Dr John Chipman, Director-General and
Chief Executive, IISS
Madam Secretary, thank you very much for a sweeping, profound and nuanced
set of remarks that established the principles upon which security, not just in
this region but around the world, can be established and pointed out the variety
of contributions that individual countries can make to that security and the
goals that your government has for reaching out and establishing productive and
constructive partnerships with the states of this region and others interested
in its security. You have very kindly
agreed to take a few questions and I would like to invite anyone who would like
to ask a question to raise their hands.
I cannot promise to include the dozens who I am sure will seek the floor
but I will do my best to ensure a variety of commentary. If I do not identify you, identify yourself
but I see the first. Alanoud Al Sharekh, who is actually Senior Fellow for
Regional Politics at the IISS office here in the kingdom of Bahrain from Kuwait.
Alanoud Al Sharekh, Senior
Fellow for Regional Politics, IISS Middle-East
Madam Secretary, it is a great pleasure to have you address us here in
the Manama Dialogue. If I may, I would
like to ask you the same question I posed to your predecessor Secretary Rice on
one of her many visit to Kuwait. The
past administration prioritised electoral‑based democratic progress as
political reform in the region and the results were often problematic for both
the US Government and the international community, for example Hamas’ victory
in Palestine. In your opinion, is the
current [inaudible] the same line on political reform in the region?
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Well that is an excellent question because I do think there needs to be a
much broader definition of what democracy means. Democracy is not only elections. Democracy is building the institutions that
will enable a process of electing representatives to deliver results for people
and do so by creating an inclusive approach to decision‑making. Democracy also requires the protection of
minority rights; the independence of the judiciary; a free press; the kinds of
institutional changes that have had to go hand in hand with elections so we
very much support democracy and we are continuing to provide support for
organisations and individuals who speak out for and work on behalf of
democracy. We are helping.
For example, today in Bahrain at my town hall I heard from a young
parliamentarian who had gone to some of the courses that the United States runs
to help young people to go into politics and what it means – not just to win an
election but to serve people. So clearly
the United States remains committed to democratic process and to the democratic
enterprise because we believe that ultimately it is the most stable form of
government but we know that different countries have taken different paths and
so we want to emphasise the broad array of actions that can lead to
democratisation, so elections are part of it bit it is not the only part and
too great an emphasis on it can lead to having one election and no more, as
people do not fully invest themselves in what it takes to build the
institutions of democracy.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you very much. Next I saw
Toby Dodge, if you could come out a little bit so that you are within the line
of sight of the Secretary as you put your question.
Dr Toby Dodge, Consulting Senior
Fellow for the Middle East, IISS
Thank you. Given the amount of
time it took for the Iraqi government to be formed, what do you think that says
about its future stability and policy direction?
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Well I have a somewhat different take than perhaps others might
have. Democracy is hard work and people
do not just wake up one day and say ‘we know how to do this’. Politics, Max Weber said was the slow, hard
boring of hard boards. This is hard work
and for the first time the Iraqis themselves had to bargain with each other,
negotiate over future commitments and decisions and what they came up with was
an inclusive government that provided for recognition of the legitimate
participation of all elements of their society.
Now I would hope that the next time there is an election, forming the
government will not take so long but it is only fair to say that Belgium and
the Netherlands had recent elections and took months to form a government, and
they have had a lot more practice in politics than the Iraqis have had. So I think we ought to be very understanding
of the difficulties that new democracies face and to go back to the young
woman’s question, really work not only to build the institutions but embed the
attitudes of what it takes to do politics in a democratic system. Now the real test is whether this newly
formed government will begin delivering results for people because democracies
have to deliver results. The lights have
to stay on for longer than three hours a day.
There have to be some tangible signs of difference that will reinforce
the commitment of the Iraqi people to the political process. I think they are off to an encouraging start
from what we have seen so far.
Professor François Heisbourg, Chairman,
IISS
Madam Secretary, first of all, as Chairman of IISS, I am thrilled that you
are here with this evening and want to thank you as John has and [inaudible]
truly constructive broad spectrum speech.
My question is about the strategic implications of the so-called
Wikileak affair. When as an individual,
I travel and my credit card figures an irregular appearing transaction, my bank
immediately gets in touch with me. This
triggers alarms. This is a basic form of
cyber security which applies to hundreds of millions of people. In the case of Wikileaks, we have had one
individual who engaged in a rather strange transaction, that of downloading
252,000 diplomatic telegrams and memoranda.
This apparently triggered no alarms or if it did they were not listened
to. What are we to make of this very
basic massive breach of cyber security of the United States? What lessons should we as non-Americans draw
from what has happened and what lessons are you going to draw given the scale
of the affair?
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Well there are lots of lessons to be learned here and I appreciate the
thrust of your question because obviously the United States must learn and
apply lessons but the lessons are ones that all of us in the international
community will have to apply as well.
Firstly, just a little background - the decision was made in the Bush
administration to add diplomatic cables to the Defense Department’s network, a
special network that was created for that purpose, and the process undertaken
in order to do a better job of what is called connecting the dots. After 11 September 2001, one of the principal
criticisms of our government was that information was stovepiped: that the
Defense Department knew things that the State Department did not know, and that
the White House did not know. As a
result, there were signals missed, and information not processed. It was understandable for the Bush
Administration to say, ‘We need to end the stovepiping, and figure out how to
have greater situational awareness and sharing of information.’ The individual that you referred to was a
fully cleared military intelligence officer.
I cannot speak for the Defense Department, but I am sure you would
assume, correctly, that they are conducting, and have been conducting, a
vigorous investigation to determine why no alarm bells went off.
In addition, I directed that we would cease sharing, for whatever period
of time it may take, our cables. That
stopped as soon as this gentleman was apprehended, and he is clearly going to
be prosecuted, along with anyone who participated or contributed to the crimes
that he committed. I think your point is
a very important one. We all have so
much information on networks now. No
matter how secure you think a network is, or how carefully vetted, or
polygraphed, a person might be who has access to that network, it is probably
impossible to have a completely secure network.
There are too many pieces of information that are flowing in and out 24
hours a day. We are obviously taking
steps as I speak to upgrade and make our confidential information more secure,
but I think it is incumbent upon everyone else to take a hard look. As I said, shortly after this unfortunate
matter came to light, the attack on the United States’ information system was
really an attack on the international community. For those of us who are in the diplomacy
business, we are working to constantly gather information, to put things in
context so that we better understand what is going on. There is no surprise there; in fact, some of
the analysis that has been done of the information made available through these
leaks has basically concluded that there is not much news; there is not much to
comment on. There is no big
revelation. It is the day-to-day work of
what diplomats all around the world do.
We need to be sure that we can continue to have candid and open
conversations. I hope that we have
fixed, and will continue to strengthen, our own security systems, and that all
of us do the same. I believe that this
attack, if left unpunished, will be just the first of many against anyone,
anywhere, who can possibly suborn or convince an individual who has access to
the systems to provide information for public release.
Dr John Chipman
I have just received a communication that I can have one more
question. I think there are 14 people
who are about to be disappointed. Mark
Fitzpatrick, if you could ask it. Thank
you very much. I apologise profoundly,
and I shall try to compensate during the course of the next day to those I have
had to leave out. Mark Fitzpatrick.
Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation, IISS
Madam Secretary, in your direct address to the representatives of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, I heard nothing but positive words. You spoke of recognition of the right to
nuclear energy, of commitment to engagement, respect for sovereignty; it almost
sounds as though you are trying to create the right mood for the talks that
will begin in Geneva on Monday. My
question, Madam Secretary, is: what can we realistically expect to come out of
those talks?
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I believe that that is largely in the hands of the Iranians. I said nothing different tonight from what I
have said on many occasions since the beginning of this administration. We very much hope that the negotiations in
Geneva over the nuclear programme will lead to breakthroughs. I wanted to stress again that Iran is
entitled to the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy, but the facts are
stubborn and undebatable about the concerns that the international community
has expressed. The fact that the UN
adopted sanctions illustrates the concern, because no-one is particularly fond
of sanctions. It is not something that
any country, or certainly the United Nations, or the European Union, or others,
wish to pursue. However, it is a
diplomatic tool, one of the strongest we have in the toolbox, to send a message
that there is a level of concern that must be addressed by Iran. Otherwise, we are left to draw the worst
conclusions, and that is a recipe for further destabilising of this region, in
ways that would have long-term consequences.
It is, for me, thinking strategically, very much in Iran’s interest to
come to these talks in Geneva committed to working out a way to restore the
confidence of the international community; to firmly, conclusively reject the
use of nuclear weapons, and to understand the strategic calculation at work
here. If anyone in Iran believes that
either acquiring nuclear weapons or the breakout capacity for nuclear weapons
will make Iran stronger and more dominant in the region, that is an absolutely
wrong calculation. It will trigger an
arms race that will make the region less stable and more uncertain, and will
cause serious repercussions far beyond the Gulf. I am hoping, and waiting, to see the results
of the discussions in Geneva. The United
States, as I said, stands ready to continue engagement, if there is a sincere
effort by Iran to deal with the nuclear programme in a way that permits the
international community to move forward with Iran.
Dr John Chipman
Madam Secretary, this has been a profoundly fascinating evening. You have provided an extraordinary set of
remarks, a wonderfully genuine response to really important questions. We are hugely in your debt for the tremendous
food for thought and direct policy prescriptions you have offered to us
tonight. You have sung for your supper;
I think you now deserve to have it.
Madam Secretary, thank you very much indeed.
