狗万代理优惠 >狗万登陆 >希拉里克林顿:关于美国对外关系委员会领导的评论(全文) >

希拉里克林顿:关于美国对外关系委员会领导的评论(全文)

2019-08-04 03:19:04 来源:工人日报

  

希拉里克林顿:关于美国对外关系委员会领导的评论(全文)

Hillary Clinton
美国前国务卿希拉里克林顿周一在人权运动视频中出面支持同性恋婚姻。 照片:路透社

(掌声。)

对外关系委员会主席理查德·哈斯特:请你坐下。 (场外交换。)

嗯,下午好,并代表今天与我们在一起的Carla Hills,整个董事会和我们的成员Bob Rubin,我想欢迎你来到对外关系委员会。 我是CFR总裁理查德哈斯。

对于那些不知道我们是谁的人,我们是一个独立的无党派成员组织,智囊团和出版商。 我们致力于提高对这个国家所面临的世界和外交政策选择的理解。

今天我们继续在议会召开国务卿周会议。 (笑声)周二晚上,我们很幸运地听到乔治舒尔茨的讲话,乔治舒尔茨在罗纳德里根总统领导下担任国务卿约6年半。 今天下午,我们很荣幸能够作为奥巴马总统的第一任国务卿在过去24小时内接待希拉里·罗德姆·克林顿 - 在此之后,我被告知,她可能会再次像卡塔赫纳一样聚会。 (笑声。)

秘书处罗德汉姆克林顿:(笑)

哈斯:我们做了我们的研究,这是希拉里克林顿第八次在这个委员会发言,她第三次出现在她现任的国务卿身上。 而今天下午的演讲可能是她在这里给出的最令人期待的演讲。 事实上,它可能是自1796年以来最令人期待的告别演说。(笑声)我怀疑,她对纠缠联盟的看法可能与乔治华盛顿有些不同。

她作为该国第67任国务卿投入的里程已经取得了很大成就。 你已经看过统计数据了。 她访问了大约112个国家; 记录,什么,近一百万英里的旅行,近87天的飞行时间。 有比这更短的战争。 (笑声。)

但是,秘书女士,更重要的是你在这些里程中所付出的代价。 你的任期恰逢这个年轻世纪的一些最重要的事件和决定:重新平衡美国对亚洲的外交政策; 结束伊拉克战争,并在阿富汗战争激增之后; 应对阿拉伯世界艰难而危险的过渡; 并建立一个多边联盟,以对伊朗实施严厉制裁。

您还将传统社会问题 - 女性,同性恋权利,互联网自由等 - 提升到您所监督的大楼的七楼。

在历史性的全球经济衰退的背景下,你已经完成了所有这些以及更多的事情,这严重限制了每个国家的回旋余地。

所以我知道当我感谢你们为这个国家提供的热诚服务时,我会在这个会议室内为所有人发言。 (掌声。)

我们要继续前进的方式是,克林顿国务卿将发表演讲,之后我们将有时间,根据她的日程安排,只提出几个问题。 主席女士,发言权是你的。

克林顿:谢谢理查德。 非常感谢。

HAASS:谢谢。

克林顿:感谢理查德,感谢你的介绍以及你为领导这个非常有价值的机构所做的一切。

我还要感谢外交关系委员会的董事会以及今天在座的所有朋友和同事以及其他感兴趣的公民,因为你尊重理事会,你了解它所做的重要工作,并且你致力于确保我们绘制通向未来的道路,这不仅符合美国的利益,也符合世界的最佳利益。

正如理查德所说,明天是我作为国务卿的最后一天,虽然很难预测这项工作中的任何一天会带来什么,但我知道明天我的心会非常充实。 与国务院和美国国际开发署的男女一起服务是一种独特的荣誉,克里国务卿将发现在世界任何地方都没有更多的人。

所以这些最后的日子对我来说都是苦乐参半。 但是,我在你面前的这个机会给了我一些时间来反思我们已经走过的距离,并评估我们已经完成的工作和剩下的工作。

我认为正如理查德在开场评论中提到的那样,重要的是我们在2009年1月面临的问题:两次战争,自由落体的经济,传统的联盟破坏,我们的外交地位遭到破坏,以及世界各地人们质疑美国对核心的承诺价值观和我们维持全球领导地位的能力。 这是我第一天作为你的国务卿的收件箱。

今天,世界仍然是一个危险而复杂的地方。 当然,我们仍面临许多艰难的挑战。 但在过去四年中,情况发生了很大变化。 在奥巴马总统的领导下,我们结束了伊拉克战争,开始了阿富汗的过渡,并将奥萨马·本·拉登绳之以法。 我们还振兴了美国外交,并加强了我们的联盟。 虽然我们的经济复苏尚未完成,但我们正朝着正确的方向前进。

简而言之,今天的美国在国内更强大,在世界上更受尊重。 而且我们的全球领导地位比许多人预测的要稳固。

要了解我们过去四年来一直在努力做的事情,从一些历史开始是有帮助的。 去年,我很荣幸能够在第二次世界大战后以我们的第一任国防部长命名的海军学院举办Forrestal讲座。 1946年,詹姆斯福雷斯塔尔在日记中指出,苏联人认为战后世界应该由少数几个独立行动的大国塑造。 但是,他接着说,美国的观点是,所有声称渴望和平与民主的国家都应该参与其中。

最近发生的事情就是介于两者之间。 美国和我们的盟国成功地建立了广泛的国际机构和联盟架构,主要是联合国,国际货币基金组织,世界银行和北约,它们保护我们的利益,捍卫普世价值并使世界各国人民和国家受益。 然而,不可否认的是,少数几个大国最终控制了这些机构,制定了规范并塑造了国际事务。

现在,冷战结束20年后,我们面临着一个不同的世界。 在全球辩论中,更多国家比以往任何时候都有发言权。 随着各国通过经济实力而不是军队获得影响力,我们看到更多的权力开放途径。 政治和技术变革正在赋予非国家行为者权力,如活动家,公司和恐怖主义网络。

与此同时,我们面临着各种挑战,从金融危机蔓延到气候变化,再到人类和野生动植物贩运,这些挑战跨越国界,无视单边解决方案。 正如奥巴马总统所说,旧的战后建筑在新威胁的重压下摇摇欲坠。 因此,随着我们面临的挑战变得更加复杂和交叉,全球力量的几何形态变得更加分散和分散。

所以我们每天都在问自己的问题是这对美国意味着什么? 然后我们接着说,我们怎样才能促进自己的利益,并维护一个公正的,以规则为基础的国际秩序,这个制度确实为从知识产权到导航自由到公平劳动等一切事物提供了明确的道路规则。标准是什么?

简而言之,我们必须明智地使用我们的力量,而不是因为我们的力量较少。 事实上,我们军队的力量,经济的规模,外交的影响力以及我们人民的创造力仍然是无与伦比的。 不,这是因为随着世界的变化,权力的杠杆也能最有效地塑造国际事务。

我是这样想的。 杜鲁门和阿奇森正在建造帕台农神庙,具有经典的几何形状和清晰的线条。

支柱是少数几个由大国统治的大型机构和联盟。 这种结构带来了前所未有的和平与繁荣。 但是,即使是最伟大的建筑,时间也会受到影响。 我们确实需要为这个新世界建立一个新的架构,比正式的希腊人更需要Frank Ghery。 (笑声)想一想。

现在,他的一些工作起初可能看起来很随意,但实际上它是高度有意和复杂的。 曾经几个强大的柱子可以承受世界的重量,今天我们需要动态的材料和结构组合。

当然,美国的军事和经济实力仍将是我们全球领导力的基础。 正如我们从干预中看到的那样,在利比亚停止大屠杀之后,将本拉登绳之以法,总会有时候必须使用武力。 美国在全球范围内投射电力的能力仍然至关重要。

我为国务院与五角大楼建立的伙伴关系感到自豪,首先是与鲍勃盖茨和迈克马伦,然后是莱昂帕内塔和马丁登普西。

出于同样的原因,美国在欧洲和东亚的传统盟友和朋友几乎是我们所做的一切的宝贵伙伴。 在过去四年中,我们花了相当多的精力来加强这些债券。 而且,我很快补充说,联合国,国际货币基金组织,世界银行和北约也仍然是必不可少的。

但是,我们所有的机构和我们的关系都需要现代化,并辅以新的机构,关系和伙伴关系,这些机构,关系和伙伴关系是针对新的挑战而量身定制的,并模仿可变景观的需求 - 比如我们如何在财务期间提升20国集团危机或创建了国务院的气候和清洁空气联盟,以对抗黑碳等短期污染物,或与土耳其等合作伙伴合作,我们两人在这里举行了第一次全球反恐论坛。

我们也比以往任何时候都更有活力的区域组织。 考虑一下索马里的非洲联盟和利比亚的阿拉伯联盟,甚至是像湄公河下游倡议这样的次区域组织,我们创建这个组织是为了帮助缅甸重新融入其社区,并试图跨越国界,就水坝应该或不应该建成。

当然,我们也正在以一种全新的方式思考老式的皮鞋外交。 我已经找到了 - 而且之前我已经说过了 - 非常具有讽刺意味的是,在今天的世界里,当我们可以在任何地方,实际上,比以往任何时候都更希望我们真正出现。 但是,虽然早期时代的国务卿可能能够专注于少数有影响力的首都,在大国之间穿梭,但今天我们必须采取更广泛的观点。

人们总是对我说,我看看你的旅行日程; 为什么多哥? 好吧,没有国务卿曾经去过多哥,但是多哥碰巧在联合国安理会中担任轮值席位。 去那里,进行个人投资,具有战略目的。

它不仅仅是我们参与的地方,而是与谁合作。 只有政府才能在21世纪建立一套持久的伙伴关系。 现在人们的意见与他们的政府如何与我们合作无关,无论是民主还是专制。 因此,在我访问的几乎每个国家,我都会举行市政厅,直接与公民,民间社会组织,妇女团体,商业社区和其他许多人联系。 他们有宝贵的见解和贡献,并且越来越多地推动经济和政治变革,特别是在民主国家。

国务院现在有11种语言的Twitter提要,就在本周二,我参加了一个全球市政厅,并向各大洲的人们提出了问题,其中包括南极洲的第一次。

因此,重点是我们必须对全球力量的所有杠杆采取战略态度,并寻找十年前无法实现或甚至没有发明的新杠杆。 我们需要扩大我们的参与度,让我举几个例子说明我们是如何做到这一点的。

如果没有21世纪的工具,你就不能成为21世纪的领导者,而不是当人们用Twitter组织民主抗议活动,而恐怖分子在网上传播他们的仇恨意识形态时。 这就是为什么我支持我们称之为21世纪的治国之道。 我们在州内启动了一个机构间战略反恐通信中心。 来自我国政府精通乌尔都语,阿拉伯语,旁遮普语,索马里的精通技术的专家利用社交媒体揭露基地组织的矛盾和弊端,包括对穆斯林平民的残酷袭击。 我们正在努力捍卫互联网自由,因此它仍然是一个免费,开放和可靠的平台,适合每个人。 我们正在帮助处于压迫性互联网环境中的人权活动家上网并更安全地进行交流,因为构建互联网的国家应该引领保护它的人们与那些审查它或将其用作控制工具的人保持联系。

第二,我们的防扩散议程。 与俄罗斯谈判新的START条约是最好的传统外交的一个例子,然后通过国会进行的工作就是传统两党支持的最好例子。

但我们也一直在与世界各地的合作伙伴合作,建立一个新的机构 - 核安全峰会,以便将危险材料从恐怖分子手中夺走。 我们与大国进行了密集外交,对伊朗和朝鲜实施严厉制裁。 但为了实施这些制裁,我们还招募了银行,保险公司和高科技国际金融机构。 今天,伊朗的油轮闲置,其货币受到重创。

现在,这让我想到了第三个杠杆:经济学。 每个人都知道这有多重要。 但不久前,人们认为业务推动市场和政府推动了地缘政治。 好吧,那两个,如果他们是分开的,肯定会融合。 因此,在国内创造就业机会现在已成为海外外交官组合的一部分。 他们正在争论共同的经济规则,特别是在亚洲,所以我们可以让贸易成为顶级竞争,而不是争夺底线。

我们正在优先考虑每个地区的经济,如拉丁美洲,如你所知,我们批准了与哥伦比亚和巴拿马的自由贸易协定。 我们还利用经济工具来应对战略挑战,例如在阿富汗,因为随着安全转型和政治转型,我们正在支持促进私营部门和增加区域经济一体化的经济转型。 这是我们称之为“新丝绸之路”的过境和贸易联系的愿景。

相关的权力杠杆是发展,我们正在帮助发展中国家发展经济,不仅通过传统援助,而且通过更多的贸易和投资,与私营部门的伙伴关系,更好的治理和更多的妇女参与。 我们认为这是对我们自己经济未来的投资。 我喜欢这样说,因为人们总是很惊讶地听到它:世界上增长最快的10个经济体中有7个在非洲。

其他国家正在竭尽所能帮助他们的公司赢得合同并投资新兴市场。 其他国家仍在进行非常明确和无情的经济外交。 我们也应该越来越多。 别搞错了; 这项发展工作也有一个至关重要的战略层面。 弱国代表了我们最重要的一些威胁。 我们有兴趣加强它们并建立更有能力的合作伙伴,以解决他们在家里和邻里的安全问题。 经济学将始终发挥作用。

接下来,考虑能源和气候变化。 以最小化冲突和支持经济增长同时保护地球未来的方式管理世界能源供应是我们这个时代最大的挑战之一。 因此,我们正在利用高级别国际外交和基层伙伴关系来遏制碳排放和气候变化的其他原因。 我们在国务院设立了一个新局,专注于能源外交以及美国 - 欧盟能源委员会等新的合作伙伴关系。 我们与伊拉克人密切合作,支持他们的能源部门,因为这不仅对他们的经济而且对他们的稳定也至关重要。

我们已经大大加强了解决从南中国海到地中海东部的能源纠纷的努力,以保持世界能源市场的稳定。

现在,由于我们国内生产的增加,这已经得到了相当大的帮助。 由于我们的制裁导致伊朗石油已经脱机,因此其他来源已经上线,因此伊朗无法从价格上涨中受益,这是“不是偶然的”。

然后是人权和我们对民主和法治的支持。 我们不能忽视权力和价值观的杠杆。 在上个世纪,美国领导世界认识到存在普遍权利,政府有义务保护它们。 现在,我们将自己置于当今新兴战争的前线,例如捍卫世界各地LGBT社区和宗教少数群体的人权的斗争,无论他们身在何处,无论他们是谁。

但是,几乎每个威胁地区和全球和平的国家都是人权处于危险之中或法治薄弱的地方 - 更具体地说,妇女和女孩被视为二等人,边缘人的地方,这并非巧合。众生。 请问来自巴基斯坦的年轻马拉拉。 问马里北部生活在恐惧中并且不能再上学的妇女。 要求刚果东部的妇女忍受强奸作为战争武器。

这是我想简要强调的最终杠杆,因为陪审团在; 证据绝对无可争辩。 如果各地的妇女和女孩在权利,尊严和机会方面被视为与男子平等,我们将看到各地的政治和经济进步。

因此,这不仅是一个道德问题 - 当然也是道德问题 - 这是一个经济问题和一个安全问题,而且它是21世纪尚未完成的事业。 因此,它必须是美国外交政策的核心。 我担任秘书的第一件事就是在第一任大使Melanne Verveer的领导下,提升全球妇女问题办公室。 我很高兴昨天总统签署了一份备忘录,使该办公室成为永久性的。

在过去的四年里,我们做了 - (掌声) - 谢谢 - (笑) - 在过去的四年里,我们在联合国大力推动妇女参与全球和平与安全建设。 我们在利比里亚这样的地方看到了成功。 我们敦促埃及,突尼斯和利比亚的领导人承认妇女是平等的公民,并做出重要贡献。 我们支持创造就业机会和推动增长的女企业家。

那么技术,发展,人权,女性 - 现在,我知道很多权威人士都会听到这个名单,他们说,这并不是有点软吗? 硬的东西怎么样?

嗯,这是一个错误的选择。 我们需要两者,没有人应该这样想。 我将是第一个站起来并大声宣布美国的军事力量是并且必须仍然是世界历史上最伟大的战斗力量的人。 正如我在过去几年所做的那样,我也将非常明确地表明,我们的外交力量,即召集我们道德劝说的能力是有效的,因为美国可以用行动支持我们的言论。 我们将确保在世界所有海域的航行自由。 我们将坚持不懈地追捕基地组织,其附属机构和其崇拜者。 我们将采取必要措施,防止伊朗获得核武器。

软力本身可以达到的极限是有限的。 对于自身的硬实力能够实现的目标是有限的。 这就是为什么从第一天起我一直在谈论智能电源。 当你看到我们对两个地区进行彻底转变的方法时,你可以看到它在实践中是如何运作的。

首先,美国在亚太地区的参与度不断扩大。 现在,我们的注意力一直集中在我们在该地区的军事行动上。 当然,调整我们的力量姿势是我们综合战略的关键要素。 但通过新的经济和安全安排加强我们的联盟也是如此。 我们派遣海军陆战队到达尔文,但我们也批准了韩国自由贸易协定。

我们通过我们的政府,通过我们的业务,通过我们的非营利性来回应日本的三重灾难,并提醒整个地区美国扮演着不可替代的角色。

首先,这个所谓的支点一直是关于创造性的外交,就像签署一个鲜明的友好条约和与东盟的合作,打开了永久代表的大门,并最终提升了一个参与像南方这样的高风险问题的论坛。中国海。 我们鼓励印度的“向东看”政策,将另一个大民主国家编织到亚太地区。 我们利用跨太平洋伙伴关系的贸易谈判与越南的前对手找到了共同点。 而这样的例子不胜枚举。

我们的努力涵盖了所有权力杠杆以及我已经讨论过的和我们所使用的更多功能。 你可以问自己,如果不深入了解能源政治,微妙的多边外交,明智的经济治国和坚定的普遍规范,我们怎么能像南中国海的领土争端一样处理棘手和危险的问题呢?

或者想想缅甸。 支持这里的历史性开放,融合了经济,外交和政治工具。 该国领导人希望重新加入全球经济的好处。 他们希望更充分地参与该地区的多边机构,不再是国际贱民。 因此,我们需要在许多方面与他们接触,以实现这一目标,迫切要求释放政治犯和进行额外改革,同时促进投资和升级我们的外交关系。

然后就是中国。 导航这种关系具有独特的意义,因为我们彼此之间的交往将决定我们共同的未来。 它也是独一无二的复杂,因为正如我在很多场合所说的那样,正如我已经让非常高层次的中国领导人回到我身边,我们正在努力为这个古老的问题写一个新的答案。既定的权力和崛起的权力相遇。

为了使这项工作,我们必须始终能够使用我们掌握的每一个杠杆。 因此,我们通过战略与经济对话扩大了我们的高层次参与,以涵盖朝鲜和海上安全等传统战略问题以及气候变化,网络安全,知识产权问题以及人权等新出现的挑战。

现在,这种方法在去年5月进行了测试,当时我们不得不在对话的峰会上保持正轨,同时也解决了在美国大使馆避难的盲人人权异议人士的命运危机。 不久前,这样的事件很可能破坏了谈判。 但是,我们通过激烈的努力 - 建立信任 - 我们已经在这种关系中建立了足够的广度和适应能力,同时能够捍卫我们的价值观并促进我们的利益。 我们通过了测试,但还有其他测试。

太平洋地区对我们所有人来说都足够大了,如果它选择在该地区发挥建设性作用,我们将继续欢迎中国的崛起。 对于我们这两个人来说,这种关系的未来取决于我们同时参与所有这些问题的能力。

对于另一个非常复杂和重要的地区,中东和北非来说,情况也是如此。 我最近详细谈到了我们在该地区的战略,包括在战略与国际研究中心和萨班论坛的演讲以及我最近在国会作证时的演讲。

所以,我只想说:有进展。 美国士兵从伊拉克回家。 人们在埃及,突尼斯和利比亚几代人或以往的第一次选举他们的领导人。 美国和我们的伙伴建立了一个广泛的联盟,以阻止卡扎菲屠杀他的人民。 在加沙停火。 所有好事,但还不够。

埃及和利比亚持续不断的动荡指出了统一分裂国家和建立可信的民主体制的困难。 以色列和巴勒斯坦人之间的僵局几乎没有缓和的迹象。

在叙利亚,阿萨德政权继续屠杀其人民并煽动族群间冲突。 伊朗正在追求其核野心并在全球范围内赞助暴力极端主义分子。 我们继续面临来自也门和北非的真正恐怖主义威胁。

所以我不会站在这里假装美国有解决这些问题的所有方法。 我们不。 但我们清楚地看到我们为该地区及其人民寻求的未来。 我们希望看到一个与自身和世界和平相处的地区,人们生活在尊严中,而不是独裁,创业蓬勃发展,而不是极端主义。

毫无疑问,走向未来将是困难的,并且需要我们工具箱中的每一个工具。 因为如果不解决积极的冲突和根本原因,你就无法在中东实现真正的和平。 除非所有公民的权利得到尊重,包括妇女和少数民族,否则你不可能拥有真正的正义。 除非有充满活力的私营部门和良好的治理,否则你无法获得应有的繁荣或机会。

我敢肯定:除非领导人开始领导,否则你不可能拥有真正的稳定和安全,除非各国开始开放经济和社会,不关闭互联网或破坏民主,投资于人民的创造力,而不是煽动他们的愤怒建造学校,不燃烧它们。 没有尊严,也没有未来。

现在,毫无疑问,我所讨论的一切以及我在这一系列评论中所提出的所有内容都是一个非常大的挑战,需要美国适应这些全球力量和影响力的新现实,以保持我们的领导地位。 但这也是一个巨大的机会。 United Stated在这个不断变化的环境中处于独特的地位。 使我们成为一个国家的事物 - 我们的开放和创新,我们的多样性,我们对人权和民主的奉献 - 与这个时代和这个相互依存的世界的要求完美匹配。

因此,在我们展望未来四年及以后,我们必须继续推进这一议程:巩固我们在亚太地区的参与,而不要把目光从中东和北非转移; 继续努力遏制致命武器的扩散,特别是在伊朗和朝鲜; 在不失去对基地组织及其附属机构的关注的情况下,有效地管理我们在阿富汗的战斗任务的结束; 追求从亚洲到拉丁美洲再到欧洲的广泛经济议程; 并继续寻找下一个缅甸 - 它们尚未处于我们都能鼓掌的位置,但已经开始了一个开放的过程; 利用国内能源更新,加大气候变化力度; 然后承担新出现的问题,比如网络安全,不仅仅是政府,而是整个社会。

你知道为什么我们要做所有这些吗? 因为我们是不可或缺的国家。 我们是进步,繁荣与和平的力量。 因为我们必须为自己做好准备。 领导力不是与生俱来的权利。 它必须由每一代新人获得。

我们在20世纪建立在世界各地的善意水库不会永远存在。 事实上,在某些地方,它们已经危险地耗尽了。 新一代年轻人不记得地理标志解放他们的国家,或美国人拯救数百万人的生命免于饥饿和疾病。 我们需要重新向他们介绍自己,我们这样做的方法之一就是通过观察和关注并致力于那些对他们的生活和未来最重要的问题。

因此,由于美国仍然是唯一能够将不同国家和人民聚集在一起解决全球范围问题的国家和决心,我们不能推卸责任。 我们召集和联系的能力是无与伦比的,我们在必要时独自行动的能力也是如此。

因此,当我说我们是真正不可或缺的国家时,它并不意味着夸耀或空洞的口号。

这是对我们的角色和责任的认可。 这就是为什么衰落主义者是错误的。 (笑声)这就是为什么美国必须并将继续在本世纪领先,即使我们以新的方式领导。

我们知道领导有其成本。 我们知道这带来了风险,需要付出巨大的牺牲。 最近几个月我们再次看到了这种痛苦。 但领导也是一种荣誉,克里斯史蒂文斯和他在班加西的同事所体现的。 我们必须始终努力做到这一荣誉。

这个神圣的指控每天都是我的北极星,我担任过国务卿,领导美国国务院和美国国际开发署的男性和女性,有近70,000人在华盛顿和270多个职位上任职,这是非常荣幸的。环游世界。 他们每天起床和上班,往往是在令人沮丧,困难和危险的情况下工作,因为他们相信,正如我们所认为的那样,美国是世界上和平与进步最杰出的力量。

所以今天,经过这项工作四年,旅行近一百万英里,访问112个国家,我对我们国家的信心更强,我们 - 我对未来的信心也是如此。 我知道当这个蓝色和白色的飞机上印有“美利坚合众国”字样的东西在一些遥远的首都触及时,我知道它是什么感觉,我感受到代表世界不可或缺的国家的巨大荣誉和责任。

我相信,我的继任者和他的继任者以及所有在我有幸拥有的职位上工作的人将继续在本世纪发挥领导作用,就像我们在最后一个世纪所做的那样:聪明,不知疲倦,勇敢地制造世界更和平,更安全,更繁荣,更自由。 为此,我非常感激。 谢谢。 (掌声。)

(笑声。)所以 - (听不清楚) - 过来?

HAASS :(听不清楚。)

好的,谢谢你,秘书长 -

克林顿:谢谢。

HAASS: - 无论你要说什么,还是过去四年。

让我利用我的立场,提出第一个问题。 你给出了一个非常全面的谈话,正如你所说的那样,触及了美国影响力和权力的许多杠杆,并为各种形式的权力提供了理由。 So when it comes to putting it together, is there an Obama doctrine, is there a Clinton doctrine that somehow ties it together, gives a sense of priorities, helps explain what it is we should do and not do and how we should do it in the way that other doctrines historically have played that role?

CLINTON: Well, I think that, as you can tell from what I said, we believe that America must continue to be the indispensable nation and the global leader on behalf of peace, prosperity and progress, and that that requires us not only to lead alone but also to build coalitions and networks that will put responsibility with others and expect them to play their role in a rules-based global order. So it's not always easy to talk about what we are doing every day, everywhere in the world, but I think if you look at what we have done, we have certainly kept faith with that kind of mission.

HAASS: I will show uncharacteristic self-restraint --

CLINTON: (Chuckles.)

HAASS: -- as those of you who know me, and we'll try to have time for a couple questions. Yes, ma'am, all the way in the back. 是啊。 Right there. Just wait for the microphone, and just let us know who you are.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. My name is Nadia Bilbassy. I'm with MBC television, Middle East Broadcasting Center.

Madam Secretary, some of the successes have been attributed to you is mending or fixing United States relation with Arab and Muslim world. Yet the statistics contradict that. If you look at the Pew statistics, it shows that actually, your favoritism in comparison to the Bush administration is lower and -- in countries like Turkey, Jordan and in other places.

So what is going wrong? Does that mean that America's standing in the -- in the world is on the receding end, that its prestige has been affected?

谢谢。

CLINTON: Well, let me say three things about that. First, I have obviously followed closely public opinion, and I think it's fair to say that the United States, for the last decade, has not been viewed favorably by a very high percentage of the people in any of the countries in the Middle East or North Africa for a number of reasons, some of it rooted, of course, in our strong support for Israel over the many years of Israel's existence as a state. So this is not the Obama administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration. This is the views of many people in the region about America. And I think it's unfortunate, because, you know, clearly what the United States stands for is absolutely in line with what the Arab revolutions have been publicly espousing.

Secondly, I think that we have done -- and I take responsibility, along with our entire government and our Congress and perhaps our private sector -- we have not done a very good job in recent years reaching out in a public media way or in a culturally effective way to explain ourselves. You know, I'm always encountering so many conspiracy theories that are totally off-base, wild, made-up stuff that the media in the region promotes about the United States that is absolutely untrue. Our response has been, nobody'll either believe it, or we can't possibly contest it.

I take a different view. I think we ought to be in there every single day. You know, I made a point of reaching out to Al Jazeera when I became secretary of state, because it was unrelentlessly -- or was relentlessly negative about us. And I said, you know, come on, that is not only inaccurate, but it's deeply unfair. And, you know, they -- their response to me was, well, your government never puts anybody on Al Jazeera. I said, well, that's going to change right now. You know, you can't be in the arena and expect there to be a change if you're not willing to get off the bench. And from my perspective, that's our fault. We have let a lot of stuff be said about us, believed about us that is contrary to who we are as a people, what we stand for and what we've done.

I guess thirdly, we in our efforts to support democracy still are held accountable for supporting the governments that were there before democracy. You know, you deal with governments of all kinds. We deal with China. Hardly anybody believes that China fully respects human rights, and it certainly is not a democracy, but we don't get blamed because we do business with China, but we did business with other regimes, and somehow that caused lasting negativity toward us, which I think, again, is unfounded.

So there are reasons for all of the points that you made that go more to the heart of American foreign policy and American values, but we can do a better job in at least disabusing and refuting some of what people are led to believe that is contrary to who we are.

HAASS: Allan Wendt.

QUESTIONER: Allan Wendt, formerly with the State Department. Madam Secretary, you've outlined a very ambitious agenda and program of work for the Department of State. Could you tell us a little bit about the budgetary resources -- (laughter) -- that will be required to carry out that agenda?

CLINTON: Well --

HAASS: I bet you're glad he's asked that question.

CLINTON: I'm very glad he asked that question. (Laughter.) You know, we've had some success in the very first years of my tenure in making the case to the Congress to increase our budgets, increase our workforce to be able to deal with the myriad of challenges, threats and opportunities we face. But we are -- we are moving into the budget negotiations and a potential sequestration, which will be disastrous.

And people will focus -- and they should -- on what sequestration will mean to the military. Hundreds of thousands -- maybe 800,000 civilians will lose their jobs. Bases will have to be closed. Programs will have to be stopped.

So the Defense Department will be able, if anyone's willing to listen, you know, say, look, you know, here's what the immediate effect will be, and it won't only be about our military might; it'll be about the economy. You say in the fourth quarter slowdown, one of the reasons was decreased military spending as people, you know, hedge against and get prepared for this, you know, absurd sequestration idea.

In the State Department, you know, we can't look at military programs that are producing weapons, but we can look at people being furloughed, which they will. We can look at cutting back once again on security, which has been one of the challenges we have inherited over the years and which I tried to explain to the Congress. We can look at the cutbacks in passports that the American people deserve us to provide, and on and on and on.

So although we are, you know, one-twelfth, one-thirteenth of the Defense Department budget, what we do does directly affect Americans. It's not just programs over there; it's what happens here at home and what we do through those programs and posts that make it possible for us to have jobs and, you know, travel easily and so much else.

So I thank you for asking it. This is a government-wide challenge and something that no great country should do. I mean, just as a final note, you know, I was giving a speech in Hong Kong during the last debt ceiling debate, and all these very sophisticated investors and government officials, you know, lined up to say, is the United States really going to default on its credit? And I said, oh, no, no, no, we'll never do that, you know, oh, Lord, please, please -- (laughter) -- no -- so are we really going to have mindless sequestration? Are we really going to, in effect, handicap ourselves? 走着瞧。 我希望不是。 I hope that cooler and smarter heads prevail.

HAASS: (Inaudible.)

CLINTON: Sure. 当然。

HAASS: OK, Diana.

QUESTIONER: Diana Lady Dougan, Center for Strategic and International Studies and Cyber Century Forum. Madam Secretary, I think all of us are -- want to say how honored we are to have had you as our secretary. But I will move quickly on to a question that -- for those of us particularly who served during the Cold War, it was much easier to identify American interests, and we had much more of a moral compass. And now I would like to know, when you are talking about protecting and advancing American interests, it's becoming more and more difficult and more and more parochial in identifying American interests, particularly in a transnational world and the various vested interest groups. So what advice do you have to give to your successors in terms of defining American interests and redefining them?

CLINTON: Well, that's an excellent question. And I think it's on two levels. On the most fundamental level, you know, protecting America and Americans has to remain a core interest. Our security is non-negotiable. And we have to be smart about what really threatens us and what doesn't. We have to work better on intelligence so that we don't make very unfortunate mistakes. So -- but security first and foremost. And I don't think any official, secretary of state or otherwise, could put anything before that.

Secondly, we need an open, transparent, free market in which Americans are able to compete on a level playing field, because when we can compete, we often can win. But the deck has been stacked against us in the last years because of all kinds of forces converging, whether it's, you know, state-owned enterprises or indigenous protections that are behind the borders and so forth. So, you know, it is very much in our interest to help write the rules for the 21st-century global economy and then to think of mechanisms to enforce those rules.

Thirdly, we have to continue to advance American values, which correspond with universal values. I'm always reminding my counterparts that when I talk about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, those are not just American values.

The world agreed to those values back in the declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And we're going to stand up for them. And it's not always easy, and we have to pick our times. We can't be short-sighted or counterproductive, but we're going to continue to stand up for them.

So on the fundamental first level, we do what we do because it's in our security interest, our economic interest and our moral interest, and we have to continue to do that.

But then as you go up to sort of the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever, more agile, and we're trying to do that.

So for example, countering violent extremism: There are those who estimate that maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremists in the world. But they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the Internet. And what we have tried to do, as I briefly mentioned, is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them.

It is something we did quite well in the Cold War. You know, the more I've done this job, the more lessons I think we can transfer from the Cold War to today. No, we don't have some monolithic Communist Soviet Union. But we were engaged minute by minute in pushing out our ideas, our values, refuting Communist propaganda. Cold War ended, people said, oh, my goodness, thank the lord, democracy has triumphed; we don't have to do any of that anymore. That is a terrible mistake.

We have basically abdicated, in my view, the broadcast media. I have tried and will continue from the outside to try to convince Congress and others, if we don't have an up-to-date, modern, effective broadcasting board of governors, we shouldn't have one at all. Other countries, Russia, China -- and I mentioned Al-Jazeera already -- they have government messaging that is now predominant in so many places in the languages of the places. And we -- you know, we -- you know, we transport our cultural and entertainment around the world, which doesn't always, unfortunately, convey our best values. (Laughter.) But, you know -- and we abdicate in really investing in and modernizing what our broadcasting potential could be.

So, you know, I think there is a -- there are many more examples, but I would say that if you look at how successful we were in the Cold War -- thankfully, we never went to war with the Soviet Union; we never stopped negotiating with the Soviet Union. And we engaged in a lot of very sophisticated diplomacy around the world. And we did things like support certain people in elections because they were more democratic than other people. I mean, we did a lot. I mean, George Shultz was here the other day, and, you know, we did so much to kind of help those who were on the side of democracy and freedom survive behind the Iron Curtain and then thrive when the Iron Curtain fell. And I have a long list of things that I would love to see us doing in a modern way that we have not yet adapted to this new time.

HAASS: Time for one last one. Yes, ma'am. Third row.

QUESTIONER: Rickie Taggart --

HAASS: Rickie, just wait for the microphone.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. Rickie Taggart, Health for Financial Regulation Reform International.

Immigration reform has been seen as largely a domestic issue, but I would like very much for you to give us your views on to what extent immigration reform will enhance our ability to deal with other countries and to foster US values abroad.

CLINTON: Well, it's funny, my very last bilateral meeting was with yesterday the new foreign secretary of Mexico. And we talked about the benefits to both United States and Mexico -- in fact, all of North America -- in better integrating our economies, our infrastructure, our energy, particularly our electricity grid and so much else that is possible. So immigration reform is the right thing to do for America and for people who are here who have in many instances been here for a very long time, made their contributions to this country, have been law-abiding, contributing residents.

But it's also to our benefit with our neighbors to the south.

What's happened in the last several years has been actually a slowing- down of immigration -- undocumented immigration from Mexico, because as our economy was struggling and jobs were not as available and the Mexican economy was growing, people didn't come or they went home. So now much of the immigration flows are coming from further south, from countries where there is still a lot of instability and very significant poverty. So what we have to do is have, as the president said, comprehensive immigration reform, which means not only border security on our borders but helping with border security further south so that we can then move on to dealing with the 11 million-plus people who are here and creating some path to citizenship. That will be a huge benefit to us in the region, not just in Mexico but further south.

At the same time that we do immigration reform, we need to do more on border security and internal security in Central America. We should be very proud of the role we played in stabilizing Colombia from the drug cartels and the FARC rebels, and we've made a lot of progress with Mexico under the Merida Initiative with the result that these Central American countries are increasingly squeezed. So they -- their internal workforce will not have many opportunities once we do immigration reform, once the Mexicans get serious about their border. Then I think we have to do more with the Central American countries in order to help them the way that we have helped others.

HAASS: Madam Secretary, you spoke about the indispensability of American leadership and how, you know, the world would be, I think, a much worse place were it not, you know, for such an active American role. But coming back to immigration reform and to your comments about sequestration, are you optimistic about the capacity of the American political system to come up with policies that will allow us to sustain that kind of American leadership?

CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, if you look back, we've done some really stupid things -- (laughter) -- and -- you know, over 200 years. We've passed terrible laws. We've had all kinds of government-sponsored or condoned discrimination against all kinds of people. We've -- you know, we've made our mistakes. I mean, we may be indispensable; doesn't mean we're perfect. We're probably as close to perfect as anybody has been, but -- (laughter) -- we've got -- we're maybe not there yet. We're still trying to form a more perfect union. (笑声。)

But no, I think -- look, you look at the sweep of American history, and sometimes it takes longer than it should, but, you know, eventually we do, you know, overcome our own discriminatory tendencies, our own insecurities and fears. And I have no doubt that we will again. It is -- it is distressing when you're -- when you're watching some of what is happening, but I think you have to take a longer view. And in the -- and certainly in my view, that's one for optimism.

HAASS: At the risk of leaving you all with an image that probably isn't good, I would simply say that John Kerry has some fairly large Manolo Blahniks to fill. (Laughter.) I want to thank the secretary of state again for everything she's done. (笑声,掌声。)

CLINTON: (Laughs.) Oh, Richard, that is very good. (Laughter, applause.) Did Susan come up with that? (笑声,掌声。)

HAASS: (Inaudible.) (Laughs.)

CLINTON: That is very funny. 哦,我的天啊。 (Sustained applause.)


载入中...

(责任编辑:郁悛)
  • 热图推荐
  • 今日热点