have to think very, very carefully about that as a society and as a world because it has its dangers.
MODERATOR: Speaking of cyber, have you discussed with your counterpart Lavrov in Russia the cyberattacks on the American election system, and have you told --
SECRETARY KERRY: Yes.
MODERATOR: -- him there would be consequences?
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, absolutely. The issue of consequences are very clear. We would not have – the President would not have authorized a release of the assessment to the Intelligence Community if we didn’t feel that it was serious and also if we didn’t feel that it was certain. So the emails themselves and the releases that we are seeing of private emails through the WikiLeaks process, we have no doubt has Russian involvement and direct involvement.
With respect to the election process itself, we want to be very clear to people that we haven’t made any assessment and we do not believe that a country can directly impact the counting of votes themselves because those are state-run operations and they are not on the open internet. They’re not on the internet. Now, do other things happen in the voting process in America still? Sadly, the answer is yes. Have we perfected our own elections? No, we haven’t, and we need to continue to work at it.
But we’ve made huge leaps. We are much more organized, much more clearer in the rules. We have early voting in many states. I mean, our process is becoming more and more sophisticated and more and more accountable and transparent, and we should be very proud of that.
MR ISAACSON: Let me get you to the nitty-gritty of what you have to do each day and things you have to balance, because you’re trying to deal with Russia and Syria, and you’re pulling them back and forth and you pull back and forth. At the same time, the President is trying to decide whether to release this finding that the Russians are part of and messing with our election and maybe we’ll retaliate. Do you have to sometimes say in an interagency meeting, “Wait a little bit, I’ve got to get this done with Lavrov first”?
SECRETARY KERRY: On some options that we may be making choices about, the answer is yes. Timing is sometimes very important. I mean, these are relationships, after all. They may be relationships between nations, but nation-states respond like all human beings because they are run by human beings. And so if you slap a leader publicly in some very denigrating way, you can anticipate that you’re probably not going to get something done in the next week or two that you were hoping to get done. So timing is important and messaging is important. The manner of diplomacy often frustrates people because of that, but those are our realities.
Now, obviously, for us to have released this information, it went through a very serious vetting process, and the interagency has always – everybody understood that messing with our democracy, getting to the core of our process, is a red line that we were not going to suggest you can’t. There’s some diplomatic nicety that supplants that, and that’s why the President made a decision that we needed to make it crystal clear and send a very clear warning of our unwillingness to tolerate it.
MR ISAACSON: (Inaudible) retaliate?
SECRETARY KERRY: We have many different ways of taking actions, which, as the President said, we will reserve to our timing and place. And --
MR ISAACSON: What did you learn in Vietnam that you applied to things like the Iran deal?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, so much. I mean, if you’re fighting a war that you judged was a mistake and that ultimately that your country comes to understand was a mistake, you need to, if you’re ever in a position of responsibility, which is something I swore to myself I would do as a young naval officer and later in life, make sure that you’re not guilty of doing the same things or falling into old patterns of thinking that put another generation in harm’s way appropriately. And obviously, there are instances where that debate has been hot and heavy in our country since then.
But I think the war in Vietnam was a failure of leaders to really understand what was happening there. It was a failure to – maybe read Graham Greene’s book or to read Bernard Fall or any number of people who have accurately written about the French experience and what Vietnam was all about. So we blithely went in there and our view of the Cold War, seeing almost everything in terms of the West versus Communism. And there was Communism as part of this, but that’s not all it was about. It was, in fact, a civil war. It was a fight for the reunification of the country. It was a fight for national identity. It was a fight for ideology. And there were other things all there.
And I think we became excessively engaged in the management of the government, in choices that just didn’t make sense, because you had Russia and China – then the Soviet Union and Red China as we called it – line up behind the North, clearly supporting this war of liberation, and we tried to come in and define it differently.
MR ISAACSON: It blinded us to the split between China and the Soviet Union at the time. Do you see in Iran that this may have caused an opening? And do you think you might go to Iran either before you leave as Secretary or sometime early next year?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I have not considered any trip yet to Iran. But Iran is a really interesting study in all of this, because Iran is a 5,000-year-old country, civilization – obviously, not a country as Iran but a civilization. And ever since 1979 and the revolution, which, by the way came about because we were not perhaps as thoughtful as we might have been in who we were backing and what kind of practices were being carried out and so forth, and we had been involved as a – the CIA was directly involved in the removal of a Prime Minister Mossadegh, 1953. And so there was a history there. And in 1979, when they took over our embassy and took some hostages, that had a profound effect on our own politics – one of the principal reasons that President Carter lost to Ronald Reagan.
MR ISAACSON: Are they natural allies for us in (inaudible) the Persian (inaudible)?
SECRETARY KERRY: No. Well, there’s a huge gap between quote, “Persian people” writ large and the revolutionary government that is pursuing a pretty hardline approach to the world and to America and to the region. So I would just say here that you have to look at Iran very, very closely. There are people in Iran who want a different Iran, an Iran that reaches out to the world, an Iran that’s engaged with people, an Iran that can re-enter the global community with respect and with acceptance.
There are those who are the hardliners who fight that every step of the way. They fought the nuclear agreement that we arrived at, and they fight any contact with the West and they vilify anybody who is engaged in contact with the West, even as they are involved in a major transformational effort for their economy and their society to try to engage with the world. So there’s a tension there in Iran, and the Iranians have to work that out. It’s not going to be worked out by us.
But I urge all of you – I think there’s a – I think it’s in The New York Times today – there is a big article about Iran and this tension and how it is playing out, and I urge you to read it.
MR ISAACSON: And also I’m going to tell – now, we want to make sure everybody gets involved to ask the questions. Microphones have been put out, so start lining up at the microphone if you would.
Hello. I’m used to people in Aspen who don’t raise their hands. So instead of asking my last question, I’m going to say go for it.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Kerry. Thank you so much for being here with us today. My name is Matt (inaudible). I’m a second year student at the law school. Why isn’t our support for Afghanistan’s central government akin to our support for South Vietnam?
MR ISAACSON: Why is our support --
QUESTION: Why is it not akin --
MR ISAACSON: Afghanistan not another Vietnam support?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, for a lot of reasons. First of all, the Taliban supported Usama bin Laden and al-Qaida, and they gave al-Qaida and Usama bin Laden refuge. They protected him. They sided with them. We tried very hard to say, look, this is a terrorist entity, nobody in the world should be supporting them, but Mullah Omar and the Taliban made the decision to be supportive of them. And at that point, they became a problem for us.
They are not also willing to enter into the normal political process, which they have ample opportunity to do. And we’ve reached out to them in any number of ways in the last years to try to engage in a legitimate negotiation for a legitimate outcome that represents aspirations of all of the entities within Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has held several elections. And they most recently had an election, which I helped to broker a compromise for where there were doubts about who was elected and how, and we created – a unity government was created, and that unity government has said they’re ready to reconcile and to have a full embrace of the Taliban --
MR ISAACSON: Led by a good guy.
SECRETARY KERRY: Pardon?
MR ISAACSON: Led by a good guy.
SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah. And so – but none of that took place. That was not what was happening or could happen in a place like Vietnam.
MR ISAACSON: And one problem with history is overlearning the lessons and being disengaged from the world because you think everything is Vietnam.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you. So I’m wondering whether you think that the recent decision by Duterte of the Philippines to disassociate more from us and associate more with Russia and China will influence other countries like Vietnam to do the same thing? And if so, what you can do to deter that.
MR ISAACSON: Good question.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the answer is no, I don’t expect it for a lot of different reasons. First of all, I’m not sure that it represents fully the broad feeling of the people of the Philippines. And certainly, the military and others are very much supportive of the relationship with the United States and of the interests in our defense treaties and so forth.
I believe that – and by the way, with respect to the question of Vietnam or other countries, I just met with the executive director of the Communist Party of Vietnam yesterday at the State Department. We had a lunch for him. We had a meeting, a bilateral, and he could not have been more clear about furthering their friendship with the United States and their desire to be more engaged with us on counterterrorism, various training exercises, legacy issues of the war. We’re working very, very closely with Vietnam as well as with the rest of the ASEAN nations.
So I think that we’ll work through this moment. I don’t think – I talked to the foreign minister of the Philippines just the other day. We had a very cordial but firm conversation about the challenges that this presents in terms of where this relationship is going to be going, and he made it quite clear that they are anxious to work through this, and I believe we will. So I don’t see this as a lasting breach or some permanent separation in any way whatsoever.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, Mr. Isaacson, thank you so much. David Blair of the Telegraph in May of 2016 spoke about how Assad was using sarin against ISIL targets and --
SECRETARY KERRY: I can’t quite hear you. You’ve got to try to find a way to --
QUESTION: Yeah. David Blair of Telegraph reported how Assad was using sarin nerve agent against ISIL targets, and Time Magazine in September talked about the use of chlorine gas in rebel territories. My question to you, Secretary Kerry: Does this undermine the integrity of the deal that we reached with Syria? And how should the next president respond to future use of chemical weapons?
MR ISAACSON: Is Syria still using chemical weapons?
SECRETARY KERRY: Yeah, no, it’s a really good question. It’s a very good question. The answer is no, it doesn’t undermine the integrity of the deal we reached because the deal we reached requires all declared chemicals that were under the Chemical Weapons Convention to be removed. Chlorine by itself is not on that list. It doesn’t fit under the Chemical Weapons Convention until it is mixed with precursor chemicals of another kind, which then make it a toxic substance.
So it is not, in and of itself, required to be removed, which is why it wasn’t. But now that the Assad regime has mixed it with these other chemicals and has it, yes, it clearly puts it under. And the OPCW, in fact, has a joint investigation mechanism which we set up with Russia, which I called to Foreign Minister Lavrov’s attention the other day, that we both agreed was the appropriate mechanism for resolving these differences, and they have said Assad has used it and they cited two particular occasions. We believe it’s happened on many more than the two occasions. But in fairness, we also believe that ISIL has used it on a couple of occasions – much less than Assad, but it hasn’t been proven yet. But we believe it, and there needs to be an investigation of that too. And under any circumstances, it needs to be removed now because of the way in which it is being used.
QUESTION: Thank you so much.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, thank you for coming to speak with us, and my question for you is that currently, the U.S. and Iran have a common interest in fighting the Islamic State; but as there are many tensions between our countries, it’s kind of unclear what that relationship is. So can you please clarify the working relationship between the U.S. and Iran in the fight against ISIL?
SECRETARY KERRY: We do not have – I think you’ve defined it. We do not have – (laughter) – we do not have a formal relationship. We are not coordinating. And yes, we have a common interest. And they’re pursuing their interests without coordination, without engagement with us, and we are pursuing ours.
Now, we would love to see Iran be constructive in helping to resolve the major issue of a political settlement in Syria. And Iran is at the table with us, with Russia in the International Syria Support Group, in an effort to bring all of the stakeholders to the table for the simple theory that you’ve got to be realistic about this. You can’t resolve this without the parties being engaged. We sometimes get criticized – why are you sitting down with the Russians and why are you talking to them? Well, we’re sitting down with them because they’re there, because they’re flying bombing missions, because they are supporting Assad, because they made the difference for Assad at a point that he was very weak. And if you don’t talk to them, you don’t have a prayer of advancing the ceasefire or of settling the war.
So this is life, folks, and particularly diplomacy. Richard Nixon went to then-Red China and there was consternation in the minds of conservatives in various parts of America for his doing that, and Kissinger was somewhat vilified for proposing it and so forth, but they did it. And look, it opened up the communication and a channel which we’re still working on, but with one of the most powerful countries on the planet because it has the second-largest economy and it also has a major nuclear arsenal and huge, obviously, military and other kinds of interests in the world, so you got to deal with them. Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev, negotiated a major arms control agreement, improbable as people thought it could be.
So you’ve heard the expression, maybe a Democrat administration or a Republican administration can get something done depending on a particular issue, because it’s like Nixon going to China. It surprises people because of its pragmatic, Machiavellian-esque, practical approach. And sometimes it takes people on a certain side of an issue to be the people to go do that to make the difference. And that’s why we’re engaged the way we are.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Kerry. I just have a question on Iraq. One of the big criticisms of President Obama and the Administration is that leaving Iraq left, like, a vacuum that has allowed ISIS to take control of certain parts of the Middle East. Using hindsight, would you have changed our approach to leaving Iraq or not leaving Iraq, and how to, like – how we maintained kind of a presence in the area?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let’s understand history here, which is very important in all of these evaluations. George W. Bush made the decision to leave Iraq. And the process of leaving Iraq was put in place, with the exception of the status of forces agreement that needed to be completed, and we – and the Obama Administration negotiated this before I came in as Secretary. That during the 2009 to ’12 first term. And during that time the Iraqis refused to allow our soldiers to have the protections that we normally negotiate in every status of forces agreement so that our forces are not subject to imprisonment or false accusation or lawsuit or whatever in another country. They didn’t get there.
Now, even – let’s assume they’d gotten there, and some troops had been left. None of them under the George Bush agreement and under the prior agreement were going to be combat troops; none of them. So no combat forces would have been there. Now, could they have provided some training or would there have been some ongoing training? Yes, but there was a fundamental problem, a structural problem, in Iraq, and that was Prime Minister Maliki, who played the Shia card to such a fare-thee-well that the army had basically become his personal military and sectarian.
And when ISIL began to march or swamp through Mosul, none of that Shia army that was the national army of Iraq stood their ground and fought for Sunni Mosul. On a sectarian basis, they decided they’re not worth it, we’re getting out of here and saving our skins. And the army basically folded.
And I believe it folded primarily because it had been weakened over a period of time by the lack of adequate training and accountability through the process that the Maliki government put in place. And one of the reasons why we did not support Maliki for continuing as prime minister when the change took place and Prime Minister Abadi came in as a result, because of the utter failure of that government to deliver in so many different ways. That’s really what happened in Iraq, not the failure of American forces to be there, who wouldn’t have been combat forces in the first place.
MR ISAACSON: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, so we all know that the JCPOA kind of – sorry, the Iran deal kind of limited the ways in which the United States can truly, I guess, punish and push on Iran towards moving away from state-sponsored terror. What mechanisms are left over the next decade to try to pressure them to stop funding terrorism? And what – and where do you see the – where do you see the state of Iran when – the Iran deal when a lot of the provisions expire in a few decades or in a decade?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, both – they’re good questions, but let me just be very, very clear to you. We, in the Iran negotiation, made it crystal clear to the Iranians that the problem we’re trying to solve is not the – in that specific negotiation was not the arms that they ship somewhere or the support for Hizballah or the other things. If so, we’d still be there. We’d be at that table today arguing.
We thought that the principal threat to the region was the fact that Iran was two months away from being able to make bombs, that they had enough fissionable material to be able to make up to 12 bombs. And so for Israel and for the rest of the region, we thought the urgency is to get that program out of the way, because all the other issues would be greatly affected in any negotiation by whether or not they have a nuclear weapon. So if you didn’t get rid of the nuclear weapon, you were going to have a very different negotiation about Hizballah, about Israel, about terrorism, than you do now.
And it’s to Iran’s credit, by the way – they don’t get credit for it, but I’m going to say here that it’s to their credit that the supreme leader made the decision that they didn’t want a nuclear weapon, they weren’t going to have a nuclear weapon, and that they were ready to negotiate an arrangement where we could prove they were on a peaceful track.
Now, that one comes --
QUESTION: Is not wanting a nuclear weapon peaceful?
SECRETARY KERRY: Beg your pardon?
QUESTION: Is the mere lack of a nuclear weapon the same thing as --
SECRETARY KERRY: No, no, no, not at all.
QUESTION: -- being peaceful?
SECRETARY KERRY: And that’s why I’m coming – let me finish the answer.
QUESTION: Sorry. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: The arms embargo stayed in place. We didn’t get rid of that. In fact, we specifically fought over how long it was going to stay in place. Because under the previous arrangement, it was going to evaporate. We actually kept it in place for eight years during the course of this agreement. We also kept in place the sanctions of the United States against Iran for sponsorship of terrorism. And we also kept in place the sanctions for human rights. So we didn’t take away anything that we have in place with respect to those other things. And in fact, since the agreement, because they fired missiles, we’ve put additional sanctions in place. So we haven’t moved one iota towards a lessening of what we care about with respect to the overall security of the region.
And let me come to the long term here. So Iran has to now live by a limitation of 3.67 percent enrichment for 15 years. They have to live by a stockpile that can’t be more than 300 kilograms of enriched material for 15 years. They have to have television and visibility on their production of their centrifuges for 20 years, and they have to have every trace of their uranium that they produce in their country is tracked and recorded from cradle to grave for 25 years.
So when people say well, this is going to end in 10 years, in 15 years – no it’s not. Not only that, we didn’t – we have created what’s called the Additional Protocol of the agreement, which is the IAEA. The IAEA Additional Protocol requires that at any time we have a suspicion that they may be trying to break out or that they are enriching beyond what they should be, or that they have more uranium than they should be, we are entitled to inspect, to ask a question and to go inspect it. That’s for the lifetime of this agreement.
So if, after 15 years of 20 years of watching what they’re doing, we see an uptick of one percentage point or two or whatever, and we begin to say red flag, red flag, these guys may be moving towards trying to do something, we have enough time and enough tools at our disposal to be able to find out what is really happening. And if we needed to, we have the exact same options available to us in 15 years, 10 years, 20 years, as we have available to us today.
The issue is: Is Iran going to change in this period of time? Is what – is there reform efforts that Rouhani is pursuing? Are they – is the region going to change in this time? I mean, I hope – I’m an optimist, I know, but I would hope that within the next 15 years we’re going to resolve a lot of these differences. We can get away from this sectarianism. We can begin to deal with the problem of Israel-Palestine and get a peace agreement that would change the dynamics of Hizballah and Lebanon and the region and other challenges we have.
So you’ve got to believe in the possibility of changing things, and I believe we have a sufficient hedge against the notion that it won’t change, that Israel is protected, we are protected, the region is protected, and that’s why I think it’s a good agreement.
QUESTION: Hi, Secretary Kerry. One of the biggest issues that we as students face now, despite utter ignorance on more than half of our Congress’s part, is climate change. And that pertains both to domestic policy and foreign policy. So moving forward past the Paris Climate Change agreement, how is climate change going to be a challenge to your successor and what are they going to have to do to face such an enormous problem?
MR ISAACSON: And you’ve had a great week (inaudible) things happening on the climate front that --
SECRETARY KERRY: Boy, do we ever. I mean, climate is one of the greatest stories of the Obama Administration and the President. I mean, I’m really proud to serve with a president who has done more to set aside land, to protect the parks, to create new parks, to set aside ocean, to create marine protected areas of the ocean, and to move us forward on a climate action agenda in this country than any other president in American history. And it’s an enormous accomplishment.
And just in the last months, and I can tell you because I’ve been a part of this – I became involved in the climate debate in the 1980s. As a lieutenant governor, I actually led a governor’s task force on the Clean Air Act, on sulfur acid rain. You don’t hear about acid rain today. Why? Because we actually created an amendment that dealt with acid rain by creating a trading mechanism, which we couldn’t even touch today, that worked and that eliminated the problem.
But we – I watched through the years as we – I went to the 1992 Rio conference, which was the first Earth Summit. I went to all the other Conference of the Parties – not all of them but almost all of them afterwards, in Buenos Aires, in Potsdam, in Copenhagen. Copenhagen was a failure five years ago. Why? (Inaudible) six ago. Because countries were fighting each other over this concept of common but differentiated responsibility, who would do what, and nobody was willing to accept an agreement that was mandatory. So it failed – terrible failure.
China was leading the charge of the G77 against the efforts of the developed world to try to get an agreement. And President Obama famously crashed into a meeting they were having to try to get something done. So when I came in as Secretary, one of the very first things I did was call my counterparts in China and say we have to create a working group on climate and I’m going to come over there, and we’ve got to announce this and make an agreement. We’re going to try to get our presidents to be able to announce their reductions for the Paris negotiations.
One year later, the Chinese agreed. One year later, we had President Obama and President Xi standing up in Beijing announcing that China and the United States had agreed on an approach to Paris and that they both were going to have different, but real reductions in emissions in order to deal with climate. That set the tone. That changed the whole playing field. That was presidential leadership.
And the result was we went to Paris, and I was there for those negotiations. We hammered out an agreement, improbable as people thought it was, that sends a message to the global marketplace, folks. Does it, in and of itself, keep the reduction of climate – of warming of temperatures to two degrees centigrade? No, I wish it did. But it doesn’t. But do you know why I’m excited about it? Why I believe in it? Because the message to the market place is 186 countries, each with their individual plans, are moving to new energy, to alternative and renewable and sustainable.
And the message to the marketplace is absolutely unmistakable, which is why last year, we had a record level of investment in clean energy, alternative energy, renewable energy – $358 billion invested. And it’s the private sectors that’s going to solve this, folks. It’s going to be Elon Musk or it’s going to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who’s going to come alive with a battery storage that is game-changing, or with some kind of distributive power system that is so much cheaper than what we have today. I’m convinced of this.
And that’s why I believe we can get there. And in the last several months, we have now brought the Paris agreement way ahead of schedule. We have to get 55 countries representing 55 percent of the emissions to agree to put this into effect. We’ve done it. And on November 4th, whenever it is, it’s going into effect.
We also won a agreement with a market-based mechanism to deal with reducing emissions from aircraft, airplanes, the ICAO, the international air agreement. So we’re going to have reduction of air – emissions from airplanes. And I went to Kigali the other day and we managed to reach agreement with 190 countries on HFCs being taken out of refrigerant so that we are able to cool ourselves with a different substance that is not 100 times worse than carbon dioxide.
So we’re moving in the right direction. I think it’s very exciting and I think there’s reason to have hope for it. But you all, every single one of you, have to hold the next administration’s feet to the fire and make certain that they continue to have the same commitment that President Obama has exhibited in moving us forward.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thanks for coming today. It’s not every day that I get to ask the Secretary of State a question. I was just wondering about – so I read an article by Jeffrey Goldberg on the cover of The Atlantic, and one of the things the article talks about is one of the things President Obama is most proud of is ignoring your repeated pleas for force in Syria. And that kind of represents a larger narrative about kind of restraint in using military force and the American story with regard to the Obama Administration. I wanted to ask, given the two presidential candidates we have now, whether you think that kind of idea will stick, whether it will be – or we as a country will continue to move towards more and more restraint or will go back to kind of seeing ourselves as the world’s policeman?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I’m not going to – no, I’m not going to get into what I advised the President or didn’t advise the President. It’s inappropriate for me to do that, and there’s plenty of time after the Administration is over for re-evaluating the history of it or writing the history of it. Suffice it to say that I don’t think the United States in recent years as, quote, “playing the world’s policeman.”
I think that we live in a world that is, ever since 9/11, just very different, defined differently. The threats are real and we ignore them at our peril. We weren’t exactly at war with al-Qaida on the day of September 11th 2001 when they drove those airplanes into our buildings and changed the life of America in the ways they did. It happened because we were seen as the enemy for a lot of different reasons.
And that’s that clash partly of modernity I talked about. It’s a lot of different ingredients. It’s a hijacking of Islam to boot. But my point to you is that I think the United States has a very critical role of leadership to play in helping to make the world safer. And that’s not being a policeman, but that is being engaged with countries to help them to develop themselves and to be able to deal with their problems. Let me give you an example. There are 1.5 billion kids in the world who are 15 years old or less, and a large percentage of them are not going to go to school tomorrow like you, or today, and probably not for 10 years if at all. And you’ve got to ask yourselves what happens if those kids are grabbed by the internet and by ISIL’s site that is not stopped from proselytizing? What happens if they think being a lone wolf and walking into a movie theater in Chicago is a good idea and shooting a bunch of people? Because it’s happened. Not here, but it’s happened.
So is it being the world’s policeman to say that we ought to adhere to the 2030 development goals of the United Nations which suggest that we need to help people develop their health care system, their education system, to have governance that works, to have human rights that are respected? I don’t think that’s being the world’s policeman. I think that’s important in our own national security interests and I think it’s also the right and moral thing to do.
So I just would be careful about the labels that you apply to some of the things we need to do in order to advance our interests and our values. Diplomacy is the advancing of your nation or your entity’s values and interests. Sometimes the interest is (inaudible) and sometimes the values are not there, and there’s a mix on any given issue.
But I will respectfully suggest to you that as you weigh that balance and think about things ahead, there may be times when the United States of America needs to use force. I’ll give you an example. President Clinton ultimately decided to use force against Serbia and in Kosovo in order to be able to save lives when a genocide was taking place, or a near genocide.
Now, I don’t think that’s, again, the world’s policeman. I think that’s living up to the high standards and values of our country, and I think it’s necessary at times for us to do that if we’re going to give meaning to the words after World War II and the Holocaust “never again” or if we’re going to give meaning to the judgment of President Clinton after Rwanda, I made the mistake, we should have gone in and done something. And that’s why I think we have to think about these things very, very hard.
MR ISAACSON: You, sir, have the privilege of the last question.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. Secretary, thank you for being here. My name’s Richard. I’m in the second year in college. Now, the question I have for you is this: Do you believe that Russia’s invasion of Crimea, and including when it comes to the Ukraine, is the response of their aggression and desire to expand their hegemonic power in the region or a defensive response to the intervention of the United States, the EU, NATO, and other international bodies in the Ukraine, in Georgia, and other neighboring states?
SECRETARY KERRY: I think it’s a mix, to be honest with you. I don’t think it’s one thing only. It’s very complicated. Crimea and Russia has a complicated history, as you know, and President Putin’s views of the Motherland and his responsibilities are complicated. And there is certainly a measure of his narrative, his view of the world, which is NATO and Georgia and all these other things as you’ve described not going down very well with him. And so – but I would also separate Crimea from the Donbas. I think that those are – also they present different equities. Both (inaudible) by the way, but different in terms of the context.
So I think our policy – by the way, and let me just say to everybody here, I think when you think about criticisms of the Administration and so forth, I will take a minute here and just say this. I think that the Administration’s policy has frankly worked. The – it hasn’t rolled it back but it stopped what could have been an exceedingly dangerous confrontational moment and has reduced it to this sort of tug-of-war or back-and-forth, which I think ultimately has a way to resolve itself. We’re working very hard on the Minsk agreement implementation, and we hope that we can advance that for the next administration that comes in.
But I just want to say to all of you that as you look at the world today, the reason I am optimistic is this, and I want to take a moment just to say it. I believe the United States is more engaged in more places on more big issues to greater consequence than at any time in our history. And we’re making a difference and the world is making a difference with respect to many of these challenges. To wit, Ebola. People predicted that a million people were going to die by the Christmas of two years ago. And guess what. It didn’t happen. We stopped it because President Obama had the courage to send 3,000 troops in and build the capacity to deliver health care.
AIDS – 15 years ago it was a forbidden word, you couldn’t talk about it. It was death, a death sentence. Now we’re on the cusp of the first generation in history being born AIDS-free in Africa. We are coping with the Zika virus now.
We have stood up to the freedom of navigation challenges of the South China Sea. We are increasing our focus on North Korea, on the DPRK and the problem of their nuclear program. We’ve succeeded in getting the weapons out of Syria – the chemical weapons. We’ve been able to do the Iran deal. We’ve made huge progress in Nigeria against Boko Haram, huge progress in Somalia against al-Shabaab. We are working diligently right now – our people are meeting to try to get an agreement on Yemen and an agreement on Libya. I will be meeting in London next Monday on the subject of Libya. We’re constantly working these issues.
Even as we have passed the TPP, which is 40 percent of global GDP into one agreement, we’re raising the standards – labor standards, environment standards. I could run a list. Afghanistan, where we brokered this unity government. And you could run through a long list of places, folks, where our engagement is the reason things are happening.
And I say this respectfully to other countries, but I often say about American exceptionalism we’re not exceptional because we sit around and beat our chests and brag that we’re exceptional, and it doesn’t sit very well with other countries when we do that. We’re exceptional when we do exceptional things, which is usually. And you can go back through the recent history of our planet; this country, our country, the United States of America, makes an extraordinary difference day-to-day in the lives of people in so many different places, and I’m proud of it and you should be.
And we do that for one penny on the dollar of the taxes that are paid, one penny for everything we do abroad, for embassies and everything we do to represent our country, all of our programs – education, children, women. More women going to school in Afghanistan. In 2001 there were no women going to school, no girls, and there were about a million-something boys. Now they’re up around 7.5, 8 million kids going to school; 40 percent of whom are girls. And that’s been happening for over 10 years. Imagine what happens in that country after 10 years. A kid who was 10 years old is 20 today and maybe going to college or something.
So I’d just say to you that you ought to feel better about where we’re heading. Technology is changing things. We’re curing diseases. We’re moving forward. What we need to do is not be less engaged; we need to be more engaged and help more countries move faster to embrace modernity, to be able to have their young citizens see opportunity in the future, not desolation. And I invite all of you here, come to the State Department, join USAID, be part of this effort in the future, because there are few things where you can work day-to-day with as much sense of reward and make as much difference to your country, and I want you to do that. (Applause.)
MODERATOR: I want to say before you continue (inaudible) this is the best set of questions I’ve ever heard – (laughter) – and it was the best dialogue with the Secretary of State since maybe Henry Kissinger mumbled to himself “hello” in the halls or something. (Laughter and applause.)
MR ISAACSON: My only regret is the Secretary’s obvious lack of enthusiasm for his work. (Laughter.) I was – I want to just echo what Walter said. It’s such a gift to be here with all of you because you ask smart, provocative questions, and more than that, he speaks with a seriousness about these matters that are going to fall into your hands before long. It gives all of us great hope for the future. I want to thank Walter for his excellent questions and his presence here today. And I want to thank Secretary Kerry, not just for his generosity of his time today and your insightful interview, but as this Administration winds down, for a lifetime of service for which – for which all of us should be very, very grateful. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
International Religious Freedom Day, October 27, 2016
Press StatementJohn Kirby
Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
October 27, 2016
Promoting religious freedom is a vital component of our foreign policy. The rights to exercise one’s freedom of thought, conscience, and religion are fundamental human rights and bedrock American principles. Religious freedom has always been at the center of American values and our success as a nation. Since our founding, we have built a system that protects the rights of religious believers and non-believers alike to worship, practice, share, change, and express their beliefs freely. We believe everyone deserves these freedoms.
The United States demonstrates its leadership in word and deed by advocating for the right of everyone the world over to enjoy the freedom enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We use the full array of U.S. diplomatic and foreign assistance resources to work with governments, civil society organizations, and religious communities to promote freedom of religion or belief for all people. And we look for opportunities every day to partner with other like-minded countries to promote respect for this fundamental freedom.
As we reflect on the religious freedom we enjoy as Americans, let us not forget those who struggle to achieve and exercise these same basic rights. Until they are able to do so, we will remain committed to better integrating our efforts to promote and protect religious freedom around the world.
The United States Dedicates Energy-Savings Project in Valletta, Malta
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Malta, G. Kathleen Hill, presided over the dedication of an energy-savings project at the U.S. Embassy in Valletta today, joined by the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) and local officials.The project includes three photovoltaic solar power systems, a small wind turbine, and a solar pool heater. The Department of State contracted with Solar Solutions Ltd. of Malta for the project, which began in 2015.
Renewable energy installations are tangible demonstrations of America’s values and commitment to the environment, helping to reduce the U.S. Government’s environmental footprint and cut carbon emissions. Together, the new renewable energy systems will produce an estimated 509,000 kWh of green energy annually. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, this is equivalent to the power needs of 47 private U.S. homes.
OBO’s mission is to provide safe, secure, and functional facilities that represent the U.S. Government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities should represent American values and the best in American architecture, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.
For further information, please contact Christine Foushee at FousheeCT@state.gov, or visit www.state.gov/obo.
No comments:
Post a Comment