Introduction
MR. MCCORMACK: Welcome back for round two of Briefing 2.0.
Why don't we start right in with the -- right in with the
questions. First one is Evan from Baltimore. By the way,
I only have a piece of paper up here with the list of questions.
I don't actually have questions.
Let's go to Evan.
QUESTION: Mr. McCormack, I'm Evan. I'm a student at Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore. My question pertains to
Latin America; specifically, what do you think our biggest
challenges are there, especially with dictators like Hugo
Chavez and others threatening American interests and forming
sort of an anti-America alliance? What steps do you believe
we can take to rebuild our alliances and restore our image
in Latin America?
MR. MCCORMACK: Actually, I think we've done a pretty good
job in terms of our image in Latin America. We've made a
real shift in terms of what we've been doing over the past
several years in Latin America. And one of the biggest things
we did is we started to actually adopt some of the rhetoric
and, I guess, the attitude, if you will, of the left-of-center
political spectrum in Latin America. And that is, you know,
we started to talk about social justice as an integral part
of our message in Latin America, along with free trade and
promotion of freedom and democracy. So we actually came
to this view that all of these things are integrated, that,
you know, that when you start talking about free trade and
democracy and promotion of -- the promotion of those things
which increase prosperity, what you're also talking about
is social justice. And that's a message that I think really
resonated in Latin America. The -- and what it also did
is it made it a lot easier for us to work with governments
across the political spectrum -- left, right, left-of-center,
right-of-center, whatever the case may be. We work equally
well with the government of Mexican President Calderon as
we do with the government of President Lula of Brazil, who
is considered left-of-center. And then we have right-of-center
in Mexico. So we can work across the political spectrum.
We have a lot of challenges in governments like Hugo Chavez,
Evo Morales in Bolivia, the Castros in Cuba. We have real
political differences with them. I think Cuba is in a separate
category. Our problem, however, with Venezuela and Bolivia
is really not their political agenda, per se, but it's how
they've governed. They've been elected -- they were elected
as democratic leaders, but they're not, in our view, governing
as democratic leaders. So that's a problem.
The second part of Evan's question is, well, how do we
-- what's our biggest challenge going forward. I think,
pretty clearly, maintaining the agenda for free trade in
the hemisphere is going to be a huge challenge for us, just
given the economic disruptions that we see now around the
world. And that, of course, will -- that, of course, affects
politics and views for whether or not it really is good
to continue with economic as well as political reforms.
So those are the basic challenges. Personally, I think
we're in pretty good shape in Latin America and South America.
Not to say there aren't challenges, but very basically,
America can work with whoever wants to work with America.
There are some states that have said that they don't want
to work with America or they have problems with America.
Okay, fine. We will look for areas of overlap. But those
states that say they don't want to work with us or they
have a real fundamental problem with us, they're actually
quite few.
Let's move on to David from Washington, DC.
QUESTION: Hi, my name is David. I live in Washington, DC
I'd like to ask you what you think of the evidence in the
New York Times that Georgia was an aggressor in the initial
stages of the conflict with Russia. Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: It's a good question. And quite clearly,
there were mistakes made on both sides, both Georgia as
well as Russia. You know, essentially, over a long period
of time, Russia was provoking Georgia in trying to act.
They had differences with the politics in Georgia. They
had quite clearly stated personal differences with President
Saakashvili and Georgia, so over a period of time there
were a series of provocations. Sometimes the Georgians responded,
sometimes they didn't. In this particular case, I can't
dissect all of the facts for you. You know, I can't do a
timeline for you. But suffice it to say there were mistakes
made on both sides.
The big problem is that the Russian response was disproportionate,
and they quite clearly had a stated agenda to overthrow
the government of President Saakashvili. That is a fundamental
problem. It's a democratically elected government. And when
Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia told this to Secretary
Rice in a phone call, he said, well, you know, this is secret,
it's just between the two of us, she said, no, it's no longer
secret; you can't tell that to an American Secretary of
State and expect it to be kept secret. And then that started
a whole sequence of events and rising tensions between the
United States and Russia.
So, you know, clearly, there were issues to work out with
respect to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but there was a process
in place to work through all those issues. The Russians
didn't necessarily avail themselves of it, and sometimes
the Georgians were difficult in that process as well. But
the Russians short-circuited any kind of political process
by invading Georgia and seeking to affect the democratic
political outcome in Georgia. That was the fundamental problem.
We're now trying to get back to a process where there is
discussion in resolving issues related to South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. That actually just took place recently, I
think, in Geneva or Vienna. It's a first step. Not much
progress was made.
And you know, just as a footnote to all of this. You know,
Russia has paid a high cost in terms of its image for their
behavior in Georgia, and it just happened to coincide with
a lot of the economic difficulties. So I think those two
things, there was an interplay there and it really has --
you know, their -- the actions in Georgia have had serious
consequences and costs for Russia.
Next we have Melissa from St. Kitts and Nevis in the Eastern
Caribbean.
QUESTION: My name is Melissa Williams. I'm originally from
St. Kitts and Nevis in the Eastern Caribbean. My question
is whether or not the U.S. State Department would consider
wiping or providing some debt relief to Caribbean islands,
particularly Eastern Caribbean islands, but any of the islands.
MR. MCCORMACK: It's a good question. What kind of debt
relief programs does the U.S. have? It's not really the
State Department that has the lead on this. It's the Department
of Treasury. And we are typically very reluctant to do these
things just because of the precedent that it sets. We usually
work through what is referred to the Paris Club, and that
is a group of -- maybe some folks out there have more expertise
in this than I do. But it's basically donor nations, and
they collectively negotiate terms for either debt relief
or renegotiating loans that are out there.
I expect that this is probably going to be an issue that
more and more we hear about in the future as the costs and
effects of the economic crisis start to reverberate around
the world. We have done a lot of debt relief for Africa.
I can't tell you right now off the top of my head what we've
done for the Caribbean. But clearly, there are some countries
in the Caribbean that have a lot of economic difficulties.
Haiti is the one that really comes to mind first, and we
have done a lot with Haiti in terms of providing aid. I
know some countries have looked at debt relief for Haiti,
but I can't tell you the facts and figures off the top of
my head.
Next, we have Leslie from Washington, DC.
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Leslie from Washington, DC and I want
to know, now that we're trying to pull troops out of Iraq
and we're trying to remove some of our contractors, how
are we going to go forward to make things work?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's a good question, and I guess
more and more, the answer to that question is how are the
Iraqis going to make things work. And they quite clearly,
through -- as manifested through the SOFA negotiations,
have said that they want -- they want to take more and more
responsibility for their country. Politically, it's an imperative.
They would rather take responsibility for their own affairs
rather than have us or any -- or any other country help
them out, or be on -- be on the ground there. That has political
implications for them.
We have a great interest in having our resources devoted
elsewhere, whether that's domestically or overseas. And
the next administration's going to have a lot to say about
that. You know, I think they've talked a lot about devoting
more resources to Afghanistan, and there are clear needs
in Afghanistan. That has become more possible, I would argue,
because the situation has gotten much, much better in Iraq,
both politically as well as security-wise.
And it's going to be up to the Iraqis more to determine
what the future of their country is going to be. I think
the United States as well as the international community
has helped set them on a more positive pathway after a lot
of loss and a lot of cost, both in terms of lives and in
terms of money. Obviously, there are opportunity costs there
as well, but the calculation has been made that at the end
of the day, a different kind of Iraq, a democratic, you
know, Iraq in the middle -- in the center of the Middle
East is positive.
So the short answer to the question is basically, the Iraqis
are going to have to do more for themselves. The good news
is that they have clearly stated that they want to do that.
And we'll see in the future if they are actually able to
do that.
And the next question is Sebastian from Washington, DC.
QUESTION: My name is Sebastian. I'm a student at George
Washington University. And my question is: Do you recommend
that the Obama administration hold up its promise to keep
the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic?
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Well, thank you, Sebastian. Thank
you for the opportunity to try to provide recommendations
to the next administration. I'm going to resist the temptation
and the urge. You have -- you're going to have a really
capable group of people who come in here and manage national
security and foreign affairs for the future president. We
made the decision and we think it's important in terms of
missile defense in the Czech Republic and in Poland. We
think it's important to help defend against development
of long-range missiles, whether that's in Iran or elsewhere
around the world, from states that could potentially want
to threaten the United States or its friends and allies.
And there's -- there's -- we think it's important because
we believe it gives policymakers another choice. It's not
a binary -- a binary choice whether to deal with a state
that is threatening the United States or its friends and
allies with -- with its missiles, whether to, quote, “give
in or not to give in.”
You have another option, and that is to try to deter the
other country from making that kind of threat because perhaps
their missile technology won't be effective because of missile
defense. Well, you can obviously go down a lot of different
decision trees in that regard, but bottom line is we think
that it provides policymakers another option. We have negotiated
this. They, I don't think, have started breaking ground
in either the Czech Republic or Poland. So it is going to
be a decision for the next administration how it continues
down this path, and it's going to have to work with the
Czech Republic and Poland to decide what it wants to do.
And the next question is from Ningxi from China.
QUESTION: My name is Ningxi. I'm from Central China and
I'm a sophomore here at GW. I have a short and simple question,
which is how will the U.S. and China work together in the
next five to ten years?
MR. MCCORMACK: Good question, and I think it's an important
question for the future of the international system. Clearly,
China is -- China is a rising power and it's going to have
a greater voice in international -- in the international
system in the years to come. It has a lot of -- a large,
significant population. It has a growing economic power.
They are investing some of that growing economic power in
greater military power, and along with that will probably
come greater political and diplomatic influence.
Now it's an open question as to how China uses that political
and diplomatic and economic and military influence in the
years to come. It can either be a positive or a negative.
Our hope is that by including China into the various international
institutions and international agreements like the World
Trade Organization, that that will have a positive effect
on which -- on how China develops. And quite clearly, the
United States and China are going to have to work quite
closely together in the years to come and the decades to
come to help address the various challenges that are presented
by the international system.
You can look today at challenges like North Korea and like
Iran. It's going to require a lot of cooperation in order
to deal with those various threats. North Korea is an issue
for China as much as it is for the United States, if not
more so for China because it's in their neighborhood. So
we'll see how those relations develop. Secretary Rice, I
think on one of her last trips as Secretary of State, is
going to travel to China in early January for the 30th anniversary
of U.S. -- full U.S.-China diplomatic relations. I think
that'll be -- it marks an important turning point in American
diplomatic history, and I think it's also an important moment
to get a view as to how that relationship will develop in
the years to come.
Next question is from Morgan.
QUESTION: Hi, my name is Morgan, and I have a little bit
different kind of question for you. So go ahead and relax
for just a second. You don't need to resolve any international
conflicts for me. But I think you might be interested in
this. I see a lot of technological changes going on at the
State Department right now. I was really surprised to find
you on Facebook, but I also know that you have a blog and
you do Twitter and now, you have this new YouTube for briefings.
The next generation of State Department employees will
probably also have lots of experience with this kind of
technology and internet powered communication. So what future
do you see for technology in the State Department, particularly
in the Foreign Service? And what kinds of new things do
you see employees using already? Thanks.
MR. MCCORMACK: All right. My staff must have planted this
question because they -- (laughter) -- they know I devote
a lot of time and energy and a lot of thought to this --
this very question. Heath, did you -- did you plant this
-- okay, all right, there we are. Heath runs my digital
media efforts for me here at the State Department.
The very fact that we're having this kind of briefing,
Briefing 2.0, is an indicator of the importance that I place
on using this technology for communicating with publics
around the world. And it also needs increasingly, I think
-- because of the technology and because of the expectations
that are built up as a result of those technological innovations,
that increasingly has to be a two-way conversation, and
this is one way to do it. That doesn't mean that we're going
to pay less attention to professional media. I know that's
a common concern of theirs. I hear about it all the time,
and I understand that. The world has changed for them. The
monopoly that -- quote -- “media” had on the
flow of -- the delivery of information is gone. They had
a monopoly because the cost of printing press, because of
the cost of building TV tower -- transmission towers, because
of the cost of building radio stations. Well, the internet
changed all that.
But that doesn't mean that they don't have an important
role to play in the delivery of information to publics so
that they can consume it, they can analyze it, and then
form their perceptions and their opinions. So that's one
part of it. That's going to remain. We're going to continue
dealing with them. And they're adapting to these new technologies
as well.
But the other part to that, as somebody -- as somebody
representing an organization that does have to participate
in the communications business -- that's part of our job
as a government institution -- it's incumbent on me to try
to use these technologies, again, to communicate directly
with people, whether that is via YouTube or Facebook or
the blog or our website. It's going to be critically important
in the years ahead to try to build up that trust relationship
with publics, and I think that's at the core of it. And
if you start to build up that trust, there can be that two-way
conversation. The publics can better understand what it
is we're doing, why we're doing it. And we can also understand
a little bit better how they're thinking, what is on their
mind. So that's the first step in the process.
I think an interesting question down the road is going
to be how do -- how do publics, organizations, individuals
on the outside participate in the rule or policymaking process
here. And I think that is going to be a very important question
that large organizations, government organizations, are
going to have to deal with in the future. I can't tell you
what the answer is going to be, other than to say it's probably
going to vary from issue to issue and from organization
to organization. So I think that it is a -- it's a very
exciting time to be in the communications business because
of these new technologies. We're all learning how to use
them to best effect, to benefit the public trust, to better
inform people, and to improve how we do things, to improve
our processes. We have to change our internal processes
to match the changes that are ongoing in the outside world.
I think it's going to be important for the State Department
to change, to learn to trust its employees a little bit
more. Anytime you use these technologies in a large organization,
you lose a little bit of control. And so there's this trust-building
process that is going to also need to go on within the organization
as well. Because when you have people who are farther and
farther removed from the center with an increasing ability
to participate in that conversation and to provide information,
you're going to need to learn to trust them a little bit
more. They also bear responsibility for what they're doing.
So it's going to be very interesting for all -- how all
this develops. The one thing I know is there's no looking
back. You're not going to -- you know, technology is out
there, people are going to use it. People are going to find
a way to employ it in their work, in their daily lives,
and we should embrace that.
So that's a long, long answer to a very interesting question.
Next, we have Steve from Arizona.
QUESTION: Hi, Mr. McCormack. I'm Steven Corman from the
Consortium for Strategic Communication at Arizona State
University. As you probably know, there's a disagreement
about whether the United States should use the word jihadi,
which can be translated as holy warrior, to refer to members
of extremist groups like al-Qaida. Last spring, the National
Counterterrorism Center called on government agencies to
avoid using that term in official messages because it conveys
religious legitimacy on terrorist groups and plays into
their communication strategy.
But then this summer, the House of Representatives and
the U.S. Central Command Red Team rejected this advice,
saying that it infringes on the free speech rights of government
employees and amounts to political correctness.
Now to my knowledge, the State Department hasn't taken
a position in this debate. So my question to you is: Does
the State Department agree with the NCTC that we should
avoid using jihadi and similar words, or with their critics
that say we should use those words freely? Thanks for the
chance to ask.
MR. MCCORMACK: Interesting question. The place to start
is that there is no one -- there's no official State Department
policy governing the use of jihadists or violent extremists
or -- there's no kind of terminology or lexicon guide. I
myself have just fallen into using, after thinking about
it a lot and having to talk about this a lot, the term violent
extremist, just because it focuses on the behavior that
is at issue and it doesn't bring into the picture who happens
to be perpetrating it. You know, at the end of the day,
that is not necessarily the most important thing, whether
somebody happens -- whether a terrorist is Muslim or Jewish
or Christian or doesn't have any faith. That's not what's
important.
What's important is the fact that people are trying to
take innocent lives with absolutely no justification. They
claim some political justification, but we don't believe
there's any justification for it. So there is no -- you
know, typically, we use violent extremist here. Every now
and then, you'll see in the government people using different
terms, everything from jihadist to Islamo-fascist to violent
extremist, although, I think it is starting to settle around
that term violent extremist. You know, I usually take --
I take my lead from the Secretary. She usually uses either
terrorist or violent extremist just because of -- I think
it's the most descriptive term without bringing into it
any sort of -- any sort of baggage.
In terms of the free speech issue, obviously everybody's
-- you know, you can't regulate what people say, and people
are going to use the terms that they think are terms that
they want to use for whatever reasons they want to use them.
Robert, from Virginia.
QUESTION: My name is Robert. I'm from Alexandria, Virginia
and I have a question about the Kurds in northern Iraq.
And I'm just curious that because Turkey is a major ally
of the United States, a NATO ally and one of the NATO allies
that contributes most in terms of NATO forces, and the Kurds
in northern Iraq are arguably some of the most helpful people
in Iraq towards, you know, their advancement towards democracy
and everything. And I'm just curious, because those two
groups are extremely tense. In cases of conflict between
the two groups, which side does the United States come down
on in terms of which one we support on issue by issue? So
that's my question and hope you can answer it. Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: All right. I'll try to answer it. I guess
the simple answer is yes, both groups we support. We support
both groups. Look, the Turks and the Kurds have a long history
of tension. There is a Kurdish ethnic minority in Turkey
and there are political tensions that exist within their
political system there. Those are for the Turkish Government,
Turkish people, and Turkish political system to resolve.
With respect to northern Iraq, that becomes a question
of a discussion between two sovereign states: Iraq and Turkey.
And what we have tried to do is focus in on a -- problem-solving
on a common threat. That is the PKK. It's a Kurdish terrorist
organization. Everybody agrees that it is a terrorist organization,
from Turkey to the United States to Iraq.
So we worked very hard to try to bring those two sides
together and we participate in discussions and a mechanism
that actually helps them work together to fight a common
enemy, the PKK. That doesn't mean the political tensions
have gone away. They still exist, but it's our view that
the more they work together and the more they talk and the
more they address the issues as between two sovereign states,
Turkey and Iraq, the better the situation will be. And it
comes down to a simple fact and that is their neighbors.
They live next to one another and that isn't going to change.
So instead of, you know, trying to provoke one another,
trying to stoke tensions between the two, try to problem-solve.
And next, we have Kent in Washington, DC.
QUESTION: Hello. My name is Kent Robeson (ph) and I attend
Howard University as a Ph.D. student. And I just wanted
to know -- recently, President Karzai of Afghanistan had
extended talks this week with the heads of the Taliban.
And I was wondering if you foresee the State Department
reaching out to members of the Taliban in order to create
a peaceful environment where it's more open to talking and
less more about force? Thank you.
MR. MCCORMACK: That's a good question. I spent a lot of
time answering this question earlier in the week, and the
simple answer is no. We're not going to reach out to the
Taliban now. President Karzai has made an offer that if
the Taliban fulfills certain conditions, they say that they're
-- you know, they say and act as if they are going to participate
in Afghanistan's future as a democracy, as a country that
is taking a different pathway than it was on back in 2001,
then there's room for discussion. And he made a very dramatic
overture to Mullah Omar, who is the head of the Taliban.
The Taliban subsequently, in short order, rejected that
overture. And that frankly isn't surprising, because they
haven't given any indication whatsoever that they want to
participate in a positive political future for Afghanistan.
In fact, they have increased their efforts the other way.
You know, there was a terrible story about a month ago
where Taliban fighters threw acid in the faces of Afghan
schoolgirls. It was just -- it's just horrific. And that's
just one small terrible story that represents the kind of
behavior the Taliban has been engaged in.
All of that said, at some point you have to have a political
reconciliation process in Afghanistan if Afghanistan is
going to move forward. The question is under what conditions.
And President Karzai has set those conditions: turn away
from violence and participate in the political process.
Thus far, the Taliban hasn't given any indication that it's
going to do that.
Like I said, though, at some point, you are going to have
to come together politically in Afghanistan if that country
is going to move forward. But at the moment, the security
question is really the key as to whether or not they're
going to be able to progress.
Michael in Washington, DC.
QUESTION: Michael Ford, Washington, DC How can the U.S.
help prevent human rights violations in the Congo?
MR. MCCORMACK: Ah, well, that's a good question. The first
thing is to try to stop the fighting among the various groups
that are in the Congo. You have rebel forces that are there,
and this is a real mixture of ethnic differences between
the Hutus and the Tutsis that go back a long way and that
have erupted in some terrible ways in the past couple decades,
most recently in the -- during the genocide in Rwanda. You
have political differences among various states there, whether
that's the -- you know, the DROC, Democratic Republic of
Congo, and Rwanda and Uganda. So there is a real volatile
mix there with a proven track record of perhaps producing
very violent behaviors and real human tragedies.
So again, a lot of times, these things come down to security,
trying to get the security question right. And the African
Union has been very active in trying to mediate among the
various groups here. President -- former President Obasanjo
of Nigeria recently had a mission into the DROC to try to
get the various forces to separate, and to create a space
where humanitarian aid can be delivered in a safe space
for the citizens and displaced people to reside?
So now, that's the first step. And hopefully, we can build
on those particular efforts, but you have -- it's going
to take a while. There are over a million people that have
been displaced in that Great Lakes region over the past
several years. So try to stop fighting, deliver humanitarian
aid, and then also manage the politics and come to some
political resolution. You know, if that formula sounds kind
of eerily similar to a lot of other conflicts around the
world, it's just because those are the basic elements of
trying to resolve these things.
And then the final question, Diane from New York.
View Video
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Diane, and I'm from New York. And
the question that I'd like to ask is where you see yourself
after the transition?
MR. MCCORMACK: (Laughter.) I don't know. To be determined.
Somebody else is -- somebody else is going to be standing
up behind this podium. And I have to say after having worked
here three and half years and four years at the White House,
that's not a bad thing because that's a long time to do
one of these jobs. I don't know what comes next for me.
I've never been very good at career planning, but I hope
it's something fun and interesting. And I hope that -- hopefully,
I can continue to deal with people who are interested in
these kind of technologies.
I will offer just one comment about, sort of, our political
system. You know, just America -- ain't it great? You know,
our Founding Fathers were very wise when they understood
sort of the cycle of politics and kind of human emotions.
You know, eople get tired of you after a while. You know,
you see that, you know, and you come to a term, four years
or eight years, people want to see somebody different. And
you know -- and that's a good thing, because these jobs
are all about the public trust.
And we -- if you're doing your job right, you understand
that you're stewards of the public trust. And you do what
you can while you're in these jobs. You do your best. You
try to serve your bosses and you try to serve the country
well, then you turn it over to somebody else, and that's
good because they may have different ideas. They bring a
different kind of energy to it. And I have to tell you,
after a while of doing these jobs, you know, if you're really
doing it -- like I said -- as I said, if you're doing it
right, then you've put a lot of effort into it, and it's
time to go recharge your batteries.
So with that, thanks, Diane, for your question.
Closing Comments
And that's it for briefing 2.0. I encourage you all to
keep sending in your questions. This is an important way
for your State Department to communicate with you and for
you to communicate with the State Department.
See more videos on the U.S. Department of State YouTube channel
--00--
Print This Page
ESPAÑOL