[Senate Hearing 113-163]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-163
NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KERRY
TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 24, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-451 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland MARCO RUBIO, Florida
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico RAND PAUL, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
TIM KAINE, Virginia
William C. Danvers, Staff Director
Lester E. Munson III, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, Secretary of State, U.S. Department
of State, Washington, DC, introductory statement............... 5
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, opening statement. 3
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, nominated
to be Secretary of State....................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Responses to prehearing questions submitted by Senator Bob
Corker..................................................... 66
Responses to questions submitted for the record by the
following Senators:
Robert Menendez.......................................... 89
Bob Corker............................................... 116
Barbara Boxer............................................ 125
Benjamin L. Cardin....................................... 130
Robert P. Casey, Jr...................................... 132
James E. Risch........................................... 137
Marco Rubio.............................................. 149
Tom Udall................................................ 163
Christopher Murphy....................................... 166
Ron Johnson.............................................. 167
Jeff Flake............................................... 168
John Barrasso............................................ 174
Rand Paul................................................ 188
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, introductory
statement...................................................... 6
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts,
introductory statement......................................... 4
(iii)
NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KERRY
TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. John F. Kerry, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of State
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez,
presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Boxer, Cardin, Casey, Shaheen,
Coons, Durbin, Udall, Murphy, Kaine, Corker, Risch, Rubio,
Johnson, Flake, McCain, Barrasso, and Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations committee to consider the nominee for the
Secretary of State will come to order.
Let me again ask as I did yesterday. Since the full Senate
has not yet passed the committee resolution seating members, I
ask unanimous consent of returning members to allow our
prospective members to participate in today's hearing. And if
there is no objection, it is so ordered.
Let me start with saying that you are not at the table yet,
Senator, but we are going to have you there shortly. Let me
say, Senator Kerry--or should I say ``Mr. Chairman,'' since you
are still our committee's chair--that I am deeply humbled to
preside over the committee today as we consider your
nomination. We are honored to welcome you as the President's
nominee for a position you have most deservedly earned from the
first time you testified before Chairman Fulbright as a young
returning Vietnam war hero in 1971 to the day the President
nominated and announced your nomination as Secretary of State.
You may not be aware of it, but you will be the first member of
this panel to ascend directly to the position since Senator
John Sherman of Ohio became President McKinley's Secretary of
State more than 100 years ago. So you are clearly making
history once again.
Yours is a big chair to fill and I will do my best today to
live up to your example. I have watched your lead on the
committee with an equally deep and abiding commitment to get to
the heart of the matter, always probative, always open to
debate, always ready to mitigate disagreements, always looking
for the truth, for answers, uncovering the facts, hearing all
the evidence, and then publicly speaking truth to power based
solely on what was the best interests of the Nation.
As a Senator, as a member of this committee, and as
chairman, you have already built strong relationships with
leaders around the world which will help you seamlessly into
the role of Secretary of State. You will need no introduction
to the world's political and military leaders and will begin on
day one fully conversant not only with the intricacies of U.S.
policy but with an understanding of the nuanced approach
necessary to effectively interact on the multinational stage.
When Vice President Biden sat in this chair, he said on
more than one occasion: ``Good international relationships are
always predicated on strong interpersonal relationships.'' I
think we can all agree that you have set the highest standard
for developing those relationships throughout your career, and
as Secretary of State you will continue to strengthen those
relationships on behalf of the President in the furtherance of
American foreign policy.
I will have some questions later on policies and your
views, including how you explain to world leaders how you could
have been rooting for the Boston Red Sox instead of what the
world knows is the New York Yankees as the team of the world.
[Laughter.]
But let me say, Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure
working with you. I am looking forward to continuing to work
with you on the issues you have championed over the years:
fighting global terrorism, preventing the spread of nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons, fighting for human rights and
against HIV/AIDS around the world, fighting crime, corruption,
drug trafficking, and standing up as you always have for the
interests of the Foreign Service around the world.
In your new role, should you be confirmed--and I know you
will--your portfolio will be greatly expanded. You will be
center stage representing the interests of all of us from
securing our embassies and protecting our overseas personnel to
promoting commerce, enhancing cross-cultural ties, and keeping
America secure through cooperation where possible and isolation
where necessary as in the case of Iran.
And of course, it goes without saying that you have truly
been a world leader on one of the most consequential issues of
our time: climate change. And it heartens me to know that
someone with your commitment to the issue will be our voice to
the world.
The fact is whatever the challenges we will face, in my
view the State Department could not be in better hands.
When it comes to America's role in world affairs, I know we
agree that it is critical that the United States remains fully
engaged, that we project not only the power of our military
strength when necessary, but the wisdom of our democratic
ideals as we adjust to the new threats and new demands we will
inevitably face. And there is no doubt you will be tested in
your new role as Secretary, nor is there any doubt that you
will pass any test with honors as you always have.
Before I recognize Senator Corker, let me thank you on
behalf of the committee for all you have done through your long
and illustrious career here in the Senate and in the
chairmanship of this committee. In anticipation of your
confirmation by the full Senate, I wish you good luck and
Godspeed on the many journeys that lie ahead, and we will look
forward to having a close working relationship with you as the
next Secretary of State.
Let me now recognize Senator Corker, the ranking member,
for his comments.
OPENING STATEMENT HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
our three distinguished guests who are going to introduce the
chairman in just a moment.
I want to say to the chairman I want to thank you for your
courtesy over the last 6 years I have served on this committee.
I look at you in being nominated for this as someone who
has almost lived their entire life, if you will, for this
moment of being able to serve in this capacity. There is no one
in the U.S. Senate that has spent more time than you have on
issues of importance to our country. The experience you
developed while being on this committee and spending time
abroad with world leaders with your wife, who is at your side
today--there is almost no one who spent that kind of time and
effort.
So I am happy for you. I know the many conversations we
have had over the last 2 weeks--you are very anxious to serve.
You are ready to go. My sense is your confirmation will go
through very, very quickly.
I do look forward to your testimony today.
Secretary Clinton is here today after a day of hearings
both here and in the House.
And I think you know you are inheriting a department that
like many departments throughout Government has numbers of
challenges. We saw systemic issues that need to be addressed
and they are in the process of being addressed right now. Our
Nation has budgetary constraints which means that in all of
these departments creativity is going to have to be utilized to
make sure that we make the most of what we have in making sure
that our U.S. interests are put forth.
We have a world that is a dangerous world, and things
continue to come over the transom sometimes at surprising
times. And I know as Secretary of State, you are going to have
to lead our country in addressing those as they come about.
I do hope that you will work closely with this committee,
as you have worked very closely with this committee over the
last many years, in helping us work with you to make sure that
as we move ahead, we move ahead together and that it is
seamless.
We have many challenges, and I know on Monday President
Obama said that America will remain the anchor of strong
challenges in every corner of the globe, and we will renew
those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crises
abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than
its most powerful nation. I could not agree more.
I look forward to, again, hearing your testimony today
about what you hope to do in your new capacity.
And I certainly welcome the three distinguished people who
are here today to introduce you which I know is a tremendous
honor for you.
Thank you for your service. I look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator.
We have a star-studded panel here to introduce the nominee,
starting with--I will introduce you in the order of your
presentation. But I just want to start off by welcoming back
the Secretary again, and we appreciate you coming back to us so
soon. And again, you know, the thanks of the committee and a
grateful nation for an incredible service to our country.
My understanding, although I am being told differently, are
you going, Senator Warren? Senator Warren, who is our new
colleague from the great State of Massachusetts, is going to be
part of introducing her senior Senator before the committee,
then Secretary Clinton, and then our distinguished colleague, a
member of this committee now as well, Senator McCain. With
that, Senator Warren.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH WARREN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Warren. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
It is an honor to be here with Secretary Clinton and
Senator McCain to introduce my senior Senator and my friend,
Senator John Kerry. I have the privilege of speaking for a man
I know will continue in the tradition of John Quincy Adams and
Christian Herter as great Secretaries from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Although John learned much about diplomacy overseas and in
the Senate, he would be the first to tell you that
Massachusetts is also a great teacher of diplomatic skills,
whether it was negotiating his way to make the ballot as a
long-shot underdog in a five-way heavily contested State
convention back in 1982 or the way he brought labor and
management to the table, locked the parties in his Senate
office over a long weekend, brought in Dunkin' Donuts and
negotiated an end to the 92-day-long Brockton nurses strike. If
anyone wants to learn diplomacy, come try Massachusetts
politics. John certainly has.
John's story is well known to many of us--from his youth as
the son of a Foreign Service officer, seeing diplomacy up close
and learning about foreign policy around the dinner table each
night to his service in combat in Vietnam.
Less well known is the story of his foreign policy work
inside the Senate: his 90 overseas trips that he made in 28
years on the Foreign Relations Committee, his work with Dick
Lugar to ensure free elections in the Philippines, his work
with Bill Frist on AIDS in Africa, his work as chairman on the
New START Treaty, and his very public and successful diplomatic
interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. I think one
day historians will judge his Senate years in terms of his
impact on foreign policy much the same way so many recognize
Senator Ted Kennedy's impact on domestic policy.
From his many years in the U.S. Senate, John has developed
a very personal understanding that we represent not just States
or government, but also people. I once asked John why he loves
the Senate. He said it is the pride that he feels in trying to
get things done for people. For 3 years now, he has been
working quietly to help a father from Newton, MA, Colin Bower.
His two sons were kidnapped and taken to Egypt. John even
called former President Mubarak and had a screaming match with
him about it. Five times he has been to Egypt since then and
every time Colin has been at the top of his list in every
meeting.
Every Senator here has a Colin Bower. It is what we do. We
fight for people back home. As Secretary, John will understand
that and bend over backward to help us do that. He will be a
terrific bridge from the Hill to the administration.
I know that John cares deeply about our country and our
national security. I know he believes through and through in
the good that America can do in the world because he has seen
it and he has lived it all his life, from seeing the Marshall
Plan in action with his father in post World War II Europe, to
volunteering to serve in the military, and then traveling all
these years as a Senator. John says America is not exceptional
because we say we are; we are exceptional because we do
exceptional things. When the airplane--the one that says on the
side ``United States of America''--lands anywhere in the world,
I will be proud that it will be John Kerry representing us.
Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator.
Secretary Clinton.
STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is very good to be back and to have this opportunity to
join with Senator Warren and Senator McCain in introducing
President Obama's nominee to be the next Secretary of State. I
was very honored when John asked me to take part in this
because John is the right choice to carry forward the Obama
administration's foreign policy, and I urge his speedy
confirmation.
As we have heard from both the chairman and the ranking
member and just now, Senator Warren, he will bring a record of
leadership and service that is exemplary. He has a view of the
world that he has acted on, first as that young returning
veteran from Vietnam who appeared before this committee through
the time that he served with such distinction as its chairman.
He has been a valued partner to this administration and to
me personally. He has fought for our diplomats and development
experts. He understands the value of investing in America's
global leadership. And as we work to implement the
Accountability Review Board's recommendations, he is committed
to doing whatever it takes to prevent another attack and
protect our people and posts around the world.
Now, working together, we have achieved a great deal, but
the State Department and USAID have a lot of unfinished
business from Afghanistan to nonproliferation, to climate
change, to so much. We need to sustain our renewed engagement
in the Asia-Pacific, continue ramping up economics as a tool
for advancing American interests and jobs, pressing forward
with unleashing the potential of the world's women and girls,
keep championing the kind of smart power that looks to
innovation and partnerships with governments and people alike
to promote peace and stability.
John has built strong relationships with leaders in
governments here and around the world, and he has experience in
representing our country in fragile and unpredictable
circumstances. He was in Pakistan and Afghanistan a few years
ago, and we were consulting over the phone. He played an
instrumental role in working with President Karzai at that time
to accept the results of the election and to move forward. I
had to call Harry Reid and ask Harry not to schedule any votes
so that John could continue to stay there to see that mission
through. But that is what he does. He is a determined and
effective representative of the United States, has been as a
Senator, will be as Secretary.
Let me close by saying that leading our diplomats and
development experts is a great honor, and every day, as I
testified yesterday, I have seen firsthand their skill, their
bravery, their unwavering commitment to our country. I have
been proud to call them colleagues and to serve as Secretary of
State, and I am very pleased that John will be given the
chance, subject to confirmation, to continue the work of a
lifetime on behalf of our country.
Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here with Senator Warren and Secretary
Clinton to introduce and speak, say a few words about my
friend, Senator Kerry, to the committee.
Obviously, the nominee does not need to be introduced to
the committee on which he has served for over a quarter of a
century and as its chairman for the last 4 years. So I can
dispense with the customary summary of the nominee's record of
public service and qualifications for the office for which he
has been nominated. They are well known to you and to all of
our colleagues.
But I would like to take a few moments to attest to the
personal qualities that Senator Kerry would bring to the office
of Secretary of State which I think are well suited to the
position.
He and I have been friends for quite a long time now. We
have had our disagreements, which is unsurprising given our
political differences. As is often the case in our business,
our friendship has been affected from time to time by our
enthusiasm for our differing views and by the competitive
nature of politics, but the friendship has endured. I believe
it is based in mutual respect. Some observers have attributed
that respect to the fact that when we were much younger, nicer,
and better looking men than we are now, Senator Kerry and I
spent some time at the Navy's behest in a certain Southeast
Asian country in less pleasant circumstances than we are
accustomed to in the U.S. Senate.
While I have always respected and honored Senator Kerry's
service in Vietnam, my respect for John as a Senator and my
support for his nomination today originated in a very different
experience. Although that experience, too, concerned the
country and the war he and I were privileged to serve in, it
did not require marshal valor. On the contrary, it required, at
least on Senator Kerry's part and considerably less so on mine,
extraordinary diplomatic skills.
The administrations of President Reagan and George Herbert
Walker Bush had pursued limited engagement with the Government
of Vietnam for the purpose of encouraging Vietnam to provide
answers to the fates of many Americans who were still listed as
POW/MIAs. That effort was led by a man both John and I respect
enormously, Gen. John Vesey, former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, who continued as the President's Special Emissary to
Vietnam in President Clinton's administration.
By the early 1990s, I think both John and I had come to the
view that it would be better for our country to have a
relationship with Vietnam that served our current and future
interests than one that continued to nurse the hostilities of
our recent tragic past. But we both understood that could never
be the case unless we knew American soldiers were not still
kept against their will in Vietnam and until Vietnam fully
cooperated in helping us account for Americans who did not
return home from the war.
To help find answers to their fates, in 1991 then-Senate
Majority Leader Mitchell and Minority Leader Dole appointed a
select committee which John and Senator Bob Smith chaired and I
was appointed as a member as well. Members of that committee
had passionate and conflicting views on the subject of whether
or not Vietnam still kept American POWs. The subject was
controversial and provoked the strong passions of many
Americans, not the least of which were the families of the
missing. Most Americans who cared about this issue were people
of sincere good will and honesty.
But there were also a few charlatans and con artists
involved in the activist community who, for various reasons,
promoted all kinds of conspiracy theories and implausible
scenarios. On many occasions, our public hearings became a
circus. Behind the scenes, arguments between members often
became as heated and as personal as any I have ever
experienced.
Getting information about POW/MIAs from the intelligence
community was fraught with the usual objections and
difficulties and getting information from the Vietnamese even
more so. It was not a pleasant experience, to say the least,
but through it all, John led the committee with fairness to all
sides, with persistence in the pursuit of the truth, and with
an absolute unshakeable resolve to get a result that all
members could accept. Really, no matter how contentious and at
times crazy things got, John always believed
he would eventually get all the committee to see reason and
provide an answer that would be accepted by most veterans and
most, if not all, Americans who cared so much about the issue.
And he did. He got all the members to agree to an exhaustive
investigative report that concluded there was not credible
evidence that Americans remained in captivity in Vietnam. It
was a masterful accomplishment.
After that experience, John and I worked together to
encourage the Clinton administration and the Government of
Vietnam to begin normalizing relations. I witnessed John's
diplomatic skills in practice again, his patience, his
persistence, his persuasiveness, his tact, and his singular
focus on getting the best result possible in negotiations with
a diverse array of government officials in both countries,
convincing a reluctant administration to make what the
President's advisers considered a politically perilous decision
and reluctant fellow Senators to vote for a resolution
recommending normalization. It was an impressive performance to
say the least.
Helping to establish a relationship with Vietnam that
serves American interests and values, rather than one that
remained mired in mutual resentment and bitterness is one of my
proudest accomplishments as a Senator, and I expect it is one
of John's as well. Working toward that end with John and
witnessing almost daily his exemplary statesmanship is one of
the highest privileges I have had here.
Should he be confirmed--and I am confident he will be--to
become our next Secretary of State, I am sure we will have our
disagreements which I know neither of us will hesitate to bring
to the other's attention. But I know he will acquit himself in
that office with distinction and use as many talents and his
indefatigable persistence to advance our country's interests.
And I commend his nomination to you without reservation.
Senator Menendez. Wow. You might want to rest your case
there, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. With our thanks to this distinguished
panel, we thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Thank you again
to our colleagues.
And now we call up Chairman Kerry. Mr. Chairman, we welcome
you to the other side of the committee and look forward to your
testimony and any introductions you may want to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, OF MASSACHUSETTS,
TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
Senator Kerry. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and
members of the committee, thank you very, very much.
I am in awe of the wonderful comments that were just made
and I appreciate them, and I will say a little bit more about
them.
Before I begin, I would like to have the privilege of just
introducing very quickly. I think most of you know my wonderful
wife, Teresa, who has been part of this great journey for a
long time. My brother, Cam, who is serving over in the Commerce
Department as counsel there, and I trust that they know he is
here and have given him time off. And my daughter, Vanessa, and
her husband, Brian, both of whom are working as physicians at
Mass General in Boston, and another daughter who is not here,
Alexandra, and three stepsons who likewise are spread around
the world. But we are thinking about them as we embark on this
wonderful journey.
For 29 years, I have sat up on the dais where you all are
and I have kind of looked down at the witnesses and wondered
what they are thinking sometimes as we questioned them. And I
do not want this to affect your opening questions, but let me
say I have never seen a more distinguished and better looking
group of public officials in my life. [Laughter.]
Suddenly I am feeling a lot of sympathy for the folks who
sit down here.
I want you to know that a couple nights ago I was watching
``Godfather II.'' So be forewarned. If someone suddenly shows
up with my long lost brother back in the audience, all bets are
off, folks.
And I am enormously grateful for the generous comments of
the chair and the ranking member. Thank you very, very much.
Thank you also for your tremendous cooperation over the course
of the last years, and providing that you get me out of here
quickly, I will be able to congratulate you more fully when you
officially assume your responsibilities.
I will tell you, all of you on this committee, the new
members particularly, that I have enjoyed chairing this
committee and working with you as much as anything that I have
done or been privileged to do in all of my career. I think this
is one of the great committees of the U.S. Senate, and it is
the only major committee that I have served on since day one
when I arrived in the Senate in 1985. As you know, the
committee carries special, consequential responsibilities with
respect to the security of our Nation, and I thank each and
every one of you for the serious consideration that you give
and have given to the challenging issues and for the remarkable
cooperation that I have had as chairman of the committee. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work particularly
closely with all of you as we tackle some of the toughest
issues and challenges that I have seen in the entire time I
have served on this committee. And I particularly welcome the
new members in that regard.
I am very grateful to President Obama for nominating me and
entrusting me with this important responsibility, and I am
particularly grateful to Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain, and
Senator Warren for their introductions of me just now. I will
not take it personally that this may be the one item in
Washington that seems to unite Democrats and Republicans to get
me out of the Senate quickly. [Laughter.]
Secretary Clinton particularly has served above and beyond
the call of duty. I think everybody on this committee would
agree her service has been superb and we all thank her for a
job well done, for her tireless efforts on behalf of our
Nation. She has set a very high mark for the stewardship of the
State Department and her commitment to country. And I can
pledge to you that with the consent of the Senate I will do
everything in my power to summon every energy and all of my
focus to build on her record and on the President's vision.
Senator McCain, as he mentioned, is a longtime friend. We
met here in the Senate, coming from very different political
positions and perspectives, but you know, we found common
ground. I will never forget standing with him in Hanoi in the
cell in the Hanoi Hilton in which he spent a number of years of
his life, just the two of us, listening to him talk about that
experience. I will always be grateful for his partnership in
helping to make real peace with Vietnam by establishing the
most significant process in the history of our country or of
any country for the accounting of missing and dead in any war
and then for working to lift the embargo and ultimately
normalize relations with an old enemy. John had every reason to
hate, but he did not. And instead, we were able to help heal
deep wounds and end a war that had divided too many people for
much too long.
And as we talk about war and peace and foreign policy, I
want all of us to keep in our minds, as I think we do, the
extraordinary men and women in uniform who are on the front
lines even as we meet here today, the troops at war who help
protect America. I can pledge to you that as a veteran of war,
I will always carry the consequences of our decisions in my
mind and be grateful that we have such extraordinary people to
back us up.
I also thank my new colleague, Senator Warren, for her
generous comments. She is a longtime, fierce fighter for what
is just and fair. And if her testimony has had effect today and
helps win votes for my confirmation, she will become the senior
Senator of our State in a record few legislative days. I spent
29 years. [Laughter.]
It is humbling to appear before you in this new role as
President Obama's nominee for Secretary of State. But my
approach to this role, if confirmed, is also deeply informed by
the 28-plus years that I have been privileged to spend in the
Senate. That perspective will remain with me if confirmed as
Secretary. And I am already excited by the many ways that we
can work together and in which we must work together in order
to advance America's security interests in a complicated and
ever more dangerous world.
I would add that I am particularly aware that in many ways
the greatest challenge to America's foreign policy will be in
your hands, not mine, because while it is often said that we
cannot be strong at home if we are not strong in the world, in
these days of fiscal crisis and as a recovering member of the
Super Committee, I am especially cognizant of the fact that we
cannot be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. And
the first priority of business which will affect my credibility
as a diplomat and our credibility as a nation, as we work to
help other countries create order--the first priority will be
that America at last puts its own fiscal house in order.
I really cannot emphasize to you enough how imperative this
is. People all over the world are looking to the United States
for leadership. We are known as the indispensable nation for
good reason. No nation has more opportunity to advance the
cause of democracy. No nation is as committed to the cause of
human rights as we are. But to protect our Nation and make good
on our promises, as well as to live up to our ideals and meet
the crisis of this moment, it is urgent that we show people in
the rest of the world that we can get our business done in an
effective and timely way. It is difficult enough to solve some
of the problems that we face, but I will tell you it becomes
impossible, or near impossible, if we ourselves replace our
credibility and leverage with gridlock and dysfunction. I have
heard it in my trips and Secretary Clinton has heard it in her
trips. And any of you who travel will begin to hear questions
about whether or not the United States can, or will, deliver.
Moreover, more than ever foreign policy is economic policy.
The world is competing for resources in global markets. Every
day that goes by where America is uncertain about engaging in
that arena or unwilling to put our best foot forward and win,
unwilling to demonstrate our resolve to lead is a day in which
we weaken our Nation itself. My plea is that we can summon
across party lines, without partisan diversions, an economic
patriotism which recognizes that American strength and
prospects abroad depend on American strength and results at
home. It is hard to tell the leadership of a number of
countries that they have to deal with the IMF, balance their
budget, create economic order where there is none if we do not
provide it for ourselves.
It is also imperative that in implementing President
Obama's vision for the world, as he ends more than a decade of
war, that we join together to augment our message to the world.
President Obama and every one of us here knows that American
foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone.
We cannot allow the extraordinary good that we do to save and
change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role that we have
had to play since September 11, a role that was thrust upon us.
American foreign policy is also defined by food security,
energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against
disease and the push for development as much as it is by any
single counterterrorism initiative, and it must be. It is
defined by leadership on life-threatening issues like climate
change or fighting to lift up millions of lives by promoting
freedom and democracy from Africa to the Americas or speaking
out for the prisoners of gulags in North Korea or millions of
refugees and displaced persons or victims of human trafficking.
It is defined by keeping faith with all that our troops have
sacrificed to secure for Afghanistan. America lives up to her
values when we give voice to the voiceless.
I share with the President the conviction that it is
equally imperative that we assert a new role in the world of
increasing failed and failing states. Burgeoning populations of
young people hungry for jobs, opportunity, individual rights,
and freedom are rebelling against years of disenfranchisement
and humiliation. A fruit vendor in Tunisia who ignited the Arab
Awakening wanted dignity and respect. He wanted to sell his
fruit without corruption and abuse. That is what led him to
self-immolate. The youth of Tahrir Square who brought Egypt its
revolution represented a generational thirst for opportunity
and individual participatory rights of governance, not a
religious movement. The developed world can do more to meet the
challenge and responsibility of these aspirations. With the
help of all the members of this committee, I am determined to
help President Obama meet this moment. It is vital for our
Nation that we do so.
The world is well aware that we face a number of immediate
dangerous challenges, particularly in the Middle East and south
and central Asia. Given our extraordinary interest in
nonproliferation, we must resolve the questions surrounding
Iran's nuclear program. The President has made it definitive.
We will do what we must do to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. And I repeat here today our policy is not
containment; it is prevention. And the clock is ticking on our
efforts to secure responsible compliance. This administration
working with Congress and an unprecedented international
coalition has put into place crippling sanctions on Iran. Mr.
Chairman, you have been a leader in that effort and I know will
continue to be. President Obama has stated again and again--and
I want to emphasize this. He and I prefer a diplomatic
resolution to this challenge, and I will work to give diplomacy
every effort to succeed. But no one should mistake our resolve
to reduce the nuclear threat.
Nearly 42 years ago, Chairman Fulbright first gave me the
opportunity to testify before this committee during a difficult
and divided time for our country. Today I cannot help but
recognize that the world itself then was in many ways simpler,
divided as it was along bipolar cold war antagonisms. Today's
world is more complicated than anything we have experienced,
from the emergence of China to the Arab Awakening, inextricably
linked economic, health, environmental, and demographic issues,
proliferation, poverty, pandemic disease, refugees, conflict
ongoing in Afghanistan, entire populations and faiths
struggling with the demands of modernity and the accelerating
pace of technological innovation invading all of that, shifting
power from nation states to individuals.
With the end of the cold war, Henry Kissinger pointed out
in his superb book on diplomacy--he said: ``None of the most
important countries which must build a new world order have had
any experience with the multistate system that is emerging.
Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so
many different perceptions or on so global a scale. Nor has any
previous order had to combine the attributes of the historic
balance of power system with global democratic opinion and the
exploding technology of the contemporary period.'' That was
written in 1994 and it may be even more relevant today.
So this really is a time for American leadership, a time
for fresh thinking, a time to cross party lines and divide and
come together in the interests of our Nation, a time to find
ways to work together to maximize the impact of all of
America's resources, including the great resource of this
committee and of the U.S. Senate.
If I am confirmed, one of the first things that I intend to
do is sit down with Senator Menendez and Senator Corker and
invite all the members of this committee to come together,
hopefully at a time when there is no interruption and we can
actually really dig in and talk about how we can have a
constructive dialogue and a collegial relationship because,
even as we pride ourselves on the separation of powers and the
unique oversight role that the committee plays, the challenges
in the world are so enormous that we would do our country a
disservice if we did not identify the ways that we can help
each other to confront a unique set of questions globally.
If you confirm me, I would take office as Secretary proud
that the Senate is in my blood but equally proud that so, too,
is the Foreign Service. My father's work under Presidents, both
Democrat and Republican, took me and my siblings around the
world for a personal journey that brought home the sacrifices
and the commitment the men and women of the Foreign Service
make every day on behalf of America. I wish everyone in the
country could see and understand firsthand the devotion,
loyalty, amazingly hard and often dangerous work that the
diplomats on the front lines do for our Nation. Theirs is a
service which earns our country an enormous return on
investment. I will be proud and honored to represent them and I
will work hard to augment our public diplomacy so that the
story is told at home and abroad.
Everyone on this committee knows well that the road ahead
is tough, but I believe just as deeply that global leadership
is a strategic imperative for America. It is not a favor that
we do for other countries. It amplifies our voice. It extends
our reach. It is the key to jobs, the fulcrum of our influence.
And it matters. It really matters to the daily lives of
Americans. It matters that we get this moment right for
America, and it matters that we get it right for the world.
One discussion that I particularly look forward to
beginning with you, my colleagues, and with our country is
about the commitment that we make in our foreign affairs
budget, less than 1 percent of the entire budget of Government
at a time that the world is getting smaller, that our economy
depends on its relationship with every other country in the
world, that we face a more global market than anytime in our
history. So not just in my briefings at the State Department
but in my conversations with business leaders, in my trips to
crisis areas, to war zones, to refugee camps, and in some of
the poorest countries on earth, I have been reminded of the
importance of the work that our State Department does to
protect and advance America's interests and do the job of
diplomacy in a dangerous world and particularly I think there
is more that can be done to advance our economic capacity and
interests.
In this debate and in every endeavor, I pledge to work very
closely with this committee, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member, not just because it will be my responsibility but
because I will not be able to do this job effectively, nor will
our country get what it needs to out of these initiatives
without your involvement and your ideas going forward.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
know there is a lot of ground to cover.
Senator Menendez. The committee will be in order. The
committee will stand in recess until the police can restore
order.
[Recess.]
Senator Menendez. Welcome, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. Well, you know, I will tell you, Mr.
Chairman, when I first came to Washington and testified, I
obviously was testifying as part of a group of people who came
here to have their voices heard. And that is above all what
this place is about. So I respect, I think, the woman who was
voicing her concerns about that part of the world. And every
one of you have traveled there. Some of you were there
recently. Senator McCain, you were just there. You were in a
refugee camp, but I know you heard this kind of thing. People
measure what we do. And in a way that is a good exclamation
point to my testimony.
So, Mr. Chairman, I know there is a lot of ground to cover,
and as a veteran of the committee, I know we do better when we
are having a good dialogue. So I look forward to having that
dialogue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John F. Kerry,
Nominee for Secretary of State
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, Members of the Committee, I am
enormously appreciative for the very generous comments of the Chair and
Ranking Member.
I will tell you that I have enjoyed chairing this committee and
working with all of you as much as anything I have been privileged to
do in my career. I think this is one of the great committees of the
Senate and it is the only major committee I have served on every single
day since I arrived here in 1985. As you know, the committee carries
special responsibilities for the security of our Nation and I thank
each and everyone of you for the serious consideration you have brought
to challenging issues and for the incredible cooperation I have
received as chairman. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to
work closely with all of you as we tackle some very tough problems. And
I particularly welcome the new members in that regard.
I am very grateful to Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain, and
Senator Warren for their introductions. Secretary Clinton has been
superb and we all thank her for a job well done and for her tireless
efforts on behalf of the Nation. She has set a high mark for her
stewardship of the State Department and her commitment to country. I
can pledge that, with the consent of the Senate, I will do everything
in my power to build on her record and the President's vision.
Senator McCain is a longtime friend. We met here in the Senate
coming from very different political positions and perspectives but we
found common ground. I will always be grateful for his partnership in
helping to make real peace with Vietnam by establishing the most
significant process in the history of our country for accounting for
the missing and dead of any war, and then for lifting the embargo and
ultimately normalizing relations with an old enemy. John had every
reason to hate but he didn't. Instead, we were able to help heal deep
wounds and end a war that divided too many for too long.
And as we talk about war and peace and foreign policy, I want us
all to keep in our minds the extraordinary men and women in uniform who
are on the front lines, the troops at war who help protect America. As
a veteran, I will always carry the consequences of our decisions in my
mind and be grateful that we have such extraordinary people to back us
up.
And I thank my new colleague, Senator Warren, for her generous
comments. She is a long time, fierce fighter for what is just and fair
and if her testimony has an effect today and helps win votes for my
confirmation, she will become the Senior Senator of our State in a
record few legislative days!
It is humbling to appear before you in a new role as President
Obama's nominee for Secretary of State. But my approach to this role,
if confirmed, is also deeply informed by the 28-plus years that I've
spent serving here on this committee and in the Senate. That
perspective will remain with me if confirmed as Secretary, and I'm
already excited by the many ways in which we can work together and in
which we must work together to advance America's security interests in
a complicated and even dangerous world.
I would add that I'm particularly aware that in many ways the
greatest challenge to America's foreign policy will be in your hands,
not mine--because while it's often said that we can't be strong at home
if we're not strong in the world, in these days of fiscal crisis, and
as a recovering member of the Super-Committee, I am especially
cognizant of the fact that we can't be strong in the world unless we
are strong at home--and the first priority of business which will
affect my credibility as a diplomat working to help other countries
create order, is whether America at last puts its own fiscal house in
order.
I can't emphasize enough how critical this imperative is. People
all over the world are looking to the United States for leadership. We
are known as the indispensable nation for good reason. No nation has
more opportunity to advance the cause of democracy and no nation is as
committed to the cause of human rights as we are. But to protect our
Nation and make good on all our promises, as well as to live up to our
ideals and meet the crisis of this moment, it is urgent that we show
people we can get our business done in an effective and timely way. It
is difficult enough to solve some of the problems we face, but it
becomes near impossible if we ourselves replace our credibility and
leverage with gridlock and dysfunction.
More than ever, foreign policy is economic policy. The world is
competing for resources and global markets. Every day that goes by
where America is uncertain about engaging in that arena, unwilling to
put our best foot forward and win, unwilling to demonstrate our resolve
to lead, is a day in which we weaken our Nation itself. My plea is that
we can summon across party lines, without partisan diversions, an
economic patriotism which recognizes that American strength and
prospects abroad, depend on American strength and results at home. It
is hard to tell the leadership of any number of countries they must get
their economic issues resolved if we don't resolve our own.
It is also imperative that in implementing President Obama's vision
for the world as he ends more than a decade of war, we join together to
augment our message to the world. President Obama and every one of us
here knows that American foreign policy is not defined by drones and
deployments alone. We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save
and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to
play since September 11, a role that was thrust upon us.
American foreign policy is also defined by food security and energy
security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against disease and the
push for development, as much as it is by any single counterterrorism
initiative. It is defined by leadership on life threatening issues like
climate change, or fighting to lift up millions of lives by promoting
freedom and democracy from Africa to the Americas or speaking out for
the prisoners of gulags in North Korea or millions of refugees and
displaced persons and victims of human trafficking. It is defined by
keeping faith with all that our troops have sacrificed to secure for
Afghanistan. America lives up to her values when we give voice to the
voiceless.
I share with the President the conviction it is equally imperative
we assert a new role in a world of increasing failed and failing
states. Burgeoning populations of young people, hungry for jobs,
opportunity, individual rights and freedom, are rebelling against years
of disenfranchisement and humiliation. A fruit vendor in Tunisia who
ignited the Arab Awakening wanted dignity and respect. He wanted to
sell his fruit without corruption and abuse. The youth of Tahrir Square
who brought Egypt its revolution represented a generational thirst for
opportunity and individual participatory rights of governance--not a
religious movement. The developed world can do more to meet the
challenge and responsibility of these aspirations. With the help of all
the members of this committee, I am determined to help President Obama
meet this moment.
The world is well aware we face a number of immediate, dangerous
challenges, particularly in the Middle East and South and Central Asia.
Given our extraordinary interest in nonproliferation, we must resolve
the questions surrounding Iran's nuclear program. The President has
made it definitive--we will do what we must to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. I repeat here today: our policy is not
containment. It is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts
to secure responsible compliance. This administration, working with
Congress and an unprecedented international coalition, has put into
place crippling sanctions on Iran. President Obama has stated again and
again, he prefers a diplomatic resolution to this challenge, and I will
work to give diplomacy every effort to succeed. But no one should
mistake our resolve to reduce the nuclear threat.
Nearly 42 years ago Chairman Fulbright first gave me the
opportunity to testify before this committee during a difficult and
divided time for our country. Today I can't help but recognize that the
world itself then was in many ways simpler, divided as it was along
bipolar, cold war antagonisms. Today's world is more complicated than
anything we have experienced--from the emergence of China, to the Arab
Awakening; inextricably linked economic, health, environmental and
demographic issues, proliferation, poverty, pandemic disease, refugees,
conflict ongoing in Afghanistan, entire populations and faiths
struggling with the demands of modernity, and the accelerating pace of
technological innovation shifting power from nation-states to
individuals.
With the end of the cold war, Henry Kissinger pointed out in his
superb book on Diplomacy: ``None of the most important countries which
must build a new world order have had any experience with the
multistate system that is emerging. Never before has a new world order
had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global
a scale. Nor has any previous order had to combine the attributes of
the historic balance-of-power system with global democratic opinion and
the exploding technology of the contemporary period.'' That was written
in 1994. It may be more relevant today.
So this really is a time for American leadership, a time for fresh
thinking, and a time to find ways to work together to maximize the
impact of all America's resources, including the United States Senate.
If I am confirmed, one of the first things I intend to do is to sit
down with Senator Menendez and Senator Corker and all the members of
the committee to talk about how we can have a constructive dialogue and
a collegial relationship because, even as we pride ourselves on the
separation of powers and the unique oversight role the committee plays,
the challenges in the world are so enormous that we would do our
country a disservice if we did not identify the ways we can help each
other confront a unique set of questions globally.
If you confirm me, I would take office as Secretary proud that the
Senate is in my blood--but equally proud that so too is the Foreign
Service. My Dad's work under Presidents, both Democratic and
Republican, took me and my siblings around the world for a personal
journey that brought home the sacrifices and commitment the men and
women of the Foreign Service make every day on behalf of America. I
wish everyone in the country could see and understand firsthand the
devotion, loyalty, and amazingly hard, often dangerous work that our
diplomats on the front lines do. Their's is service which earns our
country an enormous return on our investment. I will be proud and
honored to represent them and I will work hard to augment our public
diplomacy so that the story is told at home and abroad.
Everyone on this committee knows well the road ahead is tough. But
I believe just as deeply that global leadership is a strategic
imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. It
amplifies our voice and extends our reach. It's the key to jobs, the
fulcrum of our influence, and it matters--it really matters to the
daily lives of Americans. It matters that we get this moment right for
America and it matters that we get it right for the world.
One discussion that I particularly look forward to beginning with
you, my colleagues, and with our country, is about the commitment we
make in our foreign affairs budget--less than 1 percent of the entire
budget of the government. Not just in my briefings at the State
Department but in my conversations with business leaders and in my
trips to crisis areas, war zones, and refugee camps in some of the
poorest countries on earth, I have been reminded of the importance of
the work our State Department does to protect and advance America's
interests and do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world.
In this debate, and in every endeavor, I pledge to work closely
with this committee and the Congress--not just because it will be my
responsibility, but because I will not be able to do this job
effectively without your involvement and ideas going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I know
there's a lot of ground to cover and, as a veteran of this committee, I
know we do best when we are engaging in a dialogue. I look forward to
doing that now.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your very
thoughtful presentation.
On behalf of the committee, we welcome Teresa and all of
the family. And we thank you for your commitment as well
because, obviously, it is a commitment of family as well to the
service that Senator Kerry will provide as Secretary of State
and there are sacrifices in that. So we appreciate it very
much.
Let me start off with a round of questioning. The Chair
recognizes himself.
And let me say that I think we all appreciate and embrace
your offer of engagement with this committee. We look forward
to that, and having come from the Senate, I know that we will
particularly appreciate your understanding of this institution
and its importance and of the committee. And so we really
embrace that offer and look forward to that moment.
Let me start off with Iran. In the last 13 months, Congress
has passed and the President signed three major sets of
sanctions against Iran. They have been tremendously effective
in reducing Iran's oil revenues and at least nominally bringing
Iran to a negotiating table.
However, Iran remains defiant, entrenched in its nuclear
weapons ambition. It has not slowed its enrichment activities.
The IAEA believes that Iran has conducted live tests of
conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a
nuclear weapon at the Parchin military base, to which it denies
IAEA entry. And between May and August of this year, Iran has
more than doubled the number of centrifuges at its fortified
Fordo facility which is buried deep inside a mountain to
protect it against strikes.
Now, Iran claims it needs higher grade uranium for the
purposes of peaceful nuclear programs, but a country with
peaceful ambitions does not enrich uranium in defiance of U.N.
Security Council resolutions. It does not fail to disclose its
operations or hide them inside a mountain. And a peaceful
nation does not breach the international inspections regime
compelled by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
So, Mr. Secretary--Mr. Senator, in this respect----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. I thought this could be quick. [Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. I have a sense of clairvoyance.
In this respect, many of the sanctions are overseen by the
Department of State in terms of enforcement, and it is crucial
that that enforcement can bring a verifiable agreement
hopefully with Iran. Under your leadership, will the Department
be committed to the full enforcement of the sanctions passed by
the Congress and to multilateral efforts to ensure the
adherence of other nations to these sanctions?
Senator Kerry. Yes, totally. I might just quickly add and
very quickly. The rial has dropped by about 80 percent. Other
nations have been extraordinarily cooperative in reducing their
dependence on Iranian oil. There is a clear indicator of the
impact these are having, and I think the Congress deserves
credit, together with the administration, for having put the
toughest sanctions and the biggest coalition together in
history.
Senator Menendez. In that respect, as we hope that--while
the President said all options are on the table, we hope that
the sanctions, which are a peaceful diplomacy tool, ultimately
drive us to a successful conclusion. What would be the basic
parameters in the P5+1 effort in terms of enrichment capacity,
retention of enriched uranium, the Fordo facility inspections?
What would you see as part of any agreement?
Senator Kerry. Well, we would seek compliance with the
requirements of the IAEA and the requirements of the U.N.
resolutions that have been passed with respect to it and
compliance with the NPT itself.
Now, I am not going to--it would be totally inappropriate
for me here to begin to negotiate with myself and the committee
with respect to how they would come into compliance or what
would be required.
I can tell you this. It is going to be imperative that they
come into full compliance, and there are several ways in which
we might be able to get there, most prominently obviously the
P5+1. But the President has made it clear that he is prepared
to engage, if that is what it takes, in bilateral efforts, and
hopefully there is a negotiation going on right now for the
next meeting of the P5+1. I think everybody is very hopeful
that we can make some progress on the diplomatic front now.
And so I simply say, Mr. Chairman, that Iran--I would say
this to the Iranians. I hope they listen. They have continually
professed the peacefulness of their program. It is not hard to
prove a peaceful program. Other nations have done that and do
it every day. And it takes intrusive inspections. It takes
living up to publicly arrived at standards. Everybody
understands what they are. The allies in the P5+1 have made it
clear, and that includes very powerful entities, obviously,
people who have been supportive of Iran in other ways at times,
China, Russia. They have made it clear that we are all united
in this standard and that we are looking for the full
compliance with the NPT. So I think the process itself has to
flesh out the details, but the Iranians need to understand that
there is no other agenda here. If their program is peaceful,
they can prove it and that is what we are seeking.
Senator Menendez. Let me move to Afghanistan. President
Karzai was here with President Obama. In essence, they
announced a series of agreements that would ultimately--as we
move in that transition, we would have the largest civilian
mission in the world in Afghanistan. Can you articulate what
you believe the administration's end goals are in Afghanistan,
and what metrics would you use to guide our continued presence?
Is it our intention to focus, for example, on strengthening
institutions, supporting civil society, achieving development
goals, or will the mission be guided by success in
counterterrorism?
Senator Kerry. Well, the mission is really a twofold
mission, Mr. Chairman. It is to, No. 1, turn over
responsibility to the Afghan Forces for them to be able to
assume responsibility for security, which is slated to begin in
earnest--I mean, it has begun already, but a milestone will
take place in the spring. President Karzai in his visit here
moved that date up himself and has asked for it to be
accelerated. It is the judgment of General Allen and others
that we are on target to be able to meet a more rapid rate of
turnover, and that will mean our troops, in the near term at
some point this year, will not be in the lead and will not be
the ones principally taking the brunt of any kind of
activities; offensive activities.
The second purpose is to maintain a capacity to prevent the
kind of basing for terrorism which took us there in the first
place. So there will be a counterterrorism mission that will
continue. President Obama has been very clear about the fact
that that counterterrorism mission will continue beyond 2014
and that the training will probably continue beyond 2014. So
there is going to be, according to the President's own
statement, some measure of engagement, but the effort is to
have the Afghans in the lead, the continued training of the
forces, build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, and
support an Afghan-led reconciliation, not a United States-led
but Afghan-led reconciliation, if it is possible. And
obviously, the strategy is to have a sufficient capacity within
the ANSF that if it is not possible to have that, the
Government of Afghanistan is still sustained.
Senator Menendez. Finally, the Western Hemisphere; 2013
will be a year of great change in the Western Hemisphere,
particularly in Latin America. The impending change of
leadership in Venezuela will have a profound internal impact
but also ripple effects on the political and economic relations
throughout the hemisphere. The newly elected President of
Mexico is talking about refocusing his bilateral relationship
emphasizing economic cooperation while continuing to prioritize
security concerns. The Colombian Government's peace talks with
the FARC have the potential to turn the page in a long-running
conflict. Public security questions throughout the region, the
desire of the region to engage in more critical ways on a
broader-based agenda.
It would be my hope that upon your confirmation, Mr.
Secretary, that your leadership would consider more strategic
level approaches to the region, taking advantage of changing
political tides and opportunities to enhance multilateral
efforts on counterterrorism, narcotics trafficking,
transnational crime organizations, opening up new markets, and
of course a commitment to our democracy programs throughout the
region and, for that fact, throughout the world.
So can you briefly talk to me about your views and vision
as it relates to what I think is a new and momentous
opportunity in the hemisphere?
Senator Kerry. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. It is
an opportunity that is staring at us, and I hope that we can
build on what Secretary Clinton has done and the Obama
administration has already done in order to augment our efforts
in that region. You have had the Merida Initiative working with
Mexico. There has been increased effort on antinarcotics,
antiviolence. There has been the Central American Regional
Security Initiative. There has been development assistance in
Guatemala, Honduras. Energy initiatives with Brazil. And energy
and climate initiatives, I should say, with Brazil. There is
increasing economic integration.
But as we all know, there have been some outlier states
that have not been as much a part of--not been as cooperative
or in a position to be as cooperative, and we all know who they
are. And I think depending on what happens in Venezuela, there
may really be an opportunity for a transition there. Likewise,
I would hope that in Bolivia, Ecuador, we could make progress.
One of the great stories of Latin America is Colombia. I
can remember when I was working on the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee and Senator Dodd was here and others, and we were
very engaged at that period of time. There had recently been an
assassination of 13 members of the Supreme Court in one room in
Colombia. The Presidential candidates were assassinated. You
could not run for office, and frankly President Uribe stepped
up at a critical moment and began the process of rescuing that
nation. And President Santos now is doing an amazing job. We
have created our greater economic relationship by passing the
trade agreement. We have to build on that, and I think that is
an example really for the rest of Latin America as to what
awaits them if we can induce people to make a better set of
choices, frankly.
I think there are some other things that have contributed
to the gap in our relationship with some of those other
countries. I hope to perhaps be able to try to see if there is
a way to bridge some of that, and I would do it in close
consultation with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the
committee. But I think there are some ways to improve and
augment our efforts in Latin America.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I really was touched by your opening
comments. As I mentioned, I think you have led a life that has
brought you to this moment. I am happy for you that you are
going to be able to express yourself in this way as Secretary
of State and for your family. So I really am thrilled that you
are in a position that I know you have longed for and think you
can make a major difference in.
I also want to say that I asked you 73 questions in
advance, and I appreciate the responses that we received this
morning. And I know we will have a few more. But thank you for
your diligence. I know it took a lot of time, and many of the
detailed questions we have already spoken about.
The President has nominated someone for Secretary of
Defense, and we all will be meeting with him and his hearing
will be next week. He was part of a group called Global Zero.
And for those of us who care deeply about our nuclear arsenal
and modernization and that type of thing, some of the things
that were authored in this report candidly are just concerning.
Typically there is a tension. The Defense Department presses
for weaponry and making sure that our country is safe. The
State Department presses for nuclear arms agreements and
reductions. And so in the event this person is confirmed, that
balance is not going to be there.
You and I spent a lot of time on the START Treaty. I helped
you in that effort. You let me be involved in the ratification.
Modernization was to take place at a pace that is not
occurring.
And I am just wondering if there is something you might say
to me that sees our future in a way that--with the combination
of possibly these two people, one leading the State Department,
but one leading the Defense Department in a role that has been
very different than previous defense leaders. Is there
something you can say to assure me about our nuclear posture in
the future and the role that you are going to play in that
regard?
Senator Kerry. Absolutely. Not a question I was
anticipating, but I am really happy to be able to speak to it.
First of all, again, not requested, but I will say this. I
know Chuck Hagel, and I think he is a strong, patriotic former
Senator and he will be a strong Secretary of Defense. And I
have dealt with him in any number of fora. He has been the head
of the Atlantic Council. That is a mainstream, thoughtful
foreign policy/security engagement. And I think some of the
things that have been--sort of some of the efforts to color
Senator Hagel's approach on some of these things do not do
justice.
Senator Corker. But on Global Zero----
Senator Kerry. Well, let me come to it. I am going to come
to it.
Senator Corker. OK.
Senator Kerry. I absolutely intend to come to it because I
think it is very important to think about it.
Senator Corker. Yes.
Senator Kerry. When that initiative sort of first came out
and we began to hear about the potential of people who said let
us get no nuclear weapons, I sort of scratched my head. I said
what. How is that going to work? Because I believe in
deterrence and I find it very hard to think how you can get
down to a number in today's world. But the whole point is they
are not talking about today's world.
Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, I think Jim Schlesinger, former
Secretaries of Defense, many others have all agreed with that
as a goal for the world. It is a goal. It is an aspiration, and
we should always be aspirational. But it is not something that
could happen in today's world, and nor could any leader today
sit here or in any other chair and promote to you the notion
that we ought to be cutting down our deterrent level below an
adequate level to maintain deterrence.
Now, the military has very strong views about what that is.
We have cut down to some 1,500 now. There is talk of going down
to a lower number. I think personally it is possible to get
there if you have commensurate levels of inspections,
verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear
stockpile program, et cetera.
Now, Senator, I know you are deeply invested in that
component of it, the nuclear stockpile proposal. We can come to
some of that maybe later in the hearing here. But I believe we
have to maintain that because that is the only way you maintain
an effective level of deterrence. And the Russians certainly
are thinking in terms of their adequacy of deterrence, which is
one of the reasons why they have missile defense concerns.
So I do not think Senator Hagel is sitting there or he is
going to go over to the Defense Department and be a proponent.
You know, this is talking about conflict resolution, changes
that have to take place in societies. You know, it is worth
aspiring to, but we will be lucky if we get there in however
many centuries the way we are going. And so I think we have to
be realistic about it, and I think Senator Hagel is realistic
about it.
Senator Corker. I especially appreciated your opening
comments about the fiscal issues we face. For a moment, I was
wishing you had been nominated for Secretary of the Treasury.
But I do appreciate both those comments and the ones you just
made.
You have been a Senator for 29 years. You have got vast
amount of experience. The President was actually under your
tutelage when he came in as a junior member of this committee,
like we all are when we first come up.
Senator Kerry. I distinctly think he would object to the
concept of being under anybody's tutelage. [Laughter.]
Senator Corker. I will let him call and object.
I would just say that you have strong opinions, heartfelt
feelings about what we ought to be doing as a nation in foreign
relations.
Senator Kerry. That is right.
Senator Corker. And I am just wondering in the meetings
that you all had together--yesterday Secretary Clinton alluded
to differences that she had as it relates to north Africa and
how we deal with al-Qaeda. Have you all been able to talk
through some of those issues, and what has been the
relationship? Do you see any major differences in your view of
the world and the ones that the President has laid out?
Senator Kerry. The President has purposefully, and I have
purposefully, kept away from any deep-dive discussions during
the nominating process partly because he has not had time and I
have not had time. We do intend to sit down next week, and I
look forward to having that conversation with him.
Senator Corker. You spent a lot of time with Assad in
Syria, as many of us have from time to time. And I know you
spent a lot of time really trying to move him more toward a
Western alliance. You know, he saw himself as that bridge
between Iran and us, and I know you spent a lot of time with
him in that regard. Obviously, things have taken a different
turn since that time.
Was there anything about those negotiations or discussions
that you have taken away and that has, if you will, informed
you as you move ahead?
Senator Kerry. Well, the answer is, ``Yes.'' It sort of
reinforces the notion that sometimes there are moments where
you may be able to get something done in foreign policy, and if
the moment somehow does not ripen correctly or get seized, you
miss major opportunities.
I think that there was a moment where Syria had an interest
because of its burgeoning youthful population, young people. I
remember President Assad said to me I have 500,000 kids who
turn 18 every year, and I do not have a place to put them. I do
not have jobs for them. I need to be able to change what is
happening here. Clearly, thinking down the road, he wanted to
try to find some way to reach out to the West and see if there
was some kind of an accommodation.
History caught up to us. That never happened and it is now
moot because he has made a set of judgments that are
inexcusable, that are reprehensible, and I think is not long
for remaining as the head of state in Syria. I think the time
is ticking. And I think you saw the comments recently of
Special Envoy of Russia Mikhail Bogdanovich who said that it
seemed as if the opposition was moving now and winning, and we
have seen the exodus of a certain number of Russians who were
lifted out of Syria. So I think the process is moving in a way
that now makes that ancient history, but it does underscore how
if you get the right pieces together at the right moment,
things might conceivably be different some day.
Senator Corker. I thank you for your opening comments, for
your answers here, your answers in advance. I do know that your
confirmation is going to be speedy, and I look forward to
having the same relationship we have had in the past. I may
call you ``sir'' in the future, but thank you so much for being
here today and for taking this responsibility on.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, thank you very much. You have
been a gentleman in all of our dealings and candid, and I
appreciate that. I look forward to continuing that with every
member of the committee.
Senator Menendez. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Kerry, thanks for stepping up to this challenge. It
is a daunting challenge, and I think there is maybe a handful
of people in the Nation who could do it and you are one of
those.
I have sat very near you in a couple of committees, this
one, many, many, many years; Commerce Committee, many years. I
have worked with you on climate issues. I have worked with you
on women's issues. And again, I just feel you are the right
person for this moment.
Many foreign policy experts and historians have written
that the low and sad status of women around the world is
hurting entire regions of the world to achieving democracy and
economic growth. And you covered a lot of ground in your
opening statement, but you did not get into this area which is
of concern to a number of us here. So I have a couple of
questions on that.
Under Secretary Clinton's leadership, the State Department
has fought to protect the rights of women and girls in
Afghanistan, to end the use of rape as a weapon of war in the
Congo, to promote women's economic empowerment in places like
Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and to ensure that women play
a meaningful role as new governments and political structures
take shape in the Middle East and north Africa.
If confirmed, will you ensure that the position of
Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues is retained and
that the office is effectively resourced?
Senator Kerry. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Senator Landrieu and I wrote a bill to
expand scholarship opportunities for women in Pakistan, and we
wrote it after the--well, the heart-wrenching attack on Malala
Yousafzai. And we dedicated this bill to her. And we do not
create anything new, but we called for an expanded scholarship
program in Pakistan for disadvantaged young women. I know you
have not seen the legislation. Would you commit to me to see
the legislation and work with us, and if you think it is well
done and if it meets your standard, would you help us in
getting it through here?
Senator Kerry. Absolutely. Senator, let me just say that
Secretary Clinton and Melanne Verveer, who was her appointee,
special ambassador with respect to global women's affairs, have
done an outstanding job. And obviously, Secretary Clinton has
made this a high priority.
Senator Boxer. She has.
Senator Kerry. I think, as you know, I made it a priority
on the committee----
Senator Boxer. You did.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Because you chair the
subcommittee that I included women's and girls' and all women's
issues under that aegis. And you have been the chair of that
and have done a terrific job on it. We had a trafficking
hearing here----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Which I thought broke new
ground. Secretary Clinton has put a serious focus in the State
Department on human trafficking. I intend to continue that. I
think it is critical.
But more importantly, what you are talking about with
respect to women and girls, in South Africa, in Guatemala, in
other parts of the world, in Africa, women have stepped up as
peacemakers. Women have made the difference in many of these
instances with respect to the security of communities, the
attitude of a state, its willingness to reach out and be
inclusive. As we all know in Afghanistan, when we went into
Afghanistan, I think there were about 800,000 kids in school
and no girls. Today there are close to 9 million kids in school
and almost 50 percent are girls. It is an extraordinary story,
and I think everyone in the Congress should be proud of it. I
think we need to continue that and I intend to.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am very glad. And the reason I press
you on specifics is to send a message from this hearing to
these women and girls around the world that they will not be
forgotten, that in fact you will continue, that you have been a
champion of this.
There was a national action plan. It was announced by the
White House. It is being implemented by Executive order. It
ensures that the United States makes sure that women are
included in all conflict prevention and resolution efforts such
as ensuring that women are at the table during the peace
processes. And it sounds so simple, but I have met with many
women from Afghanistan who are just devastated that there are
not enough women sitting at the table. And you have made the
point that women in many of these places are the peacemakers.
They do come forward with the right attitude.
So I am asking you if you intend to commit to the continued
implementation of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and
Security.
Senator Kerry. I do and I actually was reading it last
night. President Obama issued that and I think it is really
important.
With respect to Afghanistan, we have made it clear--the
administration has made it clear and I will support that if and
when I become Secretary of State--and that is the commitment
that if there is a negotiation with the Taliban, one of the
conditions is they have to give up any association with al-
Qaeda. They have to commit to nonviolence, but most importantly
with respect to this issue, they must commit to respect the
Constitution of Afghanistan and the current status of women and
girls within their society.
Senator Boxer. I have two more questions.
You have been a supporter of CEDAW before, the Convention
to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women. I know
it is a tough issue here. I do not think it should be, but it
is. I just want to make sure you continue to support the
ratification.
And then I have one quick question on another subject.
Senator Kerry. The answer is, ``Yes.'' And let me just say
on that, I look forward to meeting with the committee privately
sometime hopefully down at the State Department and we can talk
about treaties and America's interests, and I look forward to
that.
Senator Boxer. Good, because I think there could be some
reservations that we could agree on that could resolve some of
the underlying current of disagreement here, which I think we
should move forward it.
The last question is about the Keystone XL pipeline. How
will you ensure that any administration decision regarding the
Presidential permit for Keystone takes into consideration the
potential impacts of the pipeline on water and air quality and
mitigates any increases in the carbon pollution issue?
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator Boxer, as I think you know,
there is a statutory process with respect to the review that
falls to the State Department and elsewhere, and that is
currently ongoing. And I have already checked into it. It is
underway. It will not be long before that comes across my desk,
and at that time I will make the appropriate judgments about
it. But it does require we are responsible for the
environmental review, and there are specific standards that
have to be met with respect to that review. I am going to
review those standards to make sure they are complete obviously
and my own judgments about it, but work with the Legal
Department at the State Department which, incidentally, is a
superb, unbelievable group of lawyers with great skill and we
will analyze it and make a judgment.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. I want to just say thank you so
much, Mr. Chairman--I still call you that--and just say how
much I look forward to voting for you. Casting that ``aye''
vote will be a great honor and privilege for me.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you. Senator, while you and Teresa are
out globetrotting, I want you to be assured that Vicky and I
will look carefully after your Idaho property. I know you dream
about retiring there some day.
I want to talk about----
Senator Kerry. Will you come with the property? [Laughter.]
Senator Risch. Like my dad said, we will see.
Senator, I want to talk about the relationship with Russia
and the arms control agreements that we have had. You had made
a statement previously that you would not be able to come
before this committee and recommend new arms control measures
until compliance and verification issues regarding existing
agreements were fully settled. You and I have sat through some
classified briefings, and I do not want to get into details
that we should not get into. But I would like your thoughts on
where we are at the present time regarding compliance and
verification in a general fashion.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, I appreciate your concern
about this. And we have had a lot of conversations especially
with the ranking member and previously with Senator Kyl. And I
think it is fair to say this, that we have made significant
progress toward a full funding of the amount of money that was
committed. As Senator Corker remembers, I think it was about
$85 billion over 10 years. I went and reviewed the amount of
money that is now scheduled over the 10 years. It is slightly
below that, but it is not way below it. There is no sort of
undermining, if you will, of the fundamentals of the
commitment. There is an increase. In fact, there was a 5-
percent increase this year over last year, and it is probably
one of the few--I am not going to say only, but one of the very
few parts of the budget that has grown and that has increased.
I think it was about $7.6 billion or $8 billion last year, and
in the first year, it had the full amount of funding that it
was supposed to have and the next year it fell off by about $.2
billion or something to that effect. In the outgoing years, it
is slightly below where it was, but the laboratories and the
folks involved in it say this is in no way diminishing our
stockpile efficiency. So I think we are on track.
And what we need to do is sit down, Senator Corker, you,
myself, Senator Risch, others who are interested, with the
budget folks, with the administration, and kind of work through
what is going to happen here.
But what I want to emphasize to you, because I made the
commitment in a serious way, it is important for any
administration to keep faith with the commitments it makes to
Senators and particularly in the course of an agreement to a
treaty, and if people's votes depend on that, there is an even
higher obligation in a sense. So I recognize that and I respect
it.
I do not think we are so far off that any Senator ought to
sit there and say somebody has not kept faith. That is No. 1.
No. 2, there was also an agreement that there should begin
negotiations with respect to the reduction of tactical nuclear
weapons. That dialogue is taking place. I am not going to sit
here and tell you it is a formal negotiation, but there is a
dialogue ongoing in keeping with that provision. And hopefully
we can get the relationship with Russia back to a place. I
think it would be disingenuous and naive of me to sit here and
not acknowledge to my colleagues, you know, that slid backward
a little bit in the last couple of years, and with the most
recent decision of Russia with respect to adoptions, we have
some ground to try to make up. What I do not want to do is
prejudice that possibility here today or in the next days. I
would like to see if we can find some way to cooperate. We need
their help and cooperation with respect to Syria.
I would also say that with respect to Russia, Russia has
helped on a number of different things that are critical to us
and people should not overlook them. They did cooperate on the
START Treaty itself. They did cooperate on the P5+1 and are
cooperating today in that initiative.
They have cooperated on the sanctions. They have cooperated
with respect to the PNTR and trade and WTO accession.
And I think it is fair to say that everybody here knows
that they warned us and said if you do X, Y, or Z on such and
such a thing, we may respond and we have gotten into that
little sort of back and forth. So we are going to have to work
our way through it. I am confident we can, and I look forward
to working with you.
Senator Risch. Senator, I appreciate your candor on the
acknowledgment of the slippage.
Having been a member of this committee as long as you have
and I know you have a deep appreciation for the constitutional
process regarding foreign relations matters, there are a lot of
us that are becoming increasingly concerned about all this talk
regarding executive agreements as opposed to treaties that are
negotiated by the executive branch, as contemplated by the
Founding Fathers, and ratified, if appreciate, by this
committee and eventually by the full Senate.
Can you give us your view on matters regarding executive
agreements? How do you feel about that and the bypassing of the
committee?
Senator Kerry. Well, every administration in history,
Republican and Democrat alike, have entered into executive
agreements.
Senator Risch. You agree the better process would be to
submit it to this committee.
Senator Kerry. Well, it would depend. I would say to you,
Senator, that it would depend on what the subject matter is and
what the sort of scope is and whether or not it falls under a
traditional treaty purview or it falls under executive
agreement purview. I do not want to be commenting in some
prophylactic way one side or the other without the specific
situation in front of me, but I am confident the President is
committed to upholding the Constitution.
I will say this to all of you. There is no better way to
guarantee that whatever concerns you have about the President's
desire to move on an executive agreement would be greatly
nullified or mollified if we could find the way to cooperate on
a treaty or on the broader issues that face the Nation. But you
know, I think there is a lot of frustration out there that some
of the automatic ideological restraint here that prevents the
majority from being able to express their voice has restrained
people and pushed people in a way where they have got to
consider some other ways of getting things done.
Senator Risch. Well, and that is exactly what concerns us,
Senator Kerry, the fact that it is OK to do this through the
regular order if it gets done, but if it is not going to get
done, then the ends justify the means. It is OK to end run
around the Congress. And I got to tell you that I feel strongly
that that is not the appropriate way to do it. The Founding
Fathers did not say do this if it is convenient and it is OK to
not do it if it is not convenient. So I have real difficulties
with it.
Senator Kerry. I would agree with you, and I am not
suggesting that that is the standard, but I am suggesting to
you--and I think you know exactly what I am talking about--that
there are times around here when in recent days only--and I do
not want to get deeply into it--where certain arguments that
are not necessarily based either on fact or science or anything
except a point of view of some outside entity have prevented
certain things from being able to be done. And I think what we
ought to do is sit down, all of us on this committee--and I
look forward to doing this--and let us have a discussion about
what the facts tell us. Let us have a discussion and see if we
could arrive mutually at agreeing that there is actually some
truth about something. And if there is some truth about it,
maybe there is a way for us politically to be able to do it in
keeping with what you would call the ``regular order.'' And so
I am not saying that we ought to do it. I am just saying I
understand the frustration that leads people to think about it.
And as I say to you, I will comment on it on any particular
instance when it is relevant.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kerry, it has been a real pleasure to serve with
you in the U.S. Senate. I thank you for your extraordinary
record of public service from your military days to your
service here in the Senate. People have talked about your
service on different committees. I remember your chairmanship
of the Small Business Committee and your advocacy for small
business. The same energy you brought to the chairmanship of
this committee you brought to helping small businesses in our
country. So I applaud you and thank you for your willingness to
continue to serve our Nation and I look forward to you serving
as Secretary of State. It is going to be great for our country.
I must admit I had prepared two sets of questions, one much
more difficult than the other depending on the outcome of this
weekend. [Laughter.]
It worked out well.
Senator Kerry. I am taking it for the Red Sox. I am taking
it for the Patriots. If the standard here is which team you
root for, I am screwed. [Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. As long as the outcome is OK, we will
forgive you. But you will have to show some of your diplomacy
here.
But Secretary Clinton really advanced the integration of
our national security baskets working with the Secretary of
Defense on the use of our traditional military and the use of
diplomacy in international development assistance, recognizing
that all three are interrelated into our national security
needs, that if we are going to have a country that is reliable,
we need to have a sustainable economy in that country. The
country needs to respect the human rights of its citizens. That
has been certainly, I think, the hallmark of what we have tried
to move forward.
We have also learned that American interests are not served
by giving aid to a country where that money is used to funnel
corrupt leaders. As you know, I serve as the Senate chair of
the Helsinki Commission. You are a former member of the
Helsinki Commission. Secretary Clinton was a former member of
the Helsinki Commission. We recognize the importance of
advancements on human rights issues. And I appreciate the
comments that you made in your opening statements concerning
this.
You mentioned trafficking. Trafficking actually started
with the work of the Helsinki Commission where we advanced that
not just in the United States but globally.
Working with Senator Lugar, we advanced in the last
Congress the transparency for resources being used to help the
country rather than again financing corruption by having more
transparency.
Senator Boxer has mentioned the gender equity issues, which
is critically important for sustainable governments.
So I just want to give you a chance to expand a little bit
on your commitment to make the highest priority working with
us, working with the Helsinki Commission to advance American
values on human rights in countries that we deal with on a
bilateral and multilateral basis whether, again, it is to fight
corruption, to protect children who are trafficked, to deal
with gender equity issues. These are American values. These are
important for our national security. And I would like to give
you an opportunity to express your priorities for these issues.
Senator Kerry. Well, let me begin, Senator Cardin, by
expressing my admiration and respect for your leadership on the
Helsinki Commission. You have done as much, if not more, than
any chairman that I can remember or any representative on our
committee, and I really think you have been just superb in your
perseverance and vision. And I appreciate it and I thank you
for it.
As I said in my opening, I mean, we are the indispensible
nation with respect to this. The levels of corruption in some
places has grown beyond anything that I have seen in the 29
years--now in my 29th year on this committee. I am deeply
disturbed by it and troubled by it in terms of what it means
for people's rights and abilities in countries. There is not
any continent that does not see some kind of issue with respect
to that.
So we have huge challenges, and I think the United States
has a fundamental obligation that comes from the definition of
who we are as a nation. It comes from our Declaration of
Independence. It comes from our own struggles here in our own
country to keep faith with those who are struggling in various
parts of the world. And we do it in many ways. The State
Department gives awards of different kinds to women
particularly who have stood out and stood up. There are other
entities within the United States where we choose to do this.
We are funding many different efforts in many parts of the
world right now to help develop whether it is global health or
whether it is education. We are doing things that are making a
difference in people's lives with respect to those rights.
I am absolutely committed. USAID gets criticized, and there
have been some obvious problems with our contractor/aid
relationships in the past. The committee did, I think, some
superb work in putting out a report last year with respect to
some of that. But I think we can do more even than we are doing
today and more effectively.
Senator Cardin. I appreciate that.
You just had a discussion with Senator Risch on Russia.
We have seen some slippage since the breakup of the cold
war ending. You mentioned Secretary Kissinger's comments in
1994. The complexity of this arrangement. We have seen
slippage. We have seen slippage in Russia with their human
rights attentions. There has been slippage among our allies and
friends, what has happened in Hungary with recent elections and
the government trying to change the constitutional protections
and slippage in the Ukraine with imprisoning their opposition.
So our relationships with other countries can be mature
enough where we can build strong alliances but still raise
critical concerns when particularly they violate commitments
they have made. The Helsinki Final Act applies in all three of
those countries, and we have seen their violations.
So I just want to underscore your commitment to be able to
raise these issues of concern to countries that we need to have
good relations with on other issues that we will make a high
priority their commitment to live up to the basic human rights
of their citizens.
Senator Kerry. Senator, let me just say to you. I have
occasionally wrestled with that when I have made a visit to one
country or another and we have a primary objective and we are
trying to get it done. But I have never hesitated in any visit
to raise human rights concerns usually in the context of
particular individuals where we are trying to get them out of a
jail or trying to get them out of the country. And I obviously
will continue to do that, as I know Secretary Clinton has. She
has been diligent about it and I intend to continue.
Senator Cardin. And let me just lastly mention you
mentioned Darfur, I think, in your opening comments where the
humanitarian crisis was so severe. We still have concerns in
the southern Kordofan and in the Blue Nile. South Sudan still
has problems. Burma, where had hope in November--there has not
been any progress made. I hope that you will make these areas
where
there are humanitarian crises a highest priority to try to
protect the safety of the people that live in these areas.
Senator Kerry. Well, I will and I intend to do that. First
of all, the President, I think, will continue with an
appointment of a special envoy to the Sudan. We have just had
Princeton Lyman there, Ambassador Lyman, who has done a superb
job under tough circumstances. I was there, myself, during the
course of their referendum on the independence. I have met with
President Kiir many times. I met with--obviously not with
Bashir, but with people underneath him in the north. And my
hope is that we can get the status of a number of components of
the CPA that were not fulfilled finally fulfilled.
Blue Nile, South Kordofan are a human tragedy. The bombings
are continuing. There is starvation taking place, displacement,
and in some ways Darfur has slipped backward.
So the NCP, which governs the north, needs to be held
accountable and we will, but the south also needs to show
greater determination and better governance. And so we have got
our work cut out for us with respect to both, but I promise you
it is going to remain a focus.
Senator Cardin. You have a full agenda.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kerry, congratulations on your nomination. You have
been nominated at an interesting time in American foreign
policy. We are having this debate in this country. We are well
aware of it because we have had it on this committee as well.
On one hand, we cannot solve every problem in the world. We
never have been able to do that, but we certainly cannot do it
now. We cannot afford it. No single nation can.
On the other hand, America is indispensable in the world.
The world is a dangerous place when America is not leading. And
in fact, the fundamental issues that confront the world today
require coalitions of nations to confront it. The only nation
on earth that can form these coalitions and lead them is us. It
is not the United Nations. It is not the Organization of
American States or any of these other multilateral
organizations. It is the United States of America that can help
form these coalitions to confront global challenges and help to
lead them.
And so the central issue of foreign policy today is this
balance between making sure that we are not trying to do more
than we can and ensuring that we are not doing less than we
should. And where that really comes to play, for example, is
this debate on foreign aid where, on the one hand, there has
been this perception created in this country that foreign aid
is 20 percent of our budget when in, fact it, is a very small
percentage. On the other hand, our foreign aid has to make
sense. You touched upon it a moment ago about foreign aid going
to countries that are corruptly using it, and so we ought to
make sure that our foreign aid is furthering our national
interests.
So what I hope you would help me with--because in your
testimony you alluded to President Obama's vision for the
world. In the 2 years I have been here, I have struggled to
fully understand what that vision is. If you go through the
different countries, Russia has been mentioned. The situation
there has deteriorated as Russia and its leadership have made
the decision that they want to recapture some of the cold war
stature that they had and the best way to do that is to be
confrontational with us.
We had a hearing yesterday on Libya. What we did not get a
chance to talk about is how United States policy toward Libya
in the Qaddafi conflict created many of the conditions that led
to the attack on the consulate. A weak government, the forming
of these militias is all the product of an extended, protracted
conflict where the United States, once it made its decision to
get involved--and we can debate whether we should have gotten
involved or not. But once it made their decision to get
involved, got involved in the early stages and then turned the
rest of it over to our allies who simply did not have the
capability to bring that conflict to a quick conclusion, and as
a result, created the weak government and the situation that we
faced there.
We have repeated that in Syria where again we can debate
whether it was in our national interest or not to get involved.
As Iran's best friend, as the grand central station for
terrorists all over the world, I think it was in our national
interest to help an opposition form and organize itself. We
have been so disorganized in our involvement in Syria that now
we are at a point where the opposition in Syria, when they
win--and they will win--are just as angry at us as they are at
Russia and China and the other nations, and Iran and other
nations that stood with Assad.
We go to Latin America where, on the one hand, in 2009 the
administration condemned what happened in Honduras, which is
debatable whether that was a coup or not. On the other hand,
they stole an election in Nicaragua. I had to hold up a
nomination here just to get a strongly worded statement out of
the administration.
We move over to the Middle East where Israel quite frankly
has been concerned, whether they admit it publicly or not, that
for the early years of the administration, they were more
focused on the Palestinian question as the biggest issue in the
Middle East when, in fact, the biggest issue in the Middle East
is that Iran wants a nuclear weapon so they can attack Israel
and potentially other nations.
You talked about Iran. In 2009, the people of Iran took to
the streets in defense of the principles that we say we stand
for, and the President of the United States says we are not
going to interfere in their sovereignty. That totally
demoralized the opposition.
North Korea today announced that they are developing a
weapon that can reach the United States of America. And lest
anybody accuse me of being overly partisan here, I think the
Bush administration was wrong to remove North Korea from the
list of state sponsors of terrorism, and I hope we will reverse
that.
And finally, China and the territorial conflicts that are
going on in Southeast Asia and throughout the region. China is
being increasingly aggressive about their territorial claims,
and their neighbors are looking to the United States and U.S.
leadership
as a counter balance. We talked about it, and I congratulate
the President for talking about pivoting to Asia, but if this
sequester goes through, what are we going to pivot with?
And so these are the fundamental issues that we face. And
my question to you is, As you sit with the President and as
part of his Cabinet help him form a vision for the world and
for the U.S.'s role in the world over the next few years, what
advice are you going to give him in terms of what the U.S.'s
role should be and how that should be reflected in our foreign
policy?
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, that is obviously a very
broad and comprehensive question, and I appreciate----
Senator Rubio. You have two minutes to answer it.
Senator Kerry. Well, you know, I mean, I could say to you,
look, let us sit down and talk about it and we will get
together and go through it. But let me just give you--I want to
do that, but let me say a few things to you about this.
As you know, there was a debate as it was in Congress about
whether or not anything should have been done in Libya. And the
President moved and the President decided that he was going to
become engaged through NATO in ways that our interests, I
think, at the time and got the job done. I thought it was
smart. I thought the way he approached that was, in fact, very
effective, and the results obviously were exactly what we
wanted to achieve.
We could tell that if we did this, and, Senator McCain, you
were deeply involved in that. We recommended the no-fly. We
pushed for certain things, and those things were put into
place. And it was affected without American boots being put on
the ground at a time when we had just come out of Iraq and we
have American soldiers, the largest number, in Afghanistan. And
so I think the American people approved of the way in which
that was handled.
Now, the aftermath of all of these places--I asked every
member of the committee, we need to spend some time on this,
all of us. There is a monumental transformation taking place.
This is the biggest upheaval in that part of the world since
the Ottoman Empire, since it came apart. And as all of us know,
many of the countries--lines drawn were drawn in relatively
arbitrary fashion, and people were put in places of power as
the sort of vestige of the period of colonial enterprise and of
that war.
It is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the
world. And I am not sure that every policy has always been as
sensitive or thoughtful about that as it perhaps ought to be.
Senator Rubio I know my time is up--I just want to clarify.
On my statement about Libya, I was not suggesting that the
United States should have invaded or put soldiers on the
ground. We did certain things in the first 48 to 72 hours of
that conflict. Had we extended that for a couple of weeks, that
conflict would have ended a lot sooner. And I think in
hindsight, a shorter conflict there would have certainly led to
a government that would have been stronger and less instability
than what exists today.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, honestly it might have or it
might not have. There is no way--you know, Gadhafi had patched
together a remarkable set of, you know, mixture of various
tribes, and he had cut deals over time with all those tribes.
And those tribes had created their sort of tiers of power
structure, which was the reason that you had a revolution, and
the revolution sought to, you know, give more people more
opportunity and change.
It is going to take time. It took us a while. You know, we
went from Articles of Confederation to a Constitution. And
finally through the Constitution, we went through a lot of
upheaval, including a Civil War because of the things that were
written
into the Constitution before they were written out.
So we need to be sort of thoughtful about the history and
the culture and the nature of the places that we are dealing
with, and you cannot just take an American concept and plunk it
down or a Western concept and plunk it down and say this is
going to work.
So all I am advocating for is to be thoughtful about this.
I think there is a struggle that is going to go on while we are
here, while I am Secretary and you are Senators. There is a
struggle going on for the minds of people in many parts of the
world. I believe we can do a better job frankly of galvanizing
people around the values and ideas that we have organized
ourselves around, but we have to do it, I think, in a lot of
different ways.
And one of the things--and I do not have all the answers to
this as I sit here today--but there is a new media. There is a
new--you know, there are alternative means of communication,
bringing people together. There are other avenues.
I will give you one. Prince Ghazi of Jordan and King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia have been engaged in an interfaith
initiative. I was privileged to speak at a meeting of an
offshoot of it at Yale University a couple of years ago where
there were 68 mullahs, imams, grand mufti, ayatollahs, who
came, and there were 68 evangelicals who were there. And this
meeting, you know, sought to try to find some of the
commonality of the Abrahamic faiths, which is there.
I think those are the kinds of things that we need to
explore so that, as I said in my opening, we cannot afford a
diplomacy that is defined by troops, or drones, or
confrontation. We have to find a diplomacy that achieves
understanding, rapprochement, whatever you want to call it,
through other kinds of fora and initiatives.
Now, specifically, and we are all going to have to face
this, Egypt is a quarter of the Arab world. It is critical to
everything that we aspire to see happen in the Middle East--
peace with Israel, protection of the Sinai security, the
development of that part of the world with respect to an
economy that is open, and competitive, and based on rule of law
and rules of the road.
How are we going to do that when you have 60 percent of the
population of the region is almost under 30, 50 percent is
under the age of 21, and 40 percent is under the age of 18, and
it is growing. And if they do not find jobs, if they do not get
educated, and if we do not do something, all of us, in the
developed world, and I am including China in the near developed
at least, and I would say developed, Russia, South Korea,
Brazil, Mexico. Those developed countries that have the
capacity are going to have to come together and think about
this because everybody is affected.
And I think that is the challenge for all of us.
And so, you know, Senator, that is sort of my response to a
very big question that is a very legitimate question, and we
ought to really sit down, as we will, I know, and work through
this in the days ahead.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Senator
Kerry, I am thrilled to be here with you on the other side of
that desk as the nominee for Secretary of State. I cannot think
of anyone better to continue the efforts of the current
administration at this challenging time for the United States
and the world. So thank you for being willing to take on this
task.
And let me welcome your family, Teresa and Cam and Vanessa
and her husband here. We are delighted that you are able to be
here with us this morning, too.
And let me just say I look forward to casting my vote in
support of you as Secretary of State. And I am also happy to
join you in defending the Red Sox and the Patriots. [Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. Finally. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. I want to begin by echoing Senator Boxer's
concern about continuing to support an agenda that urges equal
rights and opportunities for women around the world. I think
about if we had a situation in many of the conflict areas that
we are facing now where women share the same equality and
opportunity that the men do in those areas, that we would be
facing a very different challenge.
I also want to go back--you mentioned Syria and being in
what appears to be the final period of the Assad rule in Syria.
One of the real issues that we are facing there is what happens
to the chemical weapons should Assad fall.
Yesterday at the hearing on Benghazi, there were several
references to the weapons in Libya that have now fallen into
the hands of terrorists in Africa and Algeria. We saw some of
those weapons on the recent terrorist attack there.
So when I asked General Mattis, who is the CENTCOM
commander, about this issue, he suggested that it is going to
require an international effort to secure these weapons when
Assad falls. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how
you view that international effort coming together, and what
role the Secretary of State should play in that.
Senator Kerry. Senator Shaheen, it is an important
question. The President's policy, he has made very clear, is
that if we have evidence that they are using them or about to
use them, if they lose them, i.e., lose control over them, or
if they move them in any significant way, that would change the
calculation.
Now, the administration is drawing up contingency plans and
working with neighbors in the region, NATO and others, in order
to do that. I cannot go into those today because I am not read
in on them yet. I am not briefed in on exactly what those
contingencies are. I just know that they are making them, and
they are deeply concerned about it.
Senator Shaheen. And should we feel some confidence that
Russia and China might join into an international effort on
chemical weapons should there be concerns about what happens to
those weapons?
Senator Kerry. I cannot tell you whether or not. Again, I
just do not know about the details of the plans. I do know that
they have expressed public concerns about that.
And, in fact, I do know there were conversations with the
Russians when the first indicators took place about the
potential of movement, and the Russians apparently were deeply
concerned and they also weighed in at that time. So I think
there is a serious concern everywhere that those weapons not
fall into the wrong hands.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Senator Cardin mentioned the
good work that you did as chair of the Small Business
Committee, something that is very important as we think about
the economy of the United States, and, as you pointed out, of
the other developing countries around the world.
One of the efforts of this administration has been to
promote business advocacy abroad for domestic businesses at
home. I led a trade mission to India about a year and a half
ago with a number of businesses from New Hampshire. And they
talked about how important it was to have that support from the
state officials in India as they were looking to try and
establish those business relationships.
Can you talk about how you might continue that and commit
that this is something that you would be focused on, and
willing to continue to support?
Senator Kerry. Well, as I said in my opening, I think
foreign policy is increasingly economic policy. And we have an
Under Secretary for economic affairs, economics energy, et
cetera.
I think that the State Department historically used to have
the Foreign Commercial Service in it back in 1979. It slipped
away I think under Secretary Muskie at the time. I think that
is something we ought to be doing in a very significant way,
obviously working with Treasury, with Agriculture. Ag has an
enormous amount of interest abroad and engagement abroad.
Commerce Department obviously does. Treasury Department does.
I think there is much more we can do to augment our
engagement with the private sector and their desires and needs
abroad.
I'll give you an example. When I was in Hong Kong a number
of years ago, I was struck. I met with our Foreign Commercial
Service people there. We had three of them, three people in
Hong Kong. And they said they were overwhelmed. They had no
ability to be able to marry RFPs from China to companies
commensurate with much smaller countries. France was there.
Germany was there. England, others were much more aggressive in
their promotion of their companies. And that is the world we
are living in today.
So I think we have to be much more aggressive in that
respect. It is not an expenditure. I do not view it as
spending. I view it as investing, and it returns on investment
many, many times over. So I intend to focus on that I want to
get in and feel it a little more and, you know, get to know the
folks who are working on all of that and see what they think
about it. But I think there is a lot we can do.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. My time is almost over, but I
wanted to raise a final point about the Western Balkans. With
so much conflict going on across the Middle East and northern
Africa, we forget that not too long ago we were involved in
conflict in the Western Balkans. And there has been tremendous
progress that has been made in that area, but we still have a
stalemate in Macedonia over the name issue. We still have the
Serbia-Kosovo dialogue that has not been completed. We still
have those countries that aspire to ascendency into the EU.
And I would just urge you that further progress in that
area is going to continue to require American leadership. And I
hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that
they continue to make progress.
Senator Kerry. We will, Senator, and I just want to thank
you for your leadership of the European Affairs Subcommittee.
You have been absolutely terrific on it, and I will look
forward to working with you. Thanks.
Senator Shaheen. Thanks.
Senator Menendez. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kerry, I
really appreciate your thoughtful opening statement. I
appreciate your thoughtful response to these questions. I have
a great deal of respect for your level of experience, your
depth of knowledge in these areas, and I would have enjoyed
working with you as a member of the committee. I am going to
enjoy working with you as Secretary of State, and I mean that
in all sincerity.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. I want to have a very close working
relationship. As you said in your opening statement, these are
complex issues. These are dangerous times.
You know, I certainly grew up hoping with that maxim of
politics ends at the water's edge was actually true. I am not
sure it ever was, but I think it is something we can aspire to.
I truly believe we share the same goals. You know, we want a
secure America. We want a prosperous America.
Now, I think that starts being open and honest with each
other, so I hate to go back to yesterday's news, but I think
this is important. Yesterday when I was asking I thought a
relatively simple question, I realize being persistent,
Secretary's Clinton's reaction was, ``What difference at this
point does it make,'' trying to get to the truth of the matter
in Benghazi. And I had run out of time, so I did not really
have a chance to answer the question.
Let me quickly answer it, and I would like to get your
reaction. I think it makes a big difference. I think it matters
a great deal that the American people get the truth.
I think they have the right to be told the truth. I think
they have the right to know what happens. And I think it makes
a big difference whether or not the American people have the
confidence that the President and the administration is being
truthful with them.
So I guess my question is, Do you agree with that, and are
you willing to work with me, or do you basically kind of agree
with Hillary Clinton that is kind of yesterday's news, and let
us move on?
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, if you are trying to get some
daylight between me and Secretary Clinton, that is not going to
happen here today on that score. But I think you are not--I
think you are talking past each other.
Senator Johnson. We could be.
Senator Kerry. I do not think that was the question. I
think that if your question is, Should the American people get
the truth and does it matter? Hillary Clinton would say,
``Yes,'' and I say ``Yes.'' But that is not what I think she
was referring to. I think what she was referring to was sort of
the question of, you know, the sequencing and the timing of how
particular information came in with respect to the talking
points and the public statements that were made. And there was
a difference of opinion, in my judgment, as to how you saw that
versus how she saw it.
Senator Johnson. But the point I was making is we could
have avoided all this controversy, you know, this doubt for a
couple of weeks by just making a couple of phone calls.
Let me ask you, as chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, did you make any phone calls to those evacuees? Did
you ascertain whether there was a protest or not early on?
Senator Kerry. Again, I do not want to go back and
relitigate some of the events that took place. Yes, I made
phone calls. I was in constant touch with the State Department.
I was talking to Under Secretary Nides and others immediately,
and we were involved in what was happening.
Senator Johnson. How soon did you know there were no
protests, I mean, because it is pretty obvious by the
Accountability Review Board report that there were no protests.
I mean, did you know that pretty immediately?
Senator Kerry. Senator, the intel that I got and that I was
told by people was that there were no protests in Benghazi, but
that there had been protests in Cairo.
Senator Johnson. And we understood that. But that was not
the issue. It was really were there protests in Benghazi.
Senator Kerry. But I do not think----
Senator Johnson. Is there a reason that we would not have
those Department of State officials, those security people,
testifying before us so we can find out who knew what when, I
mean, to actually get to the bottom of that?
Senator Kerry. There is no reason down the road, I would
assume, but for the moment I know that there is an FBI
investigation going on because I personally called the FBI
director and was debriefed by him, and was told that they are
making progress, and that some things, you know, may or may not
be ripe to take place in the not too distant future, because I
was anxious to know that.
Senator Johnson. OK. Well, will you work with me then on an
ongoing basis then just so we can get that behind us so we can
find out what actually happened, and then we can move beyond
that. I mean, can you just make that commitment to me?
Senator Kerry. Well, I think, Senator, in all fairness, I
think we do know what happened. I think that it is very clear--
were you at the briefing with the tapes?
Senator Johnson. No.
Senator Kerry. Well, there was a briefing with tapes which
we all saw, those of us who went to it, which made it crystal
clear. We sat for several hours with our intel folks who
described to us precisely what we were seeing. We saw all of
the events unfold. We had a very complete and detailed
description.
Senator Johnson. Yes, we know what happened in Benghazi now
because we have the reports. What we do not know is why we were
misled. But again, let us--you know, I am just looking to make
sure that you as Secretary of State will work with me so we
actually do find out what the administration knew----
Senator Kerry. But again in fairness----
Senator Johnson [continuing]. The American public.
Senator Kerry. Senator, in fairness, I do not want the
American people to be left with a misimpression here. When you
say ``why we were misled,'' that implies an intent to actually
mislead you somehow. I think that there was a description of a
variance in talking points. I do not know why that happened,
but there was a description of that.
Senator Johnson. Now I am asking, will you help us get to
the bottom of why that happened? Then we can move on. I just
want to get that behind us. I just want that commitment.
Senator Kerry. The State Department will continue to
cooperate----
Senator Johnson. That would be great.
Senator Kerry [continuing]. As it has in every respect to
any
request that of this committee.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Senator Kerry. Or any committee of relevant jurisdiction.
Senator Johnson. Great, and I appreciate that commitment. I
just want to go back. You said foreign policy is economic
policy. I could not agree more. I mean, we do not have the
luxury of deciding whether we want to compete in the global
economy. We must compete. And, you know, I agree with Senator
Corker, maybe you should have been, you know, up for an
economic position here.
But will you utilize your position as Secretary of State to
try and get the President to work with us to solve the debt and
deficit issue, because this is a matter of a prioritizing of
spending, and I just do not think we can continue to tax the
American economy. We need economic growth. But it is about
prioritizing spending.
And I am fiscal conservative who believes that foreign aid
can be extremely useful. But we have to get our spending under
control. Will you utilize your position as Secretary of State
to encourage the President to work with us in good faith to
solve the debt and deficit issue?
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, I spent 6 months, I guess it
was, or 5 months as a member of the Super Committee, and I put
an enormous amount of energy and hoped that we would be able to
get the big bargain, grand deal.
I am not here to go through all the details of why we did
not, but there was a very hard line, nonnegotiating position
that prevented us from being able to come to an agreement,
which incidentally we just came to. But we came to it with far
less on the table and far less accomplished than we would have
had if it had come to that agreement 6 months or ago or a year
ago.
So my hope is, yes, I certainly will weigh in on that to
the degree that it has an impact on my ability to do my job and
the ability of the State Department to be able to do its job.
We cannot reduce the funding for some of these initiatives that
we are engaged
in without great cost to our ability to be able to help
American businesses, help create jobs, and help strengthen our
security in the world.
So it is in my interests to get this budget effort
resolved, even though I will be negotiating other things. I
will certainly weigh in with anybody who will listen with
respect to the imperative of getting it done. But it requires
some compromise and some reasonableness on everybody's part.
Senator Johnson. OK. Well, thank you. I really do look
forward to working closely with you. Thanks.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I want to thank Senator Menendez
for chairing this critically important hearing today, and to
express my strong support, Senator Kerry, for your nomination
to serve as our next Secretary of State. To Teresa and your
family, welcome and thank you for all you have done to support
John's tremendous service to our country and the continuation
of your family's long tradition of public service.
Now, I have deeply enjoyed serving under you here on the
Foreign Relations Committee the last 2 years as I have chaired
the Africa Subcommittee and had the opportunity from a close
vantage point to watch as you have led the ratification of the
new START Treaty, as you have personally intervened to resolve
diplomatic crises in difficult places, from Pakistan and
Afghanistan to Egypt and Sudan. And I really look forward to
working with you on some of the challenging issues that face
our country and the world.
Let me start, if I might, by referring back to something a
number of Senators have referred to, your opening statement in
which you said that foreign policy more than ever is economic
policy. And I just want to say I have been deeply encouraged by
your response to Senator Shaheen's comments and Senator Rubio's
questions. In my view, Africa is a continent that holds
enormous promise, where 7 out of 10 of the fastest-growing
economies in the world currently exist, and where sadly our
Foreign Commercial Service is woefully underrepresented, and
where our opportunity to advocate for American business and
American values needs and deserves more attention.
As you know, I chaired two hearings on this last year.
I am about to come out with a report from the subcommittee.
And I would be interested, as my first of several
questions, in how you see us successfully competing with China,
which has a rapidly growing footprint across Africa, in both
economic opportunities and our differing values agenda, and
what difference that makes going forward in how you would
address that as Secretary.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator Coons, I want to begin by
thanking you, and I will say to all the members of the
committee, you know, one of the pleasures of having been
chairman of the committee was watching individual Senators kind
of pick their targets and go after things. Senator Isakson is
not on the committee any more, but he and Senator Coons were a
terrific team with respect to Africa. And I know Senator McCain
just took a trip, an important trip. He was in Cairo in Egypt,
but he was also in Afghanistan. I just met with the members of
that trip. It was a bipartisan trip.
Senator McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Ayotte and
Whitehouse and Blumenthal, I think----
Unidentified Speaker. Senator Coons.
Senator Kerry. And Senator Coons, correct. And, you know,
that kind of report and that kind of intervention has an
impact. And I know already from reports that what you all did
there had an impact with President Morsi, had an impact on
policy. And so I urge all the members of the committee to be
ready and willing to travel and to engage in the way that
Senator Coons has done. I think it is valuable.
Now, with respect to China and Africa, China is all over
Africa. I mean, all over Africa. And they are buying up long-
term contracts on minerals, you name it. And there are some
places where we are not in the game, folks. I hate to say it,
and we have got to get in it. But it takes a little bit of
resourcing. Believe me, somebody is paying for those folks to
be over there, and somebody is investing in their investment of
time.
And we have to be prepared because I think that what we
bring to the table is frankly a lot more attractive than what a
lot of other countries bring to the table. People like to do
business with American businesses. We are open. We are
accountable. We have freedom of creativity and other kinds of
things.
And I think that if we can organize ourselves more
effectively in this sector, we can win. And when I say ``win,''
I do not mean win in terms of, you know, cold war terms. I mean
win in terms of, you know, business contracts, business
opportunities, jobs for Americans, ability to export, import,
all of these things that make a difference to what the average
American pays for the goods they use in everyday life.
So I think there is a lot of opportunity, and I look
forward to working with you to develop it.
Senator Coons. You mentioned earlier there are just three
Foreign Commercial Service officers in Hong Kong. As Senator
Durbin knows all too well, there are only 10 on the entire
continent of Africa. And it would be great to work with you.
We have also worked together before on the issue of
poaching and the tragedy of wildlife being killed all across
the continent, which then helps finance transnational criminal
and terrorist networks. That is also an area where I think we
need to stand up and challenge China on being the largest
market to which a lot of this illegal product is going.
On the trip that I just took with Senator McCain, Senators
Whitehouse, and the others that you referenced, we visited a
Syrian refugee camp and heard very sharp feedback on their
perception that the humanitarian aid we have provided so far--
the more than $200 million in humanitarian aid we have
provided--has not reached the people on the ground, has gone
through Damascus and the Red Crescent, but not through the
Syrian Opposition Council.
What would you do as Secretary to ensure that we are more
effectively and visibly engaged in supporting the opposition
that we have now recognized?
Senator Kerry. Supporting the opposition in?
Senator Coons. Syria.
Senator Kerry. Oh. Well, there is a discussion going on
right now about other kinds of possibilities. I know Senator
McCain cares about it, and I have offered to sit down with
Senator McCain, and you, and others and work this through. And
I think, in fact, Senator Whitehouse asked to see some folks at
the White House to talk to them about this.
But we need to change Bashar Assad's calculation. Right
now, President Assad does not think he is losing, and the
opposition thinks it is winning. That is not an equation that
allows you to reach some accommodation for transition.
The goal of the Obama administration, I think the goal of
the international community, is to affect some kind of orderly
transition. Now, it is complicated by the fact that now a
second envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, has been engaged after Kofi
Annan's efforts, and both have found an intransigence on the
part of the opposition to be willing to negotiate a departure.
The Russians have indicated, and I have had personal
conversations prior to being nominated as Secretary, with
Foreign Minister Lavrov, which indicated a Russian willingness
to, in fact, see President Assad leave, but they have a
different sense of the timing and manner of that.
So my hope would be that if confirmed and when I get in
there, to have an ability to really take the temperature of
these different players and get a sense of sort of where it is.
But we have to increase, I think, the ability of the
opposition--strike that. We have to increase the readiness of
President Assad to see the die is cast, the handwriting is on
the wall, to be willing to make a judgment here that will save
lives, and hold the state together in a transition.
Senator Coons. Thank you. And I might in closing, it is my
view that these admirable diplomatic efforts need to continue.
But we frankly also face a very narrow window to make a
difference on the ground in support of the opposition that we
have recognized. I will follow up----
Senator Kerry. I hear you, and I understand exactly what
you are saying, and you do not wind up with them blaming you
for not--I get it. But you also need to have some
understanding, which I do not think is clear yet, of what step
one brings you. What is step two? What is step three? And there
is not a clarity to that right now, particularly with the
presence of al-Nusra, al-Qaeda from Iraq, et cetera.
And I think--look, I do not--what I commit to do is sit
with you guys, all of you as much as possible. Let us sit with
the administration, which I will then be part of, and see how
these equations work through as we go forward.
Senator Coons. We have plenty of challenges in Kenya, in
Mali, across the continent and the world. I am grateful for
your willingness to step up and take on this role, and look
forward to voting in support of your confirmation.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kerry. And I
have had the opportunity while I was in the House to travel a
few times overseas with you, and I have seen the regard and
respect that officials in other countries have for you, and for
your record, and for what you have done. And I appreciate that
and think that you are well suited obviously for this position.
Let me just mention one item briefly and then ask a few
questions. With regard to Cuba, I have felt perhaps differently
than some of my colleagues on this panel that the best way to
foster change and progress toward democracy is to allow
travel--free travel--of Americans to let them go as they wish.
I do not think that that is a weakness or any capitulation at
all. I think it is a way to show strength.
In fact, I have often felt that if we want a real get-tough
policy with the Castro brothers, we should force them to deal
with spring break once or twice. [Laughter.]
But in all seriousness, this President has taken measures
to allow more Americans to travel freely.
Relatives travel for religious, cultural, education
purposes. I think that is a good thing. I hope that you will
find ways to continue that and continue more innovative
approaches to deal with change there.
With regard to the United Nations for a minute, the PA was
granted membership into UNESCO in 2011, and then in 2012 full
membership by the General Assembly. That, in my view, and I
think all of ours, is an impediment to real negotiations that
have to happen. The General Assembly has had a habit of doing
this over the years and the decades. We all remember in the
1970s, I believe, they designated the PLO as the sole and
authentic representative.
I spent time in southern Africa. They had designated one of
the parties in the country of Namibia as the sole and authentic
representative of the people, and that did nothing but delay
meaningful negotiations between the parties that needed to
happen.
From your position at the State Department, what measures
will you take to ensure that our position--the Congress'
position, is to deny funding to some of these U.N. organs if
such recognition is made. And I know there is some wiggle room
for the administration to deal with that. But what is your
position in that regard, and how can you make sure that our
interests are carried forward?
Senator Kerry. Well, let me say categorically, and I think
the administration made this clear in its vote and its public
statements, that we do not feel that unilateral steps are
helpful on either side anyway. They are not a substitute for
the parties negotiating and resolving the issues.
With respect to some of the funding on the collateral
memberships, if you will, because they are not a full member,
but we have found that, you know, we are better able to
actually protect against nefarious activity and, in some cases,
resolutions which attack Israel or other things. We are better
able to affect that and negate it if we are participating. And
if we, you know, cease to pay the dues and so forth to take a
different attitude, then we sort of lose the opportunity to
protect our friends, which we want to have.
Now, I will emphasize that they are getting close to a line
that would be very damaging if there were any effort to take
Israel, for instance, or any other country, the ICC, if there
is any effort to try to invoke other power. That is the kind of
unilateral action that
we would feel very, very strongly against and see it as
extremely counterproductive.
My hope is, you know, there were just elections yesterday.
We do not know what kind of government will be formed or where
things will go. But my prayer is that perhaps this can be a
moment where we can renew some kind of effort to get the
parties into a discussion, to have a different track that we
have been on over the course of the last couple of years.
And I would like to reserve all of the capacity to be able
to do that, so I am just going to stop with what I have said.
But unilateral efforts are not helpful. We oppose them, and we
do not think they are--I do not think symbolic or other kinds
of efforts are what we need. We need real negotiation. We need
real results. We need progress.
Senator Flake. Thank you. Just 2 weeks ago, some of us
returned from Afghanistan, seeing the operations there. And you
have described it well, I think, in your opening statement
about the progress being made for the Afghan security forces to
take over.
If we take back and look at Iraq for a minute, some of us
traveled there in the couple of years before that conflict
ended there, and saw some of the building that was going on, in
particular, for planning for a more robust presence than we
currently have. There are a lot of State Department or Embassy
buildings that lay vacant now.
And I am wondering what are we doing to ensure that we do
not do that same thing in Afghanistan. What lessons are we
learning from Iraq? We overbuilt there, and when taxpayers see
that kind of thing happening--there was a report on the news a
while ago about this kind of thing. What can we do--and some of
this is outside of your purview. It is with Defense and the
bases in Afghanistan. But what can we do with regard to the
State Department to ensure that whatever presence we have, and
I hope we do have a residual presence and agreement to go on to
carry out the mission that you outlined. But what are we doing
to make sure that it is right sized?
Senator Kerry. Well, that is a very good question, Senator.
And, in fact, the State Department has a specific group, a
transition group that has drawn the lessons from Iraq that
comes out of that experience, and that is applying them to this
transitional effort in Afghanistan now.
I am not familiar with everything that they have dug into.
I know they are doing it. I know it exists. And I think people
are thinking very hard right now about what size footprint
ought to exist post the 2014 transition.
Let me make clear that I think we have about a thousand-
something personnel now directly in the Embassy in Iraq still.
We have some 4,000--slightly less than 4,000 contractors in
Iraq still. That is a pretty big footprint post-war. And
similarly in Afghanistan, we are pretty large.
I intend to look at that very, very closely, partly because
there are obviously deep security concerns that we understand
post-Benghazi. But also because there is just a legitimate
question of what size, you know, footprint do you want in the
aftermath.
But I can assure you, a lot of very qualified expert people
who went through the Iraq experience are specifically taking
the lessons from that and applying them to this transition in
Afghanistan.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. And I am sure, you know, in a future hearing
at some time down the road, we will dig into that a little more
I am sure.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Senator Kerry, it is great to see you in
this
capacity, of what is really the threshold of a new chapter in
your life of service. So we are very happy to see you here
today. I will not congratulate you because we are still in the
process, but I think that will be forthcoming.
I am also grateful that Teresa is here. With all due
respect to the nominee, you are my constituent, Teresa, so if
you need something, I hope you call us. [Laughter.]
Senator Casey. But I wanted to explore----
Senator Kerry. She needs a vote for me. [Laughter.]
Senator Casey. I think that will be forthcoming as well.
A couple of issues. I wanted to focus on two places and
three questions. One is Afghanistan and the second is Pakistan.
With regard to Afghanistan, the first question relates to
President Karzai and the elections ahead of them. When he was
here just a couple of weeks ago, I had the chance to visit with
him in Leader McConnell's office. A number of us, including
Senator Kaine were there. I asked him directly about the
elections and also asked him about my second question.
But I wanted to get your sense of where you see those
elections going, what efforts you can undertake to make sure
that they are free and fair because they have become, I think,
central to the next chapter in this transition. I just wanted
to have you comment on that.
The second question as it relates to Afghanistan is one
that Senator Boxer raised, and her work on women and girls has
been exemplary. I have an amendment that we got through the
National Defense Authorization Act, which will require both
State and Defense to file a report on their efforts to promote
the security of Afghan women and girls.
Just by way of itemization, monitoring, and responding to
changes in women's security will be part of the report. Second,
improving gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the
Afghan security forces, and increasing their recruitment and
retention of women in the Afghan security forces will also be a
part of the report.
So both with regard to the election and women and girls.
Senator Kerry. Senator, with respect to the women and
girls, I had a conversation with Senator Boxer earlier and with
Senator Cardin in which I committed to the ongoing significant
efforts of Secretary Clinton has invested in. We will continue
to have the Ambassador and Special Office, two different things
within the State Department.
But more importantly, we think that there cannot be an
effective peace, and there will not be in Afghanistan, if we
cannot hold onto the gains and continue them, continue the
progress that is being made with respect to women's
participation in Afghan society. And so we remain committed to
that, and I will work in every way possible to augment that.
I have had some--a number of people have made suggestions
to me. I will not go into all of them now because of time, but
they
are exciting. There are people who want to be involved in this
endeavor. They have been inspired by what Secretary Clinton and
Melanne Verveer have done. She has been the ambassador in that
role. And so we are going to continue to do that.
Now on the elections, there is a group within the American
initiative within our effort in Kabul, in Afghanistan, working
very hard on the sort of rules of the road for the election,
and working with Afghan election commission. They are working
right now on some of the computer programming and other things
that are necessary in order to be able to guarantee that the
voting lists are up, and accurate, and available.
There have been meetings with potential candidates for
President, with the opposition folks and others in Afghanistan
in an effort to be inclusive and transparent in the process.
And I think President Karzai knows--I have said this personally
to him. I have said it publicly in a press conference in
departure from Kabul, and I have said it here in the Senate as
chairman, that having an acceptable election--it is not going
to be perfect. We are not going to be able to have perfection
in this process for a lot of different reasons. But having an
election that passes muster and is acceptable according to
international observers and standards will be critical to our
ability to have the kind of transition we want to have, and to
have confidence that the government that succeeds in 2014 has
legitimacy.
If it does not have legitimacy, if we do not succeed in
that effort, it is going to be very, very difficult to convince
the American people and convince our allies in ISAF and beyond
to stay engaged in this effort if they are not willing to
provide for themselves with respect to that.
I went through this personally with President Karzai in the
last election where there were serious questions about the
propriety of the process, and we have to sort of strike a
compromise about it. I do not think there will be room for a
compromise in the aftermath here. So this is a very, very
important initiative, and I will certainly make sure that we
are riding herd on it very, very closely.
Senator Casey. Thank you. And second, with regard to a
terribly difficult challenge we have with regard to the IEDs
that are constructed somewhere between Pakistan and
Afghanistan. They become the roadside bombs that have killed so
many of our troops--they are the leading cause of death--and
wounded so many as well.
We know that a legal impediment in Afghanistan does not do
us much good because of the calcium ammonium nitrate that comes
across the borders from Pakistan. This has been not just
horrific to watch, but it has been terribly frustrating. I have
been to Pakistan three times, and in the last visit I told the
Pakistani leaders, we need you to help us with this, not only
to protect our GIs, but to protect your own people. And they
promise, and they promise, and they talk about a great plan and
a strategy. And so far their response is completely inadequate.
And I know you have worked on this, as has Secretary Clinton.
And I just want to get your sense of how we can make
progress on that and how to put--to use every bit of diplomacy,
engagement, and pressure, to insist that the Government of
Pakistan takes steps which are readily identifiable to reduce
this flow of this substance.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator Casey, I will just say
quickly, first of all, you have been a terrific leader on it,
and you have paid a lot of attention to this, and it has made a
difference. And it is frustrating.
I have had those conversations. I have had them at the
highest level with President Zardari, with General Kayani, with
General Pasha when he was there as the intel chief. I have not
been back to Pakistan in the last year or so for a number of
different reasons, but I have been in touch with General Kayani
before, again, I was nominated. And he and I look forward to
having a conversation, as I do with President Zardari and the
civilian leadership and see if we cannot find a metric here
that works for both of us because we have to.
I will not go into the intel here. You know it full well.
There is no question about where it is being produced, where it
is coming from, or how. And it just has to be one of those
things that we see greater cooperation on.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Well, thank you, and again thank you for
allowing me the honor of introducing you to the committee. And
I look forward to many of our spirited conversations that we
have had for many years.
I did not want to bring it up, but since it was brought up,
I have to respond again. Americans do care. They do care. They
do care why four Americans were murdered. We do care why the
American people were misled. They were misled by the talking
points that Secretary Rice told the American people which were
false. They were misled when the information that we needed to
know about how those talking points were put together, which we
still do not know the answers to many months later.
We were misled when it was--when we are not allowed to--
when we do not--still have not gotten answers why there was not
better security at the consulate when there were clear
indications of the threat. We were misled when we were not told
that there was a request for the 16-member security force to
remain at the consulate and were removed.
The list goes on and on.
We still have not gotten the answers as to what happened at
Benghazi, and for anyone to say that we do not care what
happened is absolutely false. And I can tell you that because I
talked to the families of those who were murdered. And we
will--there are some of us that will continue our efforts to
find out the answers to these questions.
The American people deserve them, including why the
President of the United States, after alleging in a debate with
Mitt Romney, said that he had called it a terrorist act, when,
in fact, he had not. In fact, that same day he did an interview
with CBS news saying he did not know what happened. As far as 2
weeks later he told various news programs that he did not know
what was the cause of it. We knew what the cause of it was. We
knew that people do not bring RPGs and mortars to spontaneous
demonstrations.
So there are some of us who will not give up on this
despite what some in the media think we should do until we get
all of the answers.
While I was hanging on every word that you were saying,
John, I happened to glance at my apps. Here is a BBC News
report. It says, ``The U.N. says there has been a huge leap in
the numerous--numbers of Syrian refugees arriving in Jordan,
putting a considerable strain on the resources. The UNHCR said
that more than 26,500 refugees have crossed into Jordan since 1
January. Officials from BBC said that up to 3,000 were arriving
every day, and at least 50,000 were waiting to cross.''
That happens to be the camp that we visited. That happens
to be the camp where just a few days before there was a very
bad storm, and these tents were blown down, and there were
riots, and demonstrations, and anger, and frustration, and the
belief that we are not helping them. The anger that we felt
when a young woman who is a teacher said, this generation--this
next generation of children will take revenge on those that did
not help them.
We are sowing the wind in Syria, and we are going to reap
the whirlwind. And that whirlwind will be the increased
presence of
al-Qaeda and Islamist groups which are now flooding into Syria,
as you know. Sixty thousand dead and counting, and the fall of
Assad is, ``inevitable?''
You know that Assad is thinking about plan B, and that is
going to the coast and doing some ethnic cleansing, and having
Alawites there.
I appreciate your optimism about the Russians. The Russians
continue to supply them with arms. The Russians continue to
veto every single resolution that might do something about
Syria, and of course, Putin has just enacted one of the most
inhumane laws in preventing Americans from adopting Russian
children, who clearly are now deprived of an opportunity of a
better life.
So I do not think the status quo in Syria is something that
we just need to have some more conversations about. I think we
ought to tell the Syrian people that we are either going to
help them or we are not. And we know that a no-fly zone, and we
know that the supply of arms so that they can defend themselves
to counter the arms that are being provided by the Iranians,
and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the ground. And there
are now hundreds of thousands of refugees that are putting the
strain on our allies.
I have had a lot of conversations. We have a lot of
hearings. We have not done anything, and we have got, again,
60,000 dead after 22 months, and all I get frankly from the
administration is the fall of Assad is, ``inevitable.'' I
agree, but what about what happens in the meantime?
So I hope that you, and I know you are deeply concerned
about that situation. But it is terrible. It is heartbreaking.
To meet a group of young women, as I did in a camp in Turkey, a
refugee camp, who have been gang raped is really a horrible
experience. And we can do a lot more without putting American
boots on the ground, and we can prevent this further slaughter
and massacre and inhumanity. Otherwise we will be judged very,
very harshly by history.
I hope that, and I know that from our previous
conversations, that you will make this your highest priority.
And I look forward to at least exploring and try to implement a
different policy than the one that we have pursued for the last
22 months. I thank--go ahead, please.
Senator Kerry. Well, John, thank you. I have--and you know
this because you and I have talked about this at great length--
I have complete understanding of where you are coming from on
this. I have known your frustration. I know what you are trying
to say about it.
I do want to just say to you that I do not want
inquisitiveness or curiosity about what possibilities might
exist with the Russians to be translated into optimism. I do
not have optimism. I have hope because the easiest way to
resolve it would be if they were to be able to help--if
together we are able to find some track that changed the
equation and the calculation of Assad.
What I think everybody worries about, John, is that if you
have a complete implosion of the state, nobody has a clearer
definition of how you put those pieces back together, No. 1.
And No. 2, you have a much greater risk with respect to the
chemical weapons.
Now, that is why I want to get in and see what the
contingency plans are, because I cannot measure risk without
having the sense of what is on the table. What I do know is
that there are a lot of weapons there. There are people in the
gulf, and you know who they are, who are not hesitating to
provide weapons. And that is one of the reasons, together with
the fact that al-Nusra has been introduced to the equation,
that the movement on the ground is faster than the movement in
the politics.
So that is what makes this very complicated. And I am
deadly serious when I say to you we are going to have to sit
down. There is nothing we need more than congressional
consensus, if we can build it, on something like this,
particularly if the worst happens and you have, you know,
disintegration.
There are other forces at play that none of us have any
control over. One of the things that has struck me in the last
years the more I have traveled to the region and talked to
people is the depth of the sectarian divide, and you know it
well. Sunni, Shia considerations enter deeply into lots of
judgments out there. And so we have to be particularly--and
then others. I mean, you have got 74 percent of Syria is
Sunni--is Muslim, and of that, you know, you have got about 16
percent that is made up of the Alawite and then some Shia. And
the Alawite are about 13 percent. Christians are about 10
percent. Jews are about 3 percent.
So you have this breakdown with interests in various parts
of the country. And I know one of the scenarios everybody is
talking about is that people could sort of break up off into
their places. And the Kurds could be up in the northeast, and
you could have a disintegration, and who knows where that
leads.
These are the risks. I mean, this is what is at stake in
this new world that we are dealing with, and nobody could sit
here and tell you how it all plays out. But we are going to get
our heads together, regardless of party, and think about the
interests of the United States of America, think about the
region, think about the interests of the neighbors, think about
the interests of our friends, like Israel, and figure out how
we come up with an equation that is workable and meets those
interests.
Now, a final comment, John--I do not want to go on about
it, but I did not suggest, and I do not want to suggest, and
nor do I believe that Secretary Clinton was saying people do
not care about knowing what happened. I think she was talking
about the difference between what the recommendations of the
ARB were and implementing them, and this notion that we have to
go backward.
But here is what I say to you. After 29 years here--in my
29th--I respect the prerogatives of the U.S. Senate and the
Members of Congress. You represent the American people. You are
the other branch of government. You have the right to know what
took place. And I have an obligation, commensurate with the,
you know, regulations and classifications and privacy and other
things that are in play here, to help you get the answers. And
we will do that, and I hope we can do it in a noncontentious,
appropriate way.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Could I just mention, Mr.
Chairman, very quickly, I think you would agree with me that
every day that goes by in Syria, it gets worse.
Senator Kerry. Every day that goes by, it gets worse.
Senator McCain. It gets worse. So there is a, it seems to
me, a very strong impetus that we realize that the present
policy is not succeeding, and to look at other options to
prevent what is going on for now 22 months and 60,000 dead.
I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kerry. I would agree, but I think you would agree
with me that whatever judgments you make, they have to pass the
test of whether or not if you do them, they are actually going
to make things better.
Senator McCain. Absolutely.
Senator Kerry. And you have to make a test of the cost
analysis in doing that. And I mean all kinds of costs--human
life costs, pressure--affect on other countries.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
John, thank you for being here--excuse me. Teresa, it is
great to see you and the family here as well.
The spirited questioning from our mutual friend, John
McCain, is not unexpected. He promised it, and he delivered it.
But I do recall his opening comments introducing you, and it
brought me back to my first days in the Senate when you and
John McCain, Vietnam veterans, worked together in a noble task
to establish normal relations with Vietnam, which continue to
this day, and to deal with the controversial, contentious issue
of POWs and MIAs. And I came to you as a brand new Senator,
both of you, on behalf of Pete Peterson, the Congressman from
Florida who had been named Ambassador--the first Ambassador to
Vietnam by President Clinton. Pete Peterson himself, a 5-year
prisoner of war as an Air Force pilot. And you two did an
extraordinary job of moving him forward and giving him that
chance to serve. And, John McCain, thank you for reminding me
of that chapter in my public career, and reminding me what you
and John Kerry accomplished together.
I want to ask you a question about the role of the
Department of State in the security of the United States. It is
often called upon to negotiate, to make us safer. Certainly
since World War II, that has involved nuclear weapons, and it
does to this day as we discuss the future of nuclear entrants,
like, God forbid, Iran, into the nuclear club, which we do not
want to see happen.
We also know after 9/11 there came a new threat, terrorism,
in a different form--biological/chemical weapons and stateless
organizations that attacked the United States and killed
innocent people.
But it was, I think, last year or the year before that we
were briefed by the State Department and Department of Defense
about the greatest threat to the security of the United States,
and it was not either of those things. It was cyber security.
And I think you may have attended the briefing, the classified
briefing for Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans.
And they explained to us this invisible war that goes on even
as we meet between the United States and many who are not our
friends, that are trying to invade us, invade our
infrastructure, invade our technology, and do great harm to us,
not just in economy terms, but in terms of human life. And we
were told this is the most serious threat facing us today.
It brings to mind the fact that in the 21st century, war as
we know it is much different. It is a war involving the
invisible workings of computers. It is a war involving drones
and aircraft.
So I would like you, if you could, to just reflect on this
in terms of the role of the Secretary of State of the United
States in negotiations to make us safer in a world where cyber
security is our greatest threat.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, that is a huge question, and
you have hit the nail on the head with respect to a significant
threat. And as you know, there is legislation, or there was
legislation, last year, which we tried to get through here,
which would have helped us, a very small step incidentally in
trying to deal with this issue.
Much of this, as you know, is classified, and so it is hard
to, you know, sort of lay it out in full for the American
people. But every day while we sit here, right now certain
countries are attacking our systems. They are trying to hack
into classified information, to various agencies of our
government, to banking structures. Money has been stolen from
accounts and moved in large sums from entities. I mean, there
is a long list of grievances with respect to what this marvel
of the Internet and the technology age has brought us.
But it is threatening. It is threatening to our power grid.
It is threatening to our communications. It is threatening,
therefore, to our capacity to respond. And there are people out
there who know it, and there are some countries that we are
engaged with, and all the Senators know who they are, who have
a very good understanding of this power and who are pursuing
it.
So it is sort of the modern day, I guess I would call it,
the 21st century nuclear weapons equivalent, that we are going
to have to engage in cyber diplomacy and cyber negotiations,
and try to establish rules of the road that help us to be able
to cope with this challenge.
Now, there are enormous difficulties ahead in that because,
as you know, and I think I would just try to be very brief
about it. I think most diplomacy is an extension of a
particular nation's interests, and in some cases it is an
extension of their values. And sometimes you get a terrific
opportunity to mix the two, and then you really can do things
that meet all of your aspirations. But sometimes, you know, you
are more weighted toward the interests than the values, and you
can all pick different countries and different things we have
done that meet that.
This is one where we are going to have to find a way to
address the interests of other states to somehow find common
ground, if that makes sense to you. And, you know, we are just
going to have to dig into it a lot deeper. I do not have a
magic silver bullet to throw at you here today.
Senator Durbin. I wanted to bring it up because I think it
is topical and timely in terms of our 21st century challenge.
And when you become Secretary of State, which I believe you
will and hope you will, this will be front and center.
I would also like to come down to a much more mundane issue
I raised before with the current Secretary, and that is the
impact of sequestration on the Department of State. We are
literally weeks away from mandated budget cuts within the
Department of State. We have spent yesterday and even again
today talking about security at our embassies, consulates, and
for our men and women who risk their lives to represent
America.
So I would just ask you in closing that you would try to,
as soon as you can, report to us about the impact of these cuts
on our State Department, which has a very small percentage of
our budget, but is going to face some substantial cuts because
of the sequestration requirements.
Senator Kerry. I am glad you raise it. We are going to have
to talk about it. And I would just signal to my colleagues that
yesterday you had a hearing in which two very distinguished,
you know, people were the basis of a report on which you were
having the hearing, which is the ARB. And Admiral Mullen and
Secretary Pickering have said we need $1.2 billion or more, you
know, to be able to do what we need for security.
So if you want the American presence out there, and you
want to provide an adequate protection so we are not here for
another Benghazi hearing, we are going to have to deal with--
that is why I said we have got to get our business done here
and do it the right way.
One final comment, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say to
people that--well, I will wait until we come to the budget, and
we will do it then.
Senator Menendez. All right. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday with
Secretary Clinton, I asked about the administration's assertion
that al-Qaeda had been decimated. And she said what we are
seeing now are people who have migrated back to other parts of
the world where they came from, primarily who are in effect
affiliates, part of the jihadist syndicate. She said some are
like Al Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb--I will use that name. Others
use different names.
She said the fact is they are terrorists. They are
extremists. They have designs on overthrowing existing
governments. So she said that we do have to contend with the
wannabes and the affiliates going forward.
So I would ask your assessment on the strength today of
al-Qaeda, the affiliates, the wannabes, and the challenge it is
going to present to you as Secretary of State.
Senator Kerry. Well, it is very real, but I agree
completely with Secretary Clinton's statement and her
appraisal. The core
al-Qaeda, when we talk about core al-Qaeda, we are talking
about the al-Qaeda that took us to Afghanistan and to Pakistan.
That is core al-Qaeda. Those are the people who attacked the
United States of America. Those are the people that we approved
military action against, I think unanimously, in the U.S.
Congress in 2001.
Now, they have migrated. If you go to the intel, and I
think this is unclassified--I know it is unclassified--Osama
bin Laden in the documents that came out of Abbottabad, is
quoted as urging his cohorts to go to other places to get away
from the airplanes, get away from the drones. And he
specifically encouraged al-Qaeda to disperse, and they did.
In addition to that, we have been--the Obama
administration--under the directive of the President, who
undertook the most concentrated effort in history in terms of
targeting a specific terrorist group, we have taken out a huge
proportion of the leadership of core al-Qaeda, a huge
proportion. You do not want to be No. 3 or, you know, No. 4 in
line in that business because they are disappearing as fast as
they get the job.
Obviously the top dog who took--Zawahiri, who took the
place of Osama bin Laden, is still at large, but I think there
are those in the intel community and the administration who
believe that over the course of the next months that core al-
Qaeda can really be almost degraded to the point that that is
no longer the threat.
The threat, however, has augmented in Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is now playing in
Syria, and Al Qaeda in the Maghreb. And I think that is why the
United States, the President has made the decision to support
the efforts of the French in Mali, and that is why there has
been a very focused effort, including going after al-Awlaki in
Yemen, to focus on that part of the world.
Now, there is a success story even as I talk about that
increased threat--Somalia. In Somalia where the al-Shabaab
became associated with al-Qaeda, we have, in fact, been able,
in concert with others, not alone, to drive al-Shabaab back and
actually see a government emerge, which we have now recognized
and which we
are in a position to help, hopefully, stabilize and move to a
better relationship.
So we can change these things, but it takes a focused
effort. It takes perseverance. It does not happen overnight.
But I would also argue it takes something more than just the
drone effort and the other effort. It takes that effort to
develop a government like we did in Somalia.
We have to be prepared to do that in the Maghreb.
Senator Barrasso. I am looking at--we talked yesterday
about bringing to justice the killers who attacked our people
on September 11, and the President said he would bring those
killers to justice. The fact that that hasn't happened, do you
think that has emboldened the recent attack in Algeria because
no one yet has paid a penalty for the attacks?
Senator Kerry. Senator, I cannot get into anybody's mind
about what they do or do not know about that, or what they
perceive about it. I will tell you this. If so, it is going to
be short-lived because I know from talking to the FBI director
that they are pursuing that diligently. He was personally just
in Libya meeting on this, and those efforts are going to
continue. And I know that this President, you know, he does not
bluff about these kinds of things. He has said they are going
to pay a price. He said he would go into Pakistan if we had
evidence that we needed to operate on. He did it, and I am
confident that when and if we are prepared, that we will
execute with respect to finding justice for what happened in
Benghazi.
Senator Barrasso. I wanted to move to the Keystone XL
pipeline. I know that Senator Boxer asked a question. You said
it would not be long before it crosses your desk.
Yesterday a majority of Senators, a bipartisan group of
Senators, nine Democrats, signed on to a letter to President
Obama requesting that he expeditiously approve the construction
of the pipeline. We are asking that the review process be
completed by the end of March, and I hope you would be able to
comply with that as well.
Senator Kerry. I will try. I need to check back in with the
Legal Department and make sure. I do not want to make a promise
that I am unaware of what can be fulfilled. But I can tell you
this. It is happening in the appropriate due course of
business, and we will try to get it done as soon as we can.
Senator Barrasso. I had a chance one time to visit with
Senator Sam Nunn, who you served with, and he said that, you
know, you have to think about what is in the vital interests of
the United States, what is important for the United States, and
what is in the humanitarian issue as we look at limited
resources.
I know climate change has been a big issue that you have
been concerned about, focused on, it seems, over the next 25
years, the global energy needs are going to increase about 50
percent, that emissions are going to go up significantly,
primarily because of China and India. And we could do
significant harm to the U.S. economy, I think, by putting
additional rules and regulations with very little impact on the
global climate.
And so in this tight budget environment with so many
competing American priorities, I would ask you to give
considerable thought into limiting significantly resources that
would not help us as an economy, not help us as a country, and
not help us globally in perhaps the efforts that you might be
pursuing. I do not know if you have specific thoughts on----
Senator Kerry. I do. I have a lot of specific thoughts
about it, Senator, more than we are going to have time to do
now. So I am not going to abuse that privilege, but I will say
this to you. The solution to climate change is energy policy,
and the opportunities of energy policy so vastly outweigh the
downside that you are expressing concern about. And I will
spend a lot of time trying to persuade you and other colleagues
of this.
If you want to do business, and do it well in America, we
got to get into the energy race. Other countries are in it. I
can tell you in Massachusetts that the fastest-growing sector
of our economy is clean energy and energy efficiency companies,
and they are growing faster than any other sector. The same is
true in California.
This is a job creator. I cannot emphasize that strongly
enough. The market that made America rich--richer. We have
always been rich. But the market that made us richer in the
1990s was the technology market. It was a $1 trillion market
with 1 billion users, and we created greater wealth in American
than has been created even in the raging time of no income tax,
and the Pierponts, Morgans, and Mellons, and Carnegies, and
Rockefellers. We created more wealth in the 1990s. And every
single quintile of American worker went up, everyone.
So we can do this recognizing that the energy market is a
$6 trillion market compared to one with, what, 4 billion, 5
billion users today going up to 9 billion over the course of
the next 20, 30 years.
This is a place for us to recognize what other countries
are doing and what our states that are growing are doing, which
is there is an extraordinary amount of opportunity in
modernizing America's energy grid. We do not have even have a
grid in America. We have a great, big open gap in the circle of
America. You got an East Coast grid, a West Coast grid, you
have got a Texas grid, and then you got a line that goes from
Chicago out over to the Dakotas.
We cannot sell energy from Minnesota to Arizona, from
Arizona to Massachusetts, or to the coal States and so forth.
It does not make sense. And we cannot be a modern country if we
do not fix that infrastructure.
So I would respectfully say to you that climate change is
not something to be feared in response to--I mean, the steps to
respond to it. It is to be feared if we do not. Three thousand
five hundred communities in our Nation last year broke records
for heat. We had a rail that because of the heat bent, and we
had a derailment as a result of it. We had record fires. We had
record levels of damage from Sandy, $70 billion. If we cannot
see the downside of spending that money and risking lives for
all the changes that are taking place, to agriculture, to our
communities, to the ocean, and so forth, then we are just
ignoring what science is telling us.
So I will be a passionate advocate about this, but not
based on ideology, based on facts, based on science. And I hope
to sit with all of you and convince you this $6 trillion market
is worth millions of American jobs and leadership, and we had
better go after it.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my good
friend, Senator Barrasso, Wyoming is a producer State. New
Mexico is also a producer State. And I have found the same
experience that Senator Kerry has talked about in terms of
Massachusetts. In New Mexico, the fastest growing sector are
these renewable jobs. And so I think it is a big opportunity
for us. We should be pursuing it. I agree with what he just
said.
And I hope that we can work with each other because we
should try to pull together, and discuss the facts, and really
pursue this sector that is going to be so vital to the future,
and vital actually to job growth.
But, John, great to have you here. You have really earned
this, there is no doubt about it. It is great to see Teresa and
Vanessa. And I was walking over my second time back here, and I
saw the cutest grandchild I have seen in a long time. I said,
are you going to bring him in, and they said, no, no, he was
going to wait outside. But anyway----
Senator Kerry. He's shy. [Laughter.]
Senator Udall. In my observation here, in my short period
on the Foreign Relations Committee, I think a great deal of
what good foreign policy is about is building personal
relationships, and building personal relationships with leaders
around the world. And the one thing that I have really
observed, Senator Kerry, of you is that you have done that. And
we have had so many of these private meetings across over there
in the Capitol in the small Foreign Relations room. And I could
just feel with meeting with all these leaders the tremendous
respect that they have for you and the ability you are going to
have to build on that to make an excellent Secretary of State.
So I am very excited about this opportunity for you.
And in my first question here, I wanted to focus on Mexico
and Central America. During the last decade, relations between
the United States and Mexico have strengthened as a result of
our shared security goals relating to the Merida Initiative.
And one of the pillars of that initiative includes judicial
reform, and I think you know this very well.
However, the Federal Government and many of the Mexican
states have yet to pass legislation which would change their
judicial system from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial
system.
I had a lot of experience with this as a state attorney
general a ways back. We actually would meet every 6 months with
Mexican states, and they asked us to loan people to them to
help train in the adversarial system.
And so my question is, How can the United States better
work with our neighbors in Mexico to improve transparency,
efficiency, and the quality of the judicial system, and improve
this transition they are trying to make from inquisitorial to
an adversarial system?
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator Udall, first of all, thank you
for your generous comments. I very much appreciate them, and
appreciate working with you on a lot of these issues.
We are engaged now, and you know this. I mean, there are
ongoing efforts with respect to the justice system. There has
been a lot of focus, as you know, on guns, and narcotics, and
so forth, and there has been a shift in policy within Mexico.
The President was, you know, recently here for meetings, and my
hope is that we can keep--I mean, I want to keep the existing
efforts going which could become subject to the sequestration
and budget effort. So I guess we're going to have to convince
our colleagues of the importance of these kinds of initiatives
actually taking root and having the willingness to kind of stay
at them until we do get more results. Mexico has been under
siege, and everybody knows that. And it has been very, very
difficult. A lot of courage exhibited by military folks and
police.
I think there is an effort now to try to move it somewhat
away from the military and more into the justice system, which
is why we are going to have to double our efforts here and make
sure we are funding the personnel and the program itself. So I
will work with that, but we need the cooperation up here to get
that kind of commitment.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much.
As you know, the new President of Mexico, President Enrique
Pena Nieto, has stated that his strategy with regards to
security cooperation is to achieve a ``Mexico in peace'' is
what he calls it and that his government will not abandon the
fight against organized crime. How will you work to ensure that
areas of mutual interest between the two countries get the
attention they deserve and how we get that cooperation along
the border?
Senator Kerry. Look, I----
Senator Udall. It just seems to me that is absolutely
crucial is the cooperation along the border. They have six
border states. We have four. And it is crucial that we work
with each other on that.
Senator Kerry. Well, President Pena Nieto is, indeed,
trying to move this, as I said, in a different direction. This
has been a highly militarized and very violent initiative over
the last years. You know, I am a former prosecutor. You are a
former attorney general. I was the chief administrative
prosecutor in one of the 10 largest counties in America,
Middlesex County, and I loved prosecuting. It was a great job.
I remember we created a drug task force and had all kinds
of plans for how to proceed to minimize the impact of narcotics
on our communities. And one of the things I learned is that
there is no one approach. You have got to be doing everything
that you need to do. And that means domestically in the United
States, you have got to do education and you have got to do
treatment.
Because what we have is just a revolving circle of demand,
and we are the principal demand country. Not alone now. Europe
is huge demand, Russia. There are other countries now
increasing demand.
So cocaine routes and marijuana routes, et cetera, are not
just coming up from Colombia and other countries where it has
been produced in Latin America and the Caribbean up to here,
but it is going across the Atlantic and out into other
countries now. And it comes from Asia into other countries. It
is pandemic.
And so, I think we need a more comprehensive approach, one
where it is less accusatory, finger pointing, and you work
cooperatively to understand everybody's role in trying to do
something about it. I have always felt that this label of ``war
on drugs'' is kind of artificial because, you know, war implies
it is all out. You have got to win.
And I don't think it has ever been all out, and
principally, because we have always failed to do our part with
respect to treatment and education and abstinence, so forth. So
we have got to reengage ourselves, and I think that would help
establish credibility and viability with other countries.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much for those answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Senator Kerry, thanks for coming today and
for your testimony.
I agree with candidate Barack Obama, who said in 2007 that
the President doesn't have the power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack. I would like to know
if you agree with candidate Barack Obama or if you agree with
President Barack Obama, who took us to war in Libya without
congressional authority, unilaterally.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator Paul, one of the things this
committee has spent a lot of time on is the War Powers Act,
which I support. And I believe in congressional authority to go
to war. I have argued that on occasion with respect to some
things here, but there are occasions, which I have supported,
where a President of the United States has to make a decision
immediately and implement that decision, execute on it
immediately.
I supported Ronald Reagan when he sent troops into Grenada.
I supported George H.W. Bush when he sent troops into Panama. I
supported President Clinton when, against the will of the
Congress, he did what was needed to be done in Kosovo, Bosnia,
and so forth. And in this particular instance, I think the
President behaved in that tradition.
Senator Paul. I would argue, though, that the Constitution
really has no exceptions for when you are having a tough time
or when people disagree with you that you just go ahead and do
it.
Senator Kerry. Well----
Senator Paul. In the early 1970s, you know, after Vietnam,
you were quite critical of the bombing in Cambodia because I
think you felt that it wasn't authorized by Congress. Has your
opinion changed about the bombing in Cambodia? How is Cambodia
different than Libya?
Senator Kerry. Nor did my opinion change or has it ever
altered about the war in Vietnam itself, where I don't
believe--and I argued then.
Senator Paul. Is Cambodia different than Libya?
Senator Kerry. Well, Cambodia; yes, it is. Because it was
an extension of the war that was being prosecuted without the
involvement of Congress after a number of years.
Now that is very different than something----
Senator Paul. Length of time, but similar circumstances. A
bombing campaign unauthorized by Congress.
See, the Constitution really doesn't give this kind of
latitude to sometimes go to war and sometimes not go to war.
I thought Barack Obama was very explicit, and it is what I
liked about him, frankly. People think, oh, you know, Rand Paul
certainly didn't like anything about Barack Obama. I did like
his forthrightness when he ran for office and said no President
should unilaterally go to war. The Constitution doesn't allow
it.
Senator Kerry. Well, I respect that. Look, you can be
absolutist and apply it to every circumstance. The problem is
it just doesn't work in some instances. When 10,000 people are
about to be wiped out by a brutal dictator and you need to make
a quick judgment about engagement, you certainly can't rely on
a Congress that has proven itself----
Senator Paul. Do you think----
Senator Kerry [continuing]. Unwilling to move after weeks
and months sometimes.
Senator Paul. Do you think a U.N. resolution is sufficient
to go to war?
Senator Kerry. No. No, I think a U.N. resolution--when you
say ``sufficient to go to war,'' I think a U.N. resolution is a
necessary ingredient to provide the legal basis for military
action in an emergency. It is not, by any means, sufficient to
require the United States to do something because we obey our
Constitution and our interests and our rights.
But I think----
Senator Paul. You have heard President Morsi's comments
about Zionists and Israelis being bloodsuckers and descendants
of apes and pigs. Do you think it is wise to send them F-16s
and Abram tanks?
Senator Kerry. I think those comments are reprehensible,
and those comments set back the possibilities of working toward
issues of mutual interest. They are degrading comments. They
are unacceptable by anybody's standard, and I think they have
to appropriately be apologized for.
Now President----
Senator Paul. They only understand strength.
Senator Kerry. Let me just finish.
Senator Paul. If we keep sending them weapons, they are not
going to change their behavior.
Senator Kerry. Let me just finish. President Morsi--
President Morsi has issued two statements to clarify those
comments, and we had a group of Senators who met with him just
the other day, who spent a good part of their conversation in
relatively heated discussion with him about it.
But not everything--you know, this is always the
complication in dealings in the international sector. Not
everything lends itself to a simple clarity, black-white, this-
that every time. We have critical interests with Egypt,
critical interests with Egypt.
Egypt has thus far supported and lived by the peace
agreement with Israel. Israel--and has taken steps to begin to
deal with the problem of security in the Sinai. Those are vital
to us and to our national interests and to the security of
Israel. In addition to that, they have followed through on the
promise to have an election.
Senator Paul. You know, but I know things are not black and
white, but the things----
Senator Kerry. Let me just--you know, they have had an
election. They had a constitutional process. There is another
election that is coming up shortly for the lower House. The
fact that sometimes other countries elect somebody that you
don't completely agree with doesn't give us permission to walk
away from their election.
Senator Paul. But this has been our problem with our
foreign policy for decades, Republican and Democrat. We funded
bin Laden. We funded the mujahedeen. We were in favor of
radical jihad because they were the enemy of our enemy. We have
done this so often.
I see these weapons coming back to threaten Israel. I see
support for Syrian rebels coming back to threaten Israel as
well.
Senator Kerry. Well, as you know, Senator----
Senator Paul. I see problems with this.
Senator Kerry. As you know, Senator, in any of the arms
sales that the United States has ever engaged in in that part
of the world, there is always a measure, a test, which is
applied with respect to a qualitative difference in any of
those weapons with respect to Israel's defense and security.
And we do not sell weapons and will not sell weapons that might
upset that qualitative balance.
Senator Paul. Yes, so we sell 20 F-16s to Egypt. We have
got to give 25 to Israel. Sounds like we are fueling an arms
race. Why don't we just not give any weapons to Israel's
enemies? That would certainly save us a lot of money and might
make it safer for Israel.
One final question----
Senator Kerry. Better yet, until we are at that moment
where that might be achievable, maybe it would be better to try
to make peace.
Senator Paul. One final question, if I could, Mr. Chairman?
It is very short. Would you consider supporting conditioning
aid to Pakistan on the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi? I am
afraid if we don't support informants who have helped us, we
are not going to get many more informants.
Senator Kerry. Well, let me speak to that. First of all, I
have talked directly to President Zardari, and I have talked
directly to General Kayani about Dr. Afridi. And like most
Americans, I find it, as you do, incomprehensible, if not
repugnant, that somebody who helped to find Osama bin Laden is
in jail in Pakistan. That bothers every American.
That said, the Pakistanis make the argument that he didn't
know what he was doing, that he didn't know who he was
specifically targeting or what was happening----
Senator Paul. You think he knew he was helping Americans,
though?
Senator Kerry. Let me just finish. Let me just finish. He
clearly knew what he was doing in that because they also make
the argument that he was doing that as a matter of regular
course of business for him.
Now, that said, that is no excuse. I am simply explaining
to you that rather than cut aid, which is a pretty dramatic,
draconian, sledgehammer approach to a relationship that really
has a lot of interests. You know, we have our ground line of
communications, which is the military's complicated word for
roads, that go to Afghanistan, and that route is critical to
our supply of our troops.
We have----
Senator Paul. The word I used, though, is ``condition,''
not ``cut.''
Senator Kerry. We have, in addition to that, had
intelligence cooperation. Our folks were able to cooperate on
the ground in Pakistan. That is one of the ways we were able to
get Osama bin Laden. I don't think the Pakistanis have,
frankly, gotten credit sufficiently for the fact that they were
helpful.
It was their permissiveness in allowing our people to be
there that helped us to be able to tie the knots that focused
on that, to some degree. Not exclusively, obviously, but to
some degree.
In addition, they have lost some 6,000 people just in the
last year in their efforts to go after terrorists. They have
lost about 30,000 people over the course of the last several
years because they have been willing to engage the
insurgencies. And so, you know, there are things that the
Pakistanis have done, as complicated as the relationship has
been.
Now I think that I intend to raise the issue of Dr. Afridi
with them. I can promise you that. But I am not going to
recommend, nor do I think it is wise for American policy to
just cut our assistance. We need to build our relationship with
the Pakistanis, not diminish it.
Senator Paul. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Senator Kerry. I am sorry that our careers in the
Senate will only overlap for a few weeks, but I want to thank
you. Because for those of us in our corner of the country who
have come into public service in the last 10 to 20 years, it
has been your example that has inspired many of us to do so.
Not only your ability to both position yourself as a spokesman
for the disenfranchised and dispossessed, but also as a steward
of our country's interests around the world.
I think there are a lot of us who came into public service
in part because of your work for our region. I thank you for
that.
I wanted to spend my short time turning to the Asia-Pacific
region and specifically spending a little bit of time on China
as well. Secretary Clinton, in a speech that she gave in
Singapore sometime back, crafted a great and very simple phrase
about how today, for the first time in modern history, you can
become a global superpower simply through the power of your
economy, not by the power of your military. China is obviously
the best example of that, though it has now turned its focus to
military might as well.
In Connecticut, we have about 40 percent of our exports
sent to that region today. On an annual basis, we are
increasing our country's exports to the region by a 25 to 30
percent clip.
And yet we know, again specifically with respect to China,
that those numbers pale in comparison to what they could be
because high-tech manufacturers cower at the prospect of
sending products there that will immediately be replicated and
sold in counterfeit markets. Military manufacturers in
Connecticut can't even get into China, even as their
competitors there get a pretty fair shot at getting into our
market.
Secretary Clinton also talked a lot about this new concept
of economic statecraft, and I wanted to get your thoughts about
how we can use and continue to use the power of the Department
of State to try to pressure the Chinese to both correct its
flaws with respect to its disposition on intellectual property,
to pressure that nation to open up its markets to more American
goods, and then in general how you see our ability to really
exercise economic pressure on that region to be a source of
what we hope is a doubling of exports, as the President has
commanded us to do over the next 5 years.
Senator Kerry. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you for
your nice comments. I really appreciate it. And welcome to the
committee. I am delighted to see you and Senator Kaine on the
committee.
Senator Reid called me, and we chatted about the folks who
might serve on the committee, and I am delighted that both of
you are there. And I am sorry that, obviously, we won't be
working together on the committee. But believe me, we are going
to be working together, and I look forward to it.
Look, Secretary Clinton, if she was sitting here--and she
has--previously said, and I will simply reiterate and
underscore, China is an ongoing process, and it takes
commitment and perseverance to break through on one issue or
another. We have a lot of issues with China.
My intention is to continue to focus, as the administration
has begun through its rebalancing, to grow that rebalance
because it is critical for us to strengthen our relationship
with China. China is the other sort of significant economy in
the world and obviously has a voracious appetite for resources
around the world. And we need to establish rules of the road
that work everybody.
That is why the administration came up with the Trans-
Pacific Partnership in an effort to try to help establish
greater leverage, if you will, for this notion of broadly
accepted rules of the road, which are critical to our doing
commerce. But on things like intellectual property, market
access, currency, there are still significant challenges ahead
with China.
Now my hope is that Xi Jinping and the new administration
will recognize also the need to sort of broaden the
relationship with us in return. I could envision a way in which
China could play a much more significant role as a partner in
any number of efforts globally. We shouldn't be viewed as--I
mean, we will be competitors in the economic marketplace, but
we shouldn't be viewed as adversaries in some way that
diminishes our ability to cooperate on a number of things.
China is cooperating with us now on Iran. I think there
might be more we could perhaps do with respect to North Korea.
There could be more we could do in other parts of the Far East.
And hopefully, we can build those relationships that will
further that transformation.
We make progress. It is incremental. You know, it is a
tough slog, and there just isn't any single magic way to
approach it. But if we can find a better sense of the mutuality
of our interests and the commonality of goals that we could
work toward--climate change is an example.
If we just sit around where we are today in respect to the
comments I think Senator Barrasso or somebody made, we are
going to have a problem because China is soon going to have
double the emissions of the United States of America. So we
have got to get these folks as part of this unified effort, and
I intend to work very, very hard at trying to do that.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate that. I appreciate that.
The one probably most important stumbling block to that
growing diplomatic partnership that I agree could have
transformational potential for the world is the potential
conflict between China's growing military footprint in the
region and now our pivot to Asia when it comes to our military
interests as well.
And we have seen these growing territorial disputes between
China and the Philippines, and China and Japan, and Korea and
Japan. How do we ramp up militarily in the region without
getting drawn in to a lot of these disputes, which we have no
immediate interest in, but makes it a little bit harder to stay
disconnected from if we just have a larger footprint there?
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator, I am not convinced that
increased military ramp-up is critical yet. I am not convinced
of that. That is something I would want to look at very
carefully when and if you folks confirm me and I can get in
there and sort of dig into this a little deeper.
But we have a lot more bases out there than any other
nation in the world, including China, today. We have a lot more
forces out there than any other nation in the world, including
China, today. And we have just augmented, the President's
announcement, in Australia with additional Marines. You know,
the Chinese take a look at that and say, ``What is the United
States doing? Are they trying to circle us? What is going on?''
And so, every action has its reaction. It is the old--you
know, it is not just the law of physics. It is the law of
politics and diplomacy. I think we have to be thoughtful about
sort of how we go forward.
Pivot, also I want to take on the word ``pivot.'' I think
``pivot'' implies that we are turning away from somewhere else.
I want to emphasize we are not turning away from anywhere else.
Whatever we do in China should not, or in the Far East--in
Indonesia, which is rapidly growing and enormously important,
Vietnam, all of these countries--should not come and, I hope,
will not come at the expense of relationships in Europe or in
the Mideast or elsewhere. It can't.
What we need to do is try to bring Europe along with us to
a recognition of the opportunities in the Far East. It would
improve our clout. It would leverage the market. Perhaps there
has
been some talk about a U.S.-EU trade relationship. I don't know
whether that can become a reality or not. But I think that we
need to think thoughtfully about not creating a threat where
there isn't one and understanding very carefully where we can
find the basis of better cooperation.
Now I want to emphasize that I don't want somebody out
there saying, well, Kerry has a mistaken notion of what China
is up to or what they are doing. I am not saying you don't have
to be pretty careful and vigilant and understand where it is
going, and I am not talking about retreating from our current
levels whatsoever. I am simply trying to think about how we do
this in a way that doesn't create the reaction you don't want
to create.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kerry, your 29 years of service on this committee
is a great example for those of us newcomers, and I thank you
for that and look forward to working with you as Secretary.
A comment and two questions. In the chair's opening round
of questions, he raised issues about our relations in the
Western Hemisphere, and that is deeply important to me.
Those have also been touched on in your responses to
Senator Udall and in the reference to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership in the discussion with Senator Murphy.
I worry a little bit that for many understandable reasons
our foreign policy has been very oriented East-West, but the
North-South axis is also incredibly important. I worry about
the Chinese being all over the Americas and Iran having
economic ties and state-sponsored Spanish language broadcasts
throughout the Americas.
And in a time of inattention, it is not as if we are
standing still. We can be seeing our influence erode. And so, I
would just, as you have talked about these matters today, I
really, really hope that the State Department has that North-
South axis as a key focus.
On to a question on a topic, your opening comments
demonstrated what has long been a position of yours that you
understand that we have an unbreakable bond with Israel. And
that is why the definitive statement about Iranians' nuclear
ambitions that we have a policy of prevention, not containment,
was very heartening to hear. I believe that very deeply.
As much as I believe that, I also believe that as difficult
as it looks, we also long for the day, long for the prospect
that there would be peace between a secure Jewish State of
Israel and an independent and prosperous Palestine. It might
seem unlikely, but the current peaceful relationships in
Ireland seemed equally or more unlikely 30 years ago.
What would your approach be as Secretary of State in trying
to advance that day so that it might be sooner rather than
later?
Senator Kerry. Well, part of my approach to help advance
that day is not to be too explicit here today. I have a lot of
thoughts about that challenge, and one of the things I can
guarantee you is that I don't want to prejudice it by public
demands to any party at this point in time.
I think, you know, I will say this. President Obama is
deeply committed to a two-state solution. I have been reading
lately speculation about whether or not he is committed to the
process or what he thinks or believes, et cetera. I think a lot
of it is simply wrong, blown out of proportion. The President
understands the stakes and the implications in the Middle East.
And the almost so much of what we aspire to achieve and
what we need to do globally, what we need to do in the Maghreb
and south Asia, south-central Asia, throughout the gulf, all of
this is tied to what can or doesn't happen with respect to
Israel-Palestine. In some places, it is used as an excuse. In
other places, it is a genuine, deeply felt challenge.
I am not going to say anything that prejudices our ability
to try to get a negotiation moving in the appropriate way, in
the appropriate manner, and I am not even going to go into what
that is. But I think I personally believe--I have been at this
for, what, almost 29 years on this committee. We have been at
this. I have watched all of it.
I was on the lawn when we were there with the handshake--
Arafat, Begin. And I have been through seven Prime Ministers
and nine in all. Two of them were the same. And I have seen Wye
Plantation and Madrid and Oslo and Taba and so forth.
We need to try to find a way forward, and I happen to
believe that there is a way forward. But I also believe that if
we can't be successful, the door or window, whatever you want
to call it, to the possibility of a two-state solution could
shut on everybody, and that would be disastrous, in my
judgment.
So I think this is an enormously important issue, and I
will never step back from my commitment to the State of Israel,
which I have shown for the 29 years I have been here. But I
also will not step back from my understanding of the plight of
Palestinians and others who are caught up in the swirl of this.
Young children, who I have seen, who have hopes for future, and
I would like to see us deliver.
Senator Kaine. The State Department and Secretary play
critical roles in human rights, and you have touched on those
today. Just a recent example that you were involved in in some
way was the activity of Secretary Clinton and others on behalf
of the human rights activist Chen Guangcheng in China.
A human rights issue that I am concerned about is religious
freedom. You and I share a faith background, and we also share
a commitment to that bedrock American principle that all should
be able to worship as they please or not without official
pressure or punishment or preference.
Whether it is marginalization of Muslims in Europe or
repression of Christians or Baha'is in the Middle East or anti-
Semitism anywhere, the United States has a valuable role to
play, and the State Department does as well, in the protection
of religious minorities. And I would love to hear you just talk
about that for a second.
Senator Kerry. Well, I couldn't agree more, and I am glad
you raised that issue. It is at the core of who we are. The
tolerance on which the United States is founded is one of our
greatest attributes. And it is interesting, I will tell you
that we have gone through our own sort of turbulence on that.
We didn't arrive at it naturally.
You know, the Puritans came to Massachusetts, and there
were a few excesses. Then a guy named Roger Williams left
Massachusetts and went down and traveled through the forests
through the winter and came out on a bay and called it
Providence, and it is now Providence, RI. And you had, you
know, John Davenport and others who went down to New Haven, CT,
and they all were getting away from religious persecution right
here in our own country.
It took us a while to get it right, and I think we do.
And needless to say, one of the roles of the State
Department is to help people understand what an essential
ingredient tolerance is, and diversity and pluralism, to the
ability of a country to flourish and people to have their
rights. That is one of the big challenges that we face.
I am sure my advisers at the State Department would say,
you know, stop there, Senator. [Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. But I am going to say--I will say something
additional, which is I have a lot of friends who are Muslim who
I have learned--who I have met and built relationships with
over the years in my travels. And leaders in that region will
be the first to tell you, me, others that what you see in
radical Islam is not Islam. It is radical Islam. It is an
exploitation and hijacking of an old and honored religion.
And what we need to do is find a way--and this is something
we have to work at--for people to understand the degree to
which that is happening and becoming, in some places, an excuse
for their disenfranchisement, for being deprived of good
governance, for being deprived of a good economy, of jobs, of
opportunity. One of our missions is to not let that be an
excuse.
So I think that carrying the banner of religious tolerance,
of diversity, and pluralism is critical. I know we have raised
that with President Morsi. I have personally raised it with
him. I think I was the first American to meet with President
Morsi before he became--even knew he was a candidate. And we
talked about the need for the Brotherhood to be able to respect
the diversity of Egypt.
Now that hasn't happened completely as much as we would
like in the constitutional process. But as I said, that is an
ongoing process, and we need to work together in order to try
to do it. But, Senator, you raise a central, central issue with
respect to what is happening to the politics of certain regions
of the world, and it has got to be front and center in our
dialogue.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Senator Corker, final comment?
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having the
hearing.
And Mr. Chairman, I think all of us who have known you and
known of your service here for 29 years thought that you would
acquit yourself well today, but I think you have acquitted
yourself exceptionally well and know you are going to be
confirmed in the next very few days. And I just thank you for
your--I thank you for the fact that you want to serve in this
position, but also the fact that you have developed such an
extensive background and understanding.
And I know you are going to be really good in this job.
I look forward to working with you and thank you for the
patience today.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, two quick questions I think
would be very easy and hope we can get commitments from you on.
One is having gone through the lengthy hearings on the
Administrative Review Board's recommendations and what happened
in Benghazi, can we be assured that you will personally oversee
the implementation of the ARB and have your senior leadership
make it a top priority?
Senator Kerry. Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. And second, with reference to our
democracy programs worldwide, can we expect you to be a strong
supporter of those programs?
Senator Kerry. Yes.
Senator Menendez. And then, finally, a comment. I had no
intention of raising it, but, you know, to suggest that spring
break is a form of torture to the Castro regime, unfortunately,
they are experts about torture, as is evidenced by the
increasing brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy advocates on
the island. Just in the last year, over 6,600 peaceful
democracy advocates detained or arrested.
Just this past Sunday, the Ladies in White--a group of
women who dress in white and march every Sunday with a gladiola
to church--tried to come together to go to church this past
Sunday. And the result of that--these are individuals who are
the relatives of former or current political prisoners in
Castro's jails--the result is that more than 35 of the Women in
White were intercepted, beaten with belts, threatened to death
by agents aiming guns at them, and temporarily arrested.
And then we have a United States citizen who all he tried
to do is give access to the Internet to a small Jewish
population in Havana and has been languishing in jail for
nearly 4 years. That is real torture.
Mr. Chairman, you have given an incredibly thoughtful,
extensive, passionate at times, and an incredible depth of
knowledge before this committee for nearly 3 hours and 50
minutes. It is a testament to your long service, your long
commitment, and what we can expect of you as the next Secretary
of State.
And I know that your father, Richard, who also served this
country, would be extremely proud of you today.
The committee will receive questions for the record until
the close of business today. So we urge members who may have
any questions to do so by the close of business today. We
encourage the nominee, as well as the Department, to respond to
the questions as expeditiously as possible.
Senator Menendez. And with that, with the thanks of the
committee, this hearing is adjourned.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Prehearing Questions
Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
Question. What do you believe is the role of the Congress in
establishing U.S. foreign policy? What role, specifically, do you
believe the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should play?
Answer. My time as a Senator reinforces my belief that the Congress
is, and must remain, a vital partner in the establishment, oversight,
and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. The Department looks to the
Congress for authorization and funding of its conduct of foreign
policy, provision of necessary legislation, and oversight of the
execution of the President's foreign policy agenda. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the Congress on all of these important
issues.
As the standing committee charged with leading the debate on
foreign policy within the Senate, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee (SFRC) is specifically instrumental in establishing and
implementing U.S. foreign policy. Through its jurisdictional powers
over executive nominations, treaties, and foreign policy legislation,
as well as its oversight over foreign aid and programmatic funding, the
SFRC shapes the parameters within which the Department of State
operates.
Question. Since the tragic incident in Benghazi, the term
``expeditionary diplomacy'' has been used to describe U.S. diplomatic
activities in relatively unstable areas with a small/light footprint.
In your view, what does it mean to engage in
``expeditionary diplomacy,'' and can you provide several
examples where the United States is currently engaged in
expeditionary diplomacy and an assessment of the advantages and
disadvantages to doing so?
When and where is expeditionary diplomacy appropriate?
Answer. A New Kind of Civilian Expeditionary Capacity. As we expand
U.S. expeditionary capacity for conflict and crisis, we are building on
the experience of innovative field officers at State and USAID who have
set new standards for impact on the ground. These kinds of efforts must
become a part of the ``new normal'' for our personnel deployed to
conflict and post-conflict environments.
In the contentious Tagab Valley in Eastern Afghanistan,
State personnel helped local officials design and hold the
first cross-valley shura to bring together former fighters and
establish community-based security arrangements. Along nearby
Highway 1, a critical supply line for U.S. and allied forces,
USAID field personnel, deployed in interagency teams with the
military and local partners, used a databased conflict survey
to develop localized jobs programs along stretches of road
notorious for attacks.
In Haiti, State and USAID field officers worked with the
U.N. mission, the Haitian Government, and NGOs in the slums of
Cite Soleil to increase effective local police presence and
establish community-based initiatives that reduce the influence
of local gangs.
In Darfur, Sudan, following the 2005 peace agreement, State
Civilian Response Corps members set up a field presence in El
Fasher to increase understanding of local conflict dynamics and
worked with the African Union to bring additional militias into
the peace agreement, resulting in a ``peace Secretariat'' to
support confidence-building measures.
Question. Will you commit to preconsultation on process for
treaties with the members of the committee?
Answer. Having served in the Senate for 27 years, I can assure you
I respect the Senate's constitutional role in the treatymaking process.
I agree that consultation and coordination with members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee have played, and will continue to
play, a critical role in successful treaty ratification processes. If
confirmed, I look forward to discussing the administration's treaty
priorities.
Question. Condition 12 of the resolution of ratification
accompanying New START required the President to certify to the Senate
that ``the United States will seek to initiate, following consultation
with NATO allies but not later than one year after the entry into force
of the New START Treaty, negotiations with the Russian Federation on an
agreement to address the disparity between the non-strategic (tactical)
nuclear weapons stockpiles of the Russian Federation and of the United
States.'' The President made the required certification and
consultation with our NATO allies has taken place, but here we are
almost 2 years after entry into force of New START, the negotiations
have not commenced.
What do you intend to recommend to the President about how
to eliminate the disparity described in Condition 12 of the New
START resolution of ratification?
Answer. This issue is very important--as a Senator, I assisted in
crafting the language in the New START resolution of ratification that
addressed the disparity between U.S. and Russian nonstrategic nuclear
weapons (NSNW).
The administration has been actively working on this issue, through
the Bilateral Presidential Commission's Arms Control and International
Security Working Group. The administration has also begun a dialogue
with Russia regarding NSNW, their effect on stability and transparency
regarding them. That dialogue will continue.
As part of this process, it is critical that we continue to consult
with our NATO allies, who have said they look forward to developing and
exchanging NSNW transparency and confidence-building ideas with Russia.
Question. During the 2010 debate around consideration of the New
START Treaty, you played a critical role in negotiations that provided
the necessary assurances to gain support for ratification. Much of that
support was gained through commitments to modernization of our nuclear
weapons--commitments to which the administration has not lived up to
fully. This lack of followthrough has made a significant, negative
impression about the value of any process where such assurances are
sought in order to gain support for ratification, and I fear to the
administration's credibility on treaties. Aside from my displeasure
with the failure to meet its commitments, I fear that it will also
seriously diminish the Senate's willingness to consider treaties and
ratify them. I know you share my concern with this.
Can I get your assurance that you will do all you can to
ensure that the administration follows through on the
commitments they made on nuclear weapons modernization?
Answer. The President and the administration believe that a
credible and affordable modernization plan is necessary to sustain the
nuclear infrastructure and support our Nation's deterrent.
The National Nuclear Security Administration will continue to
update and improve the exact details of these modernization plans as it
completes the designs and analyzes the infrastructure needed to support
the stockpile. The programs and capabilities of our long-term
modernization plans for the nuclear infrastructure remain critically
important and, if confirmed, I will vigorously support these programs.
It is worth noting that the FY 2013 nuclear stockpile budget was 5
percent above the amount appropriated by Congress for FY 2012. This was
one of the few accounts in the entire U.S. Government that received an
increase of this size, and it demonstrated the administration's support
for the modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex in a time
when there is significant scrutiny of all budgets.
Question. In April 2012, Senator Lugar, Congressman Berman, and
Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton
objecting to the State Department's unilateral modifications to the
prenotification consultations on U.S. arms sales that have been used
for nearly three decades.
(a) As Secretary of State, will you reinstate the decades-
old practice?
Answer (a). As noted above, my time as a Senator reinforces my
belief that the Congress must remain a vital partner in the oversight
of U.S. foreign policy, and I am committed, if confirmed, to ensuring
that Congress and, specifically, the committees of jurisdiction in the
Senate and the House, continue to play an important role in the arms
sales process. Congress retains the same statutorily provided
opportunities to block major arms sales that it has for decades, but as
you know, the informal consultation process has developed to make sure
that the Congress and the executive branch find as much agreement as
possible on proposed sales in a way that does not needlessly undermine
our relations with allies and foreign partners. I am committed not only
to ensuring that Congress is provided ample time and information to
conduct its necessary review but also to making sure that American
businesses, our Armed Forces who are cooperating with foreign partners,
and our foreign partners themselves are not undermined because of
unnecessary delays in this process.
(b) If the Obama administration's modifications to the arms
sale process stand, how will you ensure that proposed arms
sales to potential adversaries of Israel do not compromise the
Israeli military's qualitative edge?
Answer (b). My commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Any
developments I believe pose a threat to Israel's qualitative military
edge (QME) will be carefully considered and responded to appropriately.
I will not proceed with the release of any military equipment or
services that could pose a risk to our allies or compromise regional
security in the Middle East. Through the Congressional Notification
process, I will ensure Congress is engaged in the assessment and
decision process.
Question. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court. However, the United States has
cooperated with the ICC on an ad hoc basis and has supported U.N.
Security Council referrals to the ICC in the cases of Sudan and Libya.
The Obama administration has been conducting a lengthy review of U.S.
policy toward the Court.
(a) Under what circumstances should the United States
cooperate with the ICC?
Answer (a). Although the United States is not a party to the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, we have supported the
ICC's prosecutions of those cases that advance U.S. interests and
values, consistent with the requirements of U.S. law. For example, the
ICC has outstanding arrest warrants for Joseph Kony and two other
senior LRA leaders. The United States has an interest in seeing these
men brought to justice, and in providing support for these cases.
(b) How, if at all, should U.S. law be changed to allow
direct American support for the Court?
Answer (b). The primary law governing the situations in which the
United States may provide support for the Court is the American
Service-Members' Protection Act. The administration is not seeking
changes to the law at this time.
(c) Would you cooperate with the ICC if it decided to
proceed with a case involving Israeli actions in the
Palestinian territories?
Answer (c). No; we would not support cooperating with the ICC in
any such cases.
(d) How, if at all, does the ICC have any jurisdiction over
U.S. servicemembers or officials?
Answer (d) The Rome Statute provides that the ICC may assert
jurisdiction over crimes committed (1) by nationals of states parties,
or (2) on the territory of states parties. The United States has
expressed concerns over the Rome Statute's assertion of jurisdiction,
in the absence of Security Council authorization, over nationals of
nonparty states that have not consented, and we would oppose any effort
by the ICC to assert jurisdiction over U.S. servicemembers or
officials.
(e) As Secretary of State, would you seek U.S. ratification
of the Rome Statute?
Answer (e). The administration has no plans to seek ratification of
the Rome Statute, but has indicated that it is in the interests of the
United States to continue to engage with the Court and support its
prosecution of cases that advance U.S. interests and values.
Question. In 2011, the Obama administration announced the so-called
``Asia Pivot'' to reinvigorate the U.S. presence in the region. But it
is not clear exactly what that means or what it may guide us to do
differently.
Can you define U.S. objectives in the region, including
criteria to measure successes and/or failures of the pivot?
Answer. I see the administration's strategic ``rebalance'' as
reflecting the recognition that the United States must substantially
increase its political, economic, and defense investments in the Asia-
Pacific given the region's fundamental importance to our future
prosperity and security. If confirmed, I look forward to supporting
this rebalance as the United States continues to deepen its engagement
in this vital region.
The objectives of the rebalance are to strengthen our treaty
alliances, deepen partnerships with emerging powers, shape an effective
regional architecture, increase trade and investment, update our force
posture, and promote democratic development.
Maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is central
to global progress, including through halting proliferation in North
Korea, maintaining freedom of navigation in the region's maritime
spaces including the South and East China Seas, and promoting increased
transparency in the region's military activities. Our treaty alliances
with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and
Thailand, as well as our security relations with Taiwan, are the
cornerstone of our strategic position in the Asia-Pacific and continue
to ensure regional stability and enhance our regional leadership. In
response to the changing security environment in Asia, the United
States should seek to modernize our alliances to provide the United
States with the flexibility to respond to a range of traditional and
nontraditional security challenges.
The administration has also advanced efforts to strengthen our
relationships with major emerging powers--such as China, Indonesia, and
India--and other regional partners that reflects a comprehensive U.S.
approach in the region. Pacific Island countries remain vital to U.S.
interests due to our shared history, common values, defense
partnerships, commercial links, people-to-people ties, and alignment on
international issues, most fully expressed in our Compacts of Free
Association with three island nations--the Federated States of
Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of
Palau. The administration has asked these partners to help solve shared
problems and shape a rules-based regional and global order.
The U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region emphasizes the
importance of multilateral cooperation to address complex transnational
challenges and build effective institutions that reinforce the system
of rules, norms, and responsibility. If confirmed, I will continue to
deepen our engagement with ASEAN and the region's other multilateral
fora, including the East Asia summit and the Pacific Islands Forum, as
well as stressing regional cooperation on economic issues through APEC.
Economic vitality in the United States in part depends on the
ability of U.S. firms to tap the growing consumer base of the Asia-
Pacific region. The United States is a major trade and investment
partner in the region and this partnership remains essential to our
economic vitality. U.S. leadership on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) will advance the rules-based trading system that has brought
prosperity to both the United States and the region.
Asia's remarkable economic growth over the past decade and its
potential for continued growth in the future depend on the security and
stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military, including
more than 75,000 American servicemen and servicewomen serving in Japan
and the Republic of Korea. The challenges of today's rapidly changing
region--from territorial and maritime disputes to freedom of navigation
issues to the heightened impact of natural disasters--require that the
United States pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally
resilient, and politically sustainable force posture. In pursuit of
this objective, the United States should continue modernizing its
basing arrangements with traditional allies in Northeast Asia, while
enhancing our presence in Southeast Asia and into the Indian Ocean.
Across the Asia-Pacific region, the United States should seek to
foster sustained adherence to democratic practices and improved
governance, quality health and education, strengthened disaster
preparedness and emergency response, and increased natural resource
management, which will contribute to greater human security, stability,
and prosperity, as well as deepened U.S. ties in the region.
Question. In 2011, you voted for a bill that was designed to label
China a currency manipulator and compel the Chinese to revalue the RMB
or face trade repercussions. In a floor speech following your vote, you
said that you had ``reluctance to see us engage in an effort that I
think can put other efforts at risk in certain ways.'' As Secretary of
State, you will touch one of the United States most important bilateral
economic relationships, our relationship with China.
(a) Given that you so clearly felt that there was
substantial risk in the approach that the Senate took up in
2011, would you pledge to take a leadership role in persuading
Congress to look for more appropriate and meaningful ways to
engage China?
Answer (a). It is imperative that we get our relationship with
China right, given the effect its economic policies have on the United
States and on the world economy. China's growing economic relevance has
become more apparent through their cooperation in support of a
sustainable global recovery over the past few years. Our interest must
be in developing a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive
relationship with China that delivers benefits to both our countries
and to the broader international community.
As a part of developing this relationship, we must find ways to
address the array of issues born of our substantial and complex
bilateral economic engagement. To be effective, we must press for
changes and encourage positive developments in China's policies and
behavior through a coordinated U.S. approach. This approach must be
based on results-oriented dialogue, both in our bilateral engagements
as well as in international fora such as the G20.
We will need to look closely at ways to enhance our engagement with
China as it emerges from its ongoing leadership transition. We must
build on the successes of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue and the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, and we must
leverage such engagements to make progress in areas where progress has
been insufficient.
The management of our economic relationship cuts across a range of
U.S. agencies, including USTR and the Departments of Treasury,
Commerce, Energy, and Agriculture, in addition to State. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with other agencies and with Congress to
develop effective strategies that achieve results for U.S. businesses
and workers.
(b) Do you think that the measures prescribed by the
legislation are helpful or harmful to your broader objectives
as Secretary of State?
Answer (b). I defer specific questions about currency to the
Treasury Department. I agree with the broader objective of leveling the
playing field in China for U.S. businesses and workers. If confirmed, I
would work in collaboration with other agencies to ensure that we use
all the tools at our disposal to direct China toward full compliance
with its international trade and commercial obligations, including its
commitment to enhance exchange rate flexibility. China's currency has
appreciated more than 30 percent since 2005, but the exchange rate does
not yet fully reflect market forces.
More broadly, we must remind China of how both our countries
benefit from China's increased integration into the rules-based
international economic system--and of the level playing field this
system requires. If confirmed, I would make clear that leveling this
playing field remains one of our top bilateral priorities.
Question. How can the United States promote human rights in China?
Answer. The promotion of human rights remains at the forefront of
American diplomacy worldwide, and the U.S. Government should speak with
one voice on our human rights concerns. We are committed to promoting
universal values, such as transparency, rule of law, human rights, and
good governance. We do this because it is the right thing to do, and
also because now, more than ever, it is obvious that human rights'
failings in countries around the world, including China, have
consequences for U.S. interests--from economic and monetary policy, to
climate change, to national security. All branches of the U.S.
Government should be involved in making the case to China that the
respect for rule of law, freedom of expression, a robust civil society
and respect for religious and cultural differences are in its own best
interest.
The integration of human rights into the Strategic and Economic
Dialogue over the past 2 years has been an important step in the right
direction, but more can be done. We will continue efforts to bring
together representatives of agencies working on a wide range of issues
to discuss common issues and identify ways we can deliver a coordinated
message to China that respect for universal human rights will help, not
hinder, its efforts to maintain economic growth and stability.
The human rights dialogue provides an important opportunity to have
detailed discussions with Chinese officials on key human rights issues
as well as an opportunity to raise cases of political prisoners. The
dialogue fits into the administration's two-pronged approach. This
approach combines consistently and directly raising, with Chinese
officials at all levels, the issues that they consider to be most
``sensitive''--like the cases of Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo or the
situation in Tibet--while at the same time discussing with them how
improving protections for human rights will enable them to address the
issues that they themselves have identified as of practical concern--
like how to respond to popular discontent with pollution and food
safety protections.
We will continue to support programming in the areas of rule of
law, civil society, and public participation and broadening and
institutionalizing dialogues that have a practical focus such as the
Legal Experts Dialogue.
Finally, we will continue to increase our efforts to advocate
multilaterally, including through coordinated action with like-minded
governments in multilateral forums.
Question. Chinese military vessels have been increasingly engaging
in aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea that are perceived by
our allies in the region, including Japan, as part of a concerted
effort by Beijing to intimidate and project military power.
How should the United States react to Beijing's
provocations?
Answer. The United States has a national interest in the
maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law,
lawful unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation in the South China
Sea.
The United States does not take a position on competing sovereignty
claims over land features in the South China Sea and believes the
nations of the region should work collaboratively and diplomatically to
resolve the various disputes without coercion, intimidation, threats,
or the use of force.
The United States strongly supports efforts by ASEAN and China to
make meaningful progress toward finalizing a comprehensive Code of
Conduct to establish rules of the road and clear procedures for
addressing disagreements. The United States calls on the parties
involved to accelerate progress toward a Code of Conduct.
The United States continues to urge all parties to clarify and
pursue their territorial and maritime claims in accordance with
international law, including the Law of the Sea Convention.
Question. How will the United States continue to build a
relationship with India that establishes mutual goals and addresses
areas of mutual concern?
Answer. Strengthening our strategic partnership with India is a top
priority for the United States. If confirmed, I plan to use the U.S.-
India Strategic Dialogue as a catalyst for further interagency action
to implement the President's vision of a deepened bilateral
relationship to face shared challenges. This vision includes five key
areas of activity: defense cooperation; partnering on shared interests
in South and East Asia; homeland security, intelligence, and
counterterrorism cooperation; cooperation in multilateral institutions;
and an enhanced economic and energy relationship.
India will be one of our closest partners in Asia, which will
contribute to the security of the whole region. Building on our robust
military exercises, dialogues, and defense trade relationship ($8
billion and growing), we seek to transition to a relationship of
coproduction and, ultimately, joint research and development.
In South and East Asia, we both have an interest in ensuring the
region remains peaceful and offers opportunities for increasing trade
and prosperity. India's economy is key to the success of the New Silk
Road vision and to building a network of trade and transit linkages to
its east in an Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor of enhanced prosperity
and strengthened security for the nations of Southeast Asia, including
Burma. Our consultations with India include trilateral discussions with
Japan and with Afghanistan.
We share with India the focus on preventing another attack by a
terrorist group against U.S. or Indian interests in the region or
elsewhere. Our joint counterterrorism efforts and enhanced information-
sharing, including through the Homeland Security Dialogue, have built
an important new bridge between our respective governments.
While in India, President Obama expressed support for a reformed
U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member. We
consulted closely with India on the significant challenges addressed by
the Security Council during India's 2-year term from 2011-2012, and
hope to see India take a greater role in this and other institutions in
supporting global prosperity, democratic changes, and advancing human
dignity.
Our strong economic relationship continues to underpin our
bilateral ties; bilateral goods trade more than quadrupled between 2000
and 2011 from $14.3 billion to $57.8 billion, and total trade,
including services, is on track to reach $100 billion in the near term.
We seek continued growth in our bilateral trade relationship, enhanced
investment opportunities, including through the conclusion of a
Bilateral Investment Treaty, and further opportunities for U.S.
businesses in Indian markets. Full implementation of the U.S.-India
Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, beginning with the expected early
conclusion of commercial contracts for U.S. firms, remains a top
priority.
The increasingly dense web of people-to-people ties plays an
important role in cementing our relationship, with over 3 million
Indian Americans in the United States and 100,000 Indian students
studying in the United States, and contributes to the kinds of
innovative collaboration that can benefit citizens of both countries.
Question. What are your expectations for the scheduled Presidential
elections in Afghanistan in 2014? What can the United States do to
ensure those elections are free and fair, and ensure a peaceful
transition of power?
Answer. The Afghan Government has announced that in 2014 they will
undertake Presidential and Provincial Council elections. Their goal for
the Presidential election, which we share, is for a peaceful transfer
of power from President Karzai to his successor following a credible
and inclusive election process. We are realistic and clear-eyed about
the challenges for the upcoming elections, but we are encouraged by
actions the Afghans are taking in conformance with their laws and to
honor commitments to the international community. As a crucial first
step, the election commission has announced April 5, 2014, as the date
for the elections, which is within the timeframe required by the Afghan
Constitution.
President Karzai has stated many times, including at the White
House on January 11, 2013, that he will step down at the end of this
term, as required by Afghanistan's Constitution. We have no reason to
doubt his intention to step down and to transfer political authority to
his successor following the election process.
Afghanistan's Parliament and the Cabinet are consulting on changes
to the legislative framework for elections and the best methods of
identifying and registering voters to prevent fraud. We have encouraged
the Afghan authorities to adopt laws that will both ensure the
political independence of the election administrators and allow
election disputes to be resolved openly and fairly.
In President Obama's and President Karzai's joint statement of
January 11, President Karzai outlined the Government of Afghanistan's
plans to hold free, fair, inclusive, and democratic elections in 2014.
The Leaders reviewed preparations for the 2014 elections and agreed
that independent Afghan institutions are to lead election preparations
and implementation, in close consultation with legitimate stakeholders
in the democratic process.
We will continue to support the Afghan electoral authorities, the
Afghan Government, Parliament, and civil society in their efforts to
strengthen the electoral system and to minimize electoral fraud. We are
coordinating with the U.N. on training, public information campaigns,
fraud mitigation, domestic observation efforts, and improved ways to
identify eligible voters. And we will continue to consult with the
Afghans on their support requirements from the international community.
USAID is the lead agency in providing assistance and administering
programs to build the capacity of Afghan institutions and civil society
in managing and participating in electoral processes. Their emphasis is
on supporting independent electoral institutions, expanding political
participation, encouraging greater citizen participation in the
elections, and building the capacity of Afghanistan's Parliament.
Both USAID and the Department engage regularly in diplomatic
channels with Afghan officials, civil society, and political leaders to
support the Afghans' commitment as stated in the Strategic Partnership
Agreement to free, fair, and transparent elections in which all those
who participate do so freely without internal or external interference.
Question. How do you assess the effectiveness of President Hamid
Karzai's government? What more should the United States do to curb
widespread corruption in the Afghan Government? Which regions might you
anticipate a need for funding that is not in the current budget
request?
Answer. We have seen substantial progress over time, especially
when we consider the baseline from where the country started.
Afghanistan is now a democratic country with an elected government and
a constitution that provides a framework for rule of law. The Afghan
Government has made significant gains in providing basic education and
health care, transportation infrastructure, and telecommunications
capability to its people.
At international conferences in Bonn, Istanbul, Chicago, and Tokyo,
the international community and the Afghan Government laid out long-
term strategies in which assistance commitments from the international
community are contingent upon the Afghans strengthening governance and
utilizing assistance for sustainable projects that meet national
priorities. President Obama and President Karzai signed a Strategic
Partnership Agreement last May to set out the expectations for both
sides as we move forward in building an enduring relationship beyond
2014.
There are still challenges in security, the political process, and
economic development, which President Obama discussed with President
Karzai during their strategic talks 2 weeks ago. During these talks,
the two Presidents reviewed our Strategic Partnership Agreement and the
commitments of both sides to make sure we're on the same page as the
transition process continues. As President Karzai said in his own
remarks during the visit, Afghanistan is a country moving forward, a
country in which ``a new period is beginning'' and in which Afghans
will build on the progress of the last 10 years, with U.S. support. We
remain committed to an enduring partnership with Afghanistan that
allows both sides to sustain and enhance the gains of the last 10
years.
There is no question that corruption remains a fundamental
challenge in Afghanistan. We are working hard with Afghan partners to
address the problem by promoting transparency and good governance while
working to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. And we will continue to
side with and support the Afghan ministries, governors, and local
leaders committed to combating corruption and delivering services to
their people.
President Karzai made a strong public commitment in July at the
Tokyo conference about preventing corruption, implementing key reforms,
and building Afghanistan's institutions. Implementation of these
reforms will be critical to Afghanistan's long-term success. The mutual
accountability framework agreed to in Tokyo, and the focus on
corruption that is included in the U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic
Partnership Agreement, gives us tools to see these commitments through.
We were pleased to see the specific steps President Karzai ordered his
ministries to take subsequent to the Tokyo conference in this regard.
As a sign of progress in reducing corruption and in compliance with
President Karzai's July 26 anticorruption decree, the Ministry of Mines
published 210 extractive contracts previously awarded by the Government
of Afghanistan. The Ministry of Mines also published its first and
second reports required under the Extractives Industry Transparency
Initiative detailing revenues from the sector for 2009 through 2011.
The participants at Tokyo Conference last July set predictable
levels of assistance through what we call the Transformation Decade up
to 2024. This is contingent upon Afghanistan strengthening governance
and implementing targeted reforms to set the foundation for sustainable
economic growth and inclusive development.
The current budget proposal was designed to assist Afghanistan in
meeting the challenges of transition. It includes continued programming
to help stabilize conflict areas and includes a new emphasis on
development efforts in other parts of the country with high potential
for economic growth. In addition, the budget will expand programming
for women to ensure their gains of the last decade are maintained
through the transition period and that women and girls continue to
expand their productive roles in society into the future.
Question. President Obama indicated January 11 that U.S./ISAF will
accelerate the timeline for turnover of security responsibility to the
Afghan Government this year.
(a) What is the practical effect of such an accelerated
security handover to planned stabilization, development, and
capacity-building programming in the country?
Answer (a). The United States remains committed to our strategic
partnership with Afghanistan and to the Lisbon timeframe we agreed upon
with our ISAF and Afghan partners. At the NATO summit in Chicago, ISAF
and the Afghan Government agreed that by mid-2013, Afghan forces would
be in the lead for security across the country, with international
forces training, advising, and assisting. Given the increasing
capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces, President Obama
and President Karzai agreed in early January that we would mark that
milestone in spring 2013. The Lisbon timeline also calls for U.S. and
international forces to provide support to Afghan forces until full
security responsibility is handed over at the end of 2014. At the same
time, as part of our Strategic Partnership, we anticipate continuing
financial and programmatic support for stabilization, development, and
capacity-building in Afghanistan, based on the mutual accountability
commitments made in Tokyo last year.
(b) What programs will be directly affected and what
adjustments to resource and personnel levels are to be expected
in 2013?
Answer (b) We do not believe the spring milestone will have a
significant impact on our civilian assistance programs in 2013. The
majority of civilian assistance programs already operate without the
need for direct security from either Afghan or international forces,
though they benefit from the generalized security-enhancing presence of
such forces. Also, the Afghan Public Protection Force took over
security responsibilities last year for a number of projects that do
require armed security around project sites.
As part of our planning for the security transition, the Department
of State and USAID have been increasing the amount of assistance
implemented by the Government of Afghanistan consistent with our Tokyo
commitments and the capacity of Afghan agencies to implement
effectively, and we are evaluating innovative third-party monitoring
mechanisms to ensure programs receive the proper level of oversight and
monitoring.
The administration is currently reviewing the overall U.S.
Government presence, including the civilian presence. It will be based
on mission requirements and the imperative of ensuring that all mission
personnel can operate safely.
In Tokyo last July, the United States and our international
partners committed to sustain economic assistance to ensure the
development gains of the last decade are maintained, and to support
sustainable Afghan economic growth. As part of that commitment, the
Government of Afghanistan explicitly endorsed the concept of mutual
accountability, through the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework, and
acknowledged that continued international assistance depends on
strengthening good governance, grounded in human rights, the rule of
law, and adherence to the Afghan Constitution.
Question. While the assumption of responsibility for the entire
country by the Government of Afghanistan remains scheduled for the end
of 2014, many of the practical details are unclear.
(a) What is the current number and dispersal of U.S.
civilian direct hires and contract personnel in Afghanistan,
and how is it expected to change by the end of 2014?
Answer (a). We have about 1,000 civilians working in Afghanistan
under Chief of Mission authority. In addition, there are 3,229 U.S.
contractors, 539 non-U.S. contractors and 963 Locally Engaged Staff.
The size and scope of our post-2014 presence is under review by the
White House. It would be inappropriate to comment until a decision has
been made.
(b) When will the waiver of responsibility for training and
equipping of police forces in Afghanistan revert to State
Department?
Answer (b). There are currently no plans for the Department to
again assume responsibility for training and equipping the Afghan
National Police (ANP). ANP training will continue under the NATO
Training Mission-Afghanistan.
Question. In 2012, the Government Accountability Office reported on
the State Department's failure to plan and competently execute the
critical services it took over from the Department of Defense in Iraq,
including a failure to assess whether the Department of Defense's
contracts in Iraq were cost-effective.
What steps will the State Department take to identify
appropriate contract planning and implementation, particularly
as it relates to ensuring that such opportunities are not
missed during the imminent change in mission for Afghanistan
from a military led endeavor to a civilian one?
Answer. The Department learned much from its transition
coordination activities moving from primarily a military mission to a
more normalized diplomatic mission in Iraq. The Department is applying
those lessons to transition planning for Afghanistan.
At the senior planning level, we are using the Executive
Steering Group (ESG) that was in place for Iraq as a model for
Afghanistan to provide Department of State and Department of
Defense leadership the ability to communicate and coordinate
across the agencies.
A more robust interagency planning structure, below the ESG,
was established by the Department called the Transition
Coordination Group (TCG). The TCG includes participants across
the State Department's regional and functional bureaus,
transition staff from Embassy Kabul, Department of Defense
officials, as well as our interagency partners.
The ESG and the TCG are supported by a Transition Program
Office (TPO). Several functional working groups report to, and
work with, the TPO to conduct interagency planning and
coordination to include an Afghanistan contracting working
group, that is cochaired by the State Department and the
Department of Defense, and conducts contract planning and
implementation via a whole of government approach.
The Department is confident that our professional acquisition staff
and the established Department transition structures are sufficient to
handle the transition to a more traditional mission in Afghanistan.
Question. How would you characterize the efforts of the Zardari
government to crack down on extremism? Is it sufficient?
Answer. The United States and Pakistan continue to have a vital,
shared strategic interest in the fight against terrorism, and Pakistan
has been a key ally in this fight. Pakistan has suffered greatly at the
hands of terrorists and extremists, with more than 6,000 military and
civilian casualties over just the past year.
We will continue to work closely with Pakistan to eliminate the
threats in the border areas and make both of our nations more secure.
We are pleased that President Zardari has undertaken several
important initiatives to counter violent extremism. For example, in
2011, President Zardari created the Ministry of National Harmony to
promote religious freedom and counter the extremist narrative on a
federal level in Pakistan, and appointed Paul Bhatti as the Special
Advisor for Religious Minorities. President Zardari subsequently added
minority seats in the national and provincial assemblies.
President Zardari also publically condemned the attack on Malala
Yousafzai, the young girl shot by the Taliban for campaigning for
girls' education. He announced that Pakistan would contribute $10
million for the ``Malala Fund for Girls' Right to Education'' aimed at
ensuring that all girls go to school by 2015 in line with United
Nations Millennium goals.
Nonetheless, we remain concerned about incitement to violence and
the rise of extremism in Pakistan. If confirmed, I will continue to
reach out to all sectors of Pakistani society to encourage those values
and programs that we believe best counter violent extremism. I will
also encourage Pakistanis to respect the rights of all citizens,
including religious and ethnic minorities.
Question. The United States suspended Coalition Support Funds (CSF)
as well as Pakistan Counter-Insurgency Contingency Funds (PCF/PCCF)
following the closure of the GLOC. Neither has been reestablished,
although outstanding claims to CSF were paid up to the date of GLOC
closure.
Do you expect this situation to change?
What if any requests have been made by Pakistan for CSF or
PCF/PCCF funding to resume and what has been the U.S. response?
Answer. The Department of Defense suspended the Coalition Support
Fund (CSF) program for Pakistan after Pakistan closed the ground lines
of communication (GLOCs) with Afghanistan following the November 26,
2011, cross-border incident that resulted in the death of 24 Pakistan
soldiers.
On July 2, 2012, Pakistan reopened the GLOCs and agreed on Terms of
Reference to move two-way cargo on the transit line. Since then, 4,894
Afghanistan-bound trucks containing military cargo have transited
Pakistan's GLOCs. The Government of Pakistan is currently finalizing
internal agreement on the transit mechanism to allow retrograde cargo
to start transiting the GLOCs.
In July, the Department of Defense authorized payment of $1.1
billion in CSF to Pakistan for expenses incurred during military
operations conducted July 2010-June 2011. In December, the agency
authorized payment of another $688 million for expenses between July-
November 2011. While the GLOCs were closed, some activities funded
through the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund (PCCF)
continued, though we calibrated our assistance deliveries in response
to the level of cooperation on our counterterrorism efforts.
If confirmed, I will ensure that CSF and PCCF continue to be used
as effective tools in our shared interest of combating terrorism and
seeing a secure, stable, and prosperous region.
Question. The Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan
and Pakistan (SRAP) has provided considerable policy and programmatic
input over the term of its existence, as has its counterpart in USAID
the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs (OAPA).
(a) Given the resignation of Ambassador Marc Grossman as
SRAP last month and the accelerated transition in Afghanistan,
will the SRAP and OAPA offices remain or be combined with their
respective regional offices?
Answer (a). If confirmed, I will consult with the President and
members of his administration on the best path forward for the Office
of the Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan and the
Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs.
(b) What lessons have been drawn from the use of multiple
Ambassador-level officials in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Answer (b). Two ambassador-ranked officers (Richard Olsen, Chief of
Mission, and Dick Hoagland, Deputy Chief of Mission) serve in Pakistan.
However, this is coincidence, not Department policy.
Question. The Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan is legislation in
which you played a large role in developing and ushering through
Congress. This law conditions certain military assistance and arms
transfers to Pakistan on annual certifications by the Secretary of
State related to Pakistan's performance in combating terrorism and
strengthening democratic institutions.
Have these certifications been effective?
What more can be done to apply pressure to Pakistan to
address the terrorist challenge?
Answer. One of the administration's top priorities is ensuring
Pakistan has the capabilities necessary to be a constructive partner in
our efforts to establish a secure, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan
in 2014 and beyond.
The legislation calls for the Secretary to certify Pakistan
demonstrates continued collaboration on nuclear nonproliferation and
sustained commitment and efforts on countering terrorism, and that
Pakistani security forces are not substantially and materially
intervening in civilian governance. Pakistan continues to work toward
progress on all of these fronts.
The certification requirements establish a baseline for measuring
progress on our core interests with Pakistan. While the cooperation is
not yet at the level we would like, we have seen progress in each of
these areas and Pakistan continues military operations against
terrorist threats.
With over 30,000 people killed since 2001, no country has suffered
more from terrorism than Pakistan. It is in Pakistan's clear interest
to address the threats to its security and ours. If confirmed, I will
apply the resources available to me to deepen cooperation on our shared
interests.
Question. In its 2012 report on the U.S. approach to development in
Pakistan, the Center for Global Development gave the administration a
near-failing grade of ``D'' on ``name a leader'' for development
strategy in the country.
Should there be a single official responsible to you for
development strategy and management with respect to Pakistan?
Should you be confirmed as Secretary of State, who will you
designate to be the single official responsible for development
strategy and management of U.S. development assistance in
Pakistan?
Answer. In a strategically important country such as Pakistan, it
is critical that the State Department and USAID coordinate fully on
U.S. assistance and development priorities and needs.
Civilian assistance to Pakistan has received the highest level of
attention from the Department and USAID, including by Secretary
Clinton, Deputy Secretary Nides, and Administrator Shah.
The Department's Office of the Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP), USAID's Office of Afghanistan and
Pakistan Affairs (OAPA), and our in-country U.S. mission have been
working in full cooperation on its strategy and management.
If confirmed, I will carefully assess the management of our
civilian assistance strategy in Pakistan, helping to ensure continued,
robust interagency coordination.
Question. Do you believe the Pakistani intelligence services are
complicit in or turn a blind eye to the operation of extremist
organizations within their borders, so long as the organization's
primary targets are external? Do you believe the United States has any
leverage to change that dynamic and how would you do so?
Answer. The United States and Pakistan continue to have a vital,
shared strategic interest in the fight against terrorism. Pakistan has
suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists and extremists, with more
than 6,000 military and civilian casualties over just the past year.
Pakistani leaders--civilian and military alike--understand that
Pakistan's security and economic interests will be best served by a
more stable region free from violent extremism.
Foreign Minister Khar has recently said that Pakistan has made a
``strategic shift'' in recognition that traditional proxies are a
source of instability, not of strategic influence.
Pakistan is a key ally in the shared fight against the terrorists
that threaten both of our countries. We continue to press Pakistani
officials to take action against a range of terrorist groups, including
al-Qaeda, the Haqqani Taliban Network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Through our
mutual efforts with Pakistan, we have been able to substantially weaken
al-Qaeda's leadership and operational capabilities. As President Obama
has said, since 2001, more terrorists have been killed in Pakistan than
in any other country. Pakistan has also publicly called on the Taliban
to enter into a dialogue with the Afghan Government. Pakistan supported
the listing of the Haqqani Taliban Network under the UNSCR 1988
(Taliban sanctions) regime.
We continue to press Pakistan to take additional steps to dismantle
terrorist groups, no matter whom they target or where they strike. This
includes Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which carried out the attacks in Mumbai
in 2008 that killed a number of U.S. citizens, and which we remain
deeply concerned about. As Secretary Clinton has said, there needs to
be a coordinated and concerted effort to combat extremists of all
kinds, whoever they threaten. We will continue to work with Pakistan to
eliminate the threats in the border areas and make both of our nations
more secure.
If confirmed, I will continue the current policy of engaging with
Pakistan to expand our cooperation on counterterrorism challenges and
pursue a stable, peaceful, and prosperous region. In my conversations
with Pakistani leaders, I will underscore that confronting violent
extremism of all kinds is in Pakistan's own interests and in the
interest of regional stability.
Question. Last fall, the Palestinian Authority unilaterally sought
and gained nonmember observer state recognition in the United Nations
General Assembly. This action is in violation of the process for final
status negotiations established by the Oslo Accords.
What was the Obama administration's response thus far, and
will you do more?
Should the parties to the negotiating table, and if so,
what positive pressure can the United States place on them
toward that end?
Answer. The administration firmly opposed the Palestinians'
initiative to gain nonmember observer state recognition in the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The administration's entire senior
foreign policy team, working in close coordination with Israeli
counterparts, engaged with international partners at various levels to
galvanize support for an alternative path that would have averted a
vote and brought Palestinians and Israelis back to direct negotiations.
This effort built on the administration's success since 2011 in
blocking Palestinian attempts to seek full U.N. membership--a move that
requires a favorable recommendation from the U.N. Security Council.
Despite the administration's efforts to dissuade him and encourage him
to return to direct negotiations, Palestinian Authority (PA) President
Mahmoud Abbas would not waver from his publicly stated position that he
would approach the General Assembly.
Since the November 29 vote, the administration has sought, in
coordination with Israeli officials, to persuade the Palestinian
leadership to refrain from further action that could deepen the sense
of crisis, further damage U.S. interests in the U.N. and other bodies
as well as our relationship with the Palestinians, and set back
prospects for direct negotiations. The administration has made it clear
that we will continue to oppose firmly any and all unilateral actions
in international bodies or treaties that circumvent or prejudge the
very outcomes that can only be negotiated, including Palestinian
statehood. And the administration will continue to stand up to every
effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security.
The administration's commitment to resuming direct negotiations and
achieving a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on a
two-state solution remains unchanged. Israel's elections and upcoming
period of government formation, coupled with ongoing efforts to sustain
and deepen the cease-fire in Gaza, provide an opportunity for both the
Israelis and Palestinians to step back and consider how they can create
a context in the coming months that is conducive to resuming direct
talks. If confirmed, I intend to continue working intensively with the
parties to resolve issues between them, lay the ground for future
direct talks, and, simultaneously, bolster Palestinian Authority
efforts to maintain and strengthen robust institutions and a viable
economy--essential to a future Palestinian state that will be a
responsible neighbor and contribute to regional peace, security, and
stability.
Question. News reports indicate that, after several failed attempts
at reaching a diplomatic solution to ending Iran's production of highly
enriched uranium, the administration may be considering another round
of negotiations with Iran in the coming months.
Is the administration prepared to enter into another round
of ``P5+1'' negotiations with Iran?
What is the timing of these negotiations?
What would the administration deem to be a successful
outcome from these negotiations?
Answer. The P5+1 is ready to reinitiate talks and is in
consultations now with Iran on the timing and venue of the next
meeting. The United States and our P5+1 partners remain united in
efforts to seek a dual-track diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear
issue.
Iran knows the kinds of concrete steps the international community
is looking for to bring it back into full compliance with its
international obligations. Should Iran finally be ready to engage in
serious negotiations, the United States is ready. When Iran is prepared
to take verifiable confidence-building measures, the United States is
prepared to reciprocate.
Question. What consequences is the administration prepared to
implement should the Iranians fail to halt enrichment of uranium to 20
percent as a first step?
Answer. The President has stated unequivocally that the United
States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and there should
be no doubt that the United States will use all elements of American
power to achieve this objective.
The administration believes it is still possible for diplomatic and
economic efforts to prevent Iran from achieving its goal. But while the
diplomatic window is still open, the President has made clear that it
will not be open indefinitely, and all options remain on the table. If
confirmed, I will support this position.
Question. Were you surprised by the Assad regime's bloody crackdown
on its own people? Do you think the State Department was unprepared?
Answer. The State Department has documented gross human rights
violations committed by the Syrian regime for decades and has
continually sought an end to the regime's oppression. What stands out
since the beginning of Bashar al-Assad's crackdown on nonviolent
protests in March 2011 is not just the increasing depravity of the
regime as it struggles to cling to power, but the courage and
determination of the Syrian people to stand up to this brutality. The
Department was helping Syrian dissidents even before the start of the
uprising and we increased our assistance as the uprising spread. The
Department has consistently supported the Syrian people's aspirations
for a Syrian-led transition to a just, inclusive, unified and
democratic country by isolating the regime diplomatically and
financially, providing humanitarian assistance, and providing direct
nonlethal support to the civilian opposition.
Question. Last August, the President said that his ``redline'' for
triggering U.S. action in Syria would be ``a whole bunch of chemical
weapons moving around.'' In December, after news reports indicated that
the Assad regime began preparing chemical weapons for use,
administration officials indicated that it is the use of chemical
weapons that constitutes a ``redline'' for the United States, not the
preparation for the use of such weapons. In addition, a recent
statement by National Security Council spokesperson, Tommy Vietor,
appears to indicate that the administration's ``redline'' is now the
use of weapons or a ``failure to secure'' them. This apparent
inconsistency is troubling and confusing.
Please explain the administration's position on the
preparation for and use of chemical weapons by Syria.
Specifically, please describe the United States ``redlines''
and describe what actions the United States would take if they
are crossed.
Answer. The President has been very clear and consistent regarding
our redlines on chemical weapons (CW). If the regime were to use CW, or
fail to meet its obligations to secure them, the U.S. calculus would
change. There would be consequences and the regime will be held
accountable. We closely monitor Syria's proliferation-sensitive
materials and facilities, and we believe that Syria's chemical weapons
stockpile remains under Syrian Government control.
Question. As Secretary of State, how would you pursue the American-
Egyptian relationship to better serve U.S. interests in stabilizing the
country and preventing violent extremist organizations from operating
within Egyptian borders?
Answer. The stability of Egypt and the Egyptian authorities'
efforts to prevent extremists from operating from Egyptian soil has
been at the top of our engagement with the government. As great as our
interest is in a stable, secure Egypt that is free from extremism, no
one has a greater interest in achieving this stability and security
than Egyptians themselves. These are shared threats, and we are already
working together to meet them. The constructive Egyptian role in
securing the Gaza cease-fire, and in making that cease-fire hold since
November, reflects a realization of this shared threat. Egyptian
officials also recognize the need to reassert control over areas such
as the Sinai, and they have been working to address problems of
stability and extremist violence in Egypt through action against
terrorist networks, increased weapons interdiction, and plans for
better border protection. Through our direct engagement of President
Morsi and others and our ongoing contacts with the security
establishment, the Obama administration is focused on ways to advance
and assist with those efforts, including through our military
assistance. If confirmed, I would deepen and expand this engagement,
because continued progress on these issues will be essential to our
relationship with Egypt.
Question. In what ways could you use U.S. bilateral assistance and
the U.S. influence in multilateral development organizations and banks
to encourage Egypt to return to a constructive role in the Middle East
peace process?
Answer. As a regional leader, Egypt has long played an important
role in encouraging peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Morsi government has sought to restore a greater regional role for
Egypt, whose visibility on such issues had waned during and after the
revolution. Examples include President Morsi's outspoken stance against
the Assad regime's brutality in Syria and his work brokering the cease-
fire in Gaza.
Egypt is now at an important crossroads. Even as it continues to
address the difficult challenges at home, it has the potential to play
a constructive leadership role in supporting future peace efforts
between Israel and the Palestinians. If confirmed, I would encourage
and seek to nurture a constructive role through serious and ongoing
engagement and by maintaining political and security ties with Egypt
that are in Egypt's own interest, as well as America's and Israel's. I
believe that our sustained security assistance and the three decades of
relationship-building it has supported together create important
incentives toward constructive behavior.
An Egypt consumed by financial turmoil would in no way be the most
constructive advocate for Middle East peace. Moving forward with U.S.
economic assistance can contribute to avoiding a further financial
crisis and can enhance our engagement with the Egyptian leadership on
issues most important to us, including Egypt's relations with Israel
and a productive Egyptian effort to promote the peace process. We need
all available tools to help us navigate crises and engage in difficult
conversations in a tense region with pressing American interests on the
line. An economically driven destabilization could allow a greater
foothold for extremist voices and actors who are certain to attack the
peace process. If we assist Egypt in achieving a successful democratic
transition, we have a better chance of bringing the country to the
table as a constructive partner.
Question. How should Latin Americans view our ``Asia Pivot''? Is
there any way they could see anything other than a deemphasis in
priority toward the region?
Answer. Turning with our trade partners in the Americas to take
advantage of the opportunity for economic growth and job creation in
the broader Pacific region is not a deemphasis, but a strategic
approach that will serve all our citizens well in the global economy.
Our Western Hemisphere neighbors, who buy approximately 40 percent of
our exports globally, will remain critical to American competitiveness.
Our key regional partners have their own cross-Pacific historic and
economic ties and share our views on Asia-Pacific engagement. For
example, the recently formed Alliance of the Pacific (Chile, Colombia,
Mexico, and Peru) reflects the recognition by those nations of the
centrality and importance of Latin America's engagement with the
broader Asia-Pacific region. We find it noteworthy that a number of
other nations in the hemisphere have sought observer status in this
high-standard organization. Separately, we also work closely with
Mexico, Canada, Chile, and Peru in the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation forum on efforts to deepen regional economic integration
and promote collaboration on issues ranging from green growth to food
security.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the most significant and
advanced embodiment of this shared approach. This 21st century trade
agreement will bring together six of the most dynamic Asia-Pacific
economies with the most open economies in the Western Hemisphere--
Chile, Peru, Mexico, Canada, and the United States--to lower trade
barriers, raise standards, and address key nontariff barriers,
including the behavior of state-owned enterprises, labor and the
environment, and cross-cutting issues such as regulatory transparency.
Such high standards will reinforce the advantages the Americas have
built over the past 25 years of free trade and integration, and could
serve as a benchmark for future agreements.
Question. On December 28, President Obama signed into law the
Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act. It requires the
Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the threat Iran poses in
the Americas and to develop a strategy to counter Iranian influence.
Please provide your preliminary views regarding the nature of the
Iranian threat in the Americas and the appropriate steps the United
States should take to reduce the threat.
Answer. Iran is a State Sponsor of Terrorism. Its engagement in the
Western Hemisphere is a matter of concern and attention. Through its
embassies, the Department and our intelligence community colleagues
closely monitor Iran's relationship with the region and its activities.
This is an ongoing effort that requires constant vigilance, which I
will fully support, if confirmed.
The Department has put in place four specific, ongoing initiatives
to address Iran's presence in our hemisphere. First, the Department
conducts diplomatic engagement with hemispheric partners to ensure they
understand the nature of the Iranian Government and its activities in
foreign environments, as well as the quality and level of activity of
Iranians and Iranian-affiliated entities in the region. The goal of
this outreach is to develop and maintain strong coalitions within the
hemisphere of nations aware of and concerned about Iranian behavior. In
part due to these consultations, many countries in the hemisphere have
worked in multilateral fora to persuade Iran to address the
international community's concerns about its nuclear program, support
for terrorism, and human rights abuses.
Second, the Department works to ensure that partner nations have
the capacity to detect and address Iranian actions when they occur.
With the help and support of other U.S. Government agencies, we have
built extraordinarily strong citizen security partnerships with
counterparts in Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia, Canada, and
Mexico. The disruption of the plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador
to the United States is an example of this successful coordination.
Many elements of the United States Government worked together for
months to monitor this plot, obtain more information, and bring one of
the conspirators to justice.
Third, when appropriate, the Department uses the robust tools
provided by Congress to sanction or designate persons found to be
working with or helping Iran. In 2011 the Department announced
sanctions pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
and Divestment Act against the Venezuelan state-owned oil company
(PDVSA) for its $50 million in sales to Iran of a gasoline blending
component. The Department also renewed sanctions against the Venezuela
Military Industry Company under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Nonproliferation Act because of credible information that it
transferred or acquired equipment and technology listed on the
multilateral export control list from one of these countries.
Finally, the Department seeks the best and most current information
on Iranian presence and intentions in the hemisphere from the
intelligence community. Of central concern are the activities or
potential activities of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds
Force, Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and the Iranian-sponsored
and U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization Hezbollah.
I fully support the current strategy and engagement of the
administration on this issue and, if confirmed, I will continue to
ensure that these and other tools are used to ensure that we have the
clearest picture of Iranian activities in the region, and that we have
developed strong partnerships to confront them both diplomatically and
using statutory tools.
Question. On January 10, an ailing President Hugo Chavez missed his
own swearing-in for a new Presidential term. How might the U.S. policy
toward Venezuela change in a post-Chavez era?
Answer. In the event President Chavez were to die or become
permanently incapacitated, the Venezuelan Constitution and the Inter-
American Democratic Charter should define the way ahead for the
citizens of Venezuela with respect to governance of their nation.
Any political transition that takes place will be a product of
decisions and actions by the Venezuelan people and Venezuelan
institutions, and any new elections should be democratic,
constitutional, peaceful, and transparent, and must respect the
universal human rights of the Venezuelan people. If confirmed, I will
continue to support the strengthening of democratic institutions,
respect for freedom of expression, rule of law, and the protection of
human rights.
Regardless of President Chavez' fate, the United States retains its
close and durable ties with Venezuela, which derive from a web of
cultural, personal, and commercial connections. If confirmed, I will
retain the United States long-stated interest in developing a
productive and functional relationship with the Venezuelan Government
on issues of common interest, including, but not restricted to,
cooperation on counternarcotics, counterterrorism, commerce, and
energy.
Question. GAO reported in 2011 that the U.S. Government was working
with the Haitian Government, via the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission
(IHRC), to determine how to use and coordinate donor resources after
the 2010 earthquake. This commission has now ceased to function. What
steps would you take to promote coordination of the large influx of
U.S. and other donor assistance provided to Haiti since 2010?
Answer. The legislative mandate of the Interim Haiti Recovery
Commission (IHRC) lapsed in October 2011. In February 2012, a shared
commitment to Haitian-led planning resulted in an interim solution for
coordinating foreign assistance to Haiti: A working group on aid
coordination overseen by the Prime Minister, who also holds the
Minister of Planning and External Cooperation portfolio. The working
group included representatives from the G12, who represent Haiti's 12
largest bilateral and multilateral donors and who were all part of the
IHRC.
In September 2012, President Michel Martelly and Prime Minister
Laurent Lamothe announced a new, permanent mechanism for coordinating
foreign assistance that supports Haitian development priorities. The
announcement was well received by the international community. The new
entity, the Framework for the Coordination of External Development Aid
of Haiti (Cadre de Coordination de L'Aide Externe Au Development d'
Haiti, CAED), is implemented by the Ministry of Planning and External
Cooperation. Under Haitian Government leadership, CAED includes
representatives from key bilateral and multilateral donors as well as
civil society and conducts coordination meetings at the international,
national, and sectoral levels. Primary objectives of CAED include:
Increasing the institutional capacity of the Government of Haiti to
manage donor coordination; ensuring coherent, harmonized and
accountable support from international partners; aligning foreign
assistance with national development priorities; and promoting greater
transparency and reporting of foreign assistance uses in Haiti.
The CAED held its inaugural meeting in Port-au-Prince in November
2012 and is scheduled to meet again this February. The United States
has participated in the CAED at the highest levels and continues to be
deeply engaged with the Government of Haiti, and other international
donors, in coordinating assistance to Haiti. In addition, the U.S.
Government plans to provide technical assistance and other support to
the GOH in general, and CAED in particular, to help strengthen the
government's capacity to lead donor coordination, ensure program
coherence, promote transparency, and improve overall aid effectiveness
in Haiti.
Question. The United States has long played a leading role in
pursuing a resolution of the war between the north and south of Sudan,
culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 and the
successful conclusion of a referendum on the question of independence
for South Sudan in 2011. In order to achieve this relatively peaceful
division, the United States offered a series of improvements in its
relations with Sudan (Khartoum).
What is the current status of the understanding between the
United States and Sudan on ``normalization'' of relations?
Has Sudan achieved any of the required steps, and if so,
what has the United States provided in return?
What are the specific requirements for Sudan to be removed
from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and where does
this process now stand?
Answer. The U.S. Government is not proceeding with the process of
removing Sudan from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. In
November 2010 I helped deliver a message to the Government of Sudan
laying out the administration's roadmap for normalization of relations
between our two countries. While Sudan did allow South Sudan to gain
independence in July 2011--a key provision of the roadmap--Sudan did
not fulfill all the conditions necessary to begin the process for
normalization, especially regarding issues of the disputed Abyei
region, final border arrangements, and the Two Areas of Southern
Kordofan and Blue Nile States.
During their November 2011 trip to Khartoum, Deputy National
Security Advisor Denis McDonough and Special Envoy Princeton Lyman
expressed the United States deep concern over human rights and the
humanitarian situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. During that
trip, Ambassador Lyman and Mr. McDonough told the Government of Sudan
that the United States would initiate the process of rescinding Sudan's
designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism if Sudan met all the
criteria of the statute--including, (1) certification that the
Government of Sudan has not provided any support for international
terrorism during the preceding 6-month period, and (2) and that the
Government has provided assurances that it will not support acts of
international terrorism in the future--and complied with certain other
conditions, including taking concrete steps to end the crisis in
Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. In particular, McDonough and Lyman
stressed the need to end the continued bombing that is taking a
devastating toll on civilians, to permit international humanitarian
access to these Two Areas, and to resume negotiations with the Sudan
People's Liberation Movement-Northern Sector to find a political
solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, these issues remain unresolved
and the conflict and humanitarian crisis in the Two Areas continues.
The ongoing conflict and the Government of Sudan's refusal to allow
international humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations has
caused some 216,000 refugees to cross into Ethiopia and South Sudan
since 2011, and nearly 700,000 people to be internally displaced in the
Two Areas.
We also note that other issues of normalization, especially
sanctions, are tied by statute to the conflict in Darfur. While the
Government of Sudan signed a peace agreement in July 2011 with one of
the rebel groups in that area, very little has been done to implement
that agreement. The Department remains deeply concerned by the
situation in Darfur, particularly as the conflict continues with the
nonsignatory rebel groups and the civilian population continues to
experience attacks, extreme suffering, and displacement.
Question. The United States was the key interlocutor and appears to
be the primary donor to South Sudan as it attempts to establish itself
as a viable entity in the international order.
(a) What are the specific commitments that the United
States has made to the Republic of South Sudan? What additional
commitments have been made by other donors?
Answer (a). The United States was one of the ``midwives'' of the
creation of South Sudan in 2011. Through USAID, the State Department,
and other USG agencies, the United States has provided humanitarian and
development assistance throughout Sudan for many decades. This
assistance has provided critical technical and material assistance
that, in cooperation with southern Sudan and Sudan, made the
implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) possible.
U.S. support helped establish the institutions comprising the regional
(autonomous) government of southern Sudan, and to ensure that other key
CPA benchmarks were achieved, including the 2008 census, the 2009
national elections, popular consultations in Blue Nile and Southern
Kordofan, and the 2011 referendum for the self-determination of
southern Sudan.
Now, in the post-CPA period, the U.S. Government is committed to
helping South Sudan become a full-fledged, economically viable
democracy, at peace both internally and with its neighbor Sudan. In
support of these goals, and shortly after South Sudan's independence,
the United States and a host of international partners provided a very
public show of support to the development of the new independent nation
of South Sudan at the 2011 International Engagement Conference to
ensure that the new nation starts its journey on a prosperous path. The
U.S. Government modified its sanctions regime to facilitate South
Sudanese oil production, and promised to promote enhanced agricultural
growth to improve food and nutrition security in South Sudan's
agriculture sector, to expand the delivery of quality health care
services, and to encourage greater private sector investment in the
country. The United States ``Troika'' partners, the United Kingdom, and
Norway, pledged to work with the Government of the Republic of South
Sudan (RSS) to improve transparency in governance and in oil sector
revenue management, respectively. In addition, U.S. Government programs
continue to build accountability and strengthen systems of management
and governance. Humanitarian needs remain high, and the United States
and other donors remain engaged in delivering life-saving support to
South Sudanese in need.
Other donors such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and the European
Union, are similarly committed to these goals. If confirmed, I will
continue to coordinate closely with these and other donors, as well as
with the United Nations.
The current fiscal crisis in South Sudan has placed a greater
pressure on donor resources to mitigate the impacts of economic crisis
on the well-being of the average South Sudanese. To this end, the
administration is planning to convene a donors' meeting in early
February to discuss creative solutions to South Sudan's economic crisis
and to find new ways to increase involvement by, and coordination with,
nontraditional donors.
(b) What resources and what programs has the United States
identified for the development of South Sudan and for what
period of time?
Answer (b). With USAID and State assistance totaling more than $1.1
billion, South Sudan was the largest recipient of U.S. Government
assistance in sub-Saharan Africa during fiscal year 2012. This
assistance included a wide range of humanitarian, security sector, food
security, conflict mitigation, U.N. peacekeeping, democracy and
governance, health, education, and other development aid, and aims to
increase stability in South Sudan by targeting the following areas:
Conflict Mitigation and Prevention through the provision of
livelihoods activities, support to peace-building activities,
and preventing wildlife and natural resource poaching, which
also reduces the incidence of intertribal conflict;
Building of South Sudanese management capacity through the
provision of direct technical assistance to South Sudanese
leaders in key government ministries, such as the Ministry of
Finance and Ministry of Petroleum and Mining;
Food Security through the Feed the Future initiative, by
doubling agricultural productivity of 7,200 rural farmers
through the use of hybrid seeds and fertilizers, and training
130 small agricultural businesses in business development;
Economic Growth through the implementation of a
comprehensive agriculture strategy that has already more than
doubled productivity for 7,200 farmers through the introduction
of hybrid seeds and fertilizers; and the construction of 950 km
of paved roads (with another 350 km planned) in a country that
previously had no paved road;
Health Service Provision includes controlling and preventing
malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, polio, and neglected tropical
diseases, improving water supplies and hygiene, and basic
health services delivery;
Education Service Provision includes training education
managers and teachers, improving the safety of school
facilities, increasing community engagement, and encouraging
women's education;
Returnee Support including the provision of transport and
reintegration assistance to South Sudanese citizens returning
from Sudan;
Peacekeeping and Security Sector Reform including supporting
the U.N. mission in South Sudan, assisting the RSS in
developing a national security structure that mandates civilian
control and oversight of the military, removing explosive
remnants of war, providing training to military advisors and
security sector personnel, and reforming the defense and
criminal justice sectors;
Humanitarian Assistance including the provision of food aid
and health, nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene
interventions as well as refugee protection and assistance in
South Sudan and in neighboring countries; and
Governance and promotion of democracy including enhancing
political competition, encouraging free speech and media
independence, improving government responsiveness, and
encouraging inclusive and participatory development of a
national constitution.
Notably, the United States recently added South Sudan to the
countries eligible for trade benefits under the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA).
(c) Are there any expectations, formal or otherwise, that
have been set out for the Government of South Sudan in order to
continue to receive U.S. support?
Answer (c). The administration has articulated its expectations
that South Sudan eliminate the use and recruitment of child soldiers as
required by the Child Soldiers Prevention Act. The administration will
also not provide assistance to South Sudanese who do not meet Leahy
vetting standards.
The administration has not formally or informally set conditions
for continued support on other governance issues, but has very directly
articulated to the Government of South Sudan the United States grave
concerns regarding the deteriorating human rights and governance
situation in South Sudan. If confirmed, I will continue to make this a
key message in our interactions with South Sudanese leadership and
explore options to support and incentivize progress. In welcoming South
Sudan to AGOA this past December the administration highlighted its
concerns and outlined the improvements necessary if South Sudan hopes
to maintain its eligibility next year, such as making progress on an
inclusive constitutional process that addresses the human rights,
corruption, civil, political, and labor concerns.
Question. The excerpt that follows is a description from the State
Department Dashboard on Foreign Assistance: ``TSCTP was authorized in
March 2005 to prevent al-Qaeda and other violent extremist
organizations from building and sustaining safe havens in the Sahel and
the Maghreb. This includes disrupting efforts to recruit and train new
terrorists, particularly from the young and rural poor, and countering
efforts to establish safe havens for domestic and outside extremist
groups. TSCTP partner nations include Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad,
Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tunisia. TSCTP
key priorities in the Maghreb are twofold: to create an environment
inhospitable to terrorist and trafficking operations, and to address
youth vulnerability to violent extremism and recruitment by terrorist
networks.''
(a) What progress has been made in achieving the goals
described above?
Answer (a). Building counterterrorism capacity is an important
element of the United States broader strategy to support democratic
development and increased prosperity among the countries of the trans-
Sahara region. The Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) is
the United States primary program to support the long-term capabilities
of the countries in West and North Africa to address the Al Qaeda in
the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) threat. TSCTP, authorized in FY 2005, uses
multisectoral approach involving the State Department, USAID, and the
Department of Defense to address the terrorism threat in West Africa.
Many members of TSCTP are counted among the poorest countries in the
world and currently lack the capacity to effectively combat this threat
over the long term. However, they have demonstrated the critical
political will to fight terrorism and will continue to benefit from
U.S. assistance.
The USG counterterrorism approach in West Africa has focused on
encouraging and enabling local ownership over counterterrorism efforts
in the region and building sustainable capabilities that will
ultimately deny terrorists the ability to operate with impunity. From
the inception of the program, it was recognized that it would take many
years to significantly improve the abilities of most of the involved
countries to take full ownership over the defense of their vast
territories and porous borders areas, but it was essential to continue
to work with the countries to that ultimate objective. Another aspect
of this approach is prevention by empowering beneficiaries to resist
the drivers of extremism at the individual and community levels.
U.S. counterterrorism assistance has proven valuable in improving
the capacities of several key countries in the Sahel particularly Niger
and Mauritania. U.S. training and equipment have assisted Mauritania to
monitor its border with Mali and sustain professional units during
operations against AQIM. Similarly, the United States has supported
Niger's efforts to protect its borders and interdict terrorists
attempting transit through its territory. Smaller programs in other
West African countries have addressed specific needs identified by the
partner countries and U.S. experts. Several TSCTP programs have worked
to counter the pull of violent extremism on youth, including
educational and training courses in Algeria and Morocco in the Maghreb,
and extensive youth employment and outreach programs, community
development and media activities in Niger, Chad and Mali (currently
suspended). Internationally, the new-found focus and will on the CT
issues in the region will be useful in reducing the extremist safe
haven in northern Mali over the next few years.
The United States is also working through the Global
Counterterrorism Forum's (GCTF), including its Sahel and Criminal
Justice/Rule of Law Working Groups, to strengthen the civilian
capacities of countries in the region to prevent and respond to
terrorism within a rule of law framework and to increase international
partners' participation in capacity-building in this key region.
Notably, the United States is leading a multilateral, GCTF-affiliated
initiative to stand up in Tunisia the International Institute on
Justice and the Rule of Law, which will provide CT training to criminal
justice officials from across the Sahel and North Africa and assist
states in transitioning away from repression and toward the rule of law
as the basis for countering terrorism.
(b) What are the projected costs of the program for 2013
and what remains in the pipeline, unobligated from prior years?
Answer (b). The FY 2013 funding request for TSCTP is $120 million,
which includes funding from DOD, State, and USAID. Unobligated funds
remain under $5 million. Of that amount, there is approximately $1M in
FY 2012 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO) funds notified for TSCTP military capacity-building programs that
are still being obligated.
Question. In December 2012 the United Nations Security Council
passed a resolution authorizing a political and military strategy,
including the deployment of an African-led International Support
Mission in Mali (AFISMA). It also provides a framework to address the
restoration of democratic government, a negotiated solution to existing
political grievances, restoration of territorial integrity, and
responding to the humanitarian crisis. The State Department indicates
that it intends to ensure AFISMA is successful and that any offensive
operation in northern Mali is maximally effective, but the timeline it
preferred has been sharply compressed.
Answer. The United States supports United Nations Security Council
Resolution 2085 and its authorization of an African-led International
Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA). We continue to insist that such a
force be well-led, planned, and resourced in order to be successful.
Recognizing that the plan will continue to evolve based on the
situation on the ground, we continue to send planners from AFRICOM to
participate in AFISMA planning conferences to further refine and
strengthen the mission.
The United States believes that AFISMA is an important part of a
comprehensive strategy to resolve the political, security, and
humanitarian crises that plague Mali. If confirmed, I will continue to
insist on a policy that in parallel works toward the restoration of
democratic government through elections as soon as technically
feasible, the conclusion of a negotiated political agreement with
nonterrorist rebel groups, military action to dislodge terrorists from
northern Mali, and humanitarian aid to those displaced or otherwise
affected by the crisis.
Question. What are the current commitments by the United States to
AFISMA and what changes to those are being made?
Answer. The United States has committed to provide training,
equipment, logistics support, transport, and sustainment to the African
troops who will participate in the AFISMA mission. The United States is
providing this support on a voluntary bilateral basis to the AFISMA
troop contributors. U.S. Africa Command has also deployed planners to
assist AFISMA in strengthening the concept of operations for the
mission. In light of the French operation, the United States plans to
accelerate its support to AFISMA to allow the African troops to deploy
expeditiously.
Question. What is the United States role in AFISMA, if any?
Answer. The United States plans to provide training, equipment,
transport, logistics support, and sustainment to African-troops that
participate in AFISMA. The State Department has dispatched trainers
from the Africa Contingency Operations and Training Assistance (ACOTA)
program to Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Benin, Senegal, and
Ghana, to assist in accelerating predeployment training programs for
those troop contributors. U.S. Africa Command has also deployed
planners to assist AFISMA in strengthening the concept of operations
for the mission.
Question. Does the administration plan to meet France's request for
intelligence and logistical support in Mali? Please provide specifics.
Answer. The United States is sharing intelligence with France and
is providing logistics support in the form of air transport of troops
and equipment. The administration continues to review other requests
for logistics support.
Question. What are your plans to execute a systematic review of
diplomatic security around the globe in the wake of Benghazi, and how
will you reform the processes related to diplomatic security and
physical security of mission facilities?
Answer. Diplomacy, by nature, must be practiced in dangerous
places. The State Department takes significant measures every day to
protect personnel, their families, and U.S. interests overseas. The
Accountability Review Board (ARB) convened by Secretary Clinton
following the events in Benghazi made recommendations to improve the
Department's ability to protect U.S. personnel and facilities abroad.
Secretary Clinton accepted all 29 of the Board's recommendations and
the Department has already begun implementing them. If confirmed, I
will ensure that the Department's efforts to respond to the
recommendations of the ARB are vigorous, complete, and timely. I am
also committed to take actions above and beyond implementation of the
ARB findings and if confirmed would seek your help in obtaining the
funding necessary to do so. For example, I will continue to see that
the Department addresses the recommendations produced by the
Interagency Security Assessment Teams that Secretary Clinton sent to
review the security posture at high-threat posts.
The imperative of our reforms will be to ensure we strike the right
balance between security and engagement to protect American lives and
further our national interests.
Question. How many ``temporary facilities'' are currently in
operation under the leadership of the Department of State?
Answer. The Department of State has ``temporary facilities'' in
Goma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and El Fasher, Darfur
Sudan. Operations at these facilities are suspended at this time
because of civil unrest in both locations.
Question. What ``trip wires'' are in place to determine the quick
closure of diplomatic facilities in expeditionary environments?
Answer. Tripwires are events that activate, initiate, or set in
motion post plans to prevent harm to the post, its personnel, the U.S.
citizen community, or other U.S. national interests. In the course of
developing a post's Emergency Action Plan (EAP), the post's Emergency
Action Committee (EAC) must review the capabilities and limitations
that may impact post's ability to operate, communicate with the private
U.S. citizen community, and carry out post plans in response to a
crisis. The EAC also reviews the types of threats faced in the host
country, then develops tripwires. Given that a number of factors, such
as the host country's ability or willingness to respond to events, are
considered in developing tripwires, they vary from post to post.
Pursuant to the Accountability Review Board's recommendation,
tripwire guidance is being reviewed. In late December, the Department
instructed all posts to perform a review of tripwires and report if any
had been breached in the past year. Posts have informed the Department
of their results and their plans to update tripwires as necessary.
After a thorough review, revised guidance responding to posts'
tripwires will be issued via cable to all posts.
Question. According to GAO, State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security
has been understaffed and overtasked in recent years, jeopardizing
aspects of its mission. GAO reported as early as 2009 that the State
Department's responsibilities for conducting investigations had
particularly suffered from staffing shortages as Diplomatic Security
shifted personnel overseas. What are your plans as Secretary of State
to ensure the Bureau is adequately staffed to carry out the
investigations?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) is the security and
law enforcement arm of the State Department and has a broad scope of
global responsibilities, with protection of people, information, and
property as its top priority. Overseas, DS develops and implements
effective security programs to safeguard all personnel who work in
every U.S. diplomatic mission around the world. DS agents in the United
States protect the U.S. Secretary of State and scores of visiting
dignitaries each year. DS also investigates counterintelligence
matters, employee misconduct, and violations of the law involving U.S.
passports and visas. Over 1,100 special agents serving as Assistant
Regional Security Officer Investigators and in the DS Domestic
Operations directorate and support personnel located throughout the
United States and overseas investigate more than 8,000 passport and
visa fraud matters and related criminal violations each year.
I will review possible funding sources that can also be used to
expand the DS investigative work force. I will ensure that we continue
to strike the right staffing balance between DS domestic programs and
overseas programs to protect the national security of the United
States.
In addition to ensuring adequate staffing, I am committed to
pursuing, as I did in the Senate, the authorization of administrative
subpoena authority for DS. This authority would expedite and improve
the investigative process. Expedited access to these types of records
would help DS carry out its statutory responsibilities to provide
protection to individual protectees, support our counterintelligence
responsibilities, assist our investigations of unauthorized
disclosures, strengthen our investigations of visa and passport fraud,
and other criminal investigations related to our extraterritorial
authorities at U.S. missions abroad and protection of U.S. personnel,
facilities, and information.
Question. The Foreign Assistance Act has not been fully
reauthorized for almost 30 years, and the State Department authorities
have not been reauthorized for over 10 years. While the State
Department has conducted a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
(QDDR), the review does not provide a systematic evaluation of foreign
assistance and State Department diplomatic programs to measure what
works, eliminate duplication and waste, and reprioritize programs to
better align with broader U.S. objectives. Do you plan to continue the
QDDR process? If so, can I have your assurance that this process can be
coordinated with congressional review and possible reforms, including
those to foreign assistance?
Answer. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)
undertaken by the State Department and USAID under Secretary Clinton's
leadership has successfully identified ways the Department of State and
USAID can be more effective, efficient, and accountable. If confirmed,
I will continue to strive toward this goal by both implementing the
findings of the QDDR and regularly reviewing our programs to better
direct and coordinate our resources.
The Department and USAID undergo rigorous planning and assessment
of policy priorities, program goals, and the resources required to
achieve them when building annual budgets. In addition, both the
Department and USAID are implementing robust evaluation policies
developed using U.S. and international best practices. They are
committed to monitoring and evaluating ongoing programs to identify any
weaknesses or gaps or room for savings, and then adjusting when
necessary to ensure programs are meeting their objectives as
efficiently and effectively as possible. Building on the QDDR, the
Department and USAID also have undertaken a series of reforms to
improve development results and sustainability of U.S. foreign
assistance.
I place great value on congressional oversight of State and USAID
assistance programs, which helps ensure U.S. taxpayers' money is going
toward programs that meet our national security, foreign policy, and
development objectives.
Question. As a part of his Global Health Initiative, President
Obama has sought to increase country ownership and responsibility in
program implementation. Additionally, the President's budget has
increasingly focused global HIV/AIDS funding toward multilateral
implementation, particularly the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). Ultimately, full country
ownership of programs is the goal of any development program, and
``multilateralization'' of the burden of AIDS treatment is a necessary
step to ensure sustainability. These shifts, however, do present new
challenges in terms of outcomes and accountability for programs that
have specific, ambitious targets to achieve. While no outcome is ever
assured, USAID's and State Department's U.S.-based implementers and
grantees have established track records that can provide some
understanding of what we can expect to achieve toward those program
targets and assessing a reasonable understanding of risk to the
taxpayer. That is, although not always ideal, we by and large have a
good sense of what we're getting for the money. Additionally,
competitive tendering processes produce incentives for implementers to
provide the greatest value for the taxpayer. Some development experts
are concerned, however, that untested or less-developed institutions
in-country (non-U.S. implementers) cannot provide the same level of
understanding of risk and value, and that increased reliance on host-
country ministries reduces competition. Additionally, while the recent
institutional reforms and leadership changes at the Global Fund are
very encouraging, its programs vary greatly in terms of outcomes,
value-for-money, and accountability.
(a) What are the risks to our programs in this shift?
Answer. To meet the goal of sustainability and a successful
development agenda, the United States is emphasizing initiatives to
promote greater country ownership and shared responsibility with
partner governments, while lessening the risks to our programs. Twenty-
three of our high-investment PEPFAR countries will continue to need
strong donor investment and technical assistance to help them reach and
maintain the technical and financial capacity required to ensure HIV
epidemics are controlled.
If a dramatic and rapid shift to greater country ownership
progresses, and governments and civil society programs are no longer
overseen by U.S.-based implementers, without adequate technical and
program management preparation, the standard of prevention and
treatment may be at risk. In short, standards of quality of treatment
and prevention must be monitored and maintained even as we shift to
greater country ownership.
Additionally, with a shift to local partners and government
partners as direct program implementers, there may be a risk of delayed
program and audit reports unless capacity is developed and expectations
are clearly established. The Global Fund has had significant experience
with risk mitigation, particularly with managing financial
contributions made directly to foreign governments. Since 2010, the
Global Fund has undergone significant reform aimed at improving
fiduciary oversight and grant management.
The Global Fund complements our bilateral assistance programs for
HIV, TB, and malaria. The U.S. Government has provided leadership for
Global Fund reform efforts and is working closely with the Global Fund
to ensure that the transition to the new funding model is smooth and
gaps in program support and life-saving commodities are prevented.
Importantly, USAID is committed to increasing support for local
partners and/or direct funding of governments where these mechanisms
can enable us to accelerate achievement of our targets and impact.
USAID has processes in place to determine whether financial and
programmatic capacity requirements have been met to allow for
investment through these local mechanisms.
In addition, USAID mandates annual audits for all local national
organizations and host country governments which expend $300,000 or
more each fiscal year. The audit requirements are conducted in
accordance with the criteria established by the Office of the Inspector
General.
(b) What processes or mechanisms has the administration
created to assess the risk to taxpayers and to programmatic
objectives associated with these shifts?
Answer (b). PEPFAR and the Global Fund are both applying several
risk-mitigation principles including program and financial audits,
sharing of audit results, consistent and detailed grant application
processes requiring clear reporting on program outputs and outcomes,
and procurement and supply-chain management capacity development to
ensure the integrality of commodities procured with donor funds.
To minimize the risk, S/GAC has coordinated the development of a
``common language protocol'' based on the U.S. Government PEPFAR-
implementing agencies' terms and conditions and banking procedures
which will ensure a robust and consistent approach to audits and
reviews of procurement practices by government ministries. To ensure
our programmatic objectives are achieved, PEPFAR agencies conduct joint
supervision and monitoring exercises with government and civil society
implementers, to ensure the integrity of program outcomes continue to
be achieved. The information taken from these reviews allows us to
continue to provide quality reporting on the overall impact of the
PEPFAR program. The Global Fund, for its part, has a strong and
independent Office of the Inspector General as well as a robust network
of in-country auditors in the form of Local Fund Agents.
USAID's TB and malaria programs have systems in place to routinely
monitor programmatic implementation and assess activity financial
status. The President's Malaria Initiative (PMI) mitigates program risk
through our annual malaria operational planning process. In
collaboration with the national malaria control programs in the
countries where we work and with involvement from local and global
malaria stakeholders, PMI interagency teams develop malaria operational
plans that are technically and financially reviewed by the interagency
technical working group and endorsed by the PMI Interagency Advisory
Group.
Question. Ambassador Eric Goosby was recently appointed to be the
United States first diplomat specifically focusing on global health,
leading the Department of State's Office of Global Health Diplomacy in
addition to his established position as Global AIDS Coordinator.
(a) What is his specific role in terms of governance and
accountability of multiagency global health initiatives beyond
PEPFAR?
Answer (a). As the leader of the Office of Global Health Diplomacy
(S/GHD), Ambassador Goosby will guide diplomatic efforts to advance the
United States global health mission to improve and save lives and
foster sustainability--including providing diplomatic support in
implementing the Global Health Initiative's principles and goals.
Ambassador Leslie Rowe, a career diplomat, is responsible for the day-
to-day operations of S/GHD.
Governance and accountability of other multiagency global health
initiatives, such as the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), will not
change. Ambassadors Goosby and Rowe will be part of the leadership team
that help guide the Global Health Initiative along with other senior
leaders in CDC and USAID.
(b) Will he be responsible and accountable for governance
and outcomes of global health programs at USAID and at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?
Answer (b). No, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shaj and CDC Director Tom
Freiden will continue to be accountable for governance and outcomes of
global health programs at their Agencies.
(c) Has Ambassador Goosby been given any additional or new
authorities beyond those he has as Global AIDS Coordinator?
Answer (c). As head of the GHD office, Ambassador Goosby will work
with his colleagues to elevate progress towards achieving our global
health goals by carrying out three major functions.
First, the office will support ambassadors as they elevate global
health within the diplomatic arena. S/GHD will provide ambassadors with
guidance, technical advice, and tools to help them effectively work
with partner country officials on global health issues affecting their
people. S/GHD will work closely with other State Department elements,
notably the Regional Bureaus, the Bureau for International Organization
Affairs and the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs.
Second, S/GHD will work to strengthen the sustainability of health
systems by supporting partner countries as they move to country
ownership. S/GHD will work with Ambassadors to build political will in
countries to promote sustainable health systems without barriers to
care.
Third, S/GHD will promote shared responsibility. S/GHD will work to
support countries as they serve as conveners of donors and local
partners in-country. Stronger coordination and alignment will
strengthen overall investments in global health, bring more donors to
the table, and better leverage U.S. investments. On the global level,
S/GHD will convene various U.S. Government representatives to
international health organizations, such as the World Health
Organization, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, to ensure
U.S. investments in multilateral organizations are aligned in support
of our overarching global health goals.
Question. What will happen to U.S. global health programs,
especially PEPFAR and PMI, should the sequestration reductions go into
effect? Does the State Department and USAID have any plans to ensure
that life-saving daily treatment programs are not interrupted?
Answer. The sequester indiscriminately cuts all foreign assistance
accounts across-the-board, including global health. While we would
prioritize funds to the extent possible to continue critical, life-
saving interventions against infectious diseases and in other health
areas, sequestration could indeed impact our ability to meet our key
global health objectives in support of creating an AIDS-free generation
and ending preventable mother and child deaths.
Question. On September 30 of this year, the Tom Lantos and Henry J.
Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 is set to expire. Should this
law be reauthorized?
Answer. The State Department and USAI D will continue the dialogue
within the administration and the Congress regarding the
reauthorization of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States
Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act.
Question. Should Congress choose to pursue the reauthorization,
what level of funding would you recommend that the House Foreign
Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee establish
for the AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis programs?
Answer. If Congress chooses to pursue reauthorization of the Tom
Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/
AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, the
administration would have in-depth discussions with Congress as to
whether and what amount funding levels would be appropriate for its
reauthorization.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The U.S. Government, including the State Department, has
spent millions of dollars equipping and training Mali's forces over the
course of the last decade. Despite these efforts, the leader of the
March 2012 coup was someone who, in fact, received training from the
United States. The expansion of AQIM into Mali and the Islamist
insurrection there demonstrates the need to build capacity in the
region to counter terrorism.
How do we continue to build capacity and enhance
counterterrorism efforts in countries with weak governments and
where internal conflicts are working against our efforts?
How important are the issues of democratization and
development in the context of a comprehensive strategy to
combat terrorism in this region?
Answer. The U.S. counterterrorism approach in west and north Africa
has focused on encouraging and enabling local ownership over
counterterrorism efforts in the region and building sustainable
capabilities that will ultimately deny terrorists the ability to
operate with impunity. A core part of our approach is a comprehensive
strategy that focuses not only on strengthening the military,
intelligence, and civilian capabilities of our partners, but supporting
their efforts to address the political, economic, and social drivers of
violent extremism.
The Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) was developed
with this comprehensive approach in mind. It is aimed at increasing the
capabilities of the countries in west and north Africa over the long
term so they can address the evolving threat of Al Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb (AQIM) and related extremist groups. The TSCTP uses a
multisectoral approach involving the State Department, USAID, and the
Department of Defense to address the threat of terrorism in west and
north Africa. Many of the partner countries in TSCTP are among the
poorest countries in the world and currently lack the capacity to
effectively combat this threat over the long term. However, north and
west African nations have demonstrated critical political will to fight
terrorism and continue to benefit from U.S. assistance. At this time,
we are not providing any security-related foreign assistance to the
Malian Government or military, through TSCTP or otherwise, as a result
of the March 2012 coup d'etat.
U.S. counterterrorism assistance has proven valuable in improving
the capacities of several key countries in the Sahel. For example, U.S.
training and equipment helped Mauritania monitor its border with Mali
and sustain professional units during the operations that successfully
repelled attempted incursions by AQIM. Similarly, training and
equipment have supported Niger's efforts to protect its borders and
interdict terrorists attempting transiting its territory. Furthermore,
several TSCTP programs have worked to counter the pull of violent
extremism on youth, including educational and training courses in
Algeria and Morocco, extensive youth employment and outreach programs,
community development and media activities in Niger and Chad.
Activities in Mali are currently suspended.
The United States is also working multilaterally to advance a more
strategic, long-term approach to address the terrorist threats in the
region through the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), the Obama
administration's signature initiative aimed at strengthening
international cooperation and capacity-building efforts. The Forum's
Sahel and Criminal Justice/Rule of Law Working Groups are working to
strengthen the civilian capacities of countries in the region in order
to prevent and respond to terrorism within a rule of law framework and
are bringing together practitioners and policymakers to identify
priorities, devise solutions, and mobilize additional resources from
the donor community to help the region confront the terrorist threat it
is facing. In addition, and as a demonstration of its steadfast
commitment to promoting the rule of law as the most effective framework
for advancing counterterrorism objectives over the long term, the
United States is working with partners, including Tunisia, to support
the efforts of the International Institute on Justice and the Rule of
Law in Tunis, which will provide human rights-based CT training to
criminal justice officials from across the Sahel and north Africa and
assist states in transitioning away from repression and toward the rule
of law as the basis for countering terrorism. We hope to see this
Institute become operational by the end of 2013.
Question. Emphasizing Counter Terrorism Diplomacy: Following the
Obama administration's great success in removing al-Qaeda leaders from
the battlefield and degrading networks globally, the organization has
splintered, with small affiliated groups continuing operations around
the world. Recent events in Mali and Algeria are demonstrative of the
proliferation of extremist terrorist groups to Yemen, Libya, Mali, the
Horn of Africa, and elsewhere. While support from states such as Iran,
and affiliated groups such as Hezbollah, is important, these new groups
are relatively self-sustaining through kidnapping and other criminal
behavior. Many of the governments in these countries lack the
capabilities, resources, and expertise to handle this difficult
challenge. Going forward, it would appear that--more than ever--success
will result from global counterterrorism cooperation and coordination.
How do you as Secretary of State intend to heighten the
pressure on these terrorist groups through bilateral and
multilateral means, and is the funding available to the
Department of State and other agencies for nonlethal
counterterrorism activities--i.e., training, equipping,
advising--in other countries sufficient?
Answer. Al-Qaeda (AQ), its worldwide affiliates and adherents, and
other terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, continue to
threaten the United States and our allies. While we have reduced the
size of AQ's principal safe haven in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border
area, the global network of affiliates, groups, and individuals
inspired by the AQ ideology has expanded operations and now threatens
other regions such as in the Maghreb, Sahel, East Africa, and Arabian
Peninsula. Consistent with our National Counterterrorism Strategy, our
approach to address this challenge in the coming years will focus on
counterterrorism diplomacy--building the capacity of, and stronger
relationships with, foreign partners both bilaterally and
multilaterally.
Civilian-led counterterrorism engagement, which emphasizes our
commitment to addressing terrorism within a framework of democratic
governance and the rule of law, offers a cooperative approach to
working with partners--one that military action, while sometimes
necessary, can never fully achieve. And while the military and
intelligence communities have performed admirably over the past decade,
civilian agencies in the United States and in partner governments
around the world are not yet sufficiently enabled.
To this end, we have made progress over the past 4 years in
strengthening the civilian-side of our counterterrorism efforts. We
have placed the highest priority on two key strategic areas: (1)
capacity-building, which will allow countries around the world to do a
better job countering threats within their borders and geographic
regions, and (2) strengthening our work on countering violent
extremism--or CVE--to blunt the attraction of violence, reduce the
number of recruits to our enemies' cause, and ultimately address the
``upstream factors'' of radicalization. We have also reenergized our
diplomacy to strengthen the foreign partnerships vital to our success
in countering terrorism and have strengthened the international
counterterrorism architecture to ensure that we have a platform to
advance these priorities.
To continue building on gains made thus far, we must dramatically
bolster the role that civilian agencies and activities play in our
counterterrorism efforts. In many cases, our partners may have the
political will to handle this challenge, but lack the resources and
expertise to do so. We must provide a wide variety of civilian advice
and assistance, particularly focusing on countries transitioning from
emergency counterterrorism laws to a rule of law framework. We must
place a premium on the rule of law and civilian-led efforts that enable
foreign partners to combat terrorists themselves within the context of
democratic governance.
This effort includes strengthening the law enforcement and justice
sector capabilities agencies in partner nations, providing partners
with capabilities to protect their borders and identify and interdict
suspected terrorists attempting to transit ports of entry, and
delivering technical assistance to improve the ability of host
governments to investigate and interdict the flow of money to terrorist
groups. To this end, the Department provides assistance to judges,
investigators, and prosecutors with an emphasis on building a
comprehensive rule of law framework, to include training and advising.
We also help partners stem terrorist recruitment, provide positive
alternatives to at-risk youth, and counter the AQ narrative.
There is a critical role for diplomacy in the broader
counterterrorism effort. The United States needs a broad coalition of
foreign partners to remain effective in its counterterrorism efforts,
and the Department is leading that effort. In 2011, we established the
Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), thereby advancing the
administration goal of building an international architecture for
dealing with 21st century threats. The GCTF--comprised of 29 Member-
States and the European Union--brings together traditional Western
donors, Muslim-majority nations, and major powers from around the
globe. It offers counterterrorism policymakers and experts something
unique: a dedicated platform to identify urgent needs and strengthen
counterterrorism programming around the world. The GCTF has already
developed good practices in the areas of rule of law, combating
kidnapping for ransom, and prison deradicalization and disengagement
and mobilized more than $175 million from our partners for capacity-
building projects to advance the implementation of these and the two
broader GCTF strategic objectives: strengthening rule of law
institutions and countering violent extremism.
The Department also will continue to work through other
multilateral organizations to build the counterterrorism capacity and
cooperation with our foreign partners.
The United States will, of course, continue to use all the tools at
its disposal to protect itself and its allies from terrorism. And, as
we go forward, the Department will make every effort to continue
improving the essential elements of our counterterrorism diplomacy.
Question. The U.S. State Department chronicled the effort to
exterminate Armenians in the early 1900s--The Honorable Henry
Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey from 1913-16 wrote in July 16,
1915, telegram to the Secretary of State, ``Deportation of and excesses
against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of
eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in
progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.'' The U.S.
Consul in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson, reported to Ambassador Morgenthau on
June 5, 1915, ``It is without doubt a carefully planned scheme to
thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race.'' The U.S. Consul in Harput,
Leslie Davis, reported to Ambassador Morgenthau on July 24, 1915, ``It
has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a
race, but the methods used have been more cold-blooded and barbarous,
if not more effective, than I had at first supposed.'' Ambassador
Morgenthau was succeeded by the Hon. Abram I. Elkus, who served as
Ambassador from 1916-17. On October 17, 1916, Elkus telegrammed the
Secretary of State about the extreme measures sanctioned by the Turks,
stating ``In order to avoid opprobrium of the civilized world, which
the continuation of massacres [of the Armenians] would arouse, Turkish
officials have now adopted and are executing the unchecked policy of
extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and brutality of
treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.''
How does the Department refer to the events that occurred
during this time period?
Answer. The U.S. Government clearly acknowledges and mourns as
historical fact that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to
their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. These events
resulted in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, and the
United States recognizes that they remain a great source of pain for
the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent as they do for all of us
who share basic universal values. The President honors the victims
every April 24th on Remembrance Day, so that we never forget this dark
chapter in history.
Question. The State Department has concluded, wrongly I think, to
not recognize the Armenian genocide despite a replete historical
record. I think it is a grave mistake to not recognize atrocities,
historical facts for political reasons however compelling--I think it
sends the wrong message to perpetrators and obfuscates the ``never
again'' policy. As a Member of the Senate you supported legislation
recognizing the Armenian genocide and the deaths of 1.5 million
Armenians who were brutally massacred or marched to their deaths in the
waning days of the Ottoman Empire.
Will you share your views and record on this matter with
members of the Department and the administration?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, my duty would be to
represent the policies of the President and administration faithfully.
As the President has emphasized in his April 24 Remembrance Day
statements, the achievement of a full, frank, and just acknowledgement
of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all our interests. He also
has said that the best way to advance that goal is for the Armenian and
Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their
efforts to move forward. The United States is encouraging Turkey at the
highest levels to engage productively with Armenia on the normalization
protocols, to open the border, to reinstitute transportation,
communication, and utility links between the two countries, and to
reestablish diplomatic relations. If confirmed, I will continue to
strongly support all efforts to normalize bilateral relations between
Armenia and Turkey so that together, they can forge a relationship that
is peaceful, productive, and prosperous.
Question. As a matter of policy, the United States has been a
strong proponent for the normalization of relations between Armenia and
Turkey, and as such actively supported the Protocols between Armenia
and Turkey, which were signed in October 2009. The Protocols between
Armenia and Turkey provided a roadmap to normalization of relations.
However, despite its public commitments, Turkey not only failed to
ratify them, but also sought to add conditions not in the Protocols,
such as resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. This coupled with
Azerbaijan's counterproductive actions effectively derailed the
process. Instead of lifting its blockade, Turkey, in coordination with
Azerbaijan, continues to maintain its nearly 20-year long blockade
against Armenia. Secretary Clinton has praised Armenia for its approach
vis-a-vis normalization and has repeatedly stated that the ball is now
in Turkey's court. Lifting of the blockade is not only the right thing
to do; it is also long overdue.
Please outline the steps you will take to end Turkey's
blockade of Armenia and ensure that Turkey lives up to its
international commitments with respect to the Armenia-Turkey
Protocols.
Answer. The United States believes that full normalization of
relations between Turkey and Armenia is important not only for the
future of both countries, but for long-term stability and security in
the Caucasus. Normalization between Turkey and Armenia remains a
prominent feature of our dialogue with both countries. Secretary
Clinton and other senior officials consistently raise the protocols
with Turkish leaders at the highest levels, and if confirmed as
Secretary, I will ensure that the State Department continues to do so.
While ratification of the protocols is pending, the United States has
strongly encouraged the Government of Turkey to take other steps, such
as reestablishing diplomatic relations with Armenia, and opening the
border.
Question. In late November 2012, President Obama visited Burma and
made a historic speech at Rangoon University lauding Burma's nascent
reform but detailing remaining steps the government needs to take to
emerge from military autocratic rule. The day before the visit, Thein
Sein, the President of Burma, announced pledges on specific rights
issues. Two months after the President's trip, however, none of the
pledges made by Burma's Government have been meaningfully implemented.
The government of Burma pledged to release remaining political
prisoners and create, by the end of December, a political prisoners
review mechanism to review remaining cases in which persons claim to be
political prisoners, but they have not done so, and have passed their
own deadline.
The government pledged to facilitate humanitarian access to
conflict areas, but have largely failed to do so. The government said
they would work to allow the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to
set up offices in Burma, but talks between the U.N. and the government
have dragged out inconclusively, with Burmese officials now saying that
opening an OHCHR office is just a ``proposal.'' Last and most notably,
the Government of Burma pledged to promote peace settlements with
ethnic groups, but this month launched a military advance on Laiza, the
capital of Kachin State, in which they launched mortar attacks into the
city itself, in which several civilians were killed and injured.
As Secretary of State, will you continue the U.S.
Government's action for action policy for Burma?
Do you interpret ``action for action'' to include punitive
or negative actions by the U.S. Government in response to
problematic actions by the Government of Burma?
Can you describe in specific terms what new actions you
would advise as Secretary of State to respond to the Government
of Burma not implementing its pledges from November 2012?
Can you describe in specific terms the circumstances under
which, as Secretary of State, you would advise that sanctions
be reimposed?
Can you provide two or three examples of the type of
circumstances in which you would advise that sanctions be
reimposed?
Answer. Since President Thein Sein took office in April 2011, the
Government of Burma has made important political and economic reforms,
including outlawing forced labor, enacting laws promoting labor rights,
removing restrictions on free assembly, passing a new foreign
investment law, and allowing greater press freedom. The Burmese
Government has also achieved progress on core concerns of the
international community, including the release of over 500 political
prisoners, and has entered into preliminary cease-fire agreements with
10 out of 11 major armed ethnic groups. The National League for
Democracy was allowed to contest seats in parliamentary by-elections
last April, and party leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a former political
prisoner, is now a member of Parliament. The Government of Burma has
continued these reforms since President Obama's visit, including repeal
of a law that had curbed free speech and formation of an anticorruption
team headed by one of the country's two Vice Presidents.
As part of the United States engagement with Burma, the
administration has taken steps to match action with action, recognizing
the reforms taken to date and encouraging further reform. The guiding
principles of the action-for-action policy have been to support Burma's
reforms; promote national reconciliation, including a process that
reflects equity and fairness for Burma's ethnic minorities; build
government and civil society capacity; empower local communities and
civil society; and promote value-based standards for international
engagement. If confirmed, I will continue to promote these policies and
principles as the fundamentals of Burma's reform.
In response to the positive reforms made by Burma, as well as calls
by both reformist President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San
Suu Kyi, the United States eased sanctions on the export of financial
services and new investment by U.S. persons as well as the ban on the
import of most Burmese products. However, all sanctions authorities
were retained as an ``insurance policy'' to allow a resumption of
restrictions if there is significant backsliding on Burma's commitment
to reform.
The United States also maintains a Specially Designated Nationals
list, which includes individual and company designations of bad actors,
including those that engage in practices that violate human rights or
who seek to slow or hinder reform progress. This list is regularly
reviewed and updated and is another tool to ensure that those who
obstruct Burma's reform efforts do not benefit from Burma's renewed
economic engagement with the United States.
I am deeply concerned by the conflict in Kachin State, including
the conflict's humanitarian impact and its negative implications for
the broader process of national reconciliation. The United States has
called on all parties to end hostilities and begin a genuine dialogue
to achieve sustainable peace. Senior Department officials, including
Ambassador Derek Mitchell, have raised our concerns at the highest
levels of the Burmese Government.
President Obama's trip to Burma in November 2012 demonstrated the
United States support for Burma's political and economic reform
efforts. On the eve of President Obama's visit, Burmese President Thein
Sein announced his government's pledge to strengthen democratic
governance. In a November 18 statement, the Burmese Government
articulated its commitment to 11 specific issues, covering human
rights, political prisoners, ethnic reconciliation, nonproliferation,
good governance, and human trafficking. I am also encouraged that in
October 2012, Burma hosted the first-ever bilateral human rights
dialogue with the United States. Key agenda items included political
prisoners, legal reform, military reform, and conflict in ethnic areas
including Kachin and Rakhine states, and the ongoing use of landmines.
The United States Embassy in Rangoon has offered assistance to the
Burmese Government in fulfilling the government's pledges. If confirmed
as Secretary of State, I will continue to prioritize foreign assistance
that strengthens and deepens political and economic reforms.
Question. The United States has a longstanding mutual defense
treaty with the Philippines which recognizes that an armed attack in
the Pacific area would require both signatories to act to meet the
common danger. The United States has repeatedly reaffirmed its
commitment to the treaty, including on September 20, 2012, by Assistant
Secretary of State Kurt Campbell. However, there has been escalation in
the dispute between China and the Philippines over the Scarborough
Shoal this year, which has required Washington to clarify how the
United States obligations under the treaty relate to maritime
territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
What is your interpretation of our mutual understandings,
particularly in the event of a territorial conflict or crisis
between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea?
What would you communicate to China regarding potential
U.S. actions under the treaty in connection with Beijing's
dispute with Manila over the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly
Islands?
Answer. The treaty of mutual defense between the United States and
the Philippines is the cornerstone of our relationship and remains as
relevant today as it was when signed more than 60 years ago. However, I
believe it is important to continue the U.S. Government's longstanding
policy not to discuss hypothetical scenarios regarding the treaty's
application. If confirmed, I will affirm the abiding commitment of the
United States to the defense of the Philippines, as called for in the
mutual defense treaty. I will also continue to underscore that while
the United States does not take a position on competing sovereignty
claims over land features in the South China Sea, we oppose the threat
of force or coercion by any claimant to advance its claim.
Question. Curbing China's Aggressive Behavior in the SCS: On
January 1, China enacted a new border policy that authorizes Chinese
maritime border patrols to board, search, and expel foreign ships that
would enter what China considers its territorial waters. The
administration is currently seeking clarification on these new Chinese
border rules, and has characterized them as ``unclear as [to] their
extent and purpose.'' However, these new border rules appear to me to
be yet another manifestation of a deliberate and systematic effort by
China to assert its sovereignty in the South China Sea and to set a new
status quo at the expense of our allies in Southeast Asia.
In your opinion, how can the United States find the right
balance between maintaining our principled approach of
neutrality to the South China Sea territorial disputes while
also emphasizing the shared interests of the United States and
our Southeast Asian allies in adherence to international norms
that are threatened by China's increasingly aggressive
policies?
How will you orient our strategic priorities in these
respects?
Would you press China to diplomatically resolve its
disputes with other claimants through multilateral
negotiations?
Answer. I believe the United States has a national interest in the
maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law,
lawful unimpeded commerce, and freedom of navigation in the South China
Sea.
The United States has not taken a position on competing sovereignty
claims over land features in the South China Sea. Nations of the region
should work collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve the various
disputes without coercion, intimidation, threats, or the use of force.
In its discussions in the region, the administration has supported
efforts to decrease tensions and bring the concerned countries together
to resolve disagreements in accordance with international standards.
The United States should continue to urge all parties to clarify
and pursue their territorial and maritime claims in accordance with
international law, including the Law of the Sea Convention. The United
States should encourage all parties to use diplomatic and other
peaceful avenues for resolving their disagreements, including the use
of arbitration or other international legal mechanisms.
The United States should continue to strongly support efforts by
ASEAN and China to make meaningful progress toward finalizing a
comprehensive Code of Conduct to establish a framework and clear
procedures for addressing disagreements concerning behavior in the
South China Sea. The United States should continue to call on the
parties involved to accelerate progress toward concluding a Code of
Conduct.
U.S. treaty alliances, including those with the Philippines and
Thailand, are the cornerstone of our strategic position in the Asia-
Pacific and continue to both ensure regional stability and enhance our
regional leadership. In response to the developing security environment
in Asia, I would advocate continuing to modernize U.S. alliances to
provide the United States the flexibility to respond to a range of
traditional and nontraditional security challenges, if confirmed. The
United States should continue to engage and invest in the region's
developing multilateral architecture, such as the East Asia summit and
ASEAN Regional Forum, which can play a vital role in developing and
reinforcing rules and norms that provide stability and build trust in
the region as well as mobilize common action to confront shared
challenges.
If confirmed, I will build on the foundation laid thus far to work
closely with our allies, partners, and friends in the region, including
with ASEAN and with China, to encourage all sides to ease tensions
through effective negotiations leading to a lasting resolution of
territorial and maritime disputes.
Question. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of
1982 have contributed to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific
region for the past three decades.
With the military balance--including air superiority--
gradually shifting in China's favor, what are your plans to
implement the security commitment the United States has for
Taiwan under this framework?
As Taiwan is likely to retire some of its older fighter
aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you support the sale of
more advanced aircraft to Taiwan as a part of this security
commitment?
Answer. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the United
States one China policy, the United States continues to make available
to Taiwan the defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan
to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. This longstanding
policy contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the
Taiwan Strait.
The volume of these sales is substantial. The United States signed
defense-related contracts with Taiwan valued at $4.7 billion in 2012
alone and notified Congress of over $12 billion in total sales during
President Obama's first term.
Signed contracts include an extensive retrofit and modernization of
Taiwan's
F-16 fleet and the sale of Apache attack and Blackhawk transport
helicopters, Patriot PAC-3 Air and Missile Defense Batteries, P-3C long
range ocean surveillance and antisubmarine aircraft, Osprey-class
coastal mine hunters, as well as a variety of other systems, training,
upgrades and advanced weapons and equipment.
With respect to possible future sales of fighter aircraft to
Taiwan, or other defense equipment, if confirmed I will continue to
support U.S. policy to meet our commitments to Taiwan and assist Taiwan
to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. Doing so increases
stability both across the Taiwan Strait and within the region.
Question. In March 2010, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Shear said that ``the United
States is a strong, consistent supporter of Taiwan's meaningful
participation in international organizations.'' He also said that
``Taiwan should be able to participate in organizations where it cannot
be a member, such as the World Health Organization, the International
Civil Aviation Organization, and other important international bodies
whose activities have a direct impact on the people of Taiwan.''
What specific steps do you intend to take to secure such
meaningful participation for Taiwan in such organizations as
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. policy to support Taiwan
membership in international organizations where statehood is not a
requirement and encourage Taiwan's meaningful participation, as
appropriate, in organizations where its membership is not possible.
U.S. goals for supporting Taiwan's participation include: enabling
the people on Taiwan to comply with international regulations and
safety guidelines, addressing trans-border health issues, facilitating
international travel, giving and receiving appropriate international
assistance and advice, and assisting in regional capacity-building.
Taiwan participates in, observes, or cooperates with over 50
international organizations. Taiwan is a member of both the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the World Trade
Organization (WTO). It is an observer to the World Health Assembly.
Through a Taiwan nongovernmental organization, Taiwan also observes and
participates in the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
I support Taiwan's goal to cooperate with the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO). If confirmed, I will instruct the State
Department to continue to work with the international community to
promote Taiwan's meaningful participation in ICAO.
The State Department will also continue to instruct U.S. missions
to encourage the U.N., its agencies, and other international
organizations to increase Taiwan participation in technical or expert
meetings.
Question. The first Obama administration committed itself to a
``whole of government'' approach to human rights promotion in other
countries, leveraging interactions of all relevant agencies and
departments involved in bilateral discussions--but there is little
evidence that such a strategy has been developed or effected in our
broad relationship with China.
What steps would you take to achieve the whole-of-
government approach with respect to promoting human rights in
China?
Answer. The promotion of human rights remains at the forefront of
American diplomacy worldwide and the U.S. Government should speak with
one voice on our human rights concerns. The United States is committed
to promoting universal values, such as transparency, rule of law, human
rights, and good governance not only because it is the right thing to
do, but also because, human rights failings in countries around the
world, including China, have consequences for U.S. interests. All
branches of the U.S. Government should be involved in making the case
to China that the respect for rule of law, freedom of expression, a
robust civil society, recognition of internationally recognized core
labor standards, and respect for religious and cultural differences are
in its own best interest.
The Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
participates in the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED).
The integration of human rights into the S&ED over the past 2 years has
been an important step in the right direction, but more can be done. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that all U.S. agencies discuss human
rights with China and identify ways to deliver a coordinated message to
China that respect for universal human rights will help, not hinder,
its efforts to maintain economic growth and stability.
Question. Other than maintaining the bilateral human rights
dialogue, in what other ways do you think the United States can more
vigorously promote human rights in China? What actions can the United
States take besides those taken in the context of the human rights
dialogue?
Answer. The Human Rights Dialogue is an important opportunity to
discuss key human rights issues with Chinese officials and to raise
cases of specific political prisoners. In addition, we consistently and
directly raise with Chinese officials at all levels the issues that
they consider to be most ``sensitive,'' such as the case of Nobel
laureate Liu Xiaobo, religious freedom, or the deteriorating situation
in Tibet. We continually emphasize to them that improving human rights
will enable them to address the issues that they themselves have
identified as priorities for reform, including popular discontent due
to increasing air pollution and failure to implement food safety
protections.
For these reasons, the human rights dialogue is not, and should
not, be thought of as the sole, stand-alone vehicle for our human
rights policy and should instead be seen as one useful forum in a
broader context of engagement.
For instance, our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor participates in our Strategic and Economic Dialogue with
China because human rights underlie some of our most important long-
term strategic and economic opportunities and challenges in China.
Other senior officials from a number of Federal agencies travel to
China or receive Chinese counterparts here. Even if these officials are
discussing issue areas such as investment or the environment, they
unavoidably intersect with challenges related to rule of law and human
rights protection in China.
If confirmed, I will explore to what extent it is possible and
useful to increase programming in the areas of rule of law, civil
society, and public participation as well as broaden and
institutionalize dialogues that have a practical focus, such as the
Legal Experts Dialogue. I will also support increasing efforts to
advocate for human rights multilaterally, including through coordinated
action in the United Nations and with like-minded governments in
multilateral forums. Finally, engaging directly with the Chinese people
on issues of importance to them is critical, and we intend to continue
to step up our efforts through a variety of means, including social
media. We can do this by providing to the Chinese public otherwise
unavailable information and media reporting on issues of concern. We
must not forget that many Chinese citizens from all walks of life are
engaged in a dynamic discussion about the kind of society they want to
build together. We must pay attention to this important conversation;
we should learn from it and facilitate it.
Question. One of the key issues facing America's competitive
position is the theft of intellectual property, particularly in places
like China. This is a strategic economic issue that your predecessor at
the Department kept at the top of the economic agenda. The job losses
from IP theft are well documented, as is the integral role that IP
intensive industries play in the U.S. economy.
As Secretary of State, will you continue to ensure that IP
protection stays at the top of the economic agenda with China?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the protection of
intellectual property rights through robust laws and enforcement
remains a top priority of the State Department's engagement with China.
Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets must have adequate
safeguards in China to protect the ideas of American entrepreneurs and
the jobs of American workers. As the Commerce Department has reported,
IP-intensive industries support at least 40 million U.S. jobs and
contribute more than $5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product. If
confirmed, stronger intellectual property protections will continue to
be a key component of the State Department's broader goal to require
that China establish a level playing field for U.S. and other foreign
businesses.
China has taken positive actions in recent years with respect to
the protection and enforcement of IPR. China now receives more patent
applications than any country globally and, in the majority of IP cases
in China, both the plaintiffs and defendants are Chinese. However,
stronger enforcement mechanisms and efforts are still needed. Piracy
and counterfeiting levels in China remain unacceptably high, harming
U.S. and Chinese consumers and enterprises.
Protection of intellectual property matters greatly to American
businesses and consumers. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department continues to engage China at all levels, including through
the annual U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) and
the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), to improve the Chinese
intellectual property rights protection environment.
Question. Over the course of the last year, the Cuban regime has
been engaged in an increasingly brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy
activists on the island--more than 6,000 documented detentions and
arrests--in addition to hold an American citizen as a hostage for
trying to help the island's small Jewish community connect to the
Internet. Much has been made of purported reforms in Cuba, yet the
regime continues to detain and brutalize its own people.
This past Sunday, the Ladies in White, a pro-democracy organization
composed of the female relatives of current and former political
prisoners, attempted to attend Mass as a group. More than 35 of the
Ladies in White were intercepted, beaten with belts, threatened to
death by agents aiming guns at them and temporarily arrested.
Yordanis Alvares Puig, an activist of the Independent and
Democratic Cuba opposition group, has been taken into custody to begin
serving a 1-year prison sentence. His ``crime'' was hanging a banner in
his home that read: ``In Cuba, there is no justice.'' This was
prosecuted as an ``offense'' to the Castro brothers. Literally, that's
the ``law'' that was applied.
Also imprisoned are Sonia Garro, a Lady in White imprisoned since
the Pope's visit in March; Calixto Martinez Arias, an independent
journalist imprisoned since October for breaking the story on the
cholera epidemic in Cuba; and 34 activists from the Patriotic Union of
Cuba--the group that organized the acclaimed Varela Project--a campaign
to put political and economic constitutional reforms to a vote through
the initiative process. Their leader, Jose Daniel Ferrer, testified by
telephone before this committee last year.
As Secretary of State, will you support peaceful activists
in Cuba through public statements and full funding for U.S.
democracy programs?
Answer. The United States strongly supports the human rights of
Cuban citizens, including the rights to assemble peacefully and express
themselves freely without fear of harassment, detention, imprisonment,
or exile. If confirmed, I will continue this administration's practice
of speaking out against the Cuban Government's harassment and
imprisonment of peaceful critics, such as the Ladies in White, and
continue to support the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their
future. I will continue our diplomats' engagement with the
international community and all sectors of independent Cuban civil
society, and encourage efforts to focus attention on Cuba's poor human
rights record.
Purposeful travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba provides opportunities
for us to share our values and principles with the Cuban people. The
goal of this travel is to support civil society and the free flow of
information, fuel the emergence of a market economy, and promote the
Cuban people's independence from the Cuban Government in support of
their desire to freely determine their country's future. If confirmed,
I will continue to support U.S. policies and programs that advance
democratic values in Cuba, freedom of speech and freedom of the press,
a strong and independent civil society, and the promotion of human
rights.
Question. If confirmed, will you support a reunified Cyprus with a
single sovereignty, single international personality and single
citizenship; and with its independence and territorial integrity
safeguarded as described in the relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support the reunification
of Cyprus under a bizonal, bicommunal federation, which has been the
longstanding policy of the United States, consistent with United
Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Question. If confirmed, will you support the Republic of Cyprus's
sovereign right to explore for hydrocarbon reserves and other natural
resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)? What message will you
convey to Turkey's about Cyprus' right to declare its Exclusive
Economic Zone and to explore for hydrocarbon resources?
Answer. The United States recognizes Cyprus' right to an Exclusive
Economic Zone. If confirmed, I will continue to engage Turkey on this
matter. That said, this issue must ultimately be resolved through the
negotiation process, under U.N. auspices, to reunify the island as a
bizonal, bicommunal federation. Such a settlement will help to
strengthen regional stability as it would facilitate the normalization
of relations between Cyprus and Turkey. I do not believe that
developing offshore energy resources need hinder the reunification
talks. I continue to believe that, in the context of an overall
settlement, the island's resources should be equitably shared between
both communities.
Question. If confirmed, will you support efforts to reopen the
Halki Seminary so it may train future generations of Orthodox clergy?
Answer. The United States fully supports efforts to reopen Halki
Seminary, a vital institution of spiritual learning for Orthodox
Christians around the world. If confirmed, I will urge the Government
of Turkey at the highest levels to reopen the seminary as a symbol of
the government's commitment to fully ensure religious freedom for all
Turkey's citizens. The United States recognizes the ecumenical status
of the Patriarchate, which is a part of the rich tradition of religious
diversity in Turkey. The Turkish Government's return of property
surrounding the Seminary to the Church this month is a very positive
step, and if confirmed, I will continue to encourage all involved
parties to work cooperatively through legislative or political
roadblocks that are hindering the reopening of this important religious
institution on terms acceptable to all parties.
Question. Yesterday, Secretary Clinton testified before this
committee on the Benghazi ARB and embassy security. This will continue
to be a major focus of the Department under your leadership and
ultimately the majority of the 29 ARB recommendations will be
implemented under your leadership. One of the findings of the ARB was
that there were failures on both ends--at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli,
as well as with the Department here in Washington. The ARB found that
the Embassy ``did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with
Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi'' and
that in D.C. that ``there appeared to be very real confusion over who,
ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on
both policy and security considerations.''
What institutional, longlasting changes will you undertake
to improve communication at the Department to ensure that the
security of our embassies and the protection of our personnel
are given adequate consideration?
Will you personally oversee the implementation of the ARB
recommendations and task your senior leadership with making
this issue a continuing priority?
Answer. Secretary Clinton accepted all 29 recommendations from the
Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB). I understand the Department
has been working diligently on addressing these recommendations, with
some recommendations already completed and the others either well on
their way toward completion or with plans for implementation being
actively formulated.
As I noted during my confirmation hearing on January 24, if
confirmed I will personally oversee the implementation of the ARB
recommendations and will ensure that my senior leadership makes it a
top priority. I am also committed to take actions above and beyond
implementation of the ARB findings.
If confirmed, during my tenure as Secretary I will work to make
sure that the security of our embassies and the protection of our
personnel are given full consideration. With the ARB findings as a
guide, I will improve communication on security issues within the
Department.
Question. The World Bank has stated it wants to be a leader on
climate change. As one of the Nation's foremost leaders on climate how
can we best make that aspiration a reality?
One of your new responsibilities as Secretary of State will be to
take charge of the resubmitted permit request by TransCanada to
construct the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline across the U.S. border
from Canada.
Will that decision take into account the potential climate
related impacts from permitting the pipeline?
Answer. The World Bank plays an important role on climate issues by
offering technical advice on sound environmental practices, financing
commercially viable investments on clean and renewable energy and
energy conservation, and helping countries adapt to the impacts of
climate change. If confirmed, I will work with the World Bank to
continue its ongoing efforts in these areas.
Regarding the application for a Presidential permit for the
Keystone XL pipeline, there is a statutory process in place to review
the application that falls to the State Department and other Federal
agencies. Currently, the Department is developing a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act, and expects to release it in the near future.
The Department continues to conduct its required review of the
Presidential Permit application in a rigorous, transparent, and
efficient manner.
Question. You have long supported the notion that democracy
assistance is an investment, not a gift, and that, if made now, will
promote our own national security and global stability in the future.
As states across the Middle East work through difficult
transitions from authoritarianism to democracy, what
investments should the United States make to assist states
transitioning to full democracies?
And once the United States has committed to investing in
democracy promotion, often implemented through civil society
organizations, how do you intend to achieve this goal in
countries such as Egypt, the UAE, and Russia, which have
actively closed the offices of those very democracy promoting
civil society organizations funded by the U.S. taxpayer?
Answer. The United States holds a long tradition of engagement and
assistance in support of democracy, human rights, and good governance
overseas. We do so because it is consistent with our values and because
democracies partner with the United States to advance shared interests
around the world. Our efforts include engaging on the diplomatic front
as well as providing assistance to governments and to nongovernmental
partners, including civil society.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach. In supporting democratic
transitions across the Middle East and beyond, the United States must
employ a sophisticated and tailored strategy, taking into consideration
the specific context, needs, opportunities, and challenges posed in
each country. We should also take into consideration the tools at our
disposal, the areas in which we have a comparative advantage and
potential partners for our work. But at a time of transition and
turmoil across the Middle East and elsewhere, steadfast U.S. support
for democratic principles and practices has never been more important.
As you mention, several governments have sought to constrain civil
society, creating additional obstacles for U.S. democracy assistance.
In environments such as these, we must be creative in our approaches,
forthright in our support for civil society and universal rights, and
tailor our response to the specific country situation. If confirmed, I
would be happy to have State Department officials brief you further on
our approach to working in such environments.
Question. The United States has a longstanding and unwavering
relationship with Israel based on shared values and mutual interests.
The preservation of Israel's security and protecting Israel's absolute
and inherent right to defend itself has been an unshakable and
fundamental pillar of U.S. Middle East policy for decades, and this
commitment has been consistently upheld by this administration. The
events of this past November--in which over 1,456 rockets were
indiscriminately fired by terrorists from Hamas-controlled Gaza with
the purpose of terrorizing Israel's civilian population and in which a
Tel Aviv bus was bombed, wounding an additional 28 of Israel's
citizens--underscores the dangerous and persistent threats that Israel
continues to face and which no other democracy in the world endures.
As Secretary of State, what steps would you take to
reaffirm America's commitment to the preservation of the
security of the Jewish State, and to further build on the
existing foundation of this special relationship to ensure that
there is no daylight between the United States and Israel when
it comes to preserving Israel's security?
How would you work with the Egyptians to make sure that
Hamas complies with the cease-fire it agreed to with Israel in
November, which was brokered in part by Secretary Hillary
Clinton?
And how would you defend Israel in international forums--
including at the United Nations--when Israel is unfairly
targeted and condemned for taking the appropriate and necessary
steps to protect its citizens and security?
Answer. As President Obama has stated many times, and as the White
House confirmed as recently as January 23 of this year, the bond
between the United States and Israel is unshakeable. On July 27, 2012,
the President signed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security
Cooperation Act of 2012, which strengthens Israel's qualitative
military edge. The President secured $205 million in FY 2011 to help
produce Israel's Iron Dome system, which proved so effective against
Hamas rockets and in July 2012, President Obama provided an additional
$70 million. Over the next 3 years, the administration intends to
request additional Iron Dome funding. Israel is scheduled to receive
$3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing funding for FY 2013. The
United States and Israel are also in consultation every day, at every
level, on the full range of security issues that affect our two
countries.
The Gaza cease-fire, which Egypt helped broker in November 2012,
garnered public praise from Israeli leadership and continues to hold.
However, issues remain to be worked out between the two sides. The flow
of weapons into Gaza remains a serious concern, and Egypt has a
critical role in helping to stem this flow. If confirmed, I will build
on the work of this administration and continue to press the Egyptian
leadership to take action against weapons smuggling while offering the
fullest possible U.S. assistance in enhancing their capacity for
interdiction, such as through border security equipment and training.
Egyptian officials have shown that they understand the serious nature
of this threat, not only to Israel and others in the region, but also
to their own country's interests.
The United States devotes great attention to the treatment of
Israel in multilateral forums, including in the United Nations. If
confirmed, I will uphold this administration's policy of working to
normalize Israel's status, including vigorously opposing one-sided,
biased resolutions that risk hardening the positions of both parties. I
will also continue to ensure that Israel's legitimacy is beyond dispute
and its security is never in doubt, including at the monthly Security
Council sessions on the Middle East, as well as in ad-hoc gatherings,
such as during the 2012 Gaza conflict, when the United States strongly
condemned the rocket fire from Gaza, supported Israel's right to self-
defense in response to these rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and
helped secure recognition of the risk the conflict posed to both sides
in the Council's press statement.
Question. Preserving the 1979 Camp David Accords: The 1979 Camp
David Accords signed between Israel and Egypt and brokered by the
United States has been one of the signature accomplishments of U.S.
Middle East policy to date. The agreement has ensured peace and
stability on the Israel-Egypt border since its signing, and it has
advanced the mutual interests of all signatories. However, President
Mohammed Morsi of Egypt and his affiliates have alluded to amending the
treaty in order to allow Egypt to reassert full military control of the
Sinai.
As Secretary of State, will you convey to President Morsi
and his government in very clear terms that any action to amend
or abrogate the treaty, including putting it to a national
referendum, would require a response from the United States?
What actions would you be prepared to take if the Egyptian
Government were to move unilaterally to alter the treaty?
And as a followup, what further actions would you take to
ensure that, as the peace treaty holds, the demilitarized Sinai
region does not remain a hotbed for terrorists to launch
attacks against Israel?
Answer. Egyptian leaders, including President Morsi and the
country's military leadership, have repeatedly assured the United
States of Egypt's commitment to the Treaty of Peace with Israel. If
confirmed, I will take every opportunity to underscore with President
Morsi and other Egyptian officials that preserving that peace is vital
to Egypt, Israel, and the United States. This administration has made
it unmistakably clear, both in public and in private, that Egypt's
relationship with the United States depends on its keeping the peace
with Israel. This is a message I will continue to deliver. And while I
view it as a blunt instrument and last resort, with serious
consequences to our bilateral relationship and to the region, if the
United States sees major reversals in Egypt's democratic transition, or
changes in their foreign and military policy that threaten the
interests of the United States or its allies, the United States
maintains the ability to halt its assistance to Egypt.
Conditions in Sinai remain a serious concern and present an
internal terrorist threat to both the Egyptian Government and Egypt's
neighbors, as made clear in the August 5, 2012, attack that killed 16
Egyptian soldiers. If confirmed I will continue the work of this
administration to press for more attention to the terrorist threats in
that region--something to which I understand the Egyptian Government
has been responsive. I will also continue to press the Egyptian
leadership to take action against weapons smuggling while offering the
fullest possible U.S. assistance in enhancing their capacity for
interdiction, such as through border security equipment and training.
Egyptian officials have shown that they understand the serious nature
of this threat, not only to Israel and others in the region, but also
to their own country's interests.
Question. A negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict that ensures Israel's security and existence as a Jewish and
democratic state, and that honors and respects the national aspirations
and state sovereignty of the Palestinian people, continues to be a key
American interest in the region. The previous two administrations
invested heavily in resolving the conflict through tripartite
negotiations during their last years in office, but both came up short
of a final agreement. However, negotiations have not made any
significant progress in the past 4 years and it is said that the
Israelis and Palestinians have never been further apart since the
signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 than they are today.
Do you believe that there could be an opening, either now
or in the next 4 years, to restart meaningful negotiations
between the Israelis and Palestinians?
What preconditions, if any, do you believe must be met to restart
negotiations, and what resources, if any, would you be willing to
expend as Secretary of State in order to bring the parties back to the
table?
Answer. The administration's commitment to resuming direct
negotiations and achieving a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace
agreement based on a two-state solution remains unchanged. As I stated
during my confirmation hearing, I strongly believe that we must try to
find a way forward on resuming negotiations, without which the
possibility of a two-state solution could recede, which would be a
disastrous outcome for all involved. Israel's elections and upcoming
period of government formation, coupled with ongoing efforts to sustain
and deepen the cease-fire in Gaza, provide an opportunity for both the
Israelis and Palestinians to step back and consider how they and others
can create a context in the coming months that is conducive to resuming
direct talks. If confirmed as Secretary, I intend to work intensively
with both parties to resolve issues between them, lay the ground for
future direct talks, and bolster Palestinian Authority efforts to
maintain and strengthen robust institutions and a viable economy--which
will be essential to a future Palestinian state that is a responsible
neighbor that contributes to regional peace, security, and stability.
U.S. assistance to the Palestinian people is an essential part of this
effort and is aimed at ensuring that a capable Palestinian partner and
government, committed to peace and a two-state solution, is prepared to
assume the full functions of statehood as a consequence of a peace
agreement.
Question. Within the past 16 months, President of the Palestinian
Authority Mahmoud Abbas has twice bypassed the peace process and gone
to the United Nations to seek a bid for statehood. In November,
President Abbas addressed the U.N. General Assembly and won a vote to
gain ``non-member observer state'' status over the objections of both
Israel and the United States. The Palestinians now have the capacity to
apply for membership to United Nations agencies such as the World
Health Organization and, more significantly, the International Criminal
Court. Last month, Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Malki
threatened that the Palestinians will request membership to the
International Criminal Court in order to file charges against Israel.
As Secretary of State, what would you do to prevent further
provocative unilateral moves by the Palestinians in
international forums?
What steps would you be willing to take against the
Palestinians if the ICC were to adjudicate any matter proposed
or supported by the Palestinian Authority?
Answer. I am concerned that the Palestinian pursuit of membership
as a state in the U.N. and other bodies will drive the parties further
apart and risk hard-won progress in building Palestinian institutions.
There is simply no substitute for direct negotiations. If confirmed as
Secretary, I would continue to urge all parties to avoid any further
provocative actions that circumvent or prejudge outcomes that can only
be negotiated, including Palestinian statehood.
Since the November 29 vote, the administration has sought, in
coordination with Israeli officials, to persuade the Palestinian
leadership to refrain from further action that could deepen the sense
of crisis, further damage U.S. interests in the U.N. and other bodies
as well as our relationship with the Palestinians, and set back
prospects for direct negotiations. As Secretary of State, I will
continue the administration's policy of opposing firmly any and all
unilateral actions in international bodies or treaties that circumvent
or prejudge the very outcomes that can only be negotiated, including
Palestinian statehood. In addition, the United States will continue to
stand up to every effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine
its security.
Question. The United States has a longstanding treaty on mutual
cooperation and security with Japan which recognizes that an attack
against either party in territory under Japan's administration would
require both countries to act against the common danger. The United
States has repeatedly reaffirmed that the scope of this treaty includes
the Senkaku Islands, which have been administered by Japan since 1972.
However, tensions are currently escalating between Japan and China in
the East China Sea, and in December Japan sent eight F-15 fighter jets
after a small Chinese propeller plane that flew over the Senkaku
Islands.
What steps would you take to help reduce the risk of these
disputes from escalating into conflicts?
What will you communicate to both China and Japan regarding
potential U.S. actions under the treaty in connection with
their maritime territorial disputes in the East China Sea?
Answer. Northeast Asia is a key engine of the global economy. As
such, the United States, the region, and the world have an abiding
interest in peaceful relations between China and Japan. The escalation
of tensions is not in any party's interests.
The United States does not take a position on the question of
ultimate sovereignty over the islands, but calls on all sides to take
steps to prevent incidents and manage such disputes through peaceful
means. Diplomatic discussions to reduce tensions and manage this issue
should be continued. If confirmed, I would urge all parties to show
restraint and engage in meaningful dialogue in order to avoid
misunderstanding or miscalculation. The United States has been clear on
its longstanding policy on the Senkaku Islands, which have been under
the administration of Japan since the reversion of Okinawa in 1972.
Question. There is a great deal of reason to be concerned about the
state of press freedom in many areas of the world, and Latin America in
particular. Journalists and media owners in many countries in this
hemisphere face serious legal, administrative, and even physical
threats, generally in countries with democratically elected
governments. This has dire implications for the media's ability to
confidently and safely cover political developments in the region. In
recent years, many Latin American Governments have exploited ``soft''
or indirect censorship to chip away at freedom of expression. Using
legal, administrative, and financial pressures to influence media
coverage, governments in the region issue decrees criminalizing libels
laws or write new tax code to penalize critical media outlets.
The United States is already engaged in supporting and open
and independent media in this hemisphere and throughout the
world. As Secretary of State, what are some actions you are
considering to further stem the suppression of the press by
governments in Latin America and assist journalists whose
reporting place them at risk?
Are there interlocutors, such as the Organization of
American States (OAS), the Committee for the Protection of
Journalists, (CPJ), and national media groups in the region,
that we can bolster--and in some cases help reform--in order to
improve press freedom throughout this region and highlight the
critical role of the press in all democracies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to advocate publicly for
freedom of expression and the importance of free and independent media.
Press freedom is critical to vibrant democracies and ensuring
freedom of expression in the Western Hemisphere requires concerted
diplomatic and programmatic efforts. This includes working with
multilateral institutions such the Organization of American States
(OAS), nongovernmental organizations such as the Committee for the
Protection of Journalists (CPJ), associations such as the Inter
American Press Association (IAPA), and national and international media
groups.
If confirmed, I will maintain the wide range of activities and
programs that support media freedom both online and offline, public
access to information, journalistic professionalization, protection of
journalist's legal rights, and training to enhance journalist safety.
Under my leadership, the Department leverage multilateral
gatherings such as the annual OAS General Assembly and the U.N. General
Assembly, bilateral engagement opportunities, and the U.N.'s Universal
Periodic Review process to raise attention to media freedom and call
upon nations to adopt international standards on freedom of expression.
This will include advocating for legal reform to establish defamation
as a civil rather than a criminal offense.
The United States also consistently and publicly supports the
efforts of the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, who
plays an important role in investigating and publicizing abuses in the
hemisphere. If confirmed, I will continue to bolster that office to
maintain its independence and integrity.
Question. This administration has advanced the issue of LGBT rights
in many significant and meaningful ways. Secretary Clinton's repeated
declarations that ``gay rights are human rights and human rights are
gay rights'' set the framework for fundamental progress in achieving
equality for LGBT people. And then the December 6, 2011, Presidential
Memorandum on International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons set out to incorporate
advocacy and programming for LGBT people in U.S. human rights policy.
One of the first orders of business on that strategy is to address
the wave of legislation throughout Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin
America that criminalizes LGBT persons, and we are all familiar with
the events in Uganda in recent years, though that we see such
legislation on track in Malawi and Nigeria and other countries as well.
Last month 46 faith leaders made a bold statement that disapproval
of LGBT lifestyles should not lead to violence against LGBT people, and
that such attacks should not be tolerated. This is an important issue
and faith leaders are an important voice to engage in this goal.
LGBT rights have clearly been a priority for the President
and Secretary for the last 4 years. How do you see yourself
furthering these initiatives?
What influence do you think the United States can have in
combating criminalization of LGBT persons internationally and
how can the United States lead by example?
Answer. Over the past 4 years, the United States has made important
strides toward ensuring the equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) people both domestically and abroad. But there is
much work that remains.
American leadership on human rights makes America stronger. If
confirmed, I will be committed to advancing our leadership on human
rights, including on the human rights of LGBT persons. This includes
efforts to revise internal policies and procedures to further ensure
that the State Department and USAID treat LGBT employees and their
families with equity. I will also work closely with U.S. ambassadors
worldwide so that advancing the human rights of LGBT individuals
remains a central part of our human rights engagement. It is a notable
achievement that the advancement of the human rights of LGBT people has
become a standard part of our posts' engagement around the world. The
State Department, together with USAID, will continue to look for new
opportunities to collaborate with other Federal agencies operating
abroad in order to strengthen our implementation of President Obama's
2011 Memorandum on International Initiatives to Advance the Human
Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons.
The United States opposes discrimination against LGBT persons and
the State Department has worked closely with the White House and other
Federal agencies to leverage the tools of the United States to oppose
attempts to limit the human rights and fundamental freedoms of LGBT
individuals. I am conscious that we must calibrate our engagement
according to its context, but we have been, and will continue to be,
committed to bringing to bear our most effective tools to oppose
criminalization and discrimination against LGBT people around the
world. Local and national civil society groups at home and abroad are
critical allies in this effort and the State Department, through the
Global Equality Fund and other initiatives, including activities
managed by USAID, will continue to support their work, including
through training, funding and public engagement.
Leading by example at home is critical to exerting credible
leadership abroad. President Obama referred to seminal moments in our
journey ``toward a more perfect union'' in his second inaugural
address. Our own progress sets a powerful example for the world. The
significant steps the Obama administration has taken to ensure that the
human rights of LGBT people are a reality in the United States have
been and will continue to be among our most effective tools in
empowering our engagement to advance the human rights of LGBT people
abroad. President Obama and Secretary Clinton are rightly seen as
leaders committed to the promises of our own Declaration of
Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--including
that all a created free and equal in dignity and rights--and, if
confirmed, I will be honored to work tirelessly to continue to advance
U.S. leadership.
Question. With respect to the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, on October 18, 2010, Assistant Secretary of State Philip
Gordon stated, ``Macedonia will join [NATO] once the dispute over its
name is resolved'' in a speech at the Center for Transatlantic
Relations, Nitze School Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
University.
If confirmed will you support the position as articulated
by Assistant Secretary Gordon?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the decision taken at
the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest to invite Macedonia into NATO once
the dispute with Greece over Macedonia's name has been resolved. The
United States will continue to support the U.N. mediation process, and
we hope that the leaders of Macedonia and Greece will find a mutually
agreeable solution to the name dispute as soon as possible in the
interest of Euro-Atlantic integration, economic prosperity, peace, and
security in the region.
Question. Morocco is a close and important ally, especially in the
fight against terrorism, and your predecessor initiated a strategic
dialogue to continue senior-level dialogue on the broad range of issues
of vital mutual interest. The long-running dispute over the status of
Western Sahara is one of the most prominent of these issues, and after
decades of U.N.-sponsored negotiations, a definitive settlement has not
been reached. Morocco has proposed an autonomy framework under which
the affairs of the region would be managed by local authorities under
Moroccan sovereignty. This framework has been endorsed by your three
predecessors and strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses of the
U.S. Congress.
As Secretary of State, do you plan to continue the
strategic dialogue framework, and what are your plans for
ensuring that this process generates practical results for both
parties?
With regards to the Western Sahara dispute, do you intend
to develop a comprehensive plan--working with our allies and
the U.S. Congress--to pursue and advocate the urgent resolution
of this issue?
Answer. I remain committed to our strong bilateral relationship
with Morocco, and to working with Morocco on issues of mutual concern.
The State Department is committed to continuing the strategic dialogue
discussion that we began with Morocco in 2012. On the Western Sahara, I
support ongoing negotiations in the United Nations, which are led by
Ambassador Christopher Ross, the Secretary General's Personal Envoy. As
my predecessors have done, if confirmed I will urge the parties to the
Western Sahara dispute to work toward a just, lasting, and mutually
acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-
determination of the people of Western Sahara in the context of
arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter
of the United Nations.
Question. While world powers were largely aligned in condemning
North Korea's provocative and irresponsible launch in December of a
two-stage ballistic rocket, that does not change the fact that it was a
further step by North Korea toward achieving the capability to deliver
nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles. Although the launch appears to
be a clear setback for resumption of the six-party nuclear arms control
talks, it appeared the outlook for such talks resuming was dismal to
begin with.
The United States faces fundamental decisions on how to
approach North Korea. As Secretary of State, to what degree do
you believe the administration and our six-party talks partners
should try to further isolate the regime diplomatically and
financially?
Should those efforts be balanced with engagement
initiatives that continue to push for steps toward
denuclearization, or for better human rights behavior?
Is China a reliable partner in efforts to pressure
Pyongyang given its own interest in the territory?
Answer. The United States and the Five-Party countries should
continue to urge the leadership in Pyongyang to choose the path toward
peace and prosperity; staying on its current path will only lead the
North Korea deeper into isolation. The United States should continue to
pursue its dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to sharpen the
DPRK's choices.
Additionally, the United States should continue to urge Pyongyang
to address its deplorable human rights conditions and improve the
plight of its people.
China has played an important role as chair of the six-party talks,
and the United States should continue to encourage China to more
effectively leverage its unique relationship with the DPRK to achieve
our common goal of denuclearization.
Question. The OAS is the preeminent hemispheric organization on
issues of promotion of democracy and human rights, the rule of law,
economic development, and its increasingly important contribution to
hemispheric security efforts. The United States provides over 50
percent support of the OAS' regular budget, and the U.S. Congress
appropriated an additional $8 million in FY 2012 in voluntary
contributions to support key OAS programs and initiatives, including $2
million to support the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
However, the OAS is facing serious financial and administrative
challenges that threaten its ability to carry out its core mandates. It
is critical that we preserve the integrity of this institution, to
allow it to continue its broad mandate of helping citizens of Latin
American and Caribbean countries lift themselves and their societies
out of poverty, away from extremism, and toward sustainable
development.
As we both stated in our joint letter last November to the Chairman
of the OAS Permanent Council, as champions of the OAS we want it to
remain an influential, positive force in the hemisphere, and we called
on the OAS Permanent Council and the OAS executive leadership to take
the actions necessary to revitalize the Organization.
As Secretary, how will you marshal support among the other
OAS member nations to ensure the necessary financial and
management reforms are enacted that put the Organization on a
more stable trajectory?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary, I would lead the Department of
State's advocacy for financial and managerial reforms at all levels of
the organization. The U.S. Permanent Mission to the OAS (USOAS) plays a
leadership role in developing consensus among Member States to impose
greater transparency in OAS budgetary processes, restrict the number
people serving in ``positions of trust'' at the Secretary General's
discretion, and require performance-based metrics in the management of
OAS programs. USOAS is heavily involved in an ongoing exercise to
prioritize the many OAS mandates. Secretary General Insulza recently
published a new strategic vision, partly in response to our joint
letter of November 2012. The document contains some helpful elements
that USOAS is using to keep the question of OAS reform firmly on the
agenda. Ambassador Lomellin has already announced that USOAS will place
OAS reform on the agenda of the Permanent Council. If confirmed, I will
engage my counterparts directly, in public and in private, to
accelerate the significant reform efforts already underway.
Question. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has played
a critical role over the last decades in supporting greater
democratization, respect for human rights, and spread of transparent
and effective governance throughout the hemisphere. The United States
longstanding financial support for the Inter-American human rights
system (IAHRS) is evidence of the importance we place on this system
and its collective work to promote and protect human rights and examine
allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. There are
some concerns that the ongoing initiative to ``reform'' and
``strengthen'' the IAHRS could actually have the opposite result of
limiting weakening the OAS human rights mandate and limiting the
jurisdiction of the commission and human rights court.
If confirmed, what actions would you take as Secretary of
State to ensure that the Inter-American human rights system is
preserved, truly strengthened, and funded adequately to fulfill
its ambitious and exceptionally important hemispheric mandate?
Answer. The defense and promotion of human rights is the foundation
of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Inter-American Human
Rights System (IAHRS), including the court and the commission, is an
important mechanism for promoting human rights in all countries of the
hemisphere, including the United States. If confirmed, I will ensure
the United States remains steadfast in our support for the IAHRS and
continues our efforts to engage more actively with the commission on
human rights issues in our own country. We will continue to push for
reforms that will maintain the integrity and independence of the Inter-
American Human Rights Commission and its Special Rapporteurs, and
resist any efforts to undermine the commission or the work of its
rapporteurs. We are in the process of selecting the strongest possible
U.S. candidate to serve on the commission. The OAS is facing a critical
budget crisis. I am committed to working with member states and
permanent observers to ensure the human rights organs of the OAS are
adequately funded.
Question. Pakistan has become the real key to addressing American
counterterrorism concerns in the region and we have provided billions
of dollars in assistance to the government in exchange for what seems
to be limited or sporadic cooperation. It is difficult to measure
exactly what we are accomplishing with the substantial U.S. security
and civilian programs. It is also unclear whether the administration is
able to spend effectively the resources allocated to Pakistan.
Given your experience working with Pakistan, how will you
as Secretary of State ensure we achieve better and more
measurable outcomes for American support via the Enhanced
Partnership with Pakistan Act and DOD Coalition Support Funds,
in terms of countering terrorism and violent extremism,
preventing nuclear proliferation, and supporting stability in
Afghanistan?
Answer. Our relationship with Pakistan is complex, and at times,
difficult. Despite the challenges, both the United States and Pakistan
recognize that it is in our strategic interests to continue a
meaningful and productive relationship.
Undoubtedly, Pakistan has an important role to play in the Afghan
peace process and regional stability. Pakistan is a key ally in the
shared fight against the terrorists that threaten both of our countries
and we continue to press Pakistani officials to take action against any
and all terrorist groups operating in Pakistan, including al-Qaeda, the
Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and other groups that threaten U.S.,
Pakistani, and Afghan citizens alike and collectively pose a threat to
regional stability.
Through our mutual efforts with Pakistan, we have been able to
substantially weaken al-Qaeda's leadership and operational
capabilities. Pakistan has also supported the listing of the Haqqani
Network under the UNSCR 1988 (Taliban sanctions) regime. Of course, we
continue to press Pakistan to take additional steps to dismantle
terrorist groups, no matter whom they target or where they strike. We
will continue to work with Pakistan to eliminate the threats in the
border areas, to take steps to counter the proliferation of improvised
explosive devices, and to make both of our nations and the region more
secure. In this vein, Pakistan participated in a bilateral dialogue
aimed at improving law enforcement cooperation and countering IEDs.
On nonproliferation and nuclear issues, Pakistan has shown it can
be constructive by continuing its participation in the Global
Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Nuclear Security summit
and we continue to engage Pakistan bilaterally on these issues. Most
recently, we held a Strategic, Stability and Non-Proliferation dialogue
in Islamabad on December 10, 2012.
Continued civilian and security assistance are important parts of
our policy of engagement. Sustained assistance in these areas is a
long-term investment in a more stable, prosperous, tolerant, and
democratic Pakistan.
There is clearly room for improvement, but we are making measurable
progress in sectors most important to Pakistan's stability: energy,
economic growth, education, health and stabilization of the border
areas. For example, on energy, since October 2009 U.S. assistance has
added 400 MW to Pakistan's electricity grid, benefiting over 6.8
million people. U.S. funded-projects will add a total of 900 MW, or
almost half the installed capacity of the Hoover Dam, by end of 2013.
Our stabilization initiatives aim to make communities in conflict and
post-conflict regions inhospitable to insurgents and more supportive of
government authorities, supporting our goal of national and regional
security. USAID and INL have funded the construction of over 750 km of
roads in FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP), increasing commercial
activity and stability.
In this same vein, our security assistance programs focus on
strengthening Pakistan's capabilities in counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency, and on promoting closer security ties with the
United States. Over the past few years, we have taken a closer look at
our programs to ensure the level and type of assistance is commensurate
with Pakistan's cooperation on our mutual interests. After a difficult
few years, our mil-to-mil relationship is now on stronger footing and
we are moving forward with a more realistic and narrowly focused
program to promote joint action on areas of mutual interest.
If confirmed, I will look to expand our cooperation with Pakistan
on our mutual goals to pursue a stable, peaceful, and prosperous
region. In my conversations with Pakistani leaders, I will stress the
need for measurable progress on our shared interests.
Question. The general lack of respect for the rights of religious
minorities and women in Pakistan is of grave concern, and there are
numerous examples in just the last few months of the extent of the
problem. As an ally of Pakistan making a significant investment in its
democratic and economic development, it must be a priority for the
United States to support efforts to improve protection for minority
rights in Pakistan and counter the voices and actions of often violent
extremists.
While this is a long-term process, how do you as Secretary
of State intend to leverage our relationship to address the
issue of human rights and treatment of religious minorities?
Answer. The human rights situation in Pakistan, in particular the
treatment of religious minorities and women, as well as abuses
committed by militants, terrorists, and extremist groups, continues to
be a cause for concern. In recent years we have witnessed troubling
events, such as the killings of religious freedom advocates such as
Federal Minister Shahbaz Bhatti and Governor Salmaan Taseer, and the
attack on Malala Yousafzai, the young girl shot by the Taliban for
campaigning for girls' education.
Human rights issues are, and must remain, a core aspect of our
bilateral engagement with Pakistan, and we take all allegations of
human rights abuses very seriously. U.S. officials have discussed
allegations of human rights abuses with Pakistani officials and
continue to monitor Pakistan's human rights record closely. The annual
Human Rights and Religious Freedom Reports address this record every
year in a forthright and objective manner.
Under Secretary Clinton's leadership, the State Department has
pressed the Pakistani Government to promptly investigate and hold
accountable those who are responsible for violations of human rights.
If confirmed, I plan to continue those efforts. We must continue to
urge Pakistan to uphold the Pakistani Constitution and comply with its
international obligations.
Later this year, we look forward to timely, free, fair, and
transparent elections that we hope will result in the first civilian
democratic transition in Pakistan's history. If confirmed, I will
continue the administration's efforts to provide support to Pakistan to
strengthen the rule of law, to better enable its institutions, to hold
perpetrators of such inhumane acts accountable, and to provide justice
to victims of human rights violations and abuses. We must also continue
to foster peace and interfaith dialogue in an effort to engage both the
government and civil society to promote religious tolerance and end
sectarian violence.
If confirmed, I will work with PakistaniGgovernment officials and
civil society organizations to bolster and strengthen the country's
democratic processes and institutions, and to continue my predecessor's
commitment to advocating on behalf of the human rights and religious
freedom of all persons in Pakistan. I will also continue to enhance our
engagement with all sectors of society to counter extremism and
encourage increased collaboration to promote tolerance and respect for
the rights of all citizens including women, and religious, and ethnic
minorities.
Question. Poland is the only European Union Schengen Zone country--
which allows Visa free travel within the EU--that is not a member of
the United States Visa Waiver Program. During the last Congress,
President Obama supported the bipartisan and bicameral legislation
calling for the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program to include Poland.
President Obama also reportedly assured Polish President Bronislaw
Komorowski that the administration would resolve this issue during his
Presidency.
If confirmed, will you put your support behind expanding
the Visa Waiver Program to include Poland, working with the
Congress and other agencies, as well as the White House, to set
the path for Poland to join the program and fulfill President
Obama's commitment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the administration's position
that Poland be included in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).
In December 2010, the President committed to working toward
Poland's inclusion in the VWP and in May 2011 publicly supported
proposed legislation introduced in the House and in the Senate to
expand the criteria for VWP designation. At the request of Congress,
the administration submitted letters on May 18, 2012, confirming that
it fully endorses proposed VWP expansion legislation. If confirmed, I
likewise commit to putting my support behind VWP expansion to include
Poland. I will work with Congress to advocate passage of VWP expansion
legislation, and with the White House and interagency to advance the
path for fulfillment of President Obama's commitment to bring Poland
into the program.
Question. Over the past 2 years, we have witnessed an unprecedented
number of humanitarian crises and complex emergencies in different
parts of the world, including in Syria, the Horn of Africa, the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali, and many other countries
resulting in large flows of refugees into neighboring countries. The
United States has long been a leader on refugee protection through the
aid we provide in times of conflict, the funding support we provide to
the U.N. Refugee Agency and other humanitarian agencies, as well as
through our resettlement program. However, this places tremendous
pressure on the International Affairs Budget during a time of declining
resources.
As Secretary of State, what steps would you take to further
strengthen our leadership in helping provide protection to
people fleeing humanitarian crises, including rapid
resettlement of those still at risk despite having left their
country of origin?
How will the United States respond to the needs of people
affected by conflicts and natural disasters, fulfilling its
traditional leadership role in these types of operations around
the globe, as resources become increasingly constrained?
Answer. If confirmed, I would further strengthen U.S. leadership in
providing protection and assistance to the world's most vulnerable
populations by marshalling the Department's diplomatic resources to:
broker solutions that allow refugees and internally displaced persons
(IDPs) to return voluntarily safely and with dignity; enlist support
from other governments to contribute to solutions as political
stakeholders, humanitarian donors, or resettlement countries; and
ensure that the international architecture to respond to humanitarian
emergencies is nimble, efficient and accountable.
More than 6.8 million refugees and IDPs returned home during 2010-
2011 thanks in part to the Department's diplomatic efforts to end
conflicts and achieve durable solutions for those who had fled. For
example, the Department's ongoing diplomatic efforts are helping to
achieve solutions for nearly 74,000 refugees and IDPs in the Balkans by
committing international donors and host countries to a regional
housing program.
Similarly, U.S. diplomats working with the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees and other countries have established Emergency Transit
Centers in Romania, Slovakia, and the Philippines in order to provide
more immediate protection to refugees by moving them from insecure or
otherwise challenging circumstances while being processed for third-
country resettlement. At these centers refugees can be screened and
interviewed for resettlement in a protected environment. In both of
these examples, robust and innovative diplomacy has demonstrated U.S.
humanitarian leadership with modest financial costs. If confirmed, I
would endeavor to expand this type of leadership to address the myriad
humanitarian challenges we face today and in the future.
Question. The Russian Government has approved a series of laws that
have suppressed civil society and basic liberties in Russia since March
of this year when President Vladimir Putin was reelected to his third
term. These laws include an increase in the fines for unapproved
demonstrations, a requirement that NGOs that receive assistance from
foreign governments must register as ``foreign agents'' and the
expansion of the definition of treason to include ``providing
consulting or other work to a foreign state or international
organization'' that is deemed at a later date to be working against
Russian security interests. The Russian Government also expelled USAID
from the country in September.
As Secretary of State, would you find creative ways to
support Russian NGOs, democratization and human rights groups,
and signal to President Putin that these authoritarian measures
are counterproductive to advancing our mutual interests with
Russia?
How would you leverage the diplomatic tools that would be
made available to you, such as public diplomacy and the Working
Group on Civil Society of the U.S.-Russian Bilateral
Presidential Commission, to support these ends?
Answer. The United States continues to have differences with
Russia's leadership about human rights and growing restrictions on
civil society. If confirmed, I will regularly and directly raise these
concerns with Russian Government counterparts. I am committed to having
an honest and open dialogue on civil society and human rights issues
with the Government of Russia and with Russian civil society. In
government-to-government discussions, I will voice concerns both
publicly and privately about the new laws that restrict the work of
civil society.
The United States decided to withdraw from the Civil Society
Working Group (CSWG) of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential
Commission in light of recent steps taken by the Russian Government to
impose restrictions on civil society. My commitment to engage Russian
civil society, including by continuing to foster links between Russian
and American civil society, remains unwavering. If confirmed, I will
keep Congress informed of efforts to enhance these links, and I look
forward to consulting closely with Congress as we develop ideas on how
we can be most effective in supporting Russia's civil society
organizations.
Question. On December 28, President Putin signed into law a bill
barring U.S. adoptions of Russian children which was overwhelmingly
passed by the Duma and the Federation Council. The State Department
estimates that as many as 1,000 pending adoptions will be impacted by
this piece of Russian legislation, which needlessly affects thousands
of Russian children who will tragically be without loving homes.
However, the administration also needs to cooperate with Russia on a
complex portfolio of international issues, including on Afghanistan,
Syria, and the curbing of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
Given the complexity of our relationship with Russia, what
do you believe is an appropriate American reaction to this
provocation?
As Secretary of State, how would you work to convince the
Russians to allow the hundreds of pending U.S. adoptions that
did not receive a court approval before the enactment of the
ban on January 1?
Would you be persistent in consistently communicating to
President Putin, Russia's Presidential Ombudsman for Children's
Rights Pavel Astakhov, and leaders in the Duma and the
Federation Council of the need to narrowly enforce this
adoption ban and would you work for its ultimate repeal?
Answer. I deeply regret Russia's passage of Federal law No. 272-FZ
which bans the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens, restricts
Russian civil society organizations working with U.S. partners, and
requires termination of the U.S.-Russia Adoption Agreement. U.S.
families have welcomed more than 60,000 Russian children into their
homes, families, and communities over the past 20 years. The vast
majority of these children are now thriving, thanks to their parents'
loving support.
While Russia has the sovereign right to ban the adoption of its
citizens, if confirmed, I will continue to underscore that this
approach hurts the most vulnerable members of Russian society. The
U.S.-Russia adoptions agreement was negotiated under a shared
understanding that while all efforts should be made to place children
with families in their country of birth, when this is not possible,
properly safeguarded intercountry adoption should be another valid path
to finding children permanent, loving homes. If confirmed, I will
endeavor to remind Russian officials at the highest levels of this
principle and urge them to reconsider this law.
Concurrently, I will urge the Russian Government, on humanitarian
grounds and in the spirit of our bilateral agreement, which remains in
force through January 1, 2014, to permit all adoptions initiated prior
to the law's enactment to move forward.
Question. With your help and support, the United States Congress
passed the Magnitsky Act in December, which imposes sanctions on
Russians who are implicated in the murder of the Russian anticorruption
lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. However, the act also sanctions Russians who
are deemed guilty of ``extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross
violations'' of human rights committed against those ``seeking to
expose illegal activity carried out by officials of the Government of
the Russian Federation.''
As Secretary of State, how broadly or narrowly would you
advise the administration to interpret and apply the Magnitsky
Act?
What are the factors and interests that you would weigh the
most when considering the implementation of the act beyond the
Magnitsky case?
Would you support broadening the Magnitsky Act to apply its
sanctions to human rights violators from other nations?
Answer. The State Department is currently engaged in an interagency
process to implement the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability
Act. I look forward, if confirmed, to ensuring the act is executed in
accordance with the intent of the Congress. I intend to ensure that the
same high standards of evidence, process, and credibility that will
guide the Department's work on the Magnitsky case itself will apply to
all other cases that will be considered when putting the act into
practice.
Question. A wide body of evidence from the U.N. Group of Experts on
Congo and other human rights groups has documented significant support
from senior Rwandan military officials to the M23 rebellion in eastern
Congo, including the provision of arms and ammunition, the planning and
operational command of military operations, the deployment of hundreds
of Rwandan army troops across the border into Congo to fight alongside
the M23.
On December 18, President Obama called Rwandan President Paul
Kagame and stressed the importance of permanently ending all support to
armed groups in the DRC. In a statement to the U.N. Security Council on
December 31, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice welcomed new U.N. sanctions on
the M23 and FDLR and said that the United States would continue to
``use every tool at our disposal to maintain the pressure on those
responsible for the violence in the eastern DRC and to advance ongoing
efforts toward a political settlement to the crisis, including
additional action by the Security Council, if necessary, against those
who persist in providing additional support to M23 or act in violation
of the sanctions regime and arms embargo.''
Under what circumstances would the United States support
sanctions against senior Rwandan officials who have backed the
abusive M23 rebels?
What specific steps have or will we ask Rwanda to take to
halt violation of the U.N. arms embargo for the DRC?
What further actions do you anticipate being taken by the
U.N. Security Council?
Answer. I am closely following developments in the eastern DRC as
well as the talks between the DRC Government and the M23 rebel group
and the broader regional discussions among Great Lakes governments. Any
future U.S. actions regarding bilateral or Security Council sanctions
against DRC-related targets, including Rwandan officials, will depend
on developments on the ground, the behavior of armed groups such as the
M23 and those who have provided assistance to them, and our assessment
of what measures would effectively promote peace and security in the
region.
Question. The Special Immigrant Visa program for Iraqis who faced
persecution due to their work with the U.S. Government will sunset at
the end of FY 2013. There are approximately 21,319 visas approved by
Congress that have not been used. In addition, the SIV program for
Afghans who worked alongside the U.S. Government continues to face
challenges in its implementation due to limited staffing and resources.
Out of the 7,500 SIVs Congress approved for Afghans, only 595 visas
have been granted.
If confirmed as Secretary of State, would you support the
extension of the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program?
In addition, what steps would you take to ensure the
effective implementation of the program in Afghanistan and
reduce any unnecessary backlog?
Answer. The administration strongly supports extending the Iraqi
SIV program so that the number of visas authorized can be fully
utilized and, if confirmed, I will work with Congress to find an
appropriate vehicle to accomplish this goal before the end of FY 2013
when the FY 2008 SIV provision of the National Defense Authorization
Act expires. A timely program extension would permit continued normal
processing of Iraqi SIV cases to completion.
Embassy Kabul has redirected and increased resources to improve
efficiency at all stages of the SIV process and reduce processing
backlogs. There is a dedicated unit working on Chief of Mission
approvals, which is the first of three steps in the SIV process.
Embassy Kabul's consular section has increased staffing to meet the
increased demand for visa appointments from applicants who have all
necessary approvals.
Question. Last year, you said, ``The history of Sudan is littered
with the paper of previous agreements that were never put into action,
but as we saw with the 2011 referendum on the South's peaceful
separation, real progress is possible when both sides are committed to
peace and necessary compromise.'' You outlined that to reach a peace,
the status of Abyei needs to be addressed, a political solution for the
conflicts raging within Sudan needs to be found, and humanitarian
access in South Kordofan and Blue Nile must be provided, and that the
United States must continue to work to help secure true peace in the
Sudans. However, in a January 22, 2013, press statement, the Department
of State expressed its disappointment with both the Sudan and South
Sudan Governments over their combined failure to make progress on
implementing the September 27, 2012, agreements, despite commitments by
Sudan President Omar al-Bashir and South Sudan President Salva Kiir.
Clearly much work remains to advance the peace process.
Despite international and U.S. arms embargoes on Sudan and ICC
arrest warrants for several Sudanese officials including President Omar
al-Bashir, the Sudanese regime's campaign of violence against civilians
in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur regions continue and weapons
still flow freely into Sudan from Russia, China, and Iran, among
others.
If you are confirmed, how will you shape U.S. policy on
Sudan, and what steps will you take, bilaterally and
multilaterally, to ensure the two sides continue to implement
the September 2012 agreements?
Answer. The September 27, 2012, agreements between Sudan and South
Sudan indeed are critical. If the two countries implement those
agreements, they will not only deescalate the tensions along their
border but will also deliver critical economic development to their
people--not only through the oil provisions, but also through the
provisions for cross-border trade. Both countries face dire economic
circumstances. Neither can afford to embrace a negotiations strategy
grounded in the hope that the other will collapse first. Both must work
urgently to fully implement the September agreements, and those
agreements must proceed in tandem.
Both parties have said they would implement the agreements
``immediately and without conditions'' and both must be held to that.
Issues like renewal of oil sales should not be held hostage to any
other concern, like ill-defined security ``guarantees'' along Sudan's
southern border. Border security will only come through a decision by
Sudan to both deepen cooperation with South Sudan and to address the
Two Areas conflict through unconditional dialogue with the SPLM-N.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we maintain strong African
Union and international support for implementation of the September 27
agreements. Unity among AU members and a determination to avoid another
war in the region enabled the organization to bring the parties to the
table and to an agreement. That same unity and forcefulness will be
required to ensure implementation of the agreement.
If confirmed, I will continue to press for a negotiated end to the
conflict in Sudan's Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. This
conflict has led to a grave human rights and humanitarian crisis; it
has undermined the security of both Sudan and South Sudan, and has
hindered progress on all other issues. It has also gravely undermined
Sudan's standing in the eyes of the international community. Neither
Sudan nor the rebel movement SPLM-N can win this conflict militarily,
both must return to negotiations.
Question. The conflict in Syria appears to be worsening. President
Bashar al-Assad's Alawite-dominated security forces may be weakening,
but continue to use brutal and indiscriminate tactics against the
opposition. Although the United States and other ``Friends of Syria''
have recognized the ``National Coalition of Revolution and Opposition
Forces'' as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, a
negotiated solution seems unattainable at the moment. The conflict is
increasingly sectarian, opening opportunities for extremists and al-
Qaeda. There are rising concerns about the security of Syria's chemical
weapons. There are also increasing fears of the regionalization of the
conflict, possibly destabilizing Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and
Israel.
UNHCR reports 100,000 Syrians are fleeing the country each month
now, and predicts the total will exceed 1 million refugees in
neighboring states by mid-year, along with millions more internally
displaced persons.
What is the extent of the Department of State's support to
humanitarian relief in the region, and will you as Secretary of
State seek to enhance U.S. humanitarian efforts and obtain
increased funding to alleviate the suffering of the millions of
Syrian civilians affected by the fighting?
Given President Assad's refusal to compromise in any way,
it appears unlikely he will voluntarily step aside or agree to
a peaceful resolution to the conflict. What approaches will
you, as Secretary of State, pursue to prevent this potential
powder keg from exploding?
Are there additional nonlethal actions that the United
States and its allies should be considering to limit the Assad
regimes bloody repression of his people?
Answer. The U.S. Government is very concerned about the safety of
the Syrian people. To this end, the United States has contributed more
than $210 million in humanitarian assistance to assist people inside
Syria, as well as the hundreds of thousands who have fled to other
countries. Life-saving food, medical treatment, blankets, and essential
winter supplies reached millions of vulnerable people in all 14
governorates inside Syria, as well as refugees outside the country. The
U.S. Government's humanitarian response goes to those who are most in
need through organizations with the expertise to respond, such as the
World Food Programme, the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and UNICEF. State
and USAID are funding these groups, as well as others who are funneling
aid into areas where access remains a challenge.
The United States is also actively engaged with international
partners, nongovernmental implementers, the Syrian Opposition
Coalition's (SOC) Assistance Coordination Unit, and Syrian-based local
groups to coordinate humanitarian assistance to the victims of this
ongoing conflict. If confirmed, I would work with the SOC, host
governments, and humanitarian organizations to further expand the reach
of our critical humanitarian assistance--both inside Syria and in
neighboring countries.
The United States is focused on facilitating a durable political
solution to the Syrian crisis, which we believe is the best chance for
a prosperous Syrian future and for the stability of the region. To that
end, we are supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition as it builds
capacity and encouraging it to plan for a democratic political
transition that protects the rights, dignity, and aspirations of all
Syrians.
We are providing approximately $50 million in nonlethal support to
the unarmed Syrian opposition and civil society groups, including local
councils and grassroots organizations. This assistance provides
training and equipment to the Syrian nonviolent opposition to build up
a nationwide network of ethnically and religiously diverse civilian
activists, which will help promote unity among the Syrian people and
accelerate the country's democratic transition. If confirmed, I would
work to broaden and accelerate this assistance to bring this conflict
to as rapid an end as possible, consulting with the Congress on
associated resource requirements. I would not foreclose any legally
available options.
Question. Venezuela's democracy is currently in a state of crisis.
Under President Hugo Chavez, there has been a dramatic concentration of
power in the President's office, which effectively controls the Supreme
Court and engages in open censorship of the media and intimidation and
harassment of civil society. With Chavez now too ill even to attend his
own inauguration ceremony earlier this month, it is unclear who exactly
is wielding this unchecked power. There are serious questions about
the legality of the government's decision to indefinitely postpone the
inauguration (rather than calling for new elections). Yet there is no
independent institution in Venezuela that can credibly resolve them.
At what point will you consider the situation in Venezuela
to be an interruption of the democratic order?
If the situation continues without legal resolution would
you support action being taken by the OAS under the Inter-
American Democratic Charter?
Answer. The Venezuelan Constitution defines how and under what
circumstances the President's inability to serve must be handled,
including procedures that define a democratic succession. President
Chavez's continuing absence from the scene is heightening focus on that
eventuality. If confirmed, I will join other voices in the region
urging all parties to adhere to the Venezuelan Constitution and respect
the principles established under the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
Any transition that takes place will be a product of decisions and
actions by the Venezuelan people. Across the globe, the U.S. message is
political transitions should be democratic, constitutional, inclusive,
peaceful, and transparent. If confirmed, I will reinforce that message.
Should a new election become constitutionally necessary, the
expectation in the hemisphere is that it be peaceful, free, and
conducted on a level playing field, providing an opportunity for
Venezuela to demonstrate its commitment to representative democracy.
Question. President Obama, in his second inaugural address,
declared that ``We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the
Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience
compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.''
If confirmed, how do you intend to carry out the mandate of
President Obama to support democracy worldwide?
Answer. I am firmly committed to the policy of the U.S. Government
to advocate for democratic reforms and expanded space for civil society
to work for positive change from within societies around the world. If
confirmed, I will advance this policy through the Department's
bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, including through its bilateral
human rights dialogues and action at the U.N. Human Rights Council.
I will work closely with the committee to support funding for
programs that strengthen transparent and accountable governance;
protect and promote rule of law and human rights, including freedom of
expression, association, assembly, religious freedom, labor rights, and
disability rights; support open and competitive political systems and
processes and support civil society and access to the free flow of
information. These programs, administered by the Department of State
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, assist democracy
advocates around the world to establish vibrant democracies on their
own. As President Obama said, we will ``act of behalf of those who long
for freedom.''
Question. While strengthening security along our border is of great
concern to all Americans, the success of U.S.-Mexican security
cooperation will depend in large part on our joint ability to tackle
impunity, strengthen rule of law, and bolster protections for
vulnerable populations in Mexico.
How do you think the Merida Initiative and other efforts
have fared?
What else can be done to bolster the rule of law and
respect for human rights in Mexico?
Answer. Through the Merida Initiative, a transformational and
historic undertaking, we partner with the Mexican Government to support
its efforts to strengthen the rule of law, democratic institutions, and
community efforts against crime and violence. It has changed for the
better the way Mexican and U.S. institutions work together to promote
law enforcement and public security cooperation. Cooperation has become
second nature; we share intelligence and information more effectively;
and we share responsibility for common challenges in a manner
unthinkable just a few years ago. Since Merida's inception, the Mexican
Government, with U.S. support, has disrupted transnational criminal
organizations, jailed crime kingpins, and seized major amounts of
illicit drugs otherwise headed for the United States.
Through technical assistance and training, as well as provision of
equipment, the U.S. Government has provided crucial support to Mexican
authorities as they have used their own public resources to make
substantial investments and build the capacity of their public security
and judicial institutions and advanced justice sector reforms, while
enhancing the bilateral relationship and cooperation between our
governments.
Mexico's new President, Enrique Pena Nieto, has already met with
the President and Vice President and he has committed his
administration to accelerating the pace of judicial reform at the
federal level, and to police and public security reform in Mexico's
states.
Our countries share a strong commitment to respect human rights. If
confirmed, I will work with Mexican counterparts to support their
efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, especially law
enforcement forces and justice systems, and work with civil society
organizations; promote the rule of law; build strong and resilient
communities; and protect vulnerable populations.
Question. Your predecessor, Secretary Clinton, integrated the
advancement of women and girls into all areas of policy and planning at
the Department of State. She also expanded and strengthened U.S. policy
to promote the rights and empowerment of women around the world.
Recognizing the critical role that gender equality plays in
improving health, agriculture, economies, security and a range
of other outcomes, how do you plan to sustain and expand on
this important work?
Answer. Global stability, peace, and prosperity depend on
protecting and advancing the rights of women and girls around the
world. When women and men are equally empowered as political and social
actors, governments are more representative and often more efficient.
That is why strengthening women and girls around the world is not
simply the right thing to do--it is the smart thing to do.
In order to facilitate the integration of gender equality beyond
what Secretary Clinton has already accomplished, if confirmed, I will
continue to develop bureau and embassy specific strategies on gender;
further refine and strengthen program design, reporting, and evaluation
mechanisms; and expand training opportunities for staff on gender and
related policy priorities. Further, recognizing that investments in
women and girls can lead to improved development outcomes, I will seek
to continue the integration of gender into key development initiatives,
including the Global Health Initiative and Feed the Future, and in
initiatives to address climate change.
Question. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are a
leading international instrument for responsible business conduct--for
protecting workers' rights worldwide, improving living and working
conditions and contributing to sustainable development.
How do you propose contributing to the effectiveness of the
OECD's work in this area?
What steps do you plan to take to ensure that the U.S.
National Contact Point is effective--with a location that
ensures impartiality and equipped with the necessary human and
financial resources?
Answer. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises have been
an important instrument for the United States in its work with
business, labor, civil society, and others to promote our national
values, advance our economic interests, and foster sustainable and
inclusive development. The U.S. National Contact Point (NCP) is the
administration lead in promoting the Guidelines' voluntary
recommendations on responsible business conduct by U.S. corporations
wherever they operate.
If confirmed, I intend to continue the extraordinary involvement
and attention that Secretary Clinton has brought to the OECD Guidelines
and the U.S. NCP, exemplified by her personal leadership in the OECD's
approval of the important substantive updates to the Guidelines at the
May 2011 OECD Ministerial. If confirmed, I would also direct the
Department to build on the important progress it has achieved in
strengthening the performance of the U.S. NCP. The record so far is a
good story:
Transparent procedures: One of the NCP's core functions is
to review specific instances (i.e., concerns raised typically
by a union or NGO regarding a U.S. firm's practices as they
pertain to the Guidelines) and to offer mediation where
appropriate to help the parties address those concerns.
Business and civil society have welcomed the NCP's updated
procedures, which are more transparent to the involved parties,
adhere to clear timelines and result in a public report at the
end of the process.
Dedicated officer: The NCP is now a senior State Department
officer whose sole responsibility is implementation of the
Guidelines.
Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB): In January 2012, Assistant
Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs Jose Fernandez
launched a multistakeholder advisory board, comprised of senior
leaders from business, labor, civil society, and academia to
advise the State Department on the NCP's operations. The SAB
expects to provide its first advisory report later this year.
We expect the SAB's diversity of perspectives will contribute
to the NCP's efforts to operate in a balanced and impartial
manner. The SAB operates in compliance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
Interagency Working Group (IWG): The NCP receives
substantive input on specific instances and other Guidelines-
and NCP-related matters from other federal agencies, including
officials from the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and the
Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Trade
Representative, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service. State Department participants include officials from
the Bureaus of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; Oceans,
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; and the
Office of the Legal Adviser. The IWG members bring different
policy perspectives to the review of specific instances,
ensuring balance and fairness in the NCP's work.
Professional mediation: The State Department and the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) recently concluded a
cooperative agreement in which FMCS will provide mediation
services where appropriate for specific instances submitted to
the NCP. The NCP's operations will benefit tremendously from
FMCS' expert support, and the credibility that FMCS enjoys with
business and civil society, both of which respect its expertise
and impartiality.
Promotion activities: The NCP has worked actively in
Washington, around the country and overseas in raising
awareness of the Guidelines and encouraging the integration of
its recommendations in U.S. corporate policies and operations.
The NCP speaks regularly at conferences and public and private
meetings before businesses, trade organizations, NGOs,
sustainability practitioners and the general public, partnering
with these groups to amplify the message through their own
networks. The NCP has also expanded use of alternative media,
including a revamp of the NCP Web site and active use of
Twitter and blogs.
Proactive Agenda: The Guidelines call on the OECD, adhering
governments and stakeholders to work together to ``look over
the horizon'' at potential challenges and collaborate on
devising solutions, consistent with the Guidelines, to support
enterprises' efforts to address challenges early in their
development. The U.S. NCP is launching a multi-stakeholder
initiative in the United States to explore these issues, and
the Department will participate actively in this work at the
OECD.
Question. Time and again we have seen stories in the press about
horrendous working conditions in factories producing for America brands
whether it is a fire In Bangladesh that killed over 100 workers in a
garment factory or forced overtime and suicides in a facility that made
I-phones for Apple. While it is important for brands to take
responsibility for the conditions under which their products are made,
foreign governments are ultimately responsible for protecting their
workers under International labor conventions and U.S. benefit programs
that condition trade on the basis of compliance with core International
Labor Organization conventions.
What steps will you take to ensure that governments meet
these obligations and how will you use foreign assistance to
encourage improved working conditions and respect for worker
and trade union rights especially in factories that produce
goods for the U.S. market?
Beyond that limited assistance that is now available, are
you willing for example to support the creation of a specific
fund that will address these persistent labor rights problems?
Answer. Our globalized economy requires us to actively promote
internationally recognized labor standards around the world. The tragic
garment factory fire in Bangladesh in November underscored the
importance of this effort. The Department works to advance workers'
rights through engagement with governments, companies and workers'
organizations, and through technical assistance to build the capacity
of unions and other civil society actors.
The Department is in close consultation with the Department of
Labor (DOL) and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) regarding
potential assistance programs to promote fire and building code safety
in Bangladesh and other countries where fire safety poses a significant
risk. In addition, the Department is consulting with leading U.S. and
multinational apparel brands that source from Bangladesh.
The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) each administer about $7 million annually in
technical assistance programs to advance labor rights. These programs
focus on the core International Labor Organization (ILO) standards
concerning freedom of association and the right to collective
bargaining. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee
to continue to support funding that strengthens workers' rights.
Question. The social unrest in North Africa illustrates the need
for security assistance as well as long-term social development of
countries in the region. Morocco has a trade agreement with the United
States and receives strategic support under the Millennium Challenge
Account and is continuing to prove its economic development and job
growth.
Will you work with the committee and our allies to develop
plans for the economic integration among countries of North
Africa, using the Moroccan trade agreement as a model and as a
hub for development?
Answer. The United States and Morocco enjoy a strong and fruitful
bilateral relationship, as illustrated by our 2006 Free Trade Agreement
(FTA). The FTA is a comprehensive agreement that supports the
significant economic and political reforms that are underway in Morocco
and provides improved commercial opportunities for U.S. exports to
Morocco by reducing and eliminating trade barriers. Since the entry
into force of the FTA, bilateral trade has risen to $3.3 billion in
2012, up from $927 million in 2005 (the year prior to entry into
force). We have seen marked improvement in Morocco's business and
investment climate and continue to work with the government in its
efforts to attract more foreign investment. Morocco is also a valued
partner in our ongoing efforts to promote enhanced economic integration
in North Africa, and we will continue to work with the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and our allies in furtherance of this objective. In
December, Morocco became the first country in the region to reach
agreement with the United States on Joint Declarations of Principles
for International Investment and Trade Principles for Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) Services, and a Protocol on Trade
Facilitation. We are attempting to make this agreement multilateral by
bringing other regional trading partners on board.
Question. Your predecessor has initiated a strategic dialogue with
Morocco. Will you commit to continuing this senior-level dialogue on
issues of vital mutual interest? What are your plans for ensuring that
this process generates practical results for both countries?
Answer. If confirmed, I will remain committed to our strong
bilateral relationship with Morocco, and to working with Morocco on
issues of mutual concern. The State Department aims to advance the
strategic dialogue discussion that the United States began with Morocco
in 2012. Our governments continue to work closely on political,
economic, security and cultural issues that were raised in the U.S.-
Morocco Strategic Dialogue last fall. The United States and Morocco
enjoy a strong and fruitful bilateral relationship, as illustrated by
our 2006 Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The FTA is a comprehensive
agreement that supports the significant economic and political reforms
that are underway in Morocco and provides improved commercial
opportunities for U.S. exports to Morocco by reducing and eliminating
trade barriers. Since the entry into force of the FTA, bilateral trade
has risen to $3.3 billion in 2012, up from $927 million in 2005.
Morocco is also a valued partner in our efforts to promote enhanced
economic integration in North Africa, and we will work with the
committee and our allies in furtherance of this objective. In December,
Morocco became the first country in the region to reach agreement with
the United States on Joint Declarations of Principles for International
Investment and Trade Principles for Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) Services, and a Protocol on Trade Facilitation. If
confirmed, I will continue the Department's efforts to reach similar
agreements with other regional trading partners.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
Question. As chairman, I know you have shared my frustration when
the State Department and USAID witnesses have not provided testimonies
for hearings 24 hours prior to the hearing--sometimes as late as the
morning of the hearing.
Will you commit to ensuring that you and other officials at
the Department and USAID will submit prepared testimonies for
hearing no later than a full 24 hours prior to the start of a
hearing?
Answer. Allowing members adequate time to review witness testimony
is an important part of ensuring the committee is able to conduct
proper oversight of the programs and functions of the Department of
State and USAID. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that Department of
State and USAID witnesses submit prepared testimonies well in advance
to committee.
Question. Will you take the opportunity of your new leadership to
make changes in the management posts that have oversight of diplomatic
and facility security?
Answer. As I noted during my confirmation hearing on January 24, I
assure the committee that, if confirmed, I will personally oversee the
implementation of the ARB, and I will ensure that it is a top priority.
I am also committed to taking actions above and beyond implementation
of the ARB findings. I will review the organization of the Department,
including the bureaus that have responsibility for diplomatic and
facility security. With the ARB findings as a guide, I will improve
communication on security issues within the Department. Filling the
position of Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security will be a
priority.
Furthermore, it is imperative to balance our values and our
interests with the risks inherent in 21st-century diplomacy by ensuring
we strike the right balance between security and engagement to protect
America and further our national interests.
Question. Can you assure us that you will abide by all legal
requirements, and that any agreement, formal or informal, with Russia
or any other country in the field of arms control, based on
``reciprocal unilateral measures'' or multilateral nontreaty agreements
will be submitted to the Senate?
Answer. Having served proudly in the U.S. Senate since 1985, I have
the utmost respect for the Senate's role in the treaty process.
I am mindful of the language in the Arms Control and Disarmament
Act, and similar language in other legislation. As always, the
administration will follow the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State will
continue its consultations with the Congress on arms control-related
issues.
Question. Can you assure us that the Obama administration will not
take unilateral action to reduce the strategic arms or missile defenses
of the United States without consultation and approval from Congress?
Answer. Having served proudly in the U.S. Senate since 1985, I have
the utmost respect for the role of Congress in the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy.
I am mindful of the language in the Arms Control Disarmament Act,
and similar language in other legislation. As always, the
administration will follow the Constitution and the laws of the United
States.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State will
continue its consultations with the Congress on arms control and other
issues.
Question. In 2004 you stated that when the United States undertakes
military
action ``you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes
the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully
why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that
you did it for legitimate reasons.''
What is the definition of a global test?
Answer. As a sovereign nation, the United States decides for itself
when to use military force. While the United States does not look to
any other government for permission to take military action, the use of
military force does not occur in a vacuum. We are often stronger and
more effective when we are able to explain the use of military force in
a manner that our allies understand and support.
Question. (Followup Question): In your earlier response for the
record, you stated that ``When Iran is prepared to take verifiable
confidence-building measures, the United States is prepared to
reciprocate.''
What might such reciprocation require from Congress in
general terms?
Should Congress expect to be asked to consider requests
from the administration to amend or remove enacted sanctions
legislation?
Answer. This administration is fully committed to seeking a
diplomatic resolution of concerns over Iran's nuclear program through
the dual-track approach of pressure and engagement. To date, Iran has
not demonstrated that it is prepared to take verifiable, confidence-
building measures toward addressing those concerns; it would therefore
be premature to speculate on the nature and timing of specific steps
the United States might take in response.
Question. If Iran succeeds in obtaining a nuclear weapon
capability, should the United States consider extension of the nuclear
umbrella to our friends and partners in the Middle East to prevent a
proliferation cascade?
Answer. The administration will not allow a nuclear armed Iran. As
the President has stated on numerous occasions, and as I stated in my
testimony, ``Our policy is not containment. It is prevention, and the
clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance.'' We
are in close and frequent contact with our friends and allies in the
region on this, and continue to monitor the situation closely.
Question. The U.S. representative to the IAEA stated that, by March
2013, Iran needs to respond to standing IAEA requests for further
information and access with regard to its nuclear program, saying,
``Iran must act now, in substance'' and more recently the State
Department spokesperson expressed disappointment that Iran hasn't
acted. The administration also continues to talk to the Iranians about
a date and a venue for the next round of P5+1 discussions.
May we have your commitment to keep this committee fully
and promptly informed of progress or setbacks on these two
tracks?
Can you speak to the types of steps, if any, the
administration and Congress may need to consider with regard to
enacted sanctions or other actions that may become necessary?
Answer. The administration will continue to keep the committee
informed of developments in these two tracks.
The United States has comprehensive and effective sanctions in
place to apply ever-increasing pressure on Iran, and the administration
is fully implementing all sections of U.S. law. We will continue to
pursue the pressure track against Iran until Iranian leaders adequately
address the legitimate concerns of the international community
regarding its nuclear program.
Question. NATO continues to be the backbone of coordinated security
for the United States, Canada, and Europe, yet the vast majority of
NATO countries do not meet the investment target of 2 percent of GDP
for military expenditures.
Will you press all NATO members to increase their defense
expenditures and build a trajectory toward investing 2 percent
of GDP annually for defense budgets?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to urge allied commitments to
sustain and build critical capabilities, as part of an effort to invest
in a NATO Force for 2020 that is fully trained and equipped to respond
to any threat and defend our common interests. Adequate levels of
spending are crucial to that goal. Ensuring that allies invest in the
modern capabilities that NATO needs was the focus of U.S. diplomatic
efforts in the runup to last spring's NATO summit in Chicago, as well
as at the most recent NATO Defense Ministerial in October. Among our
ongoing top priorities is ensuring the alliance has the assets and
capabilities it needs to carry out current and future operations.
Question. The President formally recognized the new government in
Somalia this week. This significant change in our bilateral
relationship has occurred without consultation with Congress.
Why wasn't Congress notified and consulted before the fact
of formal resumption of diplomatic ties/recognition?
What if any statutory or other parameters were necessary to
arrive at this decision point for normalization?
What specific or general commitments and actions by the
U.S. Government and by Somalia will follow from this renewal of
formal relations?
Answer. On January 11, the State Department notified committee
staff and other congressional staff that Somalia President Hassan
Sheikh Mohamud would be in Washington the week of January 17 to meet
with the Secretary of State to complete arrangements for U.S.
recognition of the Government of Somalia. Department officials also
notified congressional staff that the Secretary and President Hassan
Sheikh would announce recognition in a brief press event at the State
Department following their meeting.
Although the United States has not recognized a government in
Somalia since the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in 1991, the United
States never broke or severed diplomatic relations with the country of
Somalia. Since 1991, the United States has managed our interests in
Somalia from the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. I understand that over
the past year, State Department and other U.S. Government officials
have traveled for longer periods and with greater frequency to Somalia,
especially to Mogadishu, than previously, but the United States has no
immediate plans to reopen a U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu at this time.
The State Department expects to enhance its dialogue with the new
government on a range of issues, including human rights,
counterterrorism, bilateral treaties and claims.
Question. In a June 2011 opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times,
you characterized the Obama administration's North Korea policy as
``inadequate,'' and advocated that the administration ``engage North
Korea directly.''
In light of administration's failed attempt at direct
engagement with the February 2012 ``Leap Day Agreement,'' do
you still believe direct engagement is the right approach to
North Korea?
Answer. The United States remain committed to authentic and
credible negotiations to implement the September 19, 2005, joint
statement and bring North Korea into compliance with applicable
Security Council resolutions through irreversible steps leading to
denuclearization. However, North Korea must live up to its commitments,
adhere to its international obligations, deal peacefully with its
neighbors and refrain from provocations. As President Obama stated in
his speech last November in Rangoon, the United States is willing to
extend its hand should the leadership in Pyongyang choose the path of
peace and progress and let go of its nuclear weapons.
Question. U.N. Security Council Resolution 2087 called for
``significant action'' in response to further North Korean
provocations.
How should the United States respond if North Korea
conducts a third nuclear test--as Pyongyang has threatened to
do in recent days?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support strong U.S. and international
condemnation of a third nuclear test by North Korea. A nuclear test by
North Korea would be a mistake, a miscalculation, and would set back
the cause of resolving issues that relate to the Korean Peninsula
diplomatically, most importantly the issue of denuclearization. This
provocative act would directly violate North Korea's international
obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, and if
confirmed I would support a strong international response. The United
States should continue to make clear that it will take steps necessary
to defend the United States and our allies.
Question. Please specify concrete actions that North Korea would
need to undertake to demonstrate a genuine commitment to
denuclearization, and by what measures would you judge success or
failure of this effort?
Answer. North Korea must fulfill its obligations under relevant
U.N. Security Council resolutions, adhere to its commitments under the
September 19, 2005, Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, and refrain
from provocations that undermine regional stability. North Korea's
progress on fulfilling its international obligations
and commitments will demonstrate whether it has a genuine commitment to
denuclearization.
Question. South Korean President-elect Park Geun-hye recently
stated that she would like to upgrade the U.S.-ROK alliance to a
``comprehensive strategic alliance of the 21st century.''
Do you share this goal? If yes, what is your vision for a
strengthened U.S.-ROK partnership?
Answer. I welcome President-elect Park's vision for enhancing our
partnership. Relations between the United States and the Republic of
Korea relations are at their strongest point in recent memory,
undergirded by a solid foundation of common values, shared interests,
mutually beneficial economic relations, and close people-to-people
ties. The United States and the ROK are addressing together the
challenges on the Korean Peninsula, and increasingly, a range of issues
across the region and around the globe. As we mark the 60th anniversary
of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the United States looks forward to building
on this extraordinary partnership of shared values and mutual
prosperity. If confirmed, I will work to build an even stronger
alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea.
Question. (Followup Question) In your earlier answer for the record
regarding Chinese currency and the legislation to label China a
currency manipulator, you point out that the Chinese had come a long
way prior to your vote in the Senate, and also that there is a long way
still for them to go.
But are the aims of the legislation still a reasonable and
productive means to achieve the objective of further financial
system modernization in China, or is there a better way for the
United States to approach the challenge?
Answer. Since the Treasury Department is the lead agency on
questions concerning currency, I defer to Treasury on this matter. If
confirmed, however, I would discuss with Treasury how the
administration could most effectively make progress on this issue.
In my view, leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses and
workers should continue to be a central aim of our economic engagement
with China. Given our substantial and complex economic relationship, it
is increasingly important to engage China both bilaterally and
multilaterally to build upon the progress made in recent years and to
address remaining challenges. If confirmed, I would ensure that
remedying unfair and distorting policies in China remains a top
priority on our economic agenda.
Question. (Followup Question) Second, you mention the Strategic and
Economic Dialogue (S&ED) and the ``Asia pivot.'' Both have come under
some criticism for losing sight of their economic objectives. The S&ED,
for example, was originally just the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED),
focused on leveraging and advancing our mutual trade interests.
Likewise, the Woodrow Wilson Center recently criticized the ``pivot''
for having its economics components ``bogged down.'' How do we fix
this?
Answer. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) and the
rebalancing to Asia are both multifaceted approaches that seek to
promote and advance U.S. strategic, economic, and other interests
throughout the Asia-Pacific region in a coordinated and comprehensive
fashion. Our priorities, interests and values on all fronts must be
pursued and promoted together because they are mutually reinforcing.
For instance, U.S. security engagement in the Asia-Pacific region has
facilitated the region's dramatic economic development, which has in
turn benefited our economy. The combined and cross-cutting approach of
the S&ED allows us to address a range of issues from a broad-based
perspective and usefully brings multiple players from each side
together to exchanges views.
Likewise, the rebalancing of U.S. foreign policy toward the Asia-
Pacific is multidimensional and is very much focused on the region's
economic dynamism. Opening markets further in Asia will provide the
United States unprecedented opportunities for investment and trade.
U.S. exports to the Asia-Pacific grew by 13 percent from 2010 to 2011,
and exports to all APEC member economies grew by 15 percent over the
same period. Continued growth in exports and the ability of American
firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer base in Asia are
important for our economic recovery at home, one of the fundamental
bases for our Nation's comprehensive strength.
The United States has set a strong, comprehensive economic agenda
for the region that combines expansion of trade and investment with
robust efforts to address the challenges of globalization. The United
States has established economic leadership in the Asia-Pacific region
by accomplishing ambitious, trade-oriented goals: ratification of the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, launching and establishing strong
momentum behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations,
hosting a highly substantive APEC year in 2011, and building on that
success in 2012 with negotiation within APEC of a list of environmental
goods subject to tariff reductions. If confirmed, I will continue to
support a strong partnership between the United States and regional
economies that helps produce sustainable, robust, and balanced growth
in the Asia-Pacific and expands U.S. export markets.
The United States has also successfully prioritized economic-
commercial relations with ASEAN countries by launching the Enhanced
Economic Engagement (E3) initiative, a new framework for economic
cooperation designed to expand trade and investment ties between the
United States and ASEAN countries. Last July, Secretary Clinton
launched the first-ever U.S.-ASEAN Business Forum, bringing together
U.S. and ASEAN government officials and business leaders to identify
shared opportunities.
Another key element of the administration's rebalance policy is
pursuing a cooperative partnership with China, including through high-
level meetings such as the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue
(S&ED). The S&ED, by bringing together top foreign affairs, economic,
and security officials from across our two governments, allows the
United States to make clear to China's leaders the top priorities in
our complex bilateral relationship, including our economic agenda. Over
four rounds of the S&ED under this administration, managing the global
economic recovery and leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses
have been at the top of the agenda, alongside our regional and security
objectives. If confirmed, I would continue to emphasize that progress
on our bilateral economic priorities is an essential component of our
overall effort to build a cooperative partnership with China.
At the May 2012 S&ED, China took several steps to improve the
protection of intellectual property rights and trade secrets, to work
with us to negotiate new rules to limit export subsidies, to expand
opportunities for foreign securities firms and auto finance companies,
to undertake reforms of tariffs and taxes on imported goods, to
consider reforms to reduce privileges currently enjoyed by its state-
owned enterprises; and to move toward a more flexible exchange rate
system in which the market plays a greater role.
These important developments do not resolve all of our concerns,
but they do represent progress that translates into greater
opportunities for U.S. workers and companies.
Question. Will you ensure that the protection of intellectual
property rights remains a priority agenda item for the State
Department, particularly with China?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the protection of
intellectual property rights through robust laws and enforcement
remains a top priority for the State Department's engagement with
China. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets must have
adequate safeguards in China to protect the ideas of American
entrepreneurs and the jobs of American workers. As the Commerce
Department has reported, IP-intensive industries support at least 40
million U.S. jobs and contribute more than $5 trillion to U.S. gross
domestic product. If confirmed, stronger intellectual property
protections will continue to be a key component of the State
Department's broader goal to require that China establish a level
playing field for U.S. and other foreign businesses.
China has taken positive actions in recent years with respect to
the protection and enforcement of IPR. China now receives more patent
applications than any country globally. And, in the majority of IP
cases in China, both the plaintiffs and defendants are Chinese, so the
importance of IPR is not alien to China. However, stronger enforcement
mechanisms and efforts are still needed. Piracy and counterfeiting
levels in China remain unacceptably high, harming U.S. and Chinese
consumers and enterprises.
Protection of intellectual property matters greatly to American
businesses and consumers. If I am confirmed, the State Department will
continue to engage China at all levels, including through the annual
U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) and the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), to improve the Chinese
intellectual property rights protection environment.
Question. At the time of President Obama's historic visit to Burma,
President Thein Sein undertook a series of political commitments,
including to release the remaining political prisoners and to promote
peace settlements with ethnic groups. But many of these reforms have
not been implemented and violent clashes between the military and
ethnic minorities have escalated in recent weeks.
What should the State Department do to encourage the
Burmese Government to follow through on their commitments to
implement political reforms?
Answer. Since President Thein Sein took office in April 2011, the
Government of Burma has made important political and economic reforms,
including outlawing forced labor, enacting laws promoting labor rights,
removing restrictions on free assembly, passing a new foreign
investment law, and allowing greater press freedom. The Burmese
Bovernment has also achieved progress on core concerns of the
international community, including the release of over 500 political
prisoners, and has entered into preliminary cease-fire agreements with
10 out of 11 major armed ethnic groups. The National League for
Democracy was allowed to contest seats in parliamentary by-elections
last April, and party leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a former political
prisoner, is now a Member of Parliament. The Government of Burma has
continued these reforms since President Obama's visit, including repeal
of a law that had curbed free speech and formation of an anticorruption
team headed by one of the country's two Vice Presidents.
Much work remains to strengthen reforms and to ensure that Burma's
democratic transition continues to move forward. The government must
release remaining political prisoners unconditionally, undertake
comprehensive legal reform to open more space for civil society to
operate freely, and facilitate access to conflict areas for
international humanitarian organizations.
I am deeply concerned about the armed conflict in Kachin State,
including the conflict's humanitarian impact and its negative
implications for the broader process of national reconciliation.
Despite the Burmese Government's announcement that a cease-fire was to
take effect on January 19, media and NGO reports indicate that the
Burmese Army continues its military offensive. The ongoing fighting has
resulted in civilian casualties and undermined efforts to advance
national reconciliation.
The United States has called on all parties to end the hostilities
and begin genuine dialogue to achieve sustainable peace. At the same
time, we remain committed to seeking accountability for the human
rights violations that have occurred in Kachin State. Senior Department
officials and Ambassador Derek Mitchell have raised U.S. concerns at
the highest levels of the Burmese Government.
The President's trip to Burma in November 2012 demonstrated the
United States resolve to supporting Burma on its political and economic
reform efforts. On the eve of the President's visit, Burmese President
Thein Sein announced his government's commitment to strengthen
democratic governance, meet its international obligations, and adhere
to international standards. In a November 18 statement, the Burmese
Government articulated its commitments to 11 specific issues covering
human rights, political prisoners, ethnic reconciliation,
nonproliferation, good governance, and human trafficking.
Since November the Burmese Government has moved forward on its
commitment to restore ICRC access to prisons and prisoners, and is in
the process of consulting with Burmese civil society and the
international community, including the United States, to build a fair
and credible process to release all remaining political prisoners. The
United States Embassy in Rangoon works with the Burmese Government to
address these commitments, and has offered assistance in fulfilling
them. Our Embassy and the State Department are also frequently engaged
with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues in the Burmese Parliament,
as well as representatives of Burma's emerging civil society, ethnic
minority leaders, and international partners to ensure that the Burmese
Government follows through on these commitments. If confirmed as
Secretary of State, I will continue to prioritize foreign assistance
that encourages and deepens political and economic reforms.
Question. Please state your views on Prime Minister Abe's desire to
expand U.S.-Japan security ties. What areas do you believe are best for
enhanced cooperation?
Answer. The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance is the cornerstone of
peace, stability, and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. I
welcome Prime Minister Abe's desire to ensure that our alliance remains
alert, flexible, and responsive to the full range of emerging 21st-
century threats and persistent regional and global challenges. Our two
countries will continue to cooperate on a wide range of bilateral,
regional, and global issues. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
President, the Secretary of Defense, and others in the administration,
as well as with Prime Minister Abe and officials of the Japanese
Government to enhance our security ties.
The United States and Japan are currently working closely together
and cooperating with our partners through international fora, including
the United Nations, to address the threat from North Korea's nuclear
and missile programs, as well as to address humanitarian issues in the
DPRK, and to enhance regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region.
The United States has worked with Japan to realize a U.S. Force posture
in the Asia-Pacific region that is more geographically distributed,
operationally resilient, and politically sustainable, and we should
look for ways to effectively cooperate to meet emerging threats.
Question. In April 2010, you introduced S. 3210, The Embassy Design
and Security Act of 2010. The bill states that embassies ``should
maintain security as a top priority.'' The bill, however, declines to
declare security the top priority in the construction of embassies,
particularly in less stable countries, and it creates new structures
devoted to elevating aesthetic factors in the consideration of embassy
design and placement.
Will embassy security be your top priority for the
construction of embassies?
Answer. Ensuring U.S. Government personnel overseas have safe and
secure facilities is the highest priority of the Department and its
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO).
Since the 1999 enactment of the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act, the Department has completed 95 new, enhanced
diplomatic facilities. These facilities provide a safe and secure work
environment for over 27,000 U.S. Government employees.
In 2010 the Department established a Design Excellence initiative
for U.S. diplomatic facilities and along with it a set of Guiding
Principles to leverage the best in American architecture, design,
engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction
execution without compromising security.
These principles state that the safety and security of our staff
and visitors are paramount. Designs and construction will meet or
exceed all security safety standards and specifications.
Question. In 2012, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed by
voice vote, S. 3310, the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability
Act of 2012. The House companion bill passed 390-0, but ultimately the
bill was not passed in the 112th Congress.
Do you support the provisions of the legislation? Would you
propose modifications?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Department's strong
support for the principles of aid transparency and accountability, and
will continue to prioritize ongoing efforts to make assistance
reporting more readily available to the public. The Department and
USAID also remain committed to implementing evaluation methods based on
U.S. and international best practices, and making evaluation reports
transparent and widely available. However, it is my understanding that
the Department still remains concerned that the House companion bill to
S. 3310 will create a significant financial burden on the U.S.
Government by offsetting the cost of the bill with funds necessary to
implement U.S. assistance. The reporting requirements go above and
beyond currently planned efforts for the Foreign Assistance Dashboard
as required by OMB Bulletin 12-01 and would require significant more
resources to implement. Funding these efforts with program funds may
undermine the ability to implement programs that protect and advance
U.S. national security and prosperity and address global humanitarian
needs.
Question. Are promotion eligibility requirements at USAID and the
State Department linked to program performance? If so, how? If not, can
they be linked?
Answer. Promotion eligibility and program performance are linked at
the State Department. Because the Civil Service and Foreign Service
personnel systems do not operate in the same manner, they approach
promotion eligibility in distinctly different ways. For Civil Service,
the Merit Promotion Plan eligibility requirements and the Civil Service
Performance Management system provide the link. For Foreign Service,
the type of performance is linked to the individual's particular job or
assignment, whether programmatic, policy, or support.
A Civil Service eligibility requirement mandates that the employee
or applicant must have at least a ``Fully Successful'' or equivalent
rating level documented as the most recent rating of performance record
(3 FAM 2314.1). Performance plans are required upon application for a
promotion (3 FAM 2315.1) and performance plans are given due weight by
hiring officials during the selection process (5 CFR 335.103(b)(3)). In
order to strengthen the relationship to organizational performance
during the hiring process, the Department recently issued guidance to
hiring managers which encouraged the review of applicants' submitted
performance appraisals to provide future behavior insight and
documented organizational contributions. Additionally, employees are
only eligible for career ladder promotions if their current rating of
record is ``Fully Successful'' or higher. However, career ladder
promotions are not automatic and may be withheld with advanced written
justification and discussion if an employee has not demonstrated at
least ``Fully Successful'' performance of a critical element deemed as
essential to performance at the next higher grade level (5 CFR
335.104).
In adherence with 5 CFR 430.102, the Department of State's Civil
Service Performance Management system is based upon the collective
appraisal of individual employee performance plans which are developed
to achieve effective organizational performance and accomplishment of
agency mission and goals. Moreover, individual employee performance
plans are required to identify individual, and, where applicable, team
accountability for accomplishing organizational goals which are called
``elements'' on the performance plan. Organizational goals are directly
related to overall program performance. Supervisors appraise
individuals based on the performance plans that are strategically
linked to overall program performance and are used to derive the
individual performance rating of record (3 FAM 2823.3-2).
In the Foreign Service, promotion is based on peer review boards
with a public member. Section 603 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-465) establishes the basis for promotion as the
``records of the character, ability, conduct, quality of work,
industry, experience, dependability, usefulness, and general
performance of members of the Service. . . . [including] performance
evaluation reports of supervisors, records of commendations, reports of
language test scores from the Foreign Service Institute, awards,
reprimands, and other disciplinary actions . . . ''
Evaluation reports describe performance over the rating period
(normally 1 year) and require a discussion of the employee's potential
to take on further responsibilities. Performance goals are established
based on post or bureau strategic priorities. Each evaluation requires
the discussion of at least three accomplishments during the rating
period, based on those linked priorities. For senior Foreign Service:
``Beginning in the 2005-2006 rating cycle, and as appropriate, work
requirements should also link directly to specific performance goals,
initiatives/program, indicators and/or targets of the relevant Mission,
Bureau or Department Performance Plan or to a PART (Program Assessment
Rating Tool). . . . ''
Question. Do you believe the current reforms adopted by the Global
Fund Board go far enough?
Answer. Over the past year, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria has undergone a radical transformation. As the
Global Fund's largest donor, the United States has been instrumental in
leading and driving the Fund's reform agenda to maximize the impact of
Global Fund resources. The Fund has made significant accomplishments in
restructuring its operations, introducing more rigorous financial
controls systems, implementing a new strategic funding model, and
collaborating more intensively with U.S. bilateral health assistance
programs in implementing countries. The Global Fund Board also
implemented its own governance reform plan and endorsed Terms of
Reference (TORs) for three new committees overseeing strategy, finance,
and audits.
Question. What is the optimal distribution of global HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria funding between bilateral and multilateral
programs, including the Global Fund?
Answer. The U.S. Government's bilateral and multilateral
investments are mutually supportive, increasingly integrated, and
programmatically interdependent. Together, these investments save lives
and build country ownership and capacity to lead and manage national
responses over the long term. The U.S. contribution to multilateral
programs, including the Global Fund, help us achieve our bilateral
program results, reaching more people with quality services, leveraging
contributions from other donors, expanding the geographic reach of
bilateral U.S. investments, and leading the way to promote a shared
responsibility among donors and implementers. The distribution of
health funding between bilateral and multilateral programs is reviewed
annually. Decisions are made across the President's Malaria Initiative,
the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and Tuberculosis
programs based on country diseases strategies (malaria, HIV/AIDS, TB)
and government and other donor contributions, in order to maximize
results.
Question. Will you commit to comply with requests for access to
State Department officials for briefings and copies of documents
related to oversight of the State Department and foreign assistance,
including ongoing inquiries into the September 11 attacks on the State
Department facilities in Benghazi?
Answer. Following the tragic attacks on the U.S. mission in
Benghazi on September 11, 2012, Secretary Clinton pledged and has
provided the full cooperation of the Department of State in the
congressional inquiries into the attacks, including the production of
documents and comprehensive briefings by Department officials. If
confirmed, I will work to uphold the high standard set by Secretary
Clinton and continue to accommodate Congress on these important
inquiries.
Question. Will you commit to providing the committee with a list of
all unexpended funds in accounts at the State Department, USAID, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and others associated with the
150 Account?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will have mandate
over only the budgets for State Department and USAID, not the other
agencies and departments associated with the 150 Account. Pursuant to
section 7002 of the annual State and Foreign Operations Appropriations
Act, the State Department and USAID are required to provide Congress
quarterly reports on our unobligated and unexpended balances. If
confirmed, I will ensure you continue to receive these reports.
Question. Will you commit to consult the committee, including the
ranking member, on treaty contents throughout the negotiation process
and to discuss with the committee substance and timing issues related
to the treaty prior to submitting it to the committee?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing the
administration's treaty priorities. Having served in the Senate for 29
years, I can assure you I respect the Senate's constitutional role in
the treatymaking process. I agree that consultation and coordination
with members of the committee have played, and will continue to play, a
critical role in successful treaty ratification processes.
Question. Will you commit to reforming the processes related to
diplomatic security, physical security of mission facilities, and
establishing clear missions for facilities being opened or operated--
including the streamlining lines of responsibility to cut out current
layers of bureaucracy and to ensure collaboration between regional
bureaus and the Under Secretary of Management?
Answer. Secretary Clinton accepted all 29 recommendations from the
Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB). I understand the Department
has been working diligently on addressing these recommendations, with
some recommendations already completed and the others either well on
their way toward completion or with plans for implementation being
actively formulated.
As I noted during my confirmation hearing January 24, I reiterate
my commitment to oversee, personally, implementation of the ARB
recommendations, and I will ensure that my senior leadership makes it a
top priority. Recommendation Nos. 1, 3, and 6 of the ARB in particular
address clearly defining the U.S. Government mission at a post;
improved communication on security issues within the Department; and
providing support/communication for newly opened posts. As I said
publicly on December 20, upon reading the ARB report, ``. . . It's
important for all of us to think in terms of going forward, that we
need to do a better job of ensuring a free and open dialogue among
ambassadors, their embassy security personnel, and officials in
Washington where decisions on security, staffing levels, and funding
are made.''
Question. A common theme in Inspectors General audits and
Government
Accountability Office reports is that the State Department and USAID do
not often enough set targets and collect performance data for foreign
assistance programs. Will you commit to holding agencies accountable
for setting strategic targets for our assistance, collecting
performance data, and reporting the results back to the committee in a
timely fashion?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department and
USAID continue to set targets for foreign assistance programs, collect
performance data to assess how our programs are performing across the
entire spectrum of our activities, and report back to the committee in
a timely fashion whenever requested.
Bureau and mission level strategic goals for foreign assistance are
set through a collaborative interagency strategic planning process,
which the Department revamped and strengthened this past year as part
of its efforts to respond to the QDDR's call to improve our ability to
manage for results. To strengthen target setting and monitoring at the
mission level, USAID has Country Development Cooperation Strategies
(CDCSs). CDCSs are results-oriented, 5-year country strategies that set
ambitious but achievable goals and objectives for U.S. development
assistance and require USAID missions to develop indicators to measure
their performance in achieving these goals and objectives. Currently,
20 CDCSs are completed and an additional 53 missions are scheduled to
complete a CDCS by the end of 2013. In addition USAID recently revised
policy guidance for monitoring project performance during
implementation.
USAID has also reinvigorated the process of developing and
maintaining performance management plans. These document the
indicators, targets, performance results, and evaluations that USAID
missions use for measuring project results and mission development
objectives. These indicators are used in mission portfolio reviews and
Presidential directive and initiative reporting. They are included in
USAID's annual Performance Plan and Reports, the source USAID uses for
reporting to external stakeholders.
In addition to these strategic planning and performance monitoring
efforts, each year we set targets and report annual results for
performance indicators that capture high-level results achieved through
programs in all countries receiving assistance, and explain any
discrepancies between planned and actual results. These key foreign
assistance program accomplishments are relayed to Congress and the
public via our agency Annual Performance Report.
The Department and USAID are prioritizing program evaluations that
help provide a better understanding of not only ``what'' is being
achieved, but how and why. To this end, in support of its January 2011
Evaluation Policy, USAID recently updated and strengthened its support
for program evaluations throughout all of its missions, and in 2012 the
Department developed and launched its own policy requiring that
bureaus, and soon embassies as well, conduct program evaluations.
The Department and USAID are committed to continuing these ongoing
efforts to think and plan strategically, monitor and assess our
performance against our goals, and further strengthen our ability to
manage for results to help us, and Congress, make informed decisions.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department and AID tap into all of
these resources to keep the committee abreast of what is being achieved
through foreign assistance.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. Over the years, the State Department has made important
strides in breaking down barriers facing LGBT employees and their
families.
(a) If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that sexual
orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination continue
under your tenure as Secretary of State?
Answer (a). Secretary Clinton set a very high standard in regard to
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues in foreign and
workforce policy. If confirmed, I plan to continue her work by making
clear, from the time I enter on duty, that discrimination and
harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees is not
tolerated. I plan to do this by issuing, within 180 days of my
appointment, policy statements regarding the Department of State's
position on antidiscrimination, harassment prevention, diversity, and
equal employment opportunity, which will include sexual orientation and
gender identity as protected bases. Furthermore, I will empower the
Office of Civil Rights to:
1. Continue to enforce harassment policies that were already
at the cutting edge of response time and investigative
thoroughness;
2. Work with the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs
Agencies (GLIFAA), one of the Department's Employee Affinity
Groups, and LGBT employees to ensure our offices and overseas
posts are inclusive and welcoming; and
3. Train all employees, including U.S. citizens and foreign
nationals, on the legal and practical aspects of LGBT equality.
The Department also formed a transgender working group, composed of
the Bureau of Human Resources, the Office of Civil Rights, and the
Office of the Legal Adviser, to ensure all Department of State posts
have the tools necessary to lead by example on issues involving LGBT
equality. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Bureau of Human
Resources and the Office of Civil Rights continue to further develop a
workplace that embraces diversity, including LGBT diversity.
(b) What steps will you take to build on the benefits to
LGBT Foreign Service officers and their families--which were
put in place under Secretary Clinton--to ensure they are
applied equitably at all of our posts abroad as well as at
USAID and other foreign affairs agencies?
Answer (b). If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department
continues its collaboration with USAID and the other foreign affairs
agencies on same-sex domestic partner (SSDP) issues. For example, the
Department has already established a program that allows the non-U.S.
citizen partners of members of foreign affairs agencies to live in the
United States for the duration of the American partner's assignment
even if the American partner is on an unaccompanied tour.
The Department will advocate for equal treatment of our SSDPs in
every country, with the aim that SSDPs are accorded the same privileges
and immunities as opposite-sex spouses.
(c) What steps will you take to extend additional benefits
and support to LGBT Foreign Service officers and their families
to ensure that the State Department and USAID continue to
attract the top talent they need?
Answer (c). Secretary Clinton has said, ``[extending benefits to
same sex domestic partners] will help the Department attract and retain
personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits
and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers.'' I
agree and, if confirmed, will continue to ensure that we continue
forward on this path.
Since 2009, the Department has been working to extend the entire
range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic
partners (SSDPs) of members of the Foreign Service, as well as of any
members of the Civil Service, too, sent to serve abroad. These include
issuance of diplomatic passports to U.S.-citizen same-sex domestic
partners, as well as inclusion of dependent SSDPs on the employee's
travel orders. The Department was able to make these changes by
formally defining same-sex domestic partners as family members.
Extending these benefits has helped the Department to compete with the
private sector to recruit and retain the best and brightest employees.
Domestically, there are a number of benefits where ``family
members'' of Department employees, including SSDPs, are already
covered. These include access to employee information and referral
services, use of daycare facilities, childcare subsidy, long-term care
insurance (administered by OPM), and regular sick leave, which includes
caring for a domestic partner following childbirth.
All Department benefits created in the future will be extended to
domestic partners, if allowed by law. The Department is committed to
doing everything possible within the law to ensure equality. If and as
laws continue to evolve, the Department will respond accordingly. USAID
is also firmly committed to ensuring that benefits are available and
applied equitably to LGBT staff and families.
The Department and USAID will remain committed to a diverse
workforce and to creating a workplace free of discrimination and
harassment. To ensure fulfillment of obligations and responsibilities,
and create a productive work environment, the Department has shared
guidelines published by the Office of Personnel Management in May 2011
on the employment of transgender individuals in the Federal workplace
and have advised all managers and supervisors to review this guidance.
OPM's guidance reiterates the Federal Government's policy to treat
all employees with dignity and respect and to provide a workplace that
is free from discrimination whether based on race, color, religion, sex
(including gender identity or pregnancy), national origin, disability,
political affiliation, marital status, membership in an employee
organization, age, sexual orientation, or other nonmerit factors. The
Department's policy on discrimination and harassment already prohibits
discrimination on the basis of gender identity. For example, upon
verification that an employee has transitioned his or her gender
identity, our appropriate officials are authorized to make changes to
the employee's files to show the employee's new name and gender, in
accordance with OPM guidance.
Question. I am deeply concerned by recent attempts by the
Government of Bangladesh to interfere in the management of Grameen
Bank--a critical lifeline for many poor and formerly poor Bangladeshi
women. Secretary Clinton has been outspoken in her defense of Grameen
Bank's independence and its women borrower/shareholders.
(a) If confirmed, will you commit to speaking out against
actions by the Bangladeshi Government to undermine or harm the
integrity of Grameen Bank or interfere in its management?
Answer (a). The world has been inspired by the work of Grameen
Bank, which has unleashed the potential of millions of women in
Bangladesh and around the world to not only improve their own
livelihoods but also contribute to long-lasting economic growth in
their communities and countries. The Department continues to follow
closely developments at Grameen and convey its strong support for a
timely and transparent selection of a highly qualified Managing
Director who will ensure the integrity, autonomy, and effectiveness of
Grameen Bank as an institution, and who will ensure that the interests
of all the shareholders, particularly women, are protected. Grameen's
women shareholders/borrowers have played and should continue to play an
important role in the development of this important microfinance
institution. Bangladesh's vibrant civil society has achieved great
success in driving economic and grassroots development for vulnerable
populations, especially for women, and Grameen Bank is very much part
of that success story.
(b) What additional steps can the United States take to
increase pressure on the Bangladeshi Government to uphold human
rights and respect the autonomy and integrity of Grameen Bank?
Answer (b). The U.S Government, including Congress, and key voices
in the international community have played an important role in
supporting Grameen Bank. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure our
concerns about Grameen and the preservation of Bangladesh's vibrant
civil society are raised with officials at the highest levels of the
Bangladeshi Government. We are not alone in our support for Grameen and
its independence. We are adding our voices to the many millions of
Bangladeshis who take pride in and have been assisted by this unique
institution.
Question. As Secretary of State, what steps will you take to
convince the Russian Government to comply with the Principles from the
Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, the Terezin Declaration
from the Prague Holocaust-Era Assets Conference, two Russian Court
Decisions, and now a U.S. Federal court judgment, which ordered the
Russian Government to return the Nazi-confiscated ``Schneersohn
collection'' of religious books and manuscripts to Chabad, its rightful
owner in the United States?
Answer. I know that Secretary Clinton made resolving this matter a
priority, and if confirmed, I will do so as well.
I understand that the Department continues to work to encourage the
use of diplomatic channels to help facilitate a mutually acceptable
diplomatic solution, and if confirmed, I would support that effort
also.
Question. The M23 rebel group, which has been operating in eastern
DRC, has been linked to serious human rights abuses including arbitrary
execution, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence. In an attempt
to stop the violence, the United Nations Security Council recently
imposed an arms embargo on the M23 as well as a travel ban and
financial freeze of two M23 leaders.
As part of a U.S. response to the ongoing crisis in the
DRC, do you support elevating the current United States Special
Representative to the Great Lakes Region to full-time U.S.
Special Envoy status with appropriate staffing and resources?
Will you urge the President to take immediate steps to
sanction those responsible for providing material support and
training to the M23 rebels--including Rwanda?
Answer. A higher profile Special Envoy, perhaps in addition to our
current Special Advisor for the Great Lakes and the DRC, could play a
valuable role in supporting the efforts by the United Nations, the
International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), the African
Union, and others to help resolve the conflict in eastern Congo. If
confirmed, I will look into this issue more closely.
As you know, the United States and the Security Council have
already implemented sanctions against M23 as a group and several of its
leaders. Any future U.S. actions regarding bilateral or Security
Council sanctions against DRC-related targets, including Rwandan
officials, will depend on developments on the ground, the behavior of
armed groups such as the M23 and those who have provided assistance to
them, and our assessment of what measures would effectively promote
peace and security in the region.
Question. Last year, President Obama made a historic visit to Burma
to encourage continued progress toward democratic reform.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of concerning developments--
including the escalating conflict between the Burmese Government and
the Kachin Independence Army--that could undermine reform pledges made
by Burmese President Thein Sein.
How can the United States increase pressure on the Burmese
Government to implement its pledges for democratic reform in
the country?
Answer. Since President Thein Sein took office in April 2011, the
Government of Burma has made important political and economic reforms,
including outlawing forced labor, enacting laws promoting labor rights,
removing restrictions on free assembly, passing a new foreign
investment law, and allowing greater press freedom. The Burmese
Government has also achieved progress on core concerns of the
international community, including the release of over 500 political
prisoners, and has entered into preliminary cease-fire agreements with
10 out of 11 major armed ethnic groups. The National League for
Democracy was allowed to contest seats in parliamentary by-elections
last April, and party leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a former political
prisoner, is now a member of Parliament. The Government of Burma has
continued these reforms since President Obama's visit, including repeal
of a law that had curbed free speech and formation of an anticorruption
team headed by one of the country's two Vice Presidents.
Much work remains to strengthen reforms and ensure that Burma's
democratic transition continues to move forward. The government must
follow through on its commitment to set up a process for reviewing
remaining prisoners, release all political prisoners unconditionally,
undertake comprehensive legal reform to open more space for civil
society to operate freely, and facilitate access to conflict areas for
international humanitarian organizations, among other reforms. If
confirmed as Secretary of State, I will continue to press the
government at the highest levels and at every opportunity to undertake
these reforms and transition to an open, democratic society.
I am deeply concerned about the armed conflict in Kachin state,
including the conflict's humanitarian impact and its negative
implications for the broader process of national reconciliation.
Despite the Burmese Government's announcement that a cease-fire was to
take effect on January 19, media and NGO reports indicate that the
Burmese Army continues its military offensive in Kachin state. The
United States has called on all parties to end the hostilities and
begin genuine dialogue to achieve sustainable peace. At the same time,
we remain committed to seeking accountability for the human rights
violations that have occurred in Kachin state. Senior Department
officials, including Ambassador Derek Mitchell, continue to raise U.S.
concerns at the highest levels of the Burmese Government.
The President's trip to Burma in November 2012 demonstrated the
United States resolve to supporting Burma in its political and economic
reform efforts. On the eve of the President's visit, Burmese President
Thein Sein announced his government's commitment to strengthen
democratic governance, meet its international obligations, and adhere
to international standards. In October 2012, Burma hosted the first-
ever bilateral human rights dialogue with the United States. Key agenda
items included political prisoners, legal reform, military reform, and
conflict in ethnic areas, including Kachin and Rakhine states. If
confirmed, I will continue to prioritize foreign assistance that
encourages and deepens political and economic reforms.
The United States has also ensured that new investment reinforces
democratic reform. Last summer, in easing sanctions, the Obama
administration announced a set of reporting requirements for U.S.
persons and companies investing in Burma to provide transparency and to
create incentives for firms to support improved human rights in Burma.
Question. In August 2012, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham
Aliyev, released and pardoned Ramil Safarov, an Azeri soldier who had
been sentenced to life in prison for the vicious murder of an Armenian
soldier.
The Obama administration condemned the release and Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Philip Gordon,
called the pardon a ``real provocation in the region.''
If confirmed, what steps can the United States take to put
pressure on President Aliyev to reconsider his decision and
return Mr. Safarov to jail?
Answer. Immediately after learning of Azerbaijani President
Aliyev's pardon of Ramil Safarov, the United States raised its concerns
directly with the highest levels of the Government of Azerbaijan. In
addition, both the White House and the State Department released strong
statements of concern over Mr. Safarov's transfer and subsequent
pardon. Mr. Safarov was tried and convicted of a brutal murder, and the
United States was extremely troubled to learn that he would not serve
the remainder of his sentence.
As a cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States continues
working to help the sides reach a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict, and the United States condemns any action that fuels
tension in the region or threatens to damage the peace process. If
confirmed, I will continue to raise the concerns expressed by the
United States previously and do everything I can to help the parties
resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully.
Question. Azerbaijan has threatened to shoot down aircraft that fly
into the newly rebuilt airport in Nagorno-Karabakh.
How will you respond, publicly and privately, to this
threat and to any other new acts of aggression from Azerbaijan?
Answer. The United States believes that the parties to this dispute
must resolve this dangerous situation diplomatically; the
administration has firmly opposed any steps by any party that increase
tensions in the region or threaten to damage the peace process in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As a cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, along
with Russia and France, the United States responded swiftly when such
threats first appeared, and the administration has continued to raise
the issue bilaterally and through the Minsk Group cochairs. If
confirmed as Secretary of State, I will continue working to support the
peace process and to oppose actions that could increase tensions in the
region or damage the peace process.
Question. If confirmed, will you or a member of your staff commit
to meet with the Armenian American community and religious leaders from
a broad cross-section of the community?
Answer. Department officials maintain an ongoing dialogue regarding
our foreign policy with a broad cross-section of the American people,
including members of the Armenian-American community and leaders in the
religious community. This mutual exchange of information and ideas is
an important element in the work of the State Department, and if
confirmed as Secretary, I will ensure that it continues.
Question. If confirmed, will you be an advocate within the Obama
administration for recognition of the Armenian genocide?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, my duty would be to
represent the policies of the President and administration faithfully.
As the President has emphasized in his April 24 Remembrance Day
statements, the achievement of a full, frank, and just acknowledgement
of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all our interests. He also
has said that the best way to advance that goal is for the Armenian and
Turkish people to address the facts of the past as a part of their
efforts to move forward. The United States is encouraging Turkey at the
highest levels to engage productively with Armenia on the normalization
protocols, to open the border, to reinstitute transportation,
communication, and utility links between the two countries, and to
reestablish diplomatic relations. If confirmed, I will continue to
strongly support all efforts to normalize bilateral relations between
Armenia and Turkey so that together, they can forge a relationship that
is peaceful, productive, and prosperous.
Question. You have been an important voice in the Senate on the
issue of international parental child abduction.
(a) As Secretary of State, will you continue to make this
issue a personal priority?
Answer (a). The Department of State has no higher priority than to
safeguard the welfare of U.S. citizens abroad, the most vulnerable of
whom are children. I have worked tirelessly on this issue as chairman
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. If confirmed as Secretary
of State, it will continue to be a personal and professional priority
of mine to encourage foreign governments to act in accordance with the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,
which requires the prompt return of abducted children to their country
of habitual residence.
(b) Will you commit to raising the issue of international
parental child abduction in high-level meetings with foreign
governments, including with the Japanese?
Answer (b). Senior Department of State officials regularly raise
international parental child abduction in our meetings with foreign
governments. In Japan, progress on this issue is a top priority in our
bilateral relationship. The recent election of a new government in
Japan gave us an opportunity to urge prompt ratification of the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as
well as take steps to resolve existing cases. Secretary Clinton raised
this issue in her meeting on January 18, 2013, with Japanese Foreign
Minister Kishida. If confirmed, I will continue this emphasis as
Secretary. In addition to its work with Japan, the Bureau of Consular
Affairs is making significant progress, which I will support as
Secretary of State, with the Governments of Mexico, Egypt, the Republic
of Korea, and many other countries, seeking the prompt return of
wrongfully removed or retained children.
(c) Will you ensure that the position of Special Advisor to
the Secretary for Children's Issues is retained to ensure that
high-level attention stays focused on this important issue?
Answer (c). Since the Bureau of Consular Affairs created the
Special Advisor for Children's Issues in 2010 and named Ambassador
Susan Jacobs to the post, she has done tremendous work to advance U.S.
policies on intercountry adoption and international parental child
abduction. She has engaged foreign government officials at the highest
levels to protect the welfare of children. As Senator, I have worked
closely with Ambassador Jacobs on these issues, and I believe the
position of Special Advisor plays a vital role in advancing the U.S.
position on international children's issues.
(d) Will you commit to work closely with other Federal
agencies--including the Department of Justice, the Department
of Homeland Security--on ways to prevent and resolve cases of
international child abduction?
Answer (d). The Department of State works closely with other
Federal agencies to resolve and prevent cases of international parental
child abduction. International parental child abduction is a crime
under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, and the
Department works closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Crimes Against Children Unit when Federal criminal charges are
involved. The Department also works with the Department of Homeland
Security to share information that can help prevent the departure of a
child who is the subject of a custody order prohibiting his or her
departure from the United States. These are just two examples of the
many ways different branches of the Federal Government work together to
prevent and resolve international parental child abduction, and we will
continue to strengthen our interagency relationship if I am confirmed
as Secretary.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. The issue of restitution of, or compensation for,
property wrongly taken during the Holocaust or Communist eras has been
an especially vexing issue in the post-Communist period. No country has
adopted a perfect framework, but many have undertaken meaningful
efforts in this area. Moreover, laws adopted in the past 2 years in the
Czech Republic, Lithuania, and elsewhere show that progress can be made
even after the passage of a great deal of time.
Unfortunately, Poland stands out in Central Europe for its failure
to adopt a general private property compensation or restitution law.
For many years, successive governments representing all the major
parties in Poland professed to be working on the passage of such a law.
Last year, however, the Government of Poland reversed its position and
asserted that the only remedy for those seeking compensation or
restitution would be recourse to Poland's courts--a process that
presents insurmountable obstacles for most victims of property theft
and especially victims of the Holocaust, will ultimately be futile for
most claimants, and even for a tiny fraction of successful claimant's
would be drawn out and needlessly burdensome.
(a) Will you reengage Poland on this important issue of
justice with the goal of seeing a general private property law
actually adopted?
Answer (a). If I am confirmed, the restitution of or compensation
for property confiscated during the Holocaust or Communist eras, which
ranges from real estate to works of art, will remain a high priority. I
will continue to press European governments, including Poland, to enact
property restitution or compensation legislation if they have not
already done so, and, if they have, to ensure that the claims processes
they create handle cases transparently and expeditiously with a minimum
of bureaucratic impediment. Poland has made progress on restitution of
communal properties and has been processing personal property claims
through its court system. The State Department will continue to
encourage Poland to address property claimants' concerns quickly and
fairly.
(b) Will you ensure that the expertise of the Office for
Holocaust Issues, which has done such important work, continues
to be supported as a critical resource for the European Bureau?
Answer (b). If I am confirmed, I will continue to ensure that the
expertise of the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues
(SEHI) continues to be supported as a critical resource for the
European Bureau. The State Department is committed to developing and
implementing policy aimed at encouraging the return of Holocaust-era
assets to their rightful owners, compensation for wrongs committed
during the Holocaust, and Holocaust education and remembrance. We
encourage Central and East European governments to restitute illegally
confiscated and nationalized communal and private property to rightful
owners and, using the guidelines of the 1998 Washington Conference
Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art, encourage the restitution of
artworks to rightful owners. Also of increasing importance is the
welfare of Holocaust survivors--many of whom today live in dire poverty
and, because of their experiences during the Holocaust, often have
special needs.
Question. Last December, former Senator Lugar and I--as partners on
the related extractives industry payment transparency initiative
Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank law--recently sent a letter to Secretary
Clinton urging full and timely U.S. implementation of International Aid
Transparency Initiative.
As Secretary of State, how will you engage Congress in
codifying some of the important achievements made by this
administration around transparency and accountability,
including the U.S. Government's participation in the
International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)?
Answer. I greatly appreciate the work you and Senator Lugar have
accomplished to encourage more transparent and accountable foreign
assistance. Aid transparency will remain a key priority for the
Department of State if I am confirmed. On December 20, 2012, the State
Department submitted a detailed and comprehensive U.S. Government IATI
implementation schedule to the IATI Secretariat and posted an initial
data set in IATI's common data standard for download in XML format.
This information is available on our Foreign Assistance Dashboard and
can be found at http://www.foreignassistance.gov/IATI_DataView.aspx.
This release represents a significant milestone in the U.S.
Government's commitment to increasing foreign aid transparency and
meets the deadline set by our membership in IATI, which gave us 1 year
to complete an implementation schedule.
If confirmed, I commit to working with Congress to continue to
ensure the Department and USAID continue to meet our international
commitments to aid transparency. In particular, I will work with the
interagency to promote the Foreign Assistance Dashboard as a critical
and necessary tool for meeting these commitments and encourage timely
updates to the Web site. The Department and USAID will continue to work
vigorously to ensure budget, financial, and programmatic information
from every agency implementing foreign assistance is available to the
public.
Question. Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question on
the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, particularly in Darfur, Southern
Kordofan, and Blue Nile. As you noted, the United States was
instrumental in helping South Sudan obtain independence roughly a year
and a half ago in July 2011. Unfortunately, this young country is now
facing a severe humanitarian crisis of its own, as well as a profound
governance crisis.
What more can the international community do to build the
capacity of the South Sudanese Government, civil society,
institutions, and systems of public finance to ensure long-term
sustainability, guarantee its ability to provide basic
services, and promote good governance?
Answer. Since South Sudan's independence, we and our international
partners are helping South Sudan improve its governance capability and
address its humanitarian needs. U.S. Government programs continue to
build accountability and strengthen systems of management, rule of law,
and governance. As you note, humanitarian needs remain high, and the
United States and other donors remain engaged in delivering life-saving
support to South Sudanese in need.
U.S. Government programs in this regard include the following:
(1) Governance and promotion of democracy, including
enhancing political competition, encouraging free speech and
media independence, improving government responsiveness and
accountability, and encouraging inclusive and participatory
development of a national constitution;
(2) Rule of Law and Civilian Security, including training for
law enforcement in community policing principles, support to
the judiciary, and assistance to the corrections sector to
improve prison conditions and management;
(3) Building South Sudanese management capacity through the
provision of direct technical assistance to South Sudanese
leaders in key government ministries, such as the Ministry of
Finance and the Ministry of Petroleum and Mining;
(4) Economic Growth through the construction of 950 km of
paved roads (with another 350 km planned) in a country that
previously lacked paved roads;
(5) Food Security through the Feed the Future initiative, by
doubling agricultural productivity of 7,200 rural farmers
through the use of hybrid seeds and fertilizers, and training
130 small agricultural businesses in business development;
(6) Health Services to control and prevent malaria,
tuberculosis, HIV, polio, and neglected tropical diseases;
improve water supplies and hygiene; and provide other basic
health services, including 125 primary health care clinics to
meet basic health care needs in areas of high conflict and
humanitarian need; and
(7) Education to train supervisors and teachers, improve the
safety of school facilities, increase community engagement, and
improve women's access to education.
U.S. democracy and governance programs support the development of
independent media and participation of citizens in governance and
political processes. The State Department and USAID work to ensure
civil society participation in the political process, including in the
consultation process for the new constitution.
Other donors, in particular the United Kingdom, Norway, and the
European Union, are similarly committed to these goals. Their programs
improve transparency in governance and in oil sector revenue
management. The administration is planning a donors' meeting on
February 7 to discuss creative solutions to South Sudan's economic
crisis and to find new ways to increase involvement by, and
coordination with, nontraditional donors. If confirmed, I will continue
to coordinate closely with these and other donors, as well as with the
United Nations and international nongovernmental organizations.
Question. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of
1982 have contributed to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific
region for the past three decades.
With the military balance--including air superiority--
gradually shifting in China's favor, what are your plans to
implement the security commitment the United States has for
Taiwan under this framework?
Answer. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the United
States one China policy, the United States makes available to Taiwan
defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability. This longstanding policy
contributes to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan
Strait.
The volume of these sales is substantial. The United States signed
defense related contracts with Taiwan valued at $4.7 billion in 2012
alone and notified Congress of over $12 billion in total sales during
President Obama's first term.
Signed contracts include an extensive retrofit and modernization of
Taiwan's F-16 fleet, and the sale of Apache attack and Blackhawk
transport helicopters, Patriot PAC-3 Air and Missile Defense Batteries,
P-3C long range ocean surveillance and antisubmarine aircraft, Osprey-
class coastal mine hunters and a variety of other systems, training,
upgrades and advanced weapons and equipment.
If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. policy to meet our
commitments to Taiwan and assist Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
defense capability. Doing so increases stability both across the Taiwan
Strait and within the region.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. State Department Personnel: How will you incentivize
Foreign Service Officers to get out and do the challenging work of
representing the United States while ensuring they have adequate
security cover to do so?
Answer. I am proud to report that the Foreign Service remains a
very attractive career choice for thousands of people. For the three
Foreign Service Officer Tests administered in FY 2012, 20,813 people
took the exam. Of the Generalists and Specialists who took the Foreign
Service Oral Assessment, 1,220 passed. This yearly process results in a
cadre of enthusiastic, dedicated, highly qualified Foreign Service
Generalists and Specialists, who are committed to deploying around the
world to represent the United States. With regard to protecting our
Foreign Service personnel, after reading the Accountability Review
Board (ARB) report, I publicly stated ``. . . it's important for all of
us to think in terms of going forward, that we need to do a better job
of ensuring a free and open dialogue among ambassadors, their embassy
security personnel, and officials in Washington where decisions on
security, staffing levels and funding are made.''
Secretary Clinton accepted all 29 recommendations from the Benghazi
ARB, and I understand the Department has been working diligently to
address and implement these recommendations. As I noted during my
confirmation hearing, if confirmed, I will personally oversee the
implementation of the ARB recommendations going forward, and I will
ensure that it is a top priority for the Department. I am also
committed to take actions above and beyond implementation of the ARB
findings. During my tenure as Secretary, I would work to make sure that
the security of our embassies and the protection of our personnel are
given robust and unflagging consideration.
Question. As we approach the 2014 transition, The State Department
will need to adapt to the changing demands for personnel and resources
in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the surrounding region.
What is your vision for the future of the Office of the
special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Will you streamline the South and Central Asia Bureau's
foreign assistance process by collapsing the Central Asia work
of the office of the Coordinator for Assistance to Europe and
Central Asia into the SCA Bureau?
Answer. I have worked closely over the last 4 years with the Office
of the Special Representative, which was charged by Secretary Clinton
to coordinate across a whole-of-government approach in pursuit of the
United States national security interests in the region. I greatly
value the work and contributions that this organization continues to
provide through its innovative structure and approach. If confirmed, I
plan to retain this office structure through 2014, to coincide with the
end of the Afghan security transition.
Under arrangements in place since 2006, the Office of the
Coordinator of Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia is
considered an integral part of the South and Central Asia Bureau (SCA),
reports to the Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
(and the Assistant Secretary for European Affairs), and coordinates on
a daily basis with working level counterparts in the Bureau. The
Coordinator's office is an active and full participant in
decisionmaking on assistance issues. While this is a unique arrangement
in the Department, far from being a burden, the mixture of perspectives
encourages innovative and cost-effective programming. Moreover, the
FREEDOM Support ACT of 1992 requires that a single coordinator be
responsible for all assistance to the independent states of the Former
Soviet Union. The office has developed expertise and insight in the 20
years the office has overseen assistance to the region. A change in the
Coordinator's statutory mandate would require amending the current law.
The current approach to assistance for Central Asia has been proven
highly effective and has facilitated SCA's development of the ``New
Silk Road'' framework for regional economic cooperation.
Question. I recently called for a more assertive approach to Syria,
because a political transition to a government that reflects the will
of the Syrian people is in the core interest of the United States. We
should be planning now for not only a refugee crisis, but for
contingencies in a post-Assad Syria.
What specific steps will you take to better coordinate the
international donor community's support for the moderate Syrian
opposition in the near term and to enhance the ability of the
United States to influence the reform process after Assad?
Answer. It is my understanding that the U.S. Government has done
extensive internal planning to prepare for a range of contingencies in
the post-Assad environment. This planning has included significant
consultations--bilaterally and within the Friends of the Syrian
People--with partners who share our goal of a stable political
transition in Syria. The Friends of the Syrian People have launched
working groups to ensure the international community is poised to
provide rapid support to a new Syria focus, including coordinating
economic reconstruction and lifting sanctions after Assad's departure
so that Syria can quickly get back on its feet.
If confirmed, I will continue to support the administration's
active coordination with partners on the immediate humanitarian crisis
through, for example, regular Syria Humanitarian Forum gatherings led
by the United Nations Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA) and the upcoming international donor's pledging
conference in Kuwait on January 30. It is my understanding that the
administration is supporting the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC)
efforts to develop their organizational structures, build legitimacy
inside Syria, and prepare to lead a transition to a post-Assad Syria.
The administration is also in frequent contact with key allies and
partners to ensure mutual reinforcement of moderate, responsible
elements opposition, and that all Syrian voices will be represented in
a new government.
Question. Feed the Future has relied on a ``Country-led'' process
in order to build buy-in and a long-term local commitment to food
security principles. In practice, this has meant engagement with
governments, some of which may not be democratic or adequately reflect
the needs of their people.
What will you do to reform the Feed the Future program so
that civil society plays a real role in decisionmaking and FTF
assistance is not funneled only toward government priorities?
How will you use your position as Secretary to promote
science and encourage adoption of biotechnologies that can save
lives by combating food insecurity?
Answer. The selection of Feed the Future focus countries depends in
part on the ability of governments in those countries to work with the
U.S. Government as a partner to deliver results. Feed the Future's
country-led approach helps build local government capacity to develop
and implement inclusive national food and nutrition security
strategies, in direct consultation with civil society, the private
sector, and other stakeholders. This has helped ensure that each
country investment plan represents a national, comprehensive strategy
for significantly reducing hunger and poverty and improving food
security in a particular country, while promoting transparency and
accountability.
We know that sustainable development, food security, and nutrition
goals cannot be achieved by government efforts alone. The U.S.
Government values contributions and feedback from civil society
partners. These partners help increase awareness about food security
and nutrition priorities among donors, governments, the private sector,
civil society partners, and the public. Valuable feedback from civil
society has been a key consideration in the evolution of Feed the
Future programming. For instance, Feed the Future has brought more
focus to the importance of gender equality, in addition to the need for
expanded opportunities for women and girls; the need for climate
resilient agricultural development; increased integration between
nutrition and agriculture; and the need to build up Feed the Future
efforts to include local civil society actors in decision making
processes related to national food security strategies.
The announcement at the 67th U.N. General Assembly of InterAction's
pledge of more than $1 billion in private, nongovernment funds over 3
years for global food security investments reflects the importance that
U.S.-based civil society organizations attach to food security and the
crucial role they play in the effort to end world hunger by
contributing resources, innovations, and expertise that can be
leveraged with U.S. Government and partner government investments.
Secretary Clinton made the inclusion of civil society a key part of
her work at the State Department and announced the preparation of an
action plan to ensure effective, creative engagement of civil society
across Feed the Future countries. Under this plan, the U.S. Government
will: Champion new technologies for broad-based dialogue with civil
society; foster creation of new partnerships among civil society
organizations, donors, the private sector, and partner governments; and
promote best practices in the capacity-development, knowledge-sharing,
and service-delivery of our civil society partners.
Progress in the Feed the Future effort continues. The State
Department played a key role in negotiating with G8 partners, in
particular, in developing and launching the New Alliance for Food
Security and Nutrition, announced by President Obama in May 2012. The
New Alliance is a shared commitment to achieve sustained and inclusive
agricultural growth and raise 50 million people in sub-Saharan Africa
out of poverty over the next 10 years by aligning the commitments of
Africa's leadership to drive effective country plans and policies for
food security; the commitments of private sector partners to increase
investments where the conditions are right; and the commitments of the
G8 to expand Africa's potential for rapid and sustainable agricultural
growth.
If confirmed, I am committed to enhancing and expanding U.S.
Government engagement with local and international civil society to
achieve Feed the Future goals.
With regard to science, genetic engineering specifically, and
biotechnologies more broadly, play significant roles in increasing
agricultural productivity and resilience, particularly in coping with
the impacts of climate change and the need to improve the nutritional
value of staple foods. It is one tool among many that we must deploy to
improve productivity in a time of declining resources.
U.S. Government agencies are already working with interested
countries to develop genetically engineered plant varieties that
address agricultural challenges for which conventional approaches have
been unsuccessful, partnering with both the public and private sectors
to ensure equitable access to technologies developed using
biotechnology. Examples include disease-resistant bananas in Uganda;
insect-resistant cowpeas in Nigeria and Ghana; nitrogen-efficient maize
and rice; and salt- and drought-tolerant rice in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Department of State and USAID will continue to support
agriculture research and development. From FY 2010 through FY 2012,
Feed the Future has funded $351 million in agriculture research and
development, with over $142 million requested in the FY 2013 budget.
In FY 2012, Feed the Future promoted the role of biotechnology in
increasing agricultural productivity through programs such as the
Program for Bio-Safety Systems in Africa, which supports the
development and implementation of biotechnology regulatory systems to
ensure the environmental and food safety of bioengineered crops in
countries such as Malawi, Ghana, Mozambique, Indonesia, and Tanzania.
If confirmed, I will continue to support the Department of State
and USAID's efforts to work in concert with other U.S. Government
agencies to urge governments to take maximum advantage of all available
technologies to increase agricultural productivity sustainably, and to
strengthen the capacity of policymakers and regulators in partner
countries to build effective science-based biotechnology laws and
regulatory systems that facilitate needed investments in these
technologies and use of the resulting products.
Question. The protection of supply routes to Afghanistan (the
Northern Distribution Network) has required the Department to engage
with Central Asian Governments that are undemocratic and have a history
of human rights abuses, according to the annual Human Rights Reports.
As Secretary of State, how will you leverage America's
strategic position in the region to compel these states to
respect the human rights of their citizens?
Answer. The U.S. Government's strategic position in Central Asia
has created the opportunity to forge stronger relationships with high-
level officials in the region. If confirmed, I plan to continue
Secretary Clinton's practice of consistently raising human rights
concerns with my Central Asian counterparts and pressing for tangible
reforms. Many Central Asian states look to the United States for
development and military assistance, but without significant human
rights improvements, our bilateral relationships cannot reach their
full potential.
If confirmed, I will continue the State Department's efforts to
encourage the governments of Central Asia to take concrete steps toward
political liberalization to build a sustainable system of democratic
governance that can ensure the rights of all citizens. I believe that
strengthening democratic governance, rule of law, and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms leads to greater opportunities for
economic development and societal stability.
Question. As the Middle East becomes more volatile, what will your
Department do to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge
(QME)?
Answer. The administration's commitment to Israel's security is
unwavering and any developments that the administration believes pose a
threat to Israel's qualitative military edge (QME) will be carefully
considered and responded to appropriately. Given this commitment, the
United States protects Israel's QME in a number of important ways.
First, Israel is the leading recipient of Foreign Military
Financing (FMF). In FY 2013, which marks the 5th year of a 10-year, $30
billion MOU, Israel will receive $3.1 billion. Israel is also the only
country authorized to use one-quarter of its FMF funding for domestic
defense procurement, which provides significant flexibility in meeting
immediate procurement needs and supporting the Israeli defense
industry. Additionally, Israel has privileged access to advanced U.S.
military equipment, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The United
States is providing significant financial assistance and technical
expertise to help Israel develop a comprehensive air and missile
defense system to provide defense against short range rockets and long-
range ballistic and cruise missiles. Finally, the U.S. Government is
taking full advantage of the bilateral consultative and political
mechanisms in place to respond to and act on Israel's concerns and to
ensure the region's unrest does not negatively impact Israel's QME.
Also, as the November 2012 conflict in Gaza demonstrated, the U.S.
role in providing Israel with funding for its Iron Dome rocket/missile
defense systems was critical in saving lives and preventing further
death and destruction.
Question. Bahrain, the longtime home of the Fifth Fleet, is of
clear strategic importance to the United States, but the human rights
situation there has deteriorated. What reforms will you push the
Government of Bahrain to undertake to ensure that the rights of its
people are not violated and that civil society can function freely?
Answer. Since the unrest began in 2011, the United States has
continued to urge genuine political dialogue in order to achieve reform
and reconciliation in Bahrain. If confirmed, I will ensure that we
engage at all levels: with the Bahraini Government, political groups,
the private sector, and civil society to underscore that political
dialogue, reform, and the protection of human rights are in Bahrain's
long-term interests, the strategic interest of the United States, and
the stability of the wider region.
The State Department has recognized progress made by Bahrain to
implement reforms following the unrest, including instituting a new
Code of Conduct for the police, reinstating some workers and students
who were summarily dismissed, appointing an Ombudsman in the Ministry
of Interior, and beginning to rebuild religious sites.
However, I am concerned that Bahrain's work on reform remains
unfinished, particularly in areas of freedom of expression,
accountability for past abuses, and professionalization of the police
force. I will press the Government of Bahrain to move decisively to
protect basic freedoms, promote human-rights principles, allow for
economic opportunities, build trust, and provide security for all
Bahrainis. Many of these reforms are also recommended by the Bahrain
Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report, which the Bahraini
Government has accepted in full. The State Department, through its
programming, seeks to promote reforms and reconciliation and improve
governance in areas such as commercial law, military capabilities, and
antiterrorism capacity.
If confirmed, I will call upon all political societies in Bahrain
to reject and condemn violence, to work with the Bahraini Government to
negotiate a common vision for the future, and to foster genuine
reconciliation. These reforms will help reinforce Bahrain's long-term
stability and deepen our bilateral relationship.
Question. What steps will you take as Secretary to persuade the
European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization?
Answer. Hezbollah's activities on a number of fronts--including
their stepped-up terrorist campaign around the world, and their
critical and ongoing support for the Assad regime--are deeply troubling
and, if confirmed, countering these activities will continue to remain
one of the Department's highest priorities. I will continue the
Department's efforts at urging our European allies--and other countries
around the world--to take a wide range of steps to crack down on
Hezbollah, including sanctions, increased law enforcement and
intelligence focus and cooperation with the United States, and strong
public statements against Hezbollah's activities. We will continue to
press for action against Hezbollah, emphasizing to our allies that we
must send a message to Hezbollah that their behavior is unacceptable
and that they can no longer continue to act with impunity, both at home
and abroad. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress
toward an EU designation and support the congressional resolution on
this important issue.
Question. Trade Policy: Japan is a very close friend in Asia, a
region with many geopolitical concerns and considerations. However,
Japan has not always played by the rules when it comes to trade.
Specifically, Japan and other countries' currency manipulation and
nontariff barriers to our exports have caused between 1 and 5 million
lost jobs, many of which were in Pennsylvania.
How do you intend to address Japan's trade practices,
particularly as it potentially seeks to join the Trans-Pacific
Partnership agreement?
Answer. Japan is indeed a very close ally, among the closest and
most important alliance partners we have the world over. As you note,
the Asia-Pacific region, where Japan is undeniably a leading force,
presents a variety of geostrategic considerations. These considerations
include political, security/defense, and economic dimensions. If
confirmed, I will continue to address relevant trade issues until the
playing field is level for our businesses and public at large. For the
most part, Japan's tariffs on U.S. products are very low now, so
nontariff barriers are impediments to increasing our exports to Japan
and thereby our ability to create jobs that come with those exports. It
is my understanding that the interagency has been working with Japan
for several years on these nontariff barriers with limited success.
However, in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which
Japan has expressed interest in joining, these discussions have
increased both in frequency and their depth. It is my understanding
that the administration has made it clear that addressing nontariff
barriers in the auto, insurance, and agriculture industries is
necessary for Japan to join the negotiations. The TPP is the most
significant Free Trade Agreement the United States has embarked upon in
two decades. Besides opening up new markets for our products, and
addressing new and pertinent trade issues, it is a catalyst for change,
including in Vietnam, Malaysia, and perhaps in Japan. The
administration is impressing upon Japan that the time is now to address
these longstanding issues, and is hopeful that our bilateral
discussions (and those Japan is holding with other TPP nations) will
begin to bear fruit in advancing our goals of reducing nontariff
barriers to trade.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator James E. Risch
Question. As with UNESCO, the United States lacks a veto over
membership decisions in other U.N. specialized agencies that the
Palestinians could target for membership. The Palestinians reportedly
were prepared to seek membership in these U.N. organizations until the
United States cut funding to UNESCO as required under two laws enacted
by a Democratic-led Congress in the early 1990s. U.S. Code Title 22,
Section 287e, states:
No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any
specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine
Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.
(Adopted as Public Law 101-246 in 1990.)
The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed
contribution: (1) to any affiliated organization of the United
Nations which grants full membership as a state to any
organization or group that does not have the internationally
recognized attributes of statehood, or (2) to the United
Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a
state in the United Nations to any organization or group that
does not have the internationally recognized attributes of
statehood, during any period in which such membership is
effective. (Adopted as Public Law 103-236 in 1994.)
The language in these provisions is clear and provides no
discretion or waiver authority. You voted for these laws, will
you support their enforcement as Secretary of State?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully adhere to U.S. laws as Secretary
of State.
I will also seek congressional support for legislation that would
provide authority to waive restrictions on paying U.S. contributions to
U.N. specialized agencies that grant the Palestinians full membership
as a state or equivalent standing. I believe that our country cannot
afford to be on the sidelines of organizations that help advance
American national interests.
I support the administration's commitment to active engagement
across the U.N. system to protect and promote American interests and
values. From bringing together the international community to impose
the toughest multilateral sanctions ever against Iran, to intervening
to protect civilians in Libya in a moment of crisis, to feeding the
hungry and helping create a new nation of South Sudan, the work of the
U.N. is vital to America's national security and to peace and the
stability of the international system.
By withholding our contributions to important specialized agencies,
not only would we cut off support for important programs that advance
U.S. interests, we weaken our ability to promote our priorities, risk
losing altogether our voting rights, and effectively empower others to
determine how and when America engages. When the United States steps
back, states with conflicting agendas can and do step in, and we could
easily find ourselves, sidelined and impotent at multiple U.N. agencies
and unable to advance U.S. interests.
I believe that a more effective approach is to work constructively
within international organizations to ensure that we can wield
influence to promote U.S. interests, including advancing Middle East
peace. I believe that constructive diplomacy, both bilateral and
multilateral, will better assist in achieving our shared goals.
Question. Since the fall of Hosni Mubarak, Israel has faced a
renewed threat on its southern border. The Sinai has become a haven for
terrorists and the smuggling of weapons to Gaza continues. While
Egypt's role in brokering a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel was
positive, other developments and Presidential decisions are less than
promising.
(a) Do you support current conditions on U.S. aid to Egypt,
including the maintenance of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty?
Answer (a). Egyptian leaders, including the President and the
country's military leadership, have repeatedly assured the
administration of their commitment to the Treaty of Peace with Israel.
If confirmed, I will take every opportunity to underscore to the
Egyptian leadership that preserving that peace is vital to Egypt,
Israel, and the United States. The administration has made it
unmistakably clear, in public and in private that Egypt's relationship
with the United States depends on its keeping the peace with Israel. I
will also continue to stress the importance of Egypt coordinating with
the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) on military deployments in
the Sinai.
The Sinai security environment is fluid and dangerous and it will
require maximum cooperation by Egypt, Israel, and others to address the
threats to regional security that exist as a result of the political
situation there. The Sinai also presents an internal terrorist threat
to the Egyptian Government, as was made clear in the August 5, 2012,
attack that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers. Regarding the linkage of this
issue to our assistance, it is in the United States interest to have
the flexibility to provide assistance as Egypt attempts to address its
security and sovereignty issues and as Israel seeks to ensure the
safety and security of its borders and territory. For this reason, the
administration supports the continuation of the inclusion of a national
security waiver in the FY 2013 appropriations bill requirement to
certify that Egypt is meeting its obligations under the Egypt-Israel
Treaty of Peace.
Preserving the Treaty of Peace is a redline for the United States.
The waiver authority simply reflects the fact that the situation on the
ground could be fluid, complex, and difficult to assess. The waiver
authority requires a determination that waiver of the restriction is in
the national security interests of the United States, and, if
confirmed, I will carefully weigh all available information and
implications in considering such a determination. If the United States
sees major reversals in Egypt's democratic transition, or changes in
its foreign and military policies that threaten the interests of the
United States or its allies, the administration maintains the ability
to halt assistance to Egypt.
(b) Despite some successes, Egypt is failing to stop the
smuggling of weaponry to Gaza. If confirmed, will you make it a
priority to work with Egypt to stop the flow of weapons to Gaza
and more broadly bring security to the Sinai?
Answer (b). The flow of weapons into Gaza remains a serious
concern, and, if confirmed, I will continue to press Egyptian leaders
to take concrete action against weapons smuggling, while offering the
fullest possible U.S. assistance in enhancing their capacity for
interdiction, such as through border security equipment and training.
Egyptian officials have shown that they understand the serious nature
of the smuggling threat, not only to Israel and others in the region,
but also to their own country's interests.
(c) What role should the United States play in helping to
rebuild political relations between Israel and Egypt?
Answer (c). The United States has repeatedly stressed to Egypt the
need for senior-level political ties with Israel and for continued
peace between the two countries. Ultimately, peace is in Egypt's
interest, and Egyptian leaders have said Egypt is committed to
upholding its treaty obligations. If confirmed, I will continue to
remind Egypt of the benefits that accrue from upholding its treaty
obligations and from constructive dialogue with Israel, which include
regional stability, economic benefits, and assistance in combating
common threats, in addition to preserving its relations with the United
States.
Question. In December, Secretary Clinton renewed a sanctions
exemption for China, citing a significant reduction in Beijing's
purchases of Iranian oil. What do you consider to be a ``significant
reduction'' in the import of Iranian oil in order for a country to
qualify for an exemption to our sanctions?
Answer. All major importers of Iranian oil, including China, have
now either significantly reduced or cut entirely their purchases.
Therefore, the revenues that the Iranian Government uses to fund its
nuclear and proliferation activities have been significantly reduced,
and that's our goal.
There is always some month-to-month variability in crude oil
purchases and China has significantly reduced its overall imports of
Iranian crude oil. The U.S. Government will continue to engage in close
consultations with the Chinese Government on U.S. sanctions and
maintain pressure on Iran to comply with its international obligations.
Question. Do you believe the war in Syria is an internal matter, or
do you believe the United States has important national interests at
stake?
Answer. The United States has a strategic interest in the emergence
of a stable, free, prosperous and democratic Syria that respects the
rights and aspirations of all of its people. The longer Bashar al-Assad
remains in power, the greater the likelihood of all-out sectarian
warfare and massive refugee flows that will not only have destabilizing
consequences for the region, but could also lead to a vacuum of
authority inside Syria where violent extremism could flourish. The
Syrian crisis arose as a result of Assad's violent and repressive
response to peaceful protestors who demanded nothing more than respect
for their legitimate and universal human rights. The United States
cannot and will not impose a transition upon Syria, but we have been
clear that we stand firmly on the side of the Syrian people as they
determine their own destiny.
Question. What do you believe the role of the United Nations is
regarding U.S. participation in military conflicts? Do you believe that
a U.N. resolution is an imperative for any U.S. involvement in military
action? Can a U.N. resolution substitute for an authorization of force
from the U.S. Congress?
Answer. A U.N. resolution is not a necessary precondition for U.S.
involvement in military action. For example, the U.N. Charter
specifically contemplates that states may use force in individual or
collective self-defense without the need for prior authorization by the
U.N. Security Council. President Obama addressed these issues in his
2010 National Security Strategy: ``The United States must reserve the
right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our Nation and our
interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to standards that govern the
use of force.''
The respective roles of the President and the Congress in
authorizing particular uses of force by the United States are governed
by the Constitution and applicable U.S. law. U.N. resolutions do not
govern these matters.
Question. Do you believe France acted legally in its incursion into
Mali this month? Under what legal authority do you believe they acted?
Answer. France responded to a direct request for assistance from
the transitional Malian Government authorities, who are engaged in an
armed conflict with terrorist and extremist elements. These elements,
having conquered large swaths of the country, were threatening to
overcome the large population centers, including the capital of the
country in the south. These actions are in keeping with U.N. Security
Council Resolution 2085 (2012), which was adopted unanimously by the
U.N. Security Council on December 20, 2012.
Question. Do you believe the recent events in North Africa
demonstrate that
al-Qaeda and its affiliates still pose a serious threat to the United
States, our interests and our allies abroad?
Answer. Core al-Qaeda (AQ) has certainly been weakened. Even so,
AQ-affiliated terrorist groups are cropping up elsewhere, including in
North Africa. The recent hostage crisis in southern Algeria
demonstrates the will and capacity of terrorist groups using the AQ
brand to threaten U.S. citizens and our allies in North Africa. This
attack was perpetrated by a group known as Mu`aqiin bil Dam (``Signers
in Blood''), whose leader is affiliated with AQ. Al Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) threatens U.S. and allied interests through its
practice of kidnapping for ransom, which often targets Westerners. More
broadly, these groups threaten the ongoing efforts to build democratic
states that are peaceful and prosperous in the region. AQIM and related
groups also threaten regional stability through their activities in
Mali.
Question. On January 31, 2012, in testimony before Congress,
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper included Boko Haram in
his worldwide threat assessment, stating, ``There are also fears that
Boko Haram--elements of which have engaged al-Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb (AQIM)--is interested in hitting Western targets, such as the
U.S. Embassy and hotels frequented by Westerners.''
Do you agree with his assessment?
Answer. While the administration assesses that Boko Haram's
priorities remain primarily local, Boko Haram has previously carried
out operations against Western targets and it is possible that they
will target Western interests in the region again. Previous operations
attributed to Boko Haram include the suicide bombing of the United
Nations building in the Nigerian capital of Abuja on August 26, 2011,
that killed at least 23 people and wounded scores more as well as
several kidnappings of Westerners. In June 2012 the Department of State
designated Boko Haram members, Abubakar Shekau, Abubakar Adam Kambar,
and Khalid al-Barnawi, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under
section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224. Shekau is Boko Haram's most
visible leader. Khalid al-Barnawi and Abubakar Adam Kambar have ties to
Boko Haram and have close links to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
(AQIM).
Question. Does Boko Haram meet the criteria for designation as a
foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)?
Answer. Addressing the lack of security in northern Nigeria is a
top priority for the Department of State. The Department remains
concerned about the activities of Boko Haram and its potential impact
on U.S. citizens or interests in Nigeria and other African nations. If
confirmed, I will review the situation in Nigeria with respect to Boko
Haram and take appropriate action as necessary, up to and including a
designation of Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
I should note that the United States has already taken action
against the most dangerous leaders of Boko Haram. On June 21, 2012, the
U.S. Government designated three individuals as Specially Designated
Global Terrorists--Abubakar Shekau, Khalid al-Barnawi, and Abubakar
Adam Kambar.
Question. Do you agree that the State Department should not wait
until after Boko Haram conducts a terrorist attack against U.S.
interests and/or citizens to designate them as an FTO under 219 of the
INA?
Answer. Addressing the lack of security in northern Nigeria is a
top priority for the Department of State. The Department remains
concerned about the activities of Boko Haram and its potential impact
on U.S. citizens or interests in Nigeria and other African nations. If
confirmed, I will review the situation in Nigeria, including with
respect to Boko Haram activities, and take appropriate action as
necessary. If the facts of the situation warrant a designation as a
Foreign Terrorist Organization, I am prepared to exercise my authority
in that respect.
Question. There have been press reports that the Indians are
worried about your becoming Secretary of State because you have
traveled more to Pakistan than you have to India and they view this as
a sort of favoritism.
What steps will you take with the Indians to ensure a
strong United States-Indian bilateral relationship?
Answer. The U.S.-India relationship is a strongly bipartisan
foreign policy priority which has enjoyed broad support in both
countries--across three U.S. presidencies and three Indian governments.
As he stated during his November 2010 visit to India, President Obama
is committed to advancing a long-term, strategic partnership with
India.
If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will continue to chair the
U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue as a catalyst for interagency action in
implementing the President's vision of a deepened partnership to face
shared challenges. This vision includes five key areas of great
potential in the U.S.-India relationship: defense cooperation;
partnering on shared interests in South and East Asia; homeland
security, intelligence, and counterterrorism cooperation; cooperation
in multilateral institutions; and an enhanced economic and energy
relationship.
India will be one of our closest partners in Asia, which will
contribute to the security of the whole region. Building on our robust
military exercises, dialogues, and defense procurement relationship ($8
billion and growing), we seek to transition to a relationship of
coproduction and, ultimately, joint research and development.
In South and East Asia, we both have an interest in ensuring the
region remains peaceful and offers opportunities for rising prosperity.
India's economy is key to the success of the New Silk Road vision and
to building a network of trade and transit linkages to its east in an
Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor of enhanced prosperity and strengthened
security for the nations of Southeast Asia, including Burma. Our
consultations with India include trilateral discussions with Japan and
with Afghanistan.
We share with India the urgent focus on preventing another attack
by a terrorist group against U.S. or Indian interests in the region or
elsewhere. Our joint counterterrorism efforts and information-sharing,
including through the Homeland Security Dialogue, have built an
important new bridge between our respective governments.
While in India, President Obama expressed support for reformed U.N.
Security Council that includes India as a permanent member. If
confirmed, I intend to continue intensive consultations with the Indian
Government to advance our collaboration in multilateral institutions.
Our strong economic relationship continues to underpin our
bilateral ties; bilateral goods trade more than quadrupled between 2000
and 2011 from $14.3 billion to $57.8 billion and total trade, including
services, is on track to reach $100 billion in the near term. We seek
continued growth in our bilateral trade relationship, enhanced
investment opportunities, including through the conclusion of a
Bilateral Investment Treaty, and further opportunities for U.S.
businesses in Indian markets. Full implementation of the U.S.-India
Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, beginning with the expected early
conclusion of commercial contracts for U.S. firms, remains a top
priority. All of these economic ties rest on an increasingly dense web
of people-to-people relationships, with over 3 million Indian Americans
in the United States and 100,000 Indian students studying in the United
States. People-to-people outreach will continue to be a priority.
Question. Can you describe the importance of ensuring the safe
return of SGT Bowe Bergdahl and what importance you will place on his
safe return? What will you do differently than your predecessor to
bring him home?
Answer. As our single captured servicemember in Afghanistan, the
safe return of SGT Bowe Bergdahl is of the utmost importance to me
personally, and the Department of State, and the administration.
Obtaining SGT Bergdahl's freedom is not only an important
humanitarian mission that we must pursue for him and his family, but a
manifestation of a solemn responsibility to every American serving in
uniform that the United States will not rest until every missing or
captured American servicemember is returned home. If confirmed, I
assure you that I will maintain the highest attention to this matter. I
will work with the Defense Department, ISAF, and the international
community, using all the diplomatic tools at my disposal to ensure his
expeditious return to the United States.
Question. Please characterize the Government of Russia. Do you
believe it is moving in the direction of greater democracy, or greater
authoritarianism?
Answer. Russia is at a crossroads today. It can take steps to
modernize and democratize its political system, diversify its economy,
and foster a robust civil society, or it can continue to impose limits
on competition, transparency, and governmental accountability that will
continue stifling the realization of a more open and prosperous country
that serves all Russians.
I am concerned by trends in Russian politics and government. For
example, in the wake of the mass public protests that followed
elections in 2011 and 2012, the Russian government has adopted a series
of measures that appear aimed at restricting the workings of civil
society and limiting avenues for public expressions of dissent.
Russia will not thrive without strengthened rule of law so that
whistle blowers like Sergey Magnitsky are protected from retribution
when they shine the light on official corruption, which Russia's
leaders have acknowledged is a cancer on their economy. And as long as
opposition figures are thrown in jail, or the murders of courageous
journalists such as Paul Klebnikov and Anna Politkovskaya go
unpunished, Russia will miss the historic opportunity it has to build a
modern and prosperous country that allows its citizens to realize their
extraordinary potential.
While only Russians themselves can determine Russia's future
course, we continue to believe that political pluralism, democratic
accountability and rule of law are the keys to unlocking Russia's
enormous potential. As such, if I am confirmed as Secretary of State, I
will continue to support Russian efforts to create a more free, modern,
and democratic country.
Question. As the Polish Institute of International Affairs pointed
out in a recent report, the Russians ``have fuelled a feeling of
insecurity'' among the Baltic States. However, concerns about Russia's
intentions have not been limited just to the Baltic States. In the
past, Russian presidents have stated there are regions in which Russia
has ``privileged interests.''
Do you believe the nations on Russia's border have a right
to determine who they wish to ally themselves with?
Do you think it is in America's interests to resist Russian
attempts to regain de facto control over portions of the Former
Soviet Union and, if so, what measures would you favor?
What do you think the United States can do to reassure our
NATO allies in Eastern Europe that America will not abandon
them to Russian threats, even if NATO appears unwilling to
stand up to Moscow?
Answer. The United States support for the independence of the
Baltic States and the other former Soviet Republics is unwavering and
nonnegotiable. The United States stands for the right of every
independent country to choose its alliances and associations--
political, military, economic, or otherwise--according to its own
interests and free from coercion of any kind. This country also stands
by the principle that states have the right freely to choose whether to
allow foreign forces to be stationed on their territory and that forces
that do not have the consent of the host state should be withdrawn.
These are principles I supported wholeheartedly in the Senate, and if
confirmed as Secretary of State I will continue to do so.
The United States has continued to modernize our force posture in
Europe, aligning it with the realities of the 21st century, while also
maintaining the capabilities we need to meet our Article 5 commitment
to our NATO allies. Our goal remains, as NATO heads of state and
government most recently reiterated at the 2010 Lisbon summit, that
``in light of common security interests, we are determined to build a
lasting and inclusive peace, together with Russia, in the Euro-Atlantic
Area.''
Question. After the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago, Secretary Clinton
declared the next NATO summit should be an enlargement summit. Do you
agree with her statement? What policies should guide membership in the
alliance?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue the United States unwavering
support for NATO's ``open door'' policy and commitment that any Euro-
Atlantic country that wishes to join the alliance and meets the
requirements may do so; no non-NATO state has a veto over any country
choosing its own alliances.
The United States works bilaterally and through NATO to support
aspirants' efforts to meet NATO standards and encourage them to take
the steps required to become interoperable with NATO. The United States
offers joint training opportunities, in addition to encouraging and
supporting partner contributions to NATO's worldwide operations, in
order to increase interoperability and build an atmosphere of
cooperation and trust at all levels of planning and operations.
The enlargement process has, and will, continue to serve as a
vehicle for promoting democratic institutions and civilian control of
the military within the countries of the Euro-Atlantic region. Through
NATO's open door, the United States has made great strides in realizing
the goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.
Question. In 2010, the French moved forward with a plan to sell
warships to Russia. Since then a number of NATO allies have offered to
sell equipment to Russia. Do you believe these sales are appropriate?
Answer. Decisions about such sales are a matter for sovereign
states taking into account a host of factors, including international
law and regional stability. All countries should exercise good judgment
and restraint when it comes to deploying military equipment that could
exacerbate tensions in any conflict region. NATO is an enduring
alliance that has weathered more than 60 years of sweeping change. The
administration remains committed to NATO, and to its mutual obligations
to build a safe and secure Euro-Atlantic region.
Question. The recently passed PNTR legislation for Russia included
an important provision that requires the U.S. Trade Representative and
the State Department to provide an annual report to Congress on the
steps they are taking to advocate for American investors in Yukos Oil,
the Russian oil company that was effectively expropriated by the
Russian Federation in 2007. The annual report will also include a
report on the status of the petition filed by American investors in
Yukos to request that the State Department formally ``espouse'' the
American claims--meaning the State Department would make compensation
for American investors a matter of bilateral negotiations between the
United States and Russia.
American investors collectively owned approximately 15 percent of
Yukos--a $12 billion stake based on the value of Yukos at the time the
company was dissolved by Russian authorities in 2007. The American
investors in Yukos included public pension funds, as well as more than
70 private investment funds in at least 17 States. There also were
approximately 20,000 individual American investors.
As the United States and Russia do not share a bilateral investment
treaty, without State Department intervention, American investors have
no meaningful recourse against the unlawful expropriation of their
property.
What concrete steps has the State Department taken in the
last 6 months to raise this issue with the Russians, and what
additional steps are planned for the coming months?
And will you move forward in formally espousing the claims
of American investors in Yukos and seeking compensation from
the Russian Federation?
Answer. The fair treatment of U.S. investors abroad, including in
Russia, is a priority for me, and will remain a top priority of the
State Department if I am confirmed. It is my understanding that the
Department has been closely following the Yukos matter, and has raised
it with the Russian Government on numerous occasions since 2007,
including demarches to the Ministry of Economic Development and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as in numerous media interviews.
I understand that the Department is undertaking a comprehensive
review of the espousal petition, and is also considering other possible
avenues for seeking equitable resolution of the outstanding claims. In
addition, the Department is closely monitoring the international
arbitration claims brought by Yukos investors under the Spanish and
U.K. bilateral investment treaties, the judgment rendered by the
European Court of Human Rights on the claims brought by the Yukos
Corporation, and the arbitration proceedings brought by majority Yukos
shareholders under the Energy Charter Treaty. Before making any final
decisions on the best way to address the claims of American investors,
the Department believes these proceedings should fully run their
course.
Question. It has been reported in the Press that Russia is
developing legislation that would bar visas to U.S. officials
affiliated with the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and that the
list of individuals detained contains Members of the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives.
Do you or does the Department of State know what Members of
Congress would be on the Russian GTMO List?
What would be an appropriate response to Russia passing
such legislation?
Answer. To my knowledge, the Department of State does not have
official information with which to confirm or refute press reports
about Russian Government intentions to bar Members of Congress from
traveling to Russia.
Question. Late in 2012, Russia passed a ``Foreign Agent'' Law and
several other similar measures which, according to the New York Times,
will discourage interaction with foreigners by expanding the legal
definition of treason to include ``providing financial, technical,
advisory, or other assistance to a foreign state or international
organization.''
Have any Foreign Service Nationals at the U.S. Embassy
Moscow had to quit due to the passage of this law?
What impact will this law have on Embassy and consulate
operations in Russia given that the U.S. Government provides
payment to Foreign Service Nationals for their services?
Answer. The Locally Engaged Staff in Moscow, Yekaterinburg, St.
Petersburg, and Vladivostok are valued employees and serve to support
U.S. Government policy goals.
The new Russian law redefining the crime of treason is very broadly
written. Though we have not yet seen how it will be enforced, the
concern for our Locally Employed Staff is valid, and will have my
attention if I am confirmed as Secretary of State. As a longstanding
matter of policy, the United States does not ask local Embassy
employees to provide sensitive information about their home countries,
a fact I will make clear to my Russian counterpart if confirmed. There
has been no impact on operations at the U.S. Mission in Russia since
passage of the law.
Question. We employ over 800 Russian nationals in our Embassy in
Moscow, but the Russians employ no Americans at their Embassy in
Washington. Russian employees in Embassy Moscow present an enduring
counterintelligence threat. A number of proposals, from eliminating all
Russian workers to merely adding American supervisors to the local
guard force have been suggested, but none have been enacted.
Do you agree that steps must be taken to decrease the
number of FSN's serving at the U.S. Embassy Moscow?
What will you do to improve the security situation vis-a-
vis Russian workers in our Embassy?
Answer. I take the security of all mission personnel very seriously
and if confirmed, I intend to work very closely with staff in
Diplomatic Security to review and implement all security
recommendations, including those of the last Inspector General's report
for Mission Russia and those contained in the report of the
Accountability Review Board.
The Locally Engaged Staff in Moscow, Yekaterinburg, St. Petersburg,
and Vladivostok are valued employees and serve to support U.S.
Government policy goals. I believe that a reduction in the numbers of
these professionals working for the U.S. Government would not
contribute to an improvement in the overall security situation of our
missions in Russia.
Question. At present, there is very poor linkage between poor
behavior by foreign countries and consequences in response to such
behavior. For example and according to press reports, Russians,
Pakistanis, and Chinese engage in routine harassment of our diplomats,
including killing pets, violating houses, and harassing surveillance.
Does and should the U.S. Department of State take any
reciprocal actions such as restricting movements and denying
visas when this happens to U.S. diplomats?
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure better
treatment for American diplomats abroad?
Answer. Mandated by Congress through the Foreign Missions Act (22
U.S.C. 4301-4316) of 1982, the Department's Office of Foreign Missions
(OFM) provides the legal foundation to facilitate secure and efficient
operations of U.S. missions abroad, and of foreign missions and
international organizations in the United States. In doing so, OFM
serves the interests of the American public, the American diplomatic
community abroad, and the foreign diplomatic community residing in the
United States, ensuring that all diplomatic benefits, privileges, and
immunities are properly exercised in accordance with federal and
international laws.
As an advocate for reciprocal agreements, OFM presses for fair
treatment of U.S. personnel abroad while assuring foreign diplomats
based in the United States receive the same treatment that each
respective government provides in return.
If confirmed, I am committed to reciprocal and fair treatment of
our United States diplomatic and consular missions abroad and their
personnel.
Question. In 2001, Argentina had the largest default in history and
turned its back on $81 billion in loans from the international
community. In 2005, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner offered a
``take it or leave it,'' nonnegotiable 27-cents-on-the-dollar debt
exchange to its worldwide private creditors. President Kirchner refused
to negotiate with Argentina's private bondholders and repudiated the
country's outstanding debt obligations. Again in June 2010, Argentina
temporarily offered to pay the equivalent of 25 percent of what they
owed foreign creditors before again repudiating all outstanding debt.
Argentina owes American bondholders $3.5 billion. With more than
$40 billion in foreign reserves, Argentina can afford to repay what it
owes. In the Southern District Court of New York alone, Argentina has
refused to honor 100 court judgments ordering it to fulfill its debt
obligations. Argentina has also repeatedly disregarded arbitral awards
entered against it by the World Bank's dispute resolution panel, the
International Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID),
despite receiving billions of dollars in World Bank loans.
The United States clearly has an interest in supporting the rule of
law and seeing that US court judgments, as well as the rulings of
international arbitral panels, are respected.
Do you agree that Argentina should be encouraged to meet
its legal obligations? If so, as Secretary of State, what new
steps will you take to encourage Argentina to do so?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the administration's
bilateral discussions with Argentine officials and reiterate our
serious concerns about Argentina's failure to fulfill its private debt
obligations to U.S. creditors, as well as its public debt to the U.S.
Government, and press for a resolution to this longstanding bilateral
irritant.
It is my understanding that the Department of State has raised
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
cases with the Government of Argentina at high levels over the past few
years and continues to urge Argentina to pay the two U.S. companies
that hold final and binding awards administered by ICSID. The
Department of State also expressed concerns that Argentina has failed
to make payments on its sovereign debt obligations, including almost
$550 million to the United States, and has urged Argentina at the
highest levels to normalize relations with all of its creditors, both
public and private. By resolving its obligations to creditors and
investors, Argentina will send a strong signal that it welcomes and
encourages the foreign and domestic investment that is crucial for
sustained economic growth.
I believe it is important for our countries to manage areas of
disagreement and will seek to rebuild a positive bilateral relationship
based on shared values, responsibilities, and interests.
Question. Senator Kerry, when you chaired the nomination hearing of
Secretary Clinton you stated; ``It is my hope that we will embrace deep
reciprocal cuts in our nuclear arsenals, and I'm eager to hear Senator
Clinton's thoughts on this matter. Consistent with our security needs,
I believe we should set a goal of no more than 1,000 deployed warheads,
and that goal should be just the beginning.''
What analysis did you use to arrive at the 1,000 deployed
warhead limit?
While the New START Treaty established a threshold of 1,550
deployed warheads, do you support negotiations to reduce our
strategic deterrence further?
Answer. I agree with President Obama, who stated the following in
Seoul in March 2011: ``[W]e can already say with confidence that we
have more nuclear weapons than we need. I firmly believe that we can
ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a
strong deterrent against any threat, and still pursue further
reductions in our nuclear arsenal.''
The President directed the Implementation Study of the 2010 NPR to
inform the guidance to the Defense Department on nuclear planning to
determine force structure, force posture, and stockpile requirements
needed to protect the United States and our allies and partners, and to
inform plans for employing nuclear weapons in the extreme circumstance
in which deterrence fails. The results of this study, when concluded,
will inform our position in future discussions with Russia on further
nuclear reductions.
Question. Some in the arms control community have prepared reports,
including the International Security Advisory Board and Federation of
American Scientists, that have encouraged President Obama to bypass
Congress and unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal.
Do you endorse unilateral efforts to reduce our arsenal?
Answer. Having served proudly in the U.S. Senate since 1985, I have
the utmost respect for the role of Congress in the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy.
I am mindful of the language in the Arms Control Disarmament Act,
and similar language in other legislation. As always, the
administration will follow the Constitution and the laws of the United
States.
If confirmed, I would ensure that the Department of State will
continue its consultations with the Congress on arms control and other
issues.
Question. In your testimony before the committee you mentioned that
U.S. economic policy and foreign policy are becoming more
interconnected and difficult to distinguish. One place where challenges
exist is the conflicts between the U.S. Department of Commerce
Commercial Control List and State Department's U.S. Munitions' List.
What changes would you make and what authority are you
willing to cede in order to help U.S. companies improve their
exports?
Answer. In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based
interagency review of the current export control system to ensure that
the system, designed for a bipolar world of the cold war era, could
address the threats we face today as well as the changing economic and
technological landscape. At the end of the review, the President
directed agencies to undertake fundamental reforms in what we control,
how we control it, how we enforce those controls, and how we manage our
controls.
It is my understanding that, since then, agencies have worked to
implement the President's vision. A key part of this effort has been
the work by the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce to update
the U.S. Munitions List (USML) and the Commerce Control List (CCL). By
working steadily and collegially--in a field that traditionally has
been fraught with interagency disputes--these agencies are methodically
accomplishing this enormous task. They identified items which, because
of their sensitivity, will stay on the USML and remain subject to the
strict licensing requirements of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
Those items of an inherently dual-use nature will be moved to the CCL,
where they will not be decontrolled, but rather subject to the more
flexible licensing mechanisms that are available under the Commerce
licensing authorities while remaining subject to U.S. embargoes. This
prioritization of our controls, to dispense with what former Secretary
of Defense Gates has called the ``easy cases'' to our allies where we
say ``yes'' 100 percent of the time, will enable us to better focus on
the items and destinations of greatest concern. As required by the
AECA, the Department will notify Congress of any planned changes to the
USML. In fact, it is my understanding that the first such notification
likely will occur in the next few months.
There is still more work to be done, but when finished, these list
reforms will focus our resources on the threats that matter most, and
help us work more effectively with our allies in the field. They will
bring transparency and coherence to a field of regulation which has
long lacked both. And by enhancing the competitiveness of our
manufacturing and technology sectors, which will help maintain and
create jobs, they will help us to both expand our secure trade and
strengthen our national security.
The authorities in the AECA to control the export of goods and
technologies on the USML are provided to the President. The President
has delegated many of the AECA authorities to the Secretary of State.
The President will continue to determine where the AECA functions
should be placed within his administration to best benefit U.S.
national security and foreign policy interests.
Question. What is the likelihood of bringing more nuclear weapon
states into INF?
Answer. Twenty-five years after its signing, the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) remains a singular achievement in
nuclear arms control, and an inspiration for future work.
The United States believes that our world would be a safer and more
secure place if all nations would eliminate and renounce the
intermediate-range missiles covered by the INF Treaty.
Indeed, in October 2007 the United States joined Russia in issuing
a statement at the 62d session of the U.N. General Assembly calling on
all countries to give a global character to the INF Treaty by
renouncing the types of missiles covered by the treaty.
Nonetheless, the administration is not convinced that a ``one-size-
fits-all'' global treaty on such missiles is the best way to address
the issue. Accordingly, the administration will also explore options
for addressing the issue on a regional basis.
Question. We have heard Moscow complain that U.S. investments in
Missile
Defense threaten to upset the strategic balance that exists. How would
you characterize Russia's Missile Defense Investments (both
unilaterally and with other nations)?
Answer. Russia's missile defense capabilities are largely focused
on theater missile defense systems such as the S-300 and S-400,
although Russia has maintained the Moscow ABM system since Soviet
times. In addition, Russia also has a number of sensors that could have
a role in a missile defense system.
Russia follows U.S. missile defense developments closely. Russian
officials have said publicly that Russia is putting a strong emphasis
on improving its aerospace forces as part of its response to U.S.
programs. If confirmed, further details could be discussed in a
briefing with my interagency colleagues.
Question. Is Russia's calculation for the number of nuclear weapons
in its arsenal based solely on U.S. and NATO estimates or does Russia
also take into consideration the size, composition and investment of
countries like China and India when determining the size and
composition of its deterrent?
Answer. It is my understanding that to the best of the Department's
knowledge, Russia's calculation for the number of nuclear weapons in
its arsenal takes into account a number of factors, including U.S. and
NATO estimates. Russian strategic experts have published analyses in
the press that suggests Russia is sensitive to Chinese military
programs. If confirmed, further details could be discussed in a
briefing with my interagency colleagues.
Question. Could you please describe the importance of verification
and compliance in arms control negotiations?
Answer. The United States places a very high priority upon
verifying compliance with, and detecting violations of, arms control
agreements. A key criterion in evaluating whether an agreement is
effectively verifiable is whether the United States would be able to
detect, and respond to, any attempt by another Party to violate its
obligations in a way that has military significance, well before such
an attempt became a threat to U.S. national security.
Question. Is Russia living up to all arms control agreements to
include the PNIs, INF, New START, and the U.S. definition of what
constitutes a test under the CTBT?
Answer. For issues relating to Russian compliance, I refer you to
the Annual Compliance Report produced by the Department of State. Both
the unclassified and classified versions of that report will give you a
view of issues regarding compliance with all our treaty partners,
including Russia.
Question. Do you see China as a strategic partner or strategic
competitor for the United States, and how do you interpret China's
massive military buildup over recent years?
Answer. U.S.-China relations have elements of both cooperation and
competition. The United States should continue to work with China to
manage our differences where we cannot resolve them and continue to
build an increasingly cooperative partnership across the range of
bilateral, regional, and global issues that confront us today. I
disagree with views held by some in both the United States and China
that conflict with the United States is an inevitable outcome of a
rising China. In fact, the United States welcomes a strong and
prosperous China that plays a key role in world affairs and adheres to
international standards.
On the military front, the United States seeks a healthy, stable,
reliable, and continuous military-to-military relationship with China.
Increased contacts and exchanges between our two militaries would help
expand areas of cooperation, narrow differences, and eventually lead to
Chinese choices that will benefit our shared long-term security
interests.
The United States continues to both closely monitor China's
military modernization program and encourage China to exhibit greater
transparency with respect to its capabilities and intentions. The
United States also encourages China to use its military capabilities in
a manner conducive to the maintenance of peace and stability in the
Asia-Pacific region.
Question. Should North Korea conduct an additional underground
nuclear weapons test, what actions would you recommend the President
taking unilaterally and multilaterally to further isolate them from the
global community?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support strong U.S. and international
condemnation of a third nuclear test by North Korea. A nuclear test by
North Korea would be a mistake, a miscalculation, and would set back
the cause of resolving issues that relate to the Korean Peninsula
diplomatically, most importantly the issue of denuclearization. This
provocative act would directly violate North Korea's international
obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, and if
confirmed I would support a strong international response. The United
States should continue to make clear that it will take steps necessary
to defend the United States and our allies.
Question. It appears that China is so concerned about instability
in North Korea that it will do whatever is necessary to prevent a flood
of North Korean refugees from crossing into its territory. What will
your strategy be for getting China to be more supportive in the UNSC
for further sanctions against North Korea?
Answer. The United States and other six-party-talks partners should
continue to urge the leadership in Pyongyang to choose the path toward
peace and prosperity; staying on its current path will only lead North
Korea deeper into isolation. The United States should continue to
pursue its dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to sharpen the
DPRK's choices.
The United States and China have a shared interest in a
denuclearized Korean Peninsula, so the United States should continue to
encourage China to more effectively leverage its unique relationship
with the DPRK to achieve our common goal. The United States has worked
actively with China in the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) to develop UNSC
Resolution 2087 and previous UNSC actions related to North Korea. If
confirmed, I would support the administration's policy of continuing to
emphasize to China and others the necessity of North Korean
denuclearization and the importance of our approach to achieving that
goal.
Question. Should the North Koreans conduct another nuclear weapons
test, should the United States consider relisting them as a State
Sponsor of Terrorism?
Answer. As a matter of law, in order to be designated as a State
Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must determine that the
Government of North Korea has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism. Available information does not indicate that
the DPRK government has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism since its designation was rescinded in October
2008. A nuclear weapons test conducted by North Korea would not be
considered such support.
Even without being designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,
North Korea remains among the most heavily sanctioned countries in the
world. It is subject to a wide array of multilateral and unilateral
sanctions based on its detonation of a nuclear device, ballistic
missile activity, proliferationactivities, human rights violations, and
status as a Communist state.
Question. Is providing conventional weapons and funding to U.S.
designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations enough to add North Korea
back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the Department of State will continue to
apply the law as the facts warrant. It is my understanding that, based
on currently available information, the DPRK does not meet the
statutory criteria for designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. The
Department regularly reviews the available intelligence on North Korea
to determine whether it should be designated as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism and will pursue immediate action if credible evidence
supports North Korea's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism
under the statutory criteria.
Question. Senator Kerry, as you know, there is a growing global
market for civilian nuclear power plants. Worldwide, 67 commercial
nuclear reactors are under construction and an additional 158 reactors
are planned or on order. The Commerce Department estimates the
commercial opportunity over the next decade may be worth as much as
$740 billion. If U.S. suppliers were able to capture nominally 25
percent of this market, they would create or sustain up to 185,000
high-paying American jobs.
Can you assure us that, as Secretary of State, you will
work to open up foreign markets for U.S. nuclear exports?
Answer. Nuclear energy is an important component of the
administration's sustainable energy platform both domestically and
internationally. I am keenly aware of the economic opportunities that a
growing nuclear export market provides. The United States also supports
nuclear exports for foreign policy reasons, including energy security,
national security, and nonproliferation. However, in comparison to
other energy sources, nuclear power presents a unique set of
challenges, most notably those related to safety, security, and
nonproliferation. U.S. exports can be conducted in a way that meets
those challenges. If confirmed, I will work to open up foreign markets
for U.S. nuclear exports in conformity with our overall nuclear
nonproliferation legal requirements and nuclear policy objectives.
Question. Do you agree that America's global strategic interests
are advanced by the commercial engagement of U.S. nuclear firms with
foreign countries that are developing civil nuclear power, and by the
bilateral agreements for civil nuclear cooperation that make such
engagement possible?
Answer. I believe that significant commercial and nonproliferation
benefits flow from the involvement of U.S. suppliers in the global
civil nuclear market. U.S. agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation
must embody and advance our nonproliferation obligations and objectives
while supporting to the maximum degree possible the commercial equities
associated with potential cooperation with any given partner.
Question. Are you committed to concluding bilateral agreements for
civil nuclear cooperation with emerging markets for civil nuclear
power?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to uphold the U.S. commitment
to negotiating agreements for peaceful nuclear cooperation with
countries in emerging markets where those agreements can further both
our nonproliferation obligations and objectives and our commercial
interests.
Question. On the heels of State Department's first Quadrennial
Development and Diplomacy review (QDDR), you authored legislation to
ensure successive Secretaries of State would continue issuing this
report. Will you issue a QDDR at the appropriate time?
Answer. If confirmed by the Senate, I will continue the Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review process begun by Secretary Clinton. As
you know, the committee passed a bill in September of last year
mandating the Secretary of State to conduct a review every 4 years. As
SFRC chairman and as Secretary-designate, I support this bill and
encourage the House and Senate to approve the legislation in 2013.
Question. While I applaud the efforts of the Department to develop
this important document, as you know the Department of Defense produces
a number of documents, including a Quadrennial Defense Review, that are
used to help inform the drafting of the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP).
With a completed QDDR, will you also take the additional steps of
drafting a similar long-term strategic budget and other planning and
programming documents?
Answer. As you know, the QDR was the inspiration for the QDDR, and
the Departments of State and Defense continue to exchange information
about their respective budgeting and planning processes. It is my
understanding that, as recommended by the 2010 QDDR, the State
Department has begun to pilot a multiyear budgeting and planning
process in a number of bureaus that will subsequently be adopted
agencywide.
Question. In response to a litany of national security leaks from
earlier last year the Director of National Intelligence on June 25,
2012, announced steps to deter and detect unauthorized disclosures of
classified information. Specifically, this policy change mandated that
a question related to unauthorized disclosures of classified
information be added to the CI polygraph used by all agencies that
administer the examination, specifically, the CIA, DIA, DOE, FBI, NGA,
NRO, and NSA.
Do you agree that INR should have the same polygraph policy
as other USIC components?
Will you pursue a policy where at a minimum, all new INR
personnel hires for a TS/SCI position receive a CI polygraph
and all existing employees with a TS/SCI clearance are subject
to random polygraphing like other IC components?
Answer. INR staff are employees of the Department of State and are
hired under the same standards as other Department employees. It is my
understanding that it has been longstanding Department policy not to
utilize polygraph examinations as part of the hiring or clearance
granting processes, but to use the polygraph for investigatory purposes
as appropriate. If confirmed, I would want to look carefully at all of
the relevant issues before making any decisions about that policy.
______
Responses of Secretary-Designate John F. Kerry to Questions
Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Since December 2009, the Cuban Government has been
holding an American development worker, Alan Gross, hostage for helping
the Jewish community in Cuba get uncensored Internet access. The U.N.'s
Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions has held Gross' imprisonment to
be arbitrary. The United States should pressure the Cuban Government to
release Alan Gross. However, the Cuban Government should not be
rewarded with any unilateral concessions for Gross' imprisonment--
whether before or after Gross' release--for this will only endanger
American lives in the future and encourage further hostagetaking.
If confirmed, would you commit not to reward the Cuban
Government for the arbitrary imprisonment of Americans?
Answer. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to protect
the safety and security of American citizens around the globe,
including in Cuba. Alan Gross is a 63-year-old husband, father, and
dedicated professional with a long history of providing assistance and
support to underserved communities in over 50 countries. His
incarceration is unjust and his release is a humanitarian issue. If
confirmed, I will continue to use all appropriate diplomatic means to
secure Mr. Gross' release.
Question. The Agency for International Development's democracy
programs are pivotal to helping Cuba's civil society gain access to new
technologies, basic support for the marginalized families of political
prisoners, training for independent journalists, labor activists, and
other targeted groups. We have read reports regarding of previous
efforts to halt the democracy programs, which are authorized by law.
If confirmed, would you continue to support the Cuban
democracy programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. policies that promote
democracy, freedom of expression and assembly, and human rights in
Cuba. It is the administration's view that we should help those who
work for positive change in Cuba, including human rights and pro-
democracy activists, independent journalists, and broader civil
society. The Cuban democracy programs are one element of the strategy
to support these objectives. If confirmed, I will seek ways to increase
the independence of the Cuban people so that they may freely determine
their own future.
Question. While State and Treasury have worked with me to
streamline procedures to make sure people-to-people programs are truly
benefiting the Cuban people, reports of trips being hosted by the
government and meeting with the neighborhood watch committees (CDRs),
continue to take place. The President's policy states that these
programs were designed to foment the Cuban people's ``independence''
from the regime; but in fact, the itineraries are controlled by the
regime on the island.
Would you work to uphold the administration's original
intent of these trips and ensure they are not being used for
tourism purposes, which is against U.S. law, or for the benefit
of the Cuban Government?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support the
administration's desire to increase purposeful travel; support private
enterprise and civil society in Cuba; enhance free flow of information
to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their
independence from the Cuban state. In May 2012, the Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended the
``Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in
Travel-Related Transactions Involving Cuba'' to require additional
information from people-to-people license applicants, including
information on how their proposed travel would enhance contact with the
Cuban people and/or support civil society in Cuba and/or help promote
the Cuban people's independence from Cuban authorities. The
administration continues to assess implementing procedures to ensure
that benefits to Cuban civil society of U.S. travel outweigh any
potential benefits to the Cuban Government.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State continues
to work closely with the OFAC and refer to OFAC any potential
violations of which the State Department becomes aware.
Question. Foreign aid programs that require fiscal accountability
and the adoption of policies for good governance, economic freedom, and
respect for the rule of law by recipient nations are a critical
component of our national security strategy.
What are your thoughts on conditioning non-HIV, nonsecurity
assistance on country recipients' adherence to democratic
governance?
Answer. U.S. foreign assistance seeks to support good governance,
economic freedom, and respect for the rule of law. I agree that
assistance is most effective with partners who embrace these goals.
However, it is also important that foreign assistance authorities
maintain the flexibility necessary to meet our national security and
foreign policy objectives. Imposing such conditions could unduly
restrict our efforts, especially in contingency situations. Moreover,
restricting assistance to countries that do not already meet a certain
standard of democratic governance would undermine our efforts to
provide assistance that promotes the democratic institutions necessary
to reach a higher standard.
Question. As Secretary of State you will chair the Board of
Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. MCC Compacts are
highly coveted by recipient nations, for the good governance and
international credibility they convey. However, in at least two
occasions in the last 3 years--Honduras 2009 and El Salvador 2012--MCC
has been slow to react to undemocratic events in recipient countries in
the Western Hemisphere.
Does MCC have enough flexibility in their contracts to
swiftly stop funding flows even in the final months of a
compact?
If confirmed, what measures would you proposed to the Board
to ensure MCC reacts swiftly to undemocratic events in
recipient countries?
Answer. MCC has the ability to stop funding flows, even in the
final months of a compact, and has done so in certain extraordinary
circumstances. For example, in May 2012 the MCC Board terminated Mali's
compact, which was due to be completed in September 2012, because of
the military coup.
If confirmed, I will work with the rest of the MCC Board to weigh
carefully the merits of swift MCC actions in response to undemocratic
events in MCC countries. In making such evaluations, I will rely to a
great extent on input from our embassies overseas, which provide a
steady stream of political and economic reporting from the field. MCC
grants are premised on a country's commitment to democratic governance
and rule of law and I take that condition seriously.
Question. Diplomatic requirements post-September 11, 2001, have
exposed the State Department's need for a major structural and
personnel overhaul. If confirmed, I hope you make a sustained effort
and that we can work together on this endeavor, to make at State the
deep cultural and structural reforms the Defense Department undertook
through the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
Would you support the adoption of a national security
professionals program of some kind, designed to foster
interagency collaboration, as part of State's Foreign Service
and Civil Service?
Answer. The Department of State and other agencies are working
closely with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which has taken
the lead to implement a Presidential Executive order to Develop
National Security Professionals who can effectively work together,
across agencies and levels of government.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013
(recently enacted into law on January 2, 2013, as Public Law 112-239)
mandates the creation of an interagency rotation program for national
security professionals involved with such matters as emergency
management, and stabilization and reconstruction. The Department is
evaluating how best to implement this law within the 270-day timeframe.
Question. To what extent would fostering interagency national
security professionals require changes to the State Department's
personnel system or conflict with the demands with State's internal
career development programs?
Answer. The Department's Foreign Service Institute (FSI) currently
offers the National Security Executive Leadership Seminar, which is a
training and collaborative opportunity for State and interagency
officials; the 10-day course is part of State's contribution to the
broader training of National Security Professionals. The Department
will be working closely with OPM to see what changes would need to be
made and how National Security Professional principles can be
integrated into other ongoing efforts to improve the Civil Service
system and processes as it implements the program called for in the
FY13 National Defense Authorization Act.
Question. The State Department Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking and Slavery (JTIP) is frequently overridden in its
recommendations of tier rankings in the annual TIP Report by regional
bureaus or embassies with priorities other than trafficking
eradication. Antitrafficking experts have raised concerns about ``grade
inflation'' in the tier ranking process.
If confirmed, will you work to reduce the influence of
political concerns on the tier ranking system?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make combating trafficking in persons
(TIP) a priority not only because modern slavery is morally
reprehensible, but because it is in the United States strategic
interest that it be brought to an end.
The tier rankings in the annual TIP Report have been, and will
continue to be under my tenure if confirmed, based on the facts and the
application of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. If confirmed, I
will ensure that the State Department listens to government concerns
and continues robust diplomatic engagement on TIP issues, but grounds
the report in thorough research and the clear performance indicators
given by Congress in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. When
governments do not produce results in holding trafficking offenders
accountable and providing comprehensive services to victims, the
shortcomings will be documented in the report narratives. Many
governments--including some critics--use the report's findings as a
guide for addressing human trafficking effectively. The overall
positive impact and results of this report have been extraordinary.
Further, Congress has expressed clearly in section 107 of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 its concern
about countries remaining on Tier 2 Watch List for multiple consecutive
years. I will continue to address Congress' concern by implementing the
law in a manner so as to encourage governments performing weakly on
antitrafficking goals fight trafficking more vigorously.
Question. Countries which receive a Tier 3 rating from the
Trafficking in Persons Report are subject to nonhumanitarian, nontrade
related foreign aid sanctions. The President has the option of using a
national security waiver on countries who receive Tier 3 status. Since
2004, the President has used the waiver, either partial or full, on a
variety of countries.
How effective do you believe the sanctions are in
influencing countries to improve their human trafficking
policies?
What is the impact of granting national security waivers on
the effectiveness of the sanctions and the fight against human
trafficking?
Answer. The effect of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA)
Tier 3 sanctions is best understood in the context of the overall tier
ranking process and the close scrutiny of foreign governments'
activities to fight trafficking as delineated in the Trafficking in
Persons (TIP) Report. Foreign governments routinely take
antitrafficking measures when faced with the possibility of a downgrade
to Tier 3, whether through criminalizing trafficking in persons,
protecting trafficking victims, strengthening interagency coordination
to fight trafficking, or increasing prosecutions of trafficking
offenders.
The United States uses a range of tools to fight human trafficking
abroad: In addition to sanctions, we maintain robust direct diplomatic
and public engagement campaigns on this issue, and fund dozens of
different antitrafficking projects in countries around the world.
Waiver decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and in all such
instances the President has determined that a full or partial waiver
will either serve to promote the purposes of the act or is otherwise in
the national interest of the United States. In many of the Tier 3
countries, the waivers permit the U.S. Government to strengthen human
rights programs and protect vulnerable populations, consistent with the
TVPA's waiver provision. The targeted use of sanctions, along with the
information highlighted each year in the TIP Report, reinforces our
other efforts to encourage foreign governments to take responsibility
for the human trafficking occurring within and across their borders.
Question. If the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan were to fall to
as few as 10,000 after 2014, how do you believe that should affect
planning for our enduring diplomatic presence in the country?
Answer. The State Department is working closely with the National
Security Staff and the Department of Defense to develop options to
present to the President for an overall U.S. Government enduring
presence. These options are being developed to reflect our vital
national interests, including diplomatic and development efforts. While
these options are under review, it would be premature to discuss them
at this juncture.
Question. A major part of our efforts to leave behind a stable
Afghanistan includes persuading uncommitted members of the insurgency
to rejoin society; which is in turn heavily influenced by the Afghan
Government's ability to provide a better alternative to Afghans living
under Taliban and al-Qaeda influence at this moment.
How would a drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to less
than 10,000 troops impact the Afghan Government's capacity to
implement development programs outside of Kabul?
Answer. The Government of Afghanistan's capacity to deliver basic
services and development projects to its citizens throughout the
country has improved significantly in the last 5 years and operates,
for the most part, independently from international military forces.
The United States has helped Afghan ministries build their own capacity
by improving staff training and retention, strengthening management and
administrative processes and systems, and developing strong
partnerships with Afghan and international nongovernmental
organizations who assist in the delivery of basic services and
reconstruction. While the Afghan Government has certainly benefited
from the overall improved security environment maintained by
international forces, both the United States Government and the Afghan
Government anticipate that the Afghan National Security Forces will be
able to effectively maintain those gains, and that various ministries
will continue to improve their delivery of services up to and beyond
the 2014 security transition.
Question. Considering Afghanistan's neighbors, border protection
seems pretty important to me. Post-2014, how confident are you that the
Afghans can effectively monitor and control the access points to their
country, particularly from Pakistan and Iran if the U.S. military
presence drops below 10,000 troops?
Answer. Afghanistan's ability to control its own borders is an
important part of preserving security post-2014. The U.S. Government
has worked with Afghanistan to strengthen its capacity to effectively
monitor and secure its borders in order to facilitate transportation
and trade, while limiting the flow of destabilizing elements such as
narcotics and explosives components. Through its training mission, the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is building the
capabilities of the Afghan Border Police (ABP), though this force
remains challenged by factors such as limits on human capacity and some
of the most geographically challenging border regions in the world. The
ABP now regulates 5 airports and 14 border control points, using
equipment that improves the monitoring of cargo and the flow of
travelers between these border points. ISAF is also training Afghan
counterterrorism forces that will be able to respond to cross-border
threats from insurgents.
We welcome cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors on
border issues. On Iran, the United States does not oppose productive
cooperation with Afghanistan on issues such as the flow of narcotics
and refugee issues. While Afghanistan's relationship with Pakistan has
previously suffered over issues such as cross-border firing, the two
nations have made progress in recent months. The Pakistan and
Afghanistan militaries have increased communication, facilitating
clearer responses to cross-border firing. In coordination with ISAF,
both nations are also developing standard operating plans to resolve
these incidents before they escalate. We support this type of
engagement, which serves to strengthen cooperation over border issues.
Question. What assurances would you give to Afghan women's group
and minorities about U.S. support for a post-2014 Afghanistan in which
their rights are protected?
Answer. Let there be no doubt that even as the U.S. role in
Afghanistan changes during the next years of transition, the United
States will remain committed to supporting the rights of women and
girls in Afghanistan. As President Obama said at his joint press
conference with President Karzai earlier this month, the United States
strongly believes that Afghanistan cannot succeed unless it gives
opportunity to its women. We will continue to voice very strongly
support for the Afghan Constitution, its protection of minorities, and
its protection of women. We will continue working closely with the
Afghan Government and international community to advance the progress
that has been made and we will not accept an erosion of women's rights
and freedoms at this critical juncture.
We will also continue to raise regularly and as a priority with
Afghan officials the need for meaningful participation of women in key
government institutions, independent Afghan institutions and other
branches of government at central and local levels, we will continue to
encourage the meaningful participation of women in any reconciliation
process.
It is essential that human rights and women's rights concerns
remain a priority in any discussions of reconciliation and
reintegration. As a part of the outcome of any process, the Taliban and
other armed opposition groups must end violence, break ties with al-
Qaeda, and accept Afghanistan's Constitution.
Our strategy for Afghanistan includes substantial assistance to
women to build their capacity to participate fully in Afghan society--
in the political, economic, education, health and social realms--and
thereby help build their country's future. We are developing a
significant program for women during the transition period that will
promote opportunities for women in all sectors and lead to careers in
government, as small business leaders and other areas. As levels of
U.S. assistance decline in Afghanistan, we will work to ensure that
programs to protect women's rights will not be disproportionally
affected.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement speaks to the mutual
commitments of the United States and the Afghan Government in
protecting and promoting women's rights and role in society. Protecting
the gains of Afghan women is also part of the Mutual Accountability
Framework (TMAF) adopted in Tokyo. The TMAF commits both governments to
improve access to justice for all, particularly women, and to ensure
that women can fully enjoy their economic, social, civil, political,
and cultural rights. It further calls on both governments to
demonstrate progress on the implementation of both the Elimination of
Violence Against Women Law and the National Action Plan for Women.
Afghan women and girls should be proud of the progress they have
made over the last 10 years, and now that we have entered into this
period of transition, it's absolutely critical that all of us work
together to protect these gains and expand on them in order for
Afghanistan to prosper further. With the support of the United States
and international community, there has been much progress over the past
several years, which no one wants to see reversed. In 2001, life
expectancy for women in Afghanistan was just 44 years of age. Now it is
62 years. Back then, almost no girls went to school. Today, 3 million
do. More Afghan children are living past their fifth birthday today
than at any time in their recent past. Women today hold office at
provincial and local levels. However, we recognize there is still a
mountain to climb in order to solidify and advance these gains.
Question. Secretary Clinton often talked about the need to
simultaneously ``fight, talk, and build'' in Afghanistan. Given that
President Obama has announced an acceleration of the withdrawal of U.S.
combat forces, what role do you envision talks with the Taliban playing
in U.S. Afghan policy?
Answer. The United States remains firmly committed to supporting an
Afghan-led peace process as the surest way to end violence and ensure
the lasting stability of Afghanistan and the region. The U.S. role is
to help open the door for talks between Afghans about the future of
Afghanistan. On January 11, Presidents Obama and Karzai agreed to
support the opening of a Taliban Political Office in Doha, and urged
the Qataris to facilitate this effort. The Qatari government has
publicly affirmed its support for the opening of the office. We hope
the Taliban will now do what is necessary to open the office, which
will pave the way for direct talks between the Taliban and the Afghan
High Peace Council.
We have made clear that any peace process must respect the historic
achievements that Afghanistan has made over the past decade. As a part
of the outcome of any political settlement, the Taliban and other armed
opposition groups must end violence, break ties with al-Qaeda, and
accept Afghanistan's Constitution--including provisions that protect
the rights of all citizens, including women and minorities. If this
happens, we believe the Taliban can be a part of Afghanistan's future.
The Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) is another
program that offers an opportunity for the Taliban to reintegrate into
Afghan society. To date, more than 6,000 former Taliban have
reintegrated through this program.
Question. How important is it that the United States, along with
allies, maintains a military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014?
Answer. As President Obama said in his joint press conference with
President Karzai on January 11, the United States interest post-2014
``is to make sure that al-Qaeda and its affiliates cannot launch an
attack against the United States or other countries from Afghan soil.''
This will be accomplished through two tasks--training and advising the
Afghan National Security Force so that they can maintain full
responsibility for security in Afghanistan, and targeted
counterterrorism missions against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The
President is still reviewing options for the size of this post-2014
force, which will also affect the size and scope of our civilian
mission.
Question. Given scheduled Presidential elections next year in
Afghanistan, how do you plan to work with our Afghan partners to ensure
that the election is a success and that the charges of vote-rigging
that plagued the 2009 Presidential election are not repeated?
Answer. In President Obama's and President Karzai's joint statement
of January 11, President Karzai outlined the Afghan Government's plans
to hold free, fair, inclusive, and democratic elections in 2014. A
successful election would bring about a peaceful transfer of power from
President Karzai to his successor in a process acceptable to the Afghan
people. This would bolster the legitimacy of the government and send a
message to all parties that their interests can be better advanced
through political participation than through violence.
We are realistic about the challenges for the 2014 elections, but
we are encouraged by actions the Afghans are taking in conformance with
their laws and constitution. Afghanistan's Parliament, the Cabinet, and
Independent Election Commission are broadly consulting, including with
civil society, on changes to the legislative framework for elections,
and the best methods of identifying and registering voters to prevent
fraud while maintaining an inclusive process. We are encouraging Afghan
authorities to adopt laws that will strengthen democratic institutions,
uphold the right of media to report on electoral developments, ensure
the political independence of the election administrators, and allow
election disputes to be resolved openly and fairly.
USAID is the lead agency in providing assistance and administering
programs to build the capacity of Afghan institutions and civil society
to manage and participate in electoral processes. Both USAID and the
State Department engage regularly through diplomatic channels with
Afghan officials, civil society, and political leaders to support the
Afghans' commitment as stated in the Strategic Partnership Agreement to
free, fair, and transparent elections in which all those who
participate do so freely without internal or external interference. We
will continue to coordinate with the U.N. and other donors on training,
public information campaigns, fraud mitigation, domestic observation
efforts, and improved ways to identify eligible voters in the leadup to
the elections.
Question. What is your plan to help ensure that a post-Assad Syria
is friendly
toward the United States and is at peace with its neighbors?
Answer. Since the start of the unrest in Syria, the United States
has been clear that we will support the efforts of Syrians within and
outside the institutions of government who seek to bring an end to the
regime and build a democratic, just, and inclusive Syria. If confirmed,
I will continue to support the administration's policy of supporting a
Syria-led political transition by pressuring President Assad to step
aside, by empowering the moderate, responsible elements of the
opposition through political and nonlethal support, and by responding
to the urgent humanitarian needs of Syrians who are suffering as a
result of the Assad regime's brutality. Ultimately, a free and
prosperous Syria that meets its international obligations and respects
the rights and dignity of its people will be a constructive player in
the region and partner for the United States.
Question. What steps can the United States take to help ensure that
the secular/nonextremist forces within the opposition are empowered and
ready to participate in the post-Assad transition?
Answer. The United States efforts to empower moderate, responsible
forces in Syria fall into two broad categories. First, the
administration has imposed targeted sanctions to expose and combat the
interventions of Iran, as well as terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in
Iraq (AQI)-affiliated al-Nusrah Front, which has sought to hijack the
Syrian struggle for their own narrow purposes. The recent amendment of
the AQI foreign terrorist organization designation to include the alias
al-Nusrah Front makes it clear that the United States is aware of the
threat of extremism to the future of a peaceful, prosperous, unified
Syria. The administration is doing everything it can to curtail
extremist influence.
Additionally, the administration is empowering those in the
opposition who seek a stable, prosperous, and unified Syria. The United
States and our international partners actively supported the efforts of
the Syrian people to launch the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) in
Doha in November 2012. The administration is also providing
approximately $50 million in nonlethal support to the unarmed,
civilian-led Syrian opposition and civil society groups, including
local councils and grassroots organizations. This assistance provides
training and equipment to the Syrian unarmed opposition to build up a
nationwide network of ethnically and religiously diverse civilian
activists, which will help promote unity among the Syrian people and
accelerate the country's democratic transition.
If confirmed, I will work hand-in-hand with the other members of
the U.S. Government and international community to ensure that our
efforts to combat violent extremism are coordinated appropriately. This
strategy should include continuing the humanitarian and nonlethal
assistance programs which are already underway, as well as working to
support the implementation of a political transition as soon as
possible.
Question. Many Syrian activists have complained that U.S.-provided
assistance touted by the administration has either not materialized or
not been directed toward worthwhile groups and activities.
What will you do to ensure that the United States is doing
all possible to assist those Syrians who are trying to rid
themselves of the Assad regime and that any U.S. assistance is
being used appropriately and to a good end?
Answer. The United States is the largest bilateral financial donor
to the international effort to provide life-saving aid for Syrians
suffering through this crisis. Our humanitarian assistance--provided on
the basis of need and not political affiliation--is channeled both
through contributions to U.N. and through other international agencies
as well as partner nongovernmental organizations. Our aid is
intentionally not labeled, in order to avoid endangering its recipients
or the humanitarian workers bravely working to deliver it. Although
violence and insecurity have significantly impeded humanitarian
organizations and actors inside Syria from reaching all those in need,
the United States is exploring opportunities to continue channeling
assistance to all areas of Syria through a range of partners and
methods. Funding for the humanitarian response has also been a serious
concern. The United States is leading international efforts to
encourage financial contributions to U.N.'s recently revised
humanitarian appeals as well as urging donors to provide in kind
assistance in close coordination with U.N. partners.
In terms of nonlethal assistance provided to opposition and civil
society groups, the administration is committed to ensuring this
support reaches moderate, responsible actors who share a goal of a
stable, prosperous, and unified Syria. The vetting of partners and
beneficiaries of U.S. assistance in Syria is, and has always been, a
high priority. As with all U.S. assistance worldwide, including for
Syria, there
are mechanisms to monitor U.S. assistance to ensure that it goes to the
intended recipients.
Question. Do you agree that it is clear that Russia is not willing
to play a productive role in bringing an end to the Assad regime?
Answer. Clearly, the United States and Russia have significant
differences in our approach toward the crisis in Syria.
The United States and Russia both strongly support the mission of
U.N.-Arab League Joint Special Representative Brahimi, and both support
the Geneva Communique of June 30 as a framework for facilitating a
durable, Syrian-led political solution to the crisis.
However, in order to play a constructive role, Russia should cease
its support to the Assad regime and join the international consensus
that Assad must step aside to make way for a government that addresses
the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. As Secretary, I would
ensure that the Department continues to call on Russia to cut off the
regime's supply of Russian weapons, especially attack helicopters, and
the Assad regime's access to Russian banks. I would also ensure that
our diplomatic engagement with Moscow continues in order to persuade
the Russians to play a constructive role in supporting a Syrian-led
transition.
Question. President Obama has stated that the use of chemical
weapons by the Assad regime would cross a redline that would lead to
intervention in Syria by the United States. Do you foresee any other
eventuality under which the United States would militarily intervene in
that country?
Answer. The President has indeed been very clear and consistent
regarding his redlines on chemical weapons (CW). If the regime were to
use CW, lose control of it, or transfer it to a third party, the U.S.
calculus would change. The United States continually monitors Syria's
proliferation-sensitive materials and facilities, and this
administration is prepared to act if necessary.
If confirmed, I am committed to using all available, practical, and
responsible means to end the suffering of the Syrian people. However,
whichever judgments we make must pass the test of making the situation
better for the Syrian people and must also take into account the long-
term human, financial, and political costs for us, Syria, and the
region.
Question. On January 10, President-elect Chavez of Venezuela failed
to appear for his swearing-in ceremony as required by the Venezuelan
Constitution at the beginning of each Presidential term. Neither the
Venezuelan Supreme Court nor National Assembly--both controlled by
Chavez's political allies--have followed the constitutional order in
designating a caretaker government in Chavez's absence.
Article 20th of the Inter-American Democratic Charter says that
``In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional
regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in a Member State,
any Member State or the Secretary General may request the immediate
convocation of the Permanent Council to undertake a collective
assessment of the situation and to take such decisions as it deems
appropriate.''
If confirmed, what instructions would you give U.S.
Ambassador to the OAS Carmen Lomellin about the need for the
OAS to assess this ongoing situation?
What impact does this situation have on democratic
governance consensus in this hemisphere?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant
Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs and the U.S. Ambassador to the
Organization of American States (OAS) to continue monitoring both
President Chavez' health and the effects that it may have on an
eventual transition of power in Venezuela. As the Obama administration
has repeatedly said, any government transition in Venezuela should
conform to hemispheric norms with respect to democratic practice. In
this process, it will be important to maintain an open and active
dialogue with our regional partners. This approach will permit us to
work with our regional partners individually and in the OAS and other
international bodies to address any situation which may arise and
ensure that any transition that takes place in Venezuela is democratic,
constitutional, peaceful, transparent, and legal.
The hemispheric commitment to constitutional and democratic
governance is articulated in the OAS Charter and the Inter-American
Democratic Charter, upon which we and our regional partners place great
value. Failure to adhere to the principles and norms contained in the
Charters would require the attention of, and as appropriate, action by
the OAS.
Question. Haitian entrepreneurs identified the following obstacles
to Haiti's competitiveness and economic growth: a shallow pool of
talent that makes it difficult to fill middle management and skilled
positions, a weak and unaccountable judiciary, and a failure to develop
informal businesses into the formal sector. Sadly, these obstacles
remain today.
What specific U.S. programs in Haiti are directly
addressing these challenges today?
Answer. Attracting Foreign Direct Investment through business
development services, vocational training, and increased access to
finance is a key element of the U.S. Government Assistance Strategy for
Haiti. The administration is working through a range of initiatives to
create a better business environment for both Haitians and for
investors from abroad.
The United States is committed to supporting a responsive,
accountable, just, and effective Government in Haiti. The
administration has actively supported the formation of the Superior
Judicial Council, a new body which will provide oversight of the
judiciary--a major step toward a more accountable and independent
judiciary in Haiti, and one that should help reduce corruption and
impunity for crimes in a manner that respects human rights. A strong
judiciary that is able to enforce the rule of law creates a climate
that improves investor confidence and will show that Haiti is truly
``open for business.'' Another key advance was the submission of
revised Penal and Criminal Procedure Codes, developed with U.S.
Government support, to the Council of Government in November. The U.S.
Government is now working with both Parliament and justice system
stakeholders to facilitate legislative passage of the draft codes, and
is poised to provide training to police, prosecutors and magistrates on
the new legislation, once passed.
The administration is working with the Government of Haiti and the
Haitian private and banking sectors to provide business development
services, financing options, and vocational training to micro, small,
and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). Specific U.S. Government programs
include: Development Credit Authority (DCA), a credit guarantee program
that facilitates MSME financing and mortgage lending by local financial
institutions; and Leveraging Effective Application of Direct
Investments (LEAD), a program that uses a matching grant mechanism to
leverage private investments in Haitian small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) identified through business plan competitions, and provides
technical assistance to grantee enterprises. The administration is also
providing support to the Government of Haiti to increase fiscal
transparency and stability, deepen the tax base, and improve the
business enabling environment.
The Local Enterprise and Value chain Enhancement (LEVE) program
currently being finalized will provide business and workforce
development services, in partnership with local private- and
government-run vocational training centers, in target value chains to
cultivate a more productive labor pool with relevant skills and
competencies. Elements of this project will also work with the informal
MSMEs to bring them into the formal sector. The geographic focus of the
project is on the three development corridors supported by the U.S.
Government: Cap Haitien, Saint-Marc, and Port-au-Prince. High-potential
sectors targeted by the program include: construction, apparel and
textiles, and agribusiness. LEVE will also support secondary and
ancillary sectors that strengthen the viability of these high-potential
sectors.
In addition, the U.S Government is currently supporting a local
organization to prepare people to work in garment factories. This is
often the first experience beneficiaries have had with a formal work
schedule and workforce readiness training. The Korean garment company,
Sae-A, which is the anchor tenant at the Caracol Industrial Park,
donated industrial quality sewing machines to the training center.
These programs will increase incomes and job creation through support
to the full value chains around foreign direct investment.
Question. In January 2012, President Martelly and then-Prime
Minister Conille expressed strong interest in reducing their country's
dependence and foreign aid and follow a private investment-led economic
model.
How likely is Haiti to achieve this transformation without
Haitian diaspora participation?
If confirmed, what efforts would you pursue to stimulate
diaspora return and participation in Haiti's recovery and
future development?
Answer. To succeed, any strategy to promote Haiti's development
must be Haitian-led and reflect Haitian priorities. All Haitians can
contribute to the country's rebuilding, both those in Haiti and those
abroad.
The administration recognizes that Haitian Americans have unique
skills that will be instrumental in helping Haiti build back better
than it was before the earthquake. Outreach to the diaspora by the U.S.
Government includes regular meetings in Florida, New York, Boston,
Washington, and elsewhere. The U.S. Government also helped fund the
Haitian Diaspora Global Congress that took place in Washington in
October.
The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development have held a number of meetings around the country with
diaspora organizations to advise them on how to compete for U.S.
assistance grants and contracts for Haiti.
USAID's Leveraging Effective Application of Direct (LEAD)
Investments program aims to attract capital, create jobs, and generate
income for Haitian citizens by providing matching grants to leverage
private investments in Haitian small and medium enterprises identified
through business plan competitions. The program further supports
economic development through the provision of technical assistance to
grantee enterprises. LEAD also works in the United States to mobilize
investments from the Haitian diaspora and other U.S. funders to
leverage the development impact of investments in Haiti.
The administration's efforts in the area of food security have
focused on Haitian agriculture. U.S. Government investments through the
Feed the Future program seek to increase domestic agricultural
productivity and farm incomes in targeted regions. Cross-cutting
activities--such as the development of public-private partnerships;
strengthening of local organizations to produce, market, generate
capital, and interact with formal governing structures; and investments
in nutrition-related activities in vulnerable households and women's
empowerment--aim to promote agriculture as an important investment with
sustainable business opportunities.
Question. A major obstacle to private investment in Haiti is the
absence of a credible land registry and the numerous, competing claims
to plots of land.
Has the administration considered supporting Haitian
efforts to create a process that would expedite land titling
while simultaneously creating a system for potential litigants
to receive fair compensation through an expeditious legal
process?
Answer. Land tenure is perhaps one of the greatest constraints to
development in Haiti, whether it is improving housing or encouraging
investment. Records of property ownership were incomplete before the
earthquake; in many cases, where they did exist, documents were
destroyed following the incident.
The U.S. Government is engaged with the Government of Haiti in an
effort to address this extremely complex issue. Working through the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Government
supported a recently concluded $1.9 million pilot program to map land
tenure, house ownership, and associated demographic data for over
10,000 plots in the Delmas 32 and Carrefour-Feuille neighborhoods,
which produced detailed information on ownership and tenure status in
these areas. This information has been used extensively by the World
Bank and the Government of Haiti in their planning for reconstruction
efforts in the communities, and the methodology is being scaled up
across the quake-affected zone, significantly increasing the impact of
the original grant.
USAID is also actively participating in the Haiti Property Law
Working Group, chaired by Habitat for Humanity. The working group has
created a manual on the rules, regulations, and practices of
acquisition of private property in Haiti, which has been
enthusiastically received as an authoritative guide on how to buy and
sell property in Haiti legally.
If confirmed, I will continue to support and improve upon these
efforts.
Question. Iran continues to make progress in its uranium enrichment
program and has failed to show serious interest in negotiations with
the P5+1. What do you believe would constitute success of any
negotiation with Iran and what would it take for you to declare the
diplomatic track with Iran a failure?
Answer. Iran must demonstrate to the international community that
its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. Iran has not done so yet
and has not engaged seriously in negotiations with the P5+1 countries.
A successful outcome would require Iran to fulfill its
international obligations and take the steps necessary to provide
confidence to the international community that its nuclear program is
devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes. The window for diplomacy
remains open, but it will not remain so indefinitely.
Question. As you may know, Robert Levinson, a Floridian and former
FBI agent, was kidnapped on a business trip to Iran's Kish Island in
2007. It is unclear if Mr. Levinson is being held by terrorists or by
the Government of Iran.
If confirmed, would you commit to investigating Mr.
Levinson's case and ensuring his release?
Answer. Determining Mr. Levinson's whereabouts and reuniting him
safely with his family continues to be a priority for the U.S.
Government and, if confirmed, it will be a priority for me as Secretary
of State. The Department remains in close coordination with the FBI on
the investigation into Mr. Levinson's disappearance in Iran almost 6
years ago. I am committed, as is the U.S. Government, to continue to
use all available resources until he is home and reunited with his
family.
Question. Strong bilateral relations with Bahrain enhance the
prosperity and
security of both our nations, but I am concerned about the consequences
of almost 2 years of political instability in Bahrain. What steps would
you take to promote a lasting solution to Bahrain's ongoing political
crisis?
Answer. A major non-NATO ally since 2002, Bahrain is an important
U.S. partner in a tense region, working closely with us to pursue joint
interests and maintain the safety and security of our naval assets and
personnel in the region. It is firmly in the U.S. interest, and that of
the wider region, for Bahrain to ensure the protection of its citizens'
fundamental rights, undertake reforms, and pursue inclusive political
dialogue in order to build a stable political and economic future.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton have pressed Bahrain to take
steps to forge a more inclusive political framework that is responsive
to all Bahrainis. If confirmed, I will ensure that we will continue to
engage with the Bahraini Government, political groups, the private
sector, and civil society on this vision. I will continue to press for
accountability for human rights violations, protection of freedom of
expression, and support for meaningful political reform. Meanwhile, I
will be vigilant in opposing any efforts by the Iranian Government to
influence events within Bahrain.
The surest way to maintain stability is to address the legitimate
demands of all Bahrainis through a process of meaningful dialogue
between the government and a broad representation of the nation's
political leadership. Dialogue and negotiation can help Bahrain build a
strong national consensus about its political future, strengthen its
economic standing, and make it a more prosperous country and a more
stable ally. The Department, through its programming, seeks to promote
reform and reconciliation and improve governance in areas such as
commercial law, military capabilities, and antiterrorism capacity.
I echo what Secretary Clinton said in a recent speech at the
National Democratic Institute: ``As a country with many complex
interests, we'll always have to walk and chew gum at the same time.
That is our challenge in a country like Bahrain, which has been
America's close friend and partner for decades.''
Question. On January 15, I joined 11 of my Senate colleagues in
sending a letter to Secretary Clinton expressing our grave concern over
the detainment of a U.S. citizen, Saeed Abedini, in Iran. Mr. Abedini
was in Iran on a humanitarian mission--working with the Regime to open
a nonreligious orphanage. On his ninth trip to Iran since 2009 for this
purpose, the Revolutionary Guard detained him and threw him in prison.
Mr. Abedini went before an Iranian judge just this Monday on charges
stemming from his conversion in the year 2000 to Christianity and his
involvement with house churches in Iran. The National Security Council
has specifically called for his release, and we are grateful for that.
If confirmed, would you commit to echo, as Secretary of State, the
National Security Council's call for Mr. Abedini's release?
Answer. The U.S. Government remains concerned about U.S. citizen
Saeed Abedini, who is detained in Iran on a charge related to his
religious beliefs. Mr. Abedini's attorney had only 1 day on January 21,
2013, to present his defense. We remain deeply concerned about the
fairness and transparency of Mr. Abedini's trial. I, along with the
U.S. Government, condemn Iran's continued violation of the universal
right of freedom of religion and call on the Iranian authorities to
respect Mr. Abedini's human rights and release him. The Department of
State is in close contact with the Abedini family and is actively
engaged on this case.
Question. The new Egyptian Constitution adopted in December 2012
imposes severe restrictions on civil liberties and freedoms. I am
particularly concerned with Article 4, which positions an unelected
religious body as arbiter of the constitution's clauses; Article 44,
which prohibits speech deemed blasphemous; and Article 81, which limits
the freedoms and rights guaranteed elsewhere in the constitution to
those not in conflict with Islamic Sharia law.
What impact would these constitutional restrictions have on
religious freedom, women's and minorities' rights, and freedom
of speech in Egypt?
Answer. The administration has consistently raised its concerns
regarding religious freedom, the rights of women and minorities, and
freedom of speech with Egyptian Government officials, and if confirmed,
I would continue to do the same. We should work with the Egyptian
Government and people to ensure that the fundamental rights of all
Egyptians are protected. We have called on the government to take the
lead in building greater political consensus than now exists on issues
related to the constitution and the legislation that will be considered
by Parliament to implement the constitution. I would also support
frequent meetings with civil society representatives and leaders from
all faith backgrounds to demonstrate our support for freedom of
religion and expression. The Egyptian Government has stated its
commitment to upholding religious freedom and promoting interreligious
tolerance, and I will work to ensure that this commitment is met.
Question. How can U.S. assistance to Egypt help ensure that
government's commitment to uphold internationally recognized human
rights of all Egyptians?
Answer. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and our Embassy in
Cairo have consistently made clear to their Egyptian counterparts that
the United States supports the establishment of a full democracy in
Egypt that protects the rights of all Egyptians. If confirmed, I would
continue to convey that message with Egyptian leaders as Secretary. The
administration supports a number of programs on the ground that work to
reinforce these values, including support for election administration
and monitoring, voter education, and programs to foster religious
tolerance. In addition, the administration is seeking to provide Egypt
with important financial assistance that will help supply the necessary
economic foundation on which democratic institutions can be built.
Question. The Blueprint for an AIDS Free Generation, released by
the administration in November 2012, demonstrates that if proven-
effective HIV services are delivered widely in heavily affected
countries, we can make accelerated impact on the AIDS epidemic,
reducing HIV infection rates and mortality markedly in the next several
years, and reducing resource needs in the future.
Are you committed to implementing the Blueprint's first
principle to ``rapidly scale up core HIV prevention, treatment,
and care interventions and maximize impact''?
Answer. If confirmed, I am strongly committed to implementing the
administration's ``PEPFAR Blueprint: Creating an AIDS-Free
Generation.'' Scientific advances and their successful implementation
have brought the world to a tipping point in the fight against AIDS. By
making smart investments based on sound science and a shared global
responsibility, the United States can save millions of lives and
achieve an AIDS-free generation. To help reach this goal, the U.S.
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is committed to making
strategic, scientifically sound investments to rapidly scale up HIV
prevention, treatment, and care interventions and maximize impact,
particularly in high-burden countries. PEPFAR's combination HIV
prevention strategy comprises a core set of interventions that,
especially when pursued in concert, provides the potential to end the
epidemic: prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV;
antiretroviral treatment (ART) for people living with HIV; voluntary
medical male circumcision (VMMC) for HIV prevention; and HIV testing
and counseling (HTC), condoms, and other evidence-based and
appropriately targeted prevention activities.
Through its continued support for scaleup of this core combination
prevention package, particularly in high-burden countries, PEPFAR will
assist in reducing new HIV infections and decreasing AIDS-related
mortality, while simultaneously increasing countries' capacity to
sustain these efforts over time. This will, in turn, move more
countries past the tipping point in their HIV epidemics--the point at
which the annual increase in new patients on ART outpaces annual new
HIV infections--and put them on the path toward achieving an AIDS-free
generation. The United States will work closely with other partners in
this effort, including the Global Fund and host governments, as
creating an AIDS-free generation is a shared responsibility. If
confirmed, I am firmly committed to ensuring that the United States
continues to do its part in making the Blueprint's vision a reality.
Question. The administration has made food safety and security a
main pillar of its foreign assistance projects. Food security is an
especially acute problem in Africa and the Middle East where farmers
suffer high post-harvest losses and governments are looking to
stabilize food supplies to prevent civil unrest, and in some cases
stockpile food in case of emergency. This is an issue in which the
American private sector can play a major role.
What measures would you take to work with USAID
Administrator Rajiv Shah to promote the participation of
American private sector in the administration's food security
programs?
Answer. The importance of the private sector's role in development
cannot be overemphasized. Our economy's future growth will depend on
growth in the rest of the world. Many of our future customers will live
in markets outside of our borders, including in emerging economies and
low-income countries that have been particularly vulnerable to economic
shocks.
I support the vision of a world where private sector investment
drives sustainable growth and where market-led development helps create
the conditions where assistance is no longer needed.
The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International
Development, through Feed the Future, the U.S. Government food security
initiative, are engaging the private sector in a meaningful,
comprehensive way to meet the global food security challenge. Strategic
alliances with the private sector under Feed the Future align core
business interests with U.S. Government development objectives. For
example, the U.S. Government's participation in the G8's New Alliance
for Food Security and Nutrition, has already mobilized more than $3.5
billion in new private sector commitments from firms looking to expand
their agriculture-related business across Africa.
These alliances and partnerships with the private sector advance
the impact of sustainable development and foster private sector-led
growth in emerging markets, critical to reducing poverty, fighting
hunger, and improving nutrition. For example, Feed the Future launched
an alliance with Partners in Food Solutions (PFS) and Solutions for
African Food Enterprises (SAFE) to link the technical and business
expertise from General Mills, Cargill, and DSM to small- and medium-
sized mills and food processors. This partnership is transforming the
food processing sector in African countries by increasing the
availability of high quality, nutritious, and safe foods and helping to
expand market access for farmers, traders, and other agribusinesses
through engagement with local food processors.
Feed the Future recently launched ``Feed the Future Partnering for
Innovation,'' an activity to identify and promote new game-changing
technologies for use by producers in developing country markets.
Interested U.S. companies can submit their concepts through Requests
for Expressions of Interest, which will be released at least twice a
year.
Feed the Future engagement will help America's long-term economic
security. Current estimates state that approximately two-thirds of
global company profits are expected to come from the developing world
in 10 years. U.S businesses and jobs will benefit from these gains with
healthy, more prosperous consumers in the developing world. Today, a
significant portion of U.S. exports go to former Marshall Plan
recipient countries, illustrating the significant impact private sector
development can have in the U.S. economy.
In order to help business navigate the process finding
opportunities to partner with the U.S. Government, Feed the Future
developed a ``Private Sector Engagement Hub.'' The goal of the hub is
to make it clearer how the private sector can partner with the U.S.
Government in this space and to reduce the transaction costs of forming
partnerships. This will help businesses of all sizes to engage with
Feed the Future.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department's work with
USAID continues in support of these key efforts under Feed the Future
and continues to engage U.S. companies in bringing the best America has
to offer to the rest of the world. By helping create economic
opportunities in developing countries, these collaborative food
security efforts generate economic growth and promote global stability,
which benefits us all and creates a more stable and prosperous world.
Question. As you are aware, the Republic of Argentina has
increasingly refused to comply with international treaty obligations,
such as those found in the U.S.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty
(BIT) and the International Center for Settlement of Investment
Disputes. Moreover, Argentina has also introduced stringent import
restrictions which are the subject of several pending WTO cases, while
continuing to expropriate foreign investments in-country. The failure
of Argentina to operate within the confines of the established
international economic system is having a profound and negative impact
on international trade and investment in a number of areas.
Unfortunately, measures taken by the United States in response to
this situation--raising certain issues before the WTO dispute
resolution body, withdrawing Argentina's GSP benefits, and voting
against the appropriation of additional loans to Argentina in the World
Bank and Inter-American Development Bank--have failed to encourage
Argentina to comply with its international obligations.
What other tools are available to the U.S. Government to
compel states that refuse to abide by international obligations
and directly harm U.S. businesses and investors, to comply with
their international treaty obligations?
If confirmed, would you commit to make full use of such
tools?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I would continue to use
bilateral discussions with Argentine officials as an opportunity to
reiterate our concerns about Argentina's failure to comply with its
international treaty obligations, including those related to the World
Trade Organization and the U.S.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty
(BIT). I also will continue to raise concerns about Argentina's failure
to fulfill its private debt obligations to U.S. creditors, as well as
its public debt to the U.S. Government. I will press for resolution to
these longstanding bilateral irritants.
I am aware that the Department of State has raised the
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
cases with the Government of Argentina at high levels on many occasions
over the past few years, and we continue to urge Argentina to pay the
two U.S. companies that hold final and binding awards administered by
ICSID.
The Department of State has also expressed concerns that Argentina
has failed to make payments on its sovereign debt obligations,
including almost $550 million to the United States, and has urged
Argentina at the highest levels to normalize relations with all of its
creditors, both public and private. By resolving its obligations to
creditors and investors, Argentina will send a strong signal to the
international community that it takes its international
responsibilities seriously and that it welcomes and encourages the
foreign and domestic investment that is crucial for sustained economic
growth.
If confirmed, I will continue to raise these issues with the
Government of Argentina at the highest levels. I believe it is
important for our countries to manage areas of disagreement so that we
can begin to rebuild a positive bilateral relationship based on shared
values and interests.
Question. The unrest in Mali and the recent terror attack in
Algeria underscore the vulnerability of North Africa to jihadist
movements. Morocco is a steadfast U.S. ally in a tumultuous part of the
world.
Will you work with the committee and our Moroccan allies to
ensure that Morocco has the adequate level of foreign military
assistance to maximize its contribution to our common security
objectives in the region?
Will you instruct your team to take full advantage of the
congressional authority to conduct democratic governance and
education programs in the Western Sahara as in other areas of
Morocco?
Answer. I remain committed to our strong bilateral relationship
with Morocco and to working with Morocco on issues of mutual concern.
Morocco is an ally that we will continue to support through security
assistance, including foreign military financing, as well as
development assistance. On the Western Sahara, we will continue to
support ongoing negotiations carried out by the United Nations, which
are led by Ambassador Christopher Ross, the Secretary General's
Personal Envoy. If confirmed, I will ensure that we use both diplomatic
and assistance tools to support and foster the democratic reform
process in Morocco and across the region.
Question. Prior to his second Presidential election, President
Vladimir Putin of Russia made the creation of the so-called ``Eurasian
Union'' that would comprise Russia and other former Soviet Union
Republics an important foreign policy objective. Speaking with civil
society advocates on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial in Dublin in
December 2012, Secretary Clinton expressed U.S. concerns with Russia's
attempts to what she called ``re-Sovietize the region.'' We all
remember Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the subsequent
recognition by Russia of the secessionist entities of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia. Azerbaijan just recently decided to close the Gabala
Radar station thus ending the presence of the last Russian installation
on its soil.
