'Meet the Press' transcript for July 26, 2009

MR. GREGORY:  Is North Korea a threat to the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, at this time, you know, our military experts and others say that in real terms, what they could do to us, that's unlikely.  We have missile defenses that we can deploy.  But they are a threat to our friends and allies, particularly Japan and South Korea.  So therefore, they trigger a response from us to protect our allies and to make clear to the North Koreans that they cannot behave in this way.  And I want to just underscore that China has been extremely positive and productive in respect to North Korea.  The big issue in previous times was well, how do we get China to really be working to change North Korean behavior?  I will be starting, along with Secretary Geithner, an intensive two days with Chinese high-level representatives tomorrow and Tuesday.  But on North Korea, we have been extremely gratified by their forward-leaning commitment to sanctions and the private messages that they have conveyed to the North Koreans.

MR. GREGORY:  Finally on this, two U.S. captives, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists in captivity now; is there a feeling that some of the tough talk that you had with the North Koreans this week, this sort of exchange of insults, does it make their situation more dangerous?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  We believe that this is on a separate track.  This is an issue that should be resolved by the North Koreans granting amnesty and allowing these two young women to come home as quickly as possible.

MR. GREGORY:  Are you making progress?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, we have--are certainly pursuing every lead we have.  The messages that we've received from the young women both through our protecting power, the Swedish ambassador, and through the messages and phone calls they've had with their families are that they're being treated well, that they have been given the supplies that they need.  But obviously, they want to resolve this, as we do, and we work on it literally every day.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me turn to another hot spot, and that is Iran.  A big headline this week, again, with your words:  "Clinton's `Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions." The headlines goes on, "Suggests U.S. Will Have to Protect Allies From Nuclear-Armed Iran." You were in Bangkok on Wednesday, and this is what you said that got this started.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

SEC'Y CLINTON:  We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY:  Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, I think it's clear that we're trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime.  You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against.  We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.  The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy.  So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.  What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen.  First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon.  But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran--nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.

MR. GREGORY:  All right, but let's be specific.  Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all.  You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst.  Our hope is--that's why we're engaged in the president's policy of engagement toward Iran--is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities.  You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power.  You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon.  You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control.  But there's a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.

MR. GREGORY:  One of the big challenges here is preventing Israel from acting first; if they feel there's an existential threat, would they strike out at Iran to take out a nuclear program.  And there's been various positions taken within the administration about that.  Vice President Biden just a couple of weeks ago said this on ABC:  "We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they are existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country." Meantime, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said, "Well, I have been for some time concerned about any strike on Iran [by Israel].  I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself, but the unintended consequences of a strike like that." Where do you fall on the spectrum of the administration views about the impact of a strike by Israel?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, let me say that I personally don't see the contradiction here.  The vice president was stating a fact.  Israel is a sovereign nation. Any sovereign nation facing what it considers to be an existential threat, as successive Israeli governments have characterized the possibility of Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean to them, is not going to listen to other nations, I mean, if they believe that they are acting in the furtherance of their survival.  However, as Admiral Mullen said, you know, we continue to believe that very intensive diplomacy, bringing the international community together, making clear to the Iranians what the costs of their pursuit of nuclear weapons might be is the preferable route.  So clearly, we have a, a long, durable relationship with Israel.  We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected.  But we also believe that pursuing this path with Iran that we're on right now, that frankly we're bringing more and more people to see it our way--I thought the G-8 statement was quite remarkable in that sense--is the better approach for us to take.  So we will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

MR. GREGORY:  Defense Secretary Gates is on his way to Israel this week.  Is the message to the Israelis, "You got to hang tight here"?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, also, General Jones will be there.  We have a full panoply of a lot of our national security team that will be meeting with comparable Israeli officials.  And our message is as it has been:  The United States stand with you, the United States believes that Israel has a right to security.  We believe, however, that this approach we're taking holds out the promise of realizing our common objective.  And we want to brief the Israelis, we want to listen to the Israelis and we want to enlist the support of all of our allies and friends in moving forward on this policy.

MR. GREGORY:  Is Iran an illegitimate regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  You know, that's really for the people of Iran to decide.  I have been moved by the, just the cries for freedom and, and the clear appeal to the Iranian government that this really significant country with a people that go back millennia that has such a great culture and history deserves better than what they're getting.

MR. GREGORY:  But if the United States decides to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, as has been the stated policy of the willingness to engage, are you not betraying this democratic movement trying to overthrow that regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  I don't think so, David, because you can go back in history--and not, you know, very long back--where we have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people.  Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union.  Look at the breakthrough and subsequent negotiations with communist China.  That's what you do in diplomacy.  You don't get to choose the people; that's up to the internal dynamics within a society.  But clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people.  We would hope that there is more openness, that peaceful demonstrations are respected, that press freedom is respected.  Yet, we also know that whoever is in charge in Iran is going to be making decisions that will affect the security of the region and the world.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me talk about another difficult area, and that's Russia, where there has been an attempt by the president to say, "We're going to reset this relationship." Vice President Biden, who was just traveling in the region, talked to the Wall Street Journal, and his comments raised some eyebrows.  This is what he said:  "The reality is the Russians are where they are.  They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable." Is he speaking for the president, and is the message essentiality that the U.S. now has the upper hand when it's dealing with Russia?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  No, and I don't think that's at all what the vice president meant.  I mean, remember, the vice president was the first person in the administration, in an important speech which he gave in Munich, Germany, shortly after President Obama's inauguration, that we wanted to reset our relationship with Russia.  And we know that that's not easily done.  It takes time, it takes trust building.  And we want what the president called for during his recent Moscow summit.  We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.

Now, there is an enormous amount of work to be done between the United States and Russia.  We're working on reducing our nuclear arsenal.  We're going to work on reducing fissile material to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.  We're working to combat the threat of violent extremism.  Russia has been very helpful in our United Nations efforts vis-a-vis North Korea.  The Russians joined the G-8 statement in Italy talking about the need for Iran to come to the table either in a multilateral forum like the P-5 Plus One that we're part of, or bilaterally with us.  And so there is an enormous amount of hard work being done.  And we view Russia as a great power.  Now, every country faces challenges.  You know, we have our challenges, Russia has their challenges.  And there are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on its own.  And we want to make clear that, as we reset our relationship, we are very clearly not saying that Russia can have a 21st century sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.  That is, you know, an, an attitude and a policy we reject.

We also are making it very clear that any nation in Eastern Europe that used to be part of the Soviet Union has a right now, as a free, sovereign and independent nation, to choose whatever alliance they wish to join.  So if Ukraine and Georgia someday are eligible for and desire to join NATO, that should be up to them.

So I, I think that, you know, what we're seeing here is the beginning of the resetting of that relationship, which I have been deeply involved in.  I will be co-chairing a presidential commission along with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.  We'll be following up on what our two presidents said in Moscow.  And the Russians know that, you know, we have continuing questions about some of their policies, and they have continuing questions about some of ours.

MR. GREGORY:  Before we get to a break I want to get to another hot spot, and that, of course, is Afghanistan.  And the headline coming out this week: "U.S. Deaths Hit A Record High In Afghanistan:  The Toll of 31 So Far in July Makes For the Deadliest Month of the War." Is--with--given that the president is surging up forces, 17,000 additional troops going to Afghanistan, is this a war of necessity for this president, or has it become his war of choice?

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, I think the president has been very firm in stating that the policy that was followed in Afghanistan was not working.  He said it throughout the campaign, he made that clear upon becoming president.  And we know that the threat to the United States and, in fact, those who plotted and carried out the horrific attack on 9/11 against our country have not yet been brought to justice, killed or captured.  So the president's goal is to dismantle and destroy and eventually defeat al-Qaeda.

MR. GREGORY:  And yet, if I can just stop you, the real focus now is fighting the Taliban, which is an insurgent movement.  And Thomas Friedman wrote this on Wednesday, I'd like you to respond to it:  "American has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby.  The troop surge that President Obama ordered [in Afghanistan] early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed--if ever.  We came [to Afghanistan] to destroy al-Qaeda, now we're in a long war with the Taliban.  Is that really a good use of American power?"\

SEC'Y CLINTON:  Well, David, we had an intensive strategic review upon taking office.  And we not only brought the entire United States government together, but we reached out to friends and allies, people with stakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  And as you know, the result of that strategic review was to conclude that al-Qaeda is supported by and uses its extremist allies like elements within the Taliban and other violent extremist groups in the region as well as worldwide to extend its reach, to be proxies for a lot of its attacks on Jakarta, Indonesia, and elsewhere.  So that in order to really go after al-Qaeda, to uproot it and destroy it, we had to take on those who were giving the al-Qaeda leadership safe haven.

Now, as you know, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is permeable. There are movements back and forth across it.  I think our new strategy, which has been endorsed by a very large number of nations, some of whom don't agree with us on a lot of other things, is aimed at achieving our primary goal.  And we also learned from Iraq, which were hard lessons, that in order to have our military intervention be effective, when they go in and try to clear areas of the extremists, we have to follow in to build up the capacity of the local community to defend itself and to be able to realize the benefits of those changes.  This is a new strategy.  It's just beginning.  I think the president believed that it was not only the right strategy but, facing what he faced, to withdraw our presence or to keep it on the low level limited effectiveness that had been demonstrated, would have sent a message to al-Qaeda and their allies that the United States was willing to leave the field to them.  And in addition, importantly, we've seen the Pakistani government and military really step up, which had not happened to the extent it has now.  So the Taliban, which is as, I believe strongly, part of a kind of terrorist syndicate with al-Qaeda at the center...

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON:  ...is now under tremendous pressure, and I think that's in America's national interest.

Now, I have to add, nobody is more saddened than the president and I by the loss of life of our young men and women, and no one is more impatient than we are to see the results of this sacrifice bear fruit.  We have the most extraordinary military in the world.  They have leadership now we think is totally on point in terms of what we are attempting to accomplish.  And, and I think that we'll see benefits come from that.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Sunday's Meet the Press guest list Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: