FREDERICK KEMPE: Another question that’s been coming in is about—questions coming in about the Middle East. Also in the news, the UAE and Israel are normalizing relations. Israel has agreed not to annex the West Bank in return for that. That would look like a victory for the Trump administration and perhaps for the Middle East. You’ve dealt a lot with the Middle East in your lifetime. How do you view this apparent breakthrough? And in general, what role would the Middle East play in another presidency? Is it more withdrawal from the region because it’s just not as important to us as it once was, or is it some other approach?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, with the Middle East I think we should be grateful to see any progress, no matter when or how it proceeds. And this potential breakthrough is promising. We have to see that it actually takes place, and that Israel backs off of its intention to annex the West Bank. And I hope that the normalization of relations with an Arab Gulf power like the UAE will bring some stability to the situation in the Middle East. There are still so many problems that I do not see how the United States can walk away. We’ve got not only the continuing challenges of Israel’s and the Palestinian, you know, dilemma of trying to figure out how best to live together with a secure Israel, with an autonomous Palestinian entity, a state. We’ve got the tragic situation in Gaza, which has, you know, great implications for continuing conflict.
We have the collapse of Lebanon. The tragedy of the explosion in Beirut is just beyond words. What happened there and the loss of not only, oh, so much housing and business, half of the health-care facilities, the hospitals, were wiped out. The port was, you know, destroyed. You know, I feel such a sense of despair for the people of Lebanon who have been so poorly governed over the last years, and have been, you know, a pawn of Syria and its allies, and the Saudis and [their] allies. And I hope that the world, as President Macron called out, will assist Lebanon. But Lebanon has to be governed better. And, you know, the sectarian governance that put, you know, interests of groups far, far ahead of the whole has had disastrous consequences.
Look, we still have challenges in Egypt, and Libya, in Iraq, Syria obviously. And we have a changing situation in Iran. When we were talking about China earlier, one of the more interesting and potentially challenging developments is that Iran and China are entering into a military and economic agreement. And I put that directly at the door of the Trump administration—that pulled the United States out of the Iran agreement that I began the negotiations for as secretary of state, and my successor John Kerry was able to bring to a very important conclusion, to put a lid on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.
And so by pulling out—you know, if there were problems, and of course any agreement has, the Trump administration could have sought to negotiate changes that they wished for. But instead, they pulled out, giving a green light to Iran to pursue its nuclear-weapons agenda. China is now cooperating with Iran. China was one of the countries I had to persuade to vote for international sanctions at the UN Security Council, to set the table for the negotiations. And of course, we know that if Iran pursues nuclear weapons, the Gulf states will likewise. And I cannot imagine a more dangerous situation than a nuclear-arms race in the Persian Gulf.
So there is an enormous amount at stake in the Middle East. And no responsible administration could ever walk away from that.
FREDERICK KEMPE: I’m so glad you drilled down a little deeper on Iran. And I think a lot of our viewers and Americans haven’t paid as much attention to the Chinese-Iranian recent agreement, which really does seem to be a change, does seem to be different. Do you go right back to JCPOA if you’re a newly elected President Biden? How do you manage that? Is there a lot of low-hanging fruit you can just pick up? Or has the world moved on where you need a totally different strategy? And maybe first on Iran.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, you know, that’s a question to be answered, Fred, because I think it would be in the United States’ interest to rejoin the Iran agreement, just as it would be to rejoin the climate agreement. We are now the only nation not in the Paris climate accord. But with respect to Iran, I think it’s important for the United States to try to not only rejoin the agreement, but to try to put that lid back on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, and keep it firmly on, while trying to continue preventing a nuclear-arms race with the Saudis, or the Emiratis, or the Egyptians, or whoever else thinks that if Iran has a nuclear-weapon program they should have one too. And I think the best way to do that is to rejoin the agreement.
Now, at this point I don’t know whether Iran would be receptive to that. I think they may have moved on. And remember, there was always a conflict between the political and clerical leadership in Iran, and obviously the military leadership, as to whether or not to, you know, put that lid on the nuclear-weapons program under the agreement. So again, I don’t think we would know unless we resumed intensive diplomacy. But I don’t think it’s in Iran’s interests to have continuing sanctions against it. Even with, you know, Chinese support it’s not economically enough if the rest of the world, you know, does renew pressure on Iran.
So it would have to be explored. There—I can only tell you, it was very important to try to get the world behind sanctions, because remember in the George W. Bush administration for eight years—and I was there as a senator—we voted to sanction Iran on every way we could. But that was just the United States alone. And when President Obama went into office, when I became secretary of state, we saw it as essential to try to bring the world together. Not just unilateral sanctions by the United States, but the entire world. And it was difficult, because, you know, a lot of countries had very big energy deals with Iran. But we did it. We got everybody on the same page. We got the UN Security Council.
So this is doable, even though, yes, time has moved on and different relationships have developed. But you can’t tell how far you can go unless you take that first step. And I would certainly urge a new administration to tackle that as among its many important challenges right off the bat.
FREDERICK KEMPE: So, Secretary Clinton, last question, and I’ll double-barrel this one, which is the way of cheating the last question. (Laughter.) And this is such a rich conversation. You know from our previous conversations that I love the question: What keeps you up at night? You’ve outlined a world that looks pretty volatile, looks pretty dangerous. Want to get a feeling in general, in your lifetime, is this a uniquely fraught, dangerous moment? And if so, what concerns you the most? But the double barrel, in all the things we’re looking at—Iran, China, you know, North Korea, Venezuela—what worries you the most? And I think the double barrel to this is, you cared so much about soft power in your life. You were the secretary of state. What’s the status of our soft power in the world, and what role does it play in this dangerous landscape?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, you’re right, that is a double-barreled question. You know, I worry a lot about the spread of nuclear weapons, other dangerous weapons like, you know, biological or chemical weapons, of course. But I remain singularly focused on the spread of nuclear weapons. I would like to see a renewal of negotiation with Russia. The New START treaty that, you know, my dear friend and a great patron of the Atlantic Council, Ellen Tauscher, negotiated while she was at the State Department, is set to expire. I would like to see it renewed.
I would like to see there be ongoing dialogue with the Russians over their nuclear-weapons program, which appears to have moved into tactical nukes, and other kinds of experimental weaponry. I would like to see enormous pressure put on China to join arms-control discussions. I think that the Obama administration, in our first term we tried to set a plate for nuclear strategic summitry. We had several meetings, bringing together the countries with known nuclear weapons programs and those that had an interest in trying to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
I think that has to be renewed and deepened, because, you know, I fear not only the rogue nation like North Korea, but the accident, the takeover of a nuclear program in a country by extremists of whatever stripe they might be, or criminal elements who are in the marketplace on a regular basis trying to buy or sell nuclear material that could at least go into a dirty bomb. So that would be my number-one concern, you know, with biological and chemical weaponry also needing to be paid attention to.
I think we also have to, as I said earlier, strengthen our international public-health response to potential pandemics. We’ve got to take seriously the security implications of climate change. That was something I started focusing on when I served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. We’re going to see mass migrations. We’re going to see increasing conflict over water and land because of climate change. We’re ill prepared for that. The temperature in Baghdad has broken all records. I just can’t really underscore strongly enough how climate change is a security challenge that has to be addressed.
So those are the areas that I would pay immediate attention to. And as to soft power, Fred, you know, I think we have squandered our soft power. I don’t think that the United States has the influence that we should have in global debates or in how we’re viewed, particularly by young people around the world. I think we have to rebuild our soft power. I like the phrase “smart power” because I think it combines the elements of the hard power that is necessary in defense with the soft power that is often viewed as part of development and diplomacy.
But we’ve got to smarten up our global presence and once again try to influence people and events through the power of our example, and—as opposed to the example of our power. That is an old cliché, but it’s really an important one to keep in mind. You know, we have to set the standard for a rules-based global order, and it is very much in America’s interest but also in the world’s that we assume that leadership position again.
FREDERICK KEMPE: What a terrific close to this opening event of Elections 2020: America’s Role in the World—that we have to be the power of our example rather than the example of our power and set the example for the rules-based order that, after all, we, with our allies and friends, created in the first place. So, Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for this enormously rich conversation.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, with the Middle East I think we should be grateful to see any progress, no matter when or how it proceeds. And this potential breakthrough is promising. We have to see that it actually takes place, and that Israel backs off of its intention to annex the West Bank. And I hope that the normalization of relations with an Arab Gulf power like the UAE will bring some stability to the situation in the Middle East. There are still so many problems that I do not see how the United States can walk away. We’ve got not only the continuing challenges of Israel’s and the Palestinian, you know, dilemma of trying to figure out how best to live together with a secure Israel, with an autonomous Palestinian entity, a state. We’ve got the tragic situation in Gaza, which has, you know, great implications for continuing conflict.
We have the collapse of Lebanon. The tragedy of the explosion in Beirut is just beyond words. What happened there and the loss of not only, oh, so much housing and business, half of the health-care facilities, the hospitals, were wiped out. The port was, you know, destroyed. You know, I feel such a sense of despair for the people of Lebanon who have been so poorly governed over the last years, and have been, you know, a pawn of Syria and its allies, and the Saudis and [their] allies. And I hope that the world, as President Macron called out, will assist Lebanon. But Lebanon has to be governed better. And, you know, the sectarian governance that put, you know, interests of groups far, far ahead of the whole has had disastrous consequences.
Look, we still have challenges in Egypt, and Libya, in Iraq, Syria obviously. And we have a changing situation in Iran. When we were talking about China earlier, one of the more interesting and potentially challenging developments is that Iran and China are entering into a military and economic agreement. And I put that directly at the door of the Trump administration—that pulled the United States out of the Iran agreement that I began the negotiations for as secretary of state, and my successor John Kerry was able to bring to a very important conclusion, to put a lid on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.
And so by pulling out—you know, if there were problems, and of course any agreement has, the Trump administration could have sought to negotiate changes that they wished for. But instead, they pulled out, giving a green light to Iran to pursue its nuclear-weapons agenda. China is now cooperating with Iran. China was one of the countries I had to persuade to vote for international sanctions at the UN Security Council, to set the table for the negotiations. And of course, we know that if Iran pursues nuclear weapons, the Gulf states will likewise. And I cannot imagine a more dangerous situation than a nuclear-arms race in the Persian Gulf.
So there is an enormous amount at stake in the Middle East. And no responsible administration could ever walk away from that.
FREDERICK KEMPE: I’m so glad you drilled down a little deeper on Iran. And I think a lot of our viewers and Americans haven’t paid as much attention to the Chinese-Iranian recent agreement, which really does seem to be a change, does seem to be different. Do you go right back to JCPOA if you’re a newly elected President Biden? How do you manage that? Is there a lot of low-hanging fruit you can just pick up? Or has the world moved on where you need a totally different strategy? And maybe first on Iran.
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, you know, that’s a question to be answered, Fred, because I think it would be in the United States’ interest to rejoin the Iran agreement, just as it would be to rejoin the climate agreement. We are now the only nation not in the Paris climate accord. But with respect to Iran, I think it’s important for the United States to try to not only rejoin the agreement, but to try to put that lid back on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, and keep it firmly on, while trying to continue preventing a nuclear-arms race with the Saudis, or the Emiratis, or the Egyptians, or whoever else thinks that if Iran has a nuclear-weapon program they should have one too. And I think the best way to do that is to rejoin the agreement.
Now, at this point I don’t know whether Iran would be receptive to that. I think they may have moved on. And remember, there was always a conflict between the political and clerical leadership in Iran, and obviously the military leadership, as to whether or not to, you know, put that lid on the nuclear-weapons program under the agreement. So again, I don’t think we would know unless we resumed intensive diplomacy. But I don’t think it’s in Iran’s interests to have continuing sanctions against it. Even with, you know, Chinese support it’s not economically enough if the rest of the world, you know, does renew pressure on Iran.
So it would have to be explored. There—I can only tell you, it was very important to try to get the world behind sanctions, because remember in the George W. Bush administration for eight years—and I was there as a senator—we voted to sanction Iran on every way we could. But that was just the United States alone. And when President Obama went into office, when I became secretary of state, we saw it as essential to try to bring the world together. Not just unilateral sanctions by the United States, but the entire world. And it was difficult, because, you know, a lot of countries had very big energy deals with Iran. But we did it. We got everybody on the same page. We got the UN Security Council.
So this is doable, even though, yes, time has moved on and different relationships have developed. But you can’t tell how far you can go unless you take that first step. And I would certainly urge a new administration to tackle that as among its many important challenges right off the bat.
FREDERICK KEMPE: So, Secretary Clinton, last question, and I’ll double-barrel this one, which is the way of cheating the last question. (Laughter.) And this is such a rich conversation. You know from our previous conversations that I love the question: What keeps you up at night? You’ve outlined a world that looks pretty volatile, looks pretty dangerous. Want to get a feeling in general, in your lifetime, is this a uniquely fraught, dangerous moment? And if so, what concerns you the most? But the double barrel, in all the things we’re looking at—Iran, China, you know, North Korea, Venezuela—what worries you the most? And I think the double barrel to this is, you cared so much about soft power in your life. You were the secretary of state. What’s the status of our soft power in the world, and what role does it play in this dangerous landscape?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, you’re right, that is a double-barreled question. You know, I worry a lot about the spread of nuclear weapons, other dangerous weapons like, you know, biological or chemical weapons, of course. But I remain singularly focused on the spread of nuclear weapons. I would like to see a renewal of negotiation with Russia. The New START treaty that, you know, my dear friend and a great patron of the Atlantic Council, Ellen Tauscher, negotiated while she was at the State Department, is set to expire. I would like to see it renewed.
I would like to see there be ongoing dialogue with the Russians over their nuclear-weapons program, which appears to have moved into tactical nukes, and other kinds of experimental weaponry. I would like to see enormous pressure put on China to join arms-control discussions. I think that the Obama administration, in our first term we tried to set a plate for nuclear strategic summitry. We had several meetings, bringing together the countries with known nuclear weapons programs and those that had an interest in trying to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
I think that has to be renewed and deepened, because, you know, I fear not only the rogue nation like North Korea, but the accident, the takeover of a nuclear program in a country by extremists of whatever stripe they might be, or criminal elements who are in the marketplace on a regular basis trying to buy or sell nuclear material that could at least go into a dirty bomb. So that would be my number-one concern, you know, with biological and chemical weaponry also needing to be paid attention to.
I think we also have to, as I said earlier, strengthen our international public-health response to potential pandemics. We’ve got to take seriously the security implications of climate change. That was something I started focusing on when I served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. We’re going to see mass migrations. We’re going to see increasing conflict over water and land because of climate change. We’re ill prepared for that. The temperature in Baghdad has broken all records. I just can’t really underscore strongly enough how climate change is a security challenge that has to be addressed.
So those are the areas that I would pay immediate attention to. And as to soft power, Fred, you know, I think we have squandered our soft power. I don’t think that the United States has the influence that we should have in global debates or in how we’re viewed, particularly by young people around the world. I think we have to rebuild our soft power. I like the phrase “smart power” because I think it combines the elements of the hard power that is necessary in defense with the soft power that is often viewed as part of development and diplomacy.
But we’ve got to smarten up our global presence and once again try to influence people and events through the power of our example, and—as opposed to the example of our power. That is an old cliché, but it’s really an important one to keep in mind. You know, we have to set the standard for a rules-based global order, and it is very much in America’s interest but also in the world’s that we assume that leadership position again.
FREDERICK KEMPE: What a terrific close to this opening event of Elections 2020: America’s Role in the World—that we have to be the power of our example rather than the example of our power and set the example for the rules-based order that, after all, we, with our allies and friends, created in the first place. So, Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for this enormously rich conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ウィスパリング同時通訳研究会 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
-
まだ何もありません
-
ウィスパリング同時通訳研究会のメンバーはこんなコミュニティにも参加しています
人気コミュニティランキング
- 1位
- 写真を撮るのが好き
- 208261人
- 2位
- 暮らしを楽しむ
- 75457人
- 3位
- お洒落な女の子が好き
- 90012人