{"id":48948,"date":"2022-06-01T16:44:20","date_gmt":"2022-06-01T23:44:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/?p=48948"},"modified":"2022-06-01T16:44:20","modified_gmt":"2022-06-01T23:44:20","slug":"secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-the-foreign-affairs-magazine-centennial-celebration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/?p=48948","title":{"rendered":"Secretary Antony J. Blinken At the Foreign Affairs Magazine Centennial Celebration"},"content":{"rendered":"
06\/01\/2022 05:00 PM EDT<\/div>\n
\n

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Good afternoon, I\u2019m Dan Kurtz-Phelan.\u00a0 I\u2019m the editor of\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>.\u00a0 Later this year,\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0will turn 100 years old, and I am thrilled to welcome you all to the first in a series of events that we\u2019re doing to celebrate our birthday.\u00a0 And I cannot think of a more fitting kickoff guest than the current Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, especially since he is also a\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0author, nor can I think of a more interesting time in recent history to be having this conversation or to be in his position.<\/p>\n

That is underscored by the fact that we have rescheduled this event twice.\u00a0 The first time it was planned was for February 24th, and we all know what happened that day.\u00a0 The second time the Secretary ended up going to Ukraine.\u00a0 So given the global tumult at the moment, I won\u2019t spend any more time on introduction, just so we can be assured that no global crisis pulls the Secretary away before we get into the conversation.<\/p>\n

He is going to say a few words before we go to questions, first from me, then from\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0readers and councilmembers.<\/p>\n

Mr. Secretary, a huge thank you for doing this, especially at such an intense moment in history.\u00a0 Over to you.<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Dan, thank you very much.\u00a0 Thanks for bringing us together for this conversation.\u00a0 Let me thank Sam as well for convening us.\u00a0 And it\u2019s great to be, virtually at least, with everyone at the council and all the readers of\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>, which I include myself in.\u00a0 In fact, we have one huge problem, which is despite the virtual world that we live in, I continue to get\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0in hard copy.\u00a0 This presents something of a challenge when it comes to shelf space, because over the many decades that I\u2019ve been a subscriber, it builds up.\u00a0 But we\u2019re trying to figure that out.<\/p>\n

As Dan said, we planned to have this conversation some months ago, and indeed, February 24th was the original date, and we all know what happened on that date.\u00a0 And then, as Dan said, the second time we did it I wound up going to Ukraine.\u00a0 So I have to admit to you, when I woke up this morning, I was wondering what was actually going to happen in the intervening hours.\u00a0 So I\u2019m really glad that, thus far at least, nothing has and we can have this conversation today.<\/p>\n

I want to thank you for bearing with me as we get this \u2013 as we got this get-together back on the books, but I am glad we were finally able to do it.\u00a0 And in fact, the world has changed quite a bit in the few months that have passed since the original date we had planned to get together.\u00a0 So before turning to the conversation with Dan, turning to questions, let me just say a couple of words first.<\/p>\n

First, I really am delighted to be able to help kick off the 100th anniversary celebration for\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>.\u00a0 The ideas, the analysis that I\u2019ve been privileged, like so many of you, to read and take in over many years in that distinctive blue cover have literally helped generations of scholars, generations of practitioners, leaders, foreign policy makers of one kind or another, citizens wrap their minds around the most complex issues of the day.<\/p>\n

E. B. Du Bois wrote in\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0about the global consequences of racism and colonialism. George Kennan \u2013 need I say more \u2013 if you go back and look at the infamous \u201cX\u201d long telegram, you will see, remarkably, passages in it that sound like they could have been written today.\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0foresaw a number of the trends that are actually defining our lives today more broadly.\u00a0 We went back and looked at a number of issues over the years.\u00a0 Back in 2005, so some time ago when some of us were still literally using internet cafes to check our email, this magazine predicted the rise of all kinds of internet-enabled projects.\u00a0 Many of us, I think, may have read that at the time and not been able to foresee what\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0did.\u00a0 Now we\u2019ve got cars with Wi-Fi and refrigerators that give us weather reports.\u00a0 Well,\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>\u00a0was on it early.<\/p>\n

Back in May\/June of 2001, I was privileged to appear in the pages of\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>.\u00a0 The piece that I wrote then was titled \u201cThe False Crisis Over the Atlantic,\u201d and the case it made was that the interests of Europe and the United States were fundamentally aligned, whatever the differences of the day, and despite, at that period in time, a lot of fears of us growing apart.\u00a0 So here we are 21 years later; Europe and the United States are standing and acting together in the face of a very real crisis, and I would argue that not just in that crisis but beyond it, we are more aligned than we\u2019ve been in many years.<\/p>\n

So let me say a few words about Ukraine-Russia and then we can get to a conversation.<\/p>\n

The aggression that we\u2019re seeing from Russia has provoked an extraordinary response in Ukrainians who are fighting valiantly to defend their country, to defend their people, to defend their independence.\u00a0 They, of course, are foremost responsible for the success they\u2019ve had thus far in repelling the Russian aggression.\u00a0 But it\u2019s also fair to say that the strong support that they\u2019ve received from the United States and from many other countries around the world \u2013 security assistance, humanitarian assistance, economic assistance \u2013 has also been a difference-maker.\u00a0 And we\u2019re doing that and, of course, keeping and even building pressure on Russia to end its aggression.<\/p>\n

Today, as many of you will have seen, President Biden announced a significant new security assistance package for Ukraine to help give the Ukrainians what they need now to deal with the particular nature of the challenge that they face now in southern and eastern Ukraine, and this will enable them to better defend their territory against the Russian onslaught.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re also continuing to work with partners to try to address the crises that Putin\u2019s aggression in Ukraine has helped exacerbate or even provoke. \u00a0Number one on the top of the list is the food security crisis that we\u2019re seeing around the world.\u00a0 Already pre-existing conditions \u2013 climate, COVID, and now you add conflict \u2013 this has had a profound effect on the ability of a lot of food to get out of what has been a breadbasket for the world, Ukraine, as well as Russia itself for that matter, causing prices to spike in places where food actually is available, causing shortages in places where it is harder to get at.\u00a0 So we\u2019re working very hard on that.\u00a0 I\u2019m happy to come back to that when we have a conversation.<\/p>\n

But let me just say this.\u00a0 Even as the brutal fighting continues, we already see that President Putin has failed to achieve his broader strategic objectives.\u00a0 Instead of erasing Ukraine\u2019s independence, he strengthened it.\u00a0 Instead of asserting Russia\u2019s strength, he\u2019s undermined it.\u00a0 Instead of dividing and weakening the international order, he has actually brought countries closer together to defend it.<\/p>\n

You all know this very well.\u00a0 This war is not just about Ukraine, even though its principal victims are, of course, Ukrainians.\u00a0 It is an assault, as well, on the fundamental principles of a rules-based international order, a phrase that we throw around a lot, particularly on 68th Street, but one that really still has meaning.\u00a0 And we find it has meaning for countries around the world.\u00a0 They know that these rules, these norms, these standards, these basic principles that we established many, many years ago to try to preserve peace and security actually have been relatively effective in doing that for all of the challenges we\u2019ve had in matching our ideals to practical realities.\u00a0 And they see these rules as being under assault by Russia in Ukraine, as well.<\/p>\n

Finally, let me just add a word on China, and then we\u2019ll have a conversation.\u00a0 Even as we\u2019re doing everything we can to stand up for Ukraine\u2019s security, for its democracy, for its independence, we will resolutely remain focused on other challenges that we face around the world, starting with what we see as the most serious long-term challenge to that rules-based order, and that\u2019s the challenge posed by the People\u2019s Republic of China.<\/p>\n

I gave a talk on China last week.\u00a0 In it I said that China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the ability to do so \u2013 economically, diplomatically, militarily, technologically.\u00a0 It\u2019s also an integral part, of course, of the global economy.\u00a0 It\u2019s critical to our ability to solve big, global challenges, from COVID to climate.\u00a0 So you put all that together, and that makes it, for us, the most consequential and complex relationship of any we have in the world.\u00a0 Simply put, we\u2019re going to have to be dealing with each other for years and years to come.\u00a0 The question is how most effectively to do that, in terms of our interests and our values.<\/p>\n

One of the things that we believe strongly \u2013 and this has been a debate and discussion going on for many years in Washington and New York and in other places \u2013 but where we now land is that we can\u2019t rely on Beijing to change its own trajectory.\u00a0 What we can do, and what we\u2019re working to do, is to shape the strategic environment around Beijing to advance our positive vision for an open, inclusive international system.<\/p>\n

As I described last week, summing it up, our plan is focused on three things: invest, align, compete.<\/p>\n

Invest in ourselves, something we\u2019ve gotten away from over many decades.<\/p>\n

Align with our allies and partners, because our collective weight together has a much greater impact than any of our countries acting alone.\u00a0 When we\u2019re dealing with some action or conduct by China that we find objectionable, it\u2019s one thing when the United States takes it on alone, as 20, 25 percent of world GDP.\u00a0 It\u2019s another when we\u2019re aligned with partners and allies, and maybe it\u2019s 50 or 60 of world GDP.<\/p>\n

And then, finally, compete with China to defend our interests and build our vision for the future.\u00a0 At the same time, as we\u2019ve tried to make clear, we still see important areas of cooperation, and we\u2019ll pursue those wherever we can.<\/p>\n

The last piece is this.\u00a0 I\u2019ve got a really hackneyed acronym that my colleagues here at State are sick of hearing me say, and it\u2019s R-O-W, ROW, rest of world.\u00a0 Beyond China, beyond the crisis in Ukraine, we\u2019re determined to ROW, to keep the focus on the rest of the world, to make sure that American diplomacy is engaged in trying to make things just a little bit better, a little bit more peaceful, a little bit more hopeful, a little bit more prosperous, a little safer for our own citizens.<\/p>\n

So whether it\u2019s COVID, whether it\u2019s climate, whether it\u2019s dealing with crises and conflict from Ethiopia to Yemen, we\u2019re engaged, we\u2019re doing that.\u00a0 That\u2019s what our diplomacy is all about.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what President Biden asked us to do.\u00a0 He wanted to make sure that, even as we reasserted our engagement in the world, that we led with our diplomacy.\u00a0 And that\u2019s exactly what we\u2019re trying to do.<\/p>\n

So let me stop there.\u00a0 And Dan, back over to you.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Great.\u00a0 Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your kind words about the magazine, and we\u2019ll look forward to getting your byline back in at some point when you have time.<\/p>\n

Let me start with Ukraine, and especially the question of how we define success in U.S. policy, and I mean that in two regards.<\/p>\n

First, on the ground, the clear and insistent message from the administration is, as the President put in his op-ed yesterday, \u201cNothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.\u201d\u00a0 Does that mean that, if the Ukrainians are ready to keep fighting and we go back to February 23rd lines, the United States is prepared to keep up our support, militarily and economically, until they have achieved what they want to achieve on the battlefield?\u00a0 Or if they say, \u201cWe want to go back to 2013 lines,\u201d even with regards to Crimea, would we continue that support?<\/p>\n

And then, second, with regard to Russia, you talked about the ways in which Russia has been weakened.\u00a0 The administration has talked about the need to deliver Russia a strategic defeat.\u00a0 Can you say more about what that looks like?\u00a0 How, in a successful scenario from the U.S. perspective, will Russia and Russian power look after this war, from the way it looked at the beginning?<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Sure.\u00a0 And those are \u2013 I think those are great bookend questions, because they, in fact, go together.\u00a0 A few things.<\/p>\n

First, when it comes to Ukraine, from my perspective, we cannot and will not be less Ukrainian than the Ukrainians.\u00a0 We\u2019re also not going to be more Ukrainian than the Ukrainians.\u00a0 And fundamentally, where this ends up really needs to be a decision by the Ukrainians, a decision that we\u2019ll support.<\/p>\n

But broadly speaking, and this goes to the second part of your question, here\u2019s what we see as principles to guide us as we\u2019re working through this.\u00a0 First, whatever happens, we want to make sure that we end up with a Ukraine that is independent, sovereign, and has the capacity to defend itself and, ideally, deter any future aggressions, from Russia or from anyone else.\u00a0 That\u2019s one.<\/p>\n

Second, Russia should have a lesser ability to repeat this exercise in the future.\u00a0 So some of the measures that we\u2019ve taken, including the export controls \u2013 which are having a significant impact and will have a growing impact on Russia\u2019s ability, for example, to modernize its defense sector\u00a0\u2013 those will, as I say, have an impact over time and make it maybe a little less likely that Russia does this in the future, as well as Ukraine\u2019s ability to really have a strong deterrent, something that we can do something about going forward.<\/p>\n

Third, we want to make sure that our NATO Alliance is doing what is necessary to shore up its own defense and deterrence.\u00a0 We\u2019ve made a very good start of that over \u2013 in recent months.\u00a0 We have a NATO summit coming up where we\u2019ll take that\u00a0\u2013 additional steps forward.<\/p>\n

And finally, two other things.\u00a0 I think we want to make sure that we use this aggression as an opportunity also to help Europeans as they move away from decades-long dependence on Russia for energy.\u00a0 We\u2019re seeing that start in a very significant way, in ways we haven\u2019t seen before.\u00a0 We\u2019d like to see that continue, and we\u2019re taking steps to help.<\/p>\n

Finally, moving beyond Europe, it\u2019s important that China take the right lessons from this.\u00a0 And I think what China has seen thus far, at least, is countries coming together in unprecedented ways to make sure that we are supporting Ukraine in terms of providing it what it needs to defend itself, to deal with its economic situation, to deal with the humanitarian crisis; that we\u2019re exerting extraordinary pressure, unprecedented pressure, on Russia; and, as I said, that we\u2019re also making sure that our own defenses and deterrence are built up.\u00a0 China\u2019s looking at this very closely, very carefully.\u00a0 We want to make sure that it takes away the right lessons.<\/p>\n

But fundamentally, Dan, where this actually ends up tactically on the battlefield, where lines are drawn, we are looking to Ukraine to decide that.\u00a0 We will continue to support them, to make sure that they have what they need to deal with Russian aggression now, and also that they have the strongest possible hand to play at a negotiating table if and when it emerges.\u00a0 I believe one eventually will.\u00a0 Most of these things end in some fashion diplomatically.\u00a0 I hope that that\u2019s sooner rather than later.\u00a0 Unfortunately, the signs we\u2019re seeing right now don\u2019t suggest that Russia\u2019s prepared to engage in a meaningful way in diplomacy.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0And you mentioned the assistance package that the President announced yesterday, and one piece of that was multiple-launch rocket systems that the Ukrainians have been pressing for publicly, and I presume privately as well, for some time.\u00a0 This was the latest instance of what seems to be an intense and careful effort by you and your colleagues to weigh, on the one hand, the risks of escalation between the United States and Russia and NATO and Russia, and on the other hand, the need to give the Ukrainians what they say they need and what we assess they need to fight effectively on the battlefield.<\/p>\n

In the case of the rocket systems, Foreign Minister Lavrov had, of course, warned that this would be, quote, \u201ca serious step toward unacceptable escalation.\u201d\u00a0 That was a warning that the administration evidently discounted.\u00a0 But can you talk through a bit how you assess that process, how you make that calculation, and why in this case you, despite that warning from the Russians, decided that this was a step the United States should take?<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0First, as a matter of broad principle, our objective, of course, is to help the Ukrainians bring this aggression to an end, not to expand it, not to widen it, whether in Ukraine or beyond.\u00a0 President Biden\u2019s been clear about it from day one.<\/p>\n

Something else the President\u2019s been very clear about from day one, including directly with President Putin, and that is exactly what we would do in the event that Russia pursued the aggression that it was threatening and that we saw coming many, many months ago, and he had conversations with President Putin well before the aggression began to just be very clear with him about what to expect: what to expect in terms of our support for Ukraine, including with security assistance, as well as economic and humanitarian assistance if that proved necessary; what to expect in terms of the massive consequences that would befall Russia if it pursued the aggression; what to expect in terms of NATO strengthening its own defenses.<\/p>\n

So we have not been hiding the ball on that.\u00a0 There in a sense have been no surprises.\u00a0 All of this was made clear to President Putin well in advance in an effort to deter him from proceeding with the aggression.\u00a0 Tragically, he went ahead anyway.<\/p>\n

And then, Dan, all along we have tried to make sure that what we are providing to the Ukrainians, as well as what others are providing, meet the moment.\u00a0 And that is, the equipment we provide is what they need to deal with what Russia is actually doing.\u00a0 So for example, what was provided to the Ukrainians in the initial stages of the aggression, particularly in defense of Kyiv, with things like Stingers and Javelins, really answered the moment.\u00a0 And by the way, that\u2019s not something that started on February 24th or February 25th.\u00a0 It actually goes back to last Labor Day, when the President did an initial drawdown package.\u00a0 Another very significant drawdown package, as we call them \u2013 this is the release of articles that our Defense Department has at hand \u2013 another very significant one at Christmas, so well before February 24th.\u00a0 And then, of course, since February 24th, we\u2019re now on our 11th package.\u00a0 But each of these is tailored to meet the moment.\u00a0 As the conflict has changed, as it\u2019s moved to \u2013 away from Kyiv because of the extraordinary courage of Ukrainians, but armed with what they needed to push the Russians back \u2013 as this has moved to the south and east, the nature of the conflict has changed.<\/p>\n

And one of the things that is necessary \u2013 and we have heard from the Ukrainians on this \u2013 was the need for some longer-range artillery, because the Russians were now in a position where their supply lines were shorter because all of this is much closer to Russia.\u00a0 They controlled, before February 24th, a chunk of the Donbass.\u00a0 They could use that to position their forces and position their equipment, and then fire things at relatively long range at the Ukrainians.\u00a0 Ukrainians had to have some way of getting back at that and not simply being under fire from the Russians.\u00a0 So the systems that are being provided now are designed to help them do that.<\/p>\n

But it was also important to us that we get assurances from Ukraine that this equipment would not be used to attack Russia in Russia because as I said at the start, we don\u2019t seek to escalate this conflict.\u00a0 We\u2019re trying to bring it to a close, but bring it to a close in a way that defends the principles at stake and defends Ukraine\u2019s independence and sovereignty.\u00a0 So that\u2019s how we\u2019ve been \u2013 how we\u2019ve been looking at this.\u00a0 And, again, I think, whatever the Russians say, we\u2019ve been very clear from the start about what we were going to do, and we\u2019re doing it.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN<\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>We could of course, keep going on Ukraine all afternoon, but let me keep your real caution in mind and turn to a different subject.\u00a0 You mentioned the speech you gave on China last week, and I\u2019d urge anyone who hasn\u2019t listened or read or read the speech to go do so because it really is the most substantial statement of U.S. strategy on China that\u2019s been made in some months.\u00a0 But I want to focus on one dimension of our strategy and our policy.<\/p>\n

You stressed in that speech that we don\u2019t seek to block China from becoming strong, from becoming a major power.\u00a0 And yet you also made clear that Beijing\u2019s vision of and approach to global order is not acceptable from our perspective.\u00a0 The rejoinder from Chinese analysts and policymakers is that this is what they always hear from American officials, that we welcome your strength, but everything you do with that strength we find objectionable.\u00a0 So I\u2019m wondering if you can say a bit about what the appropriate role for a strong China is.\u00a0 Are there ways in which the rules-based order of the international system can and should change to accommodate that strength?\u00a0 What do you see a strong China doing?<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>So a few things on this.\u00a0 It really is worth repeating and reiterating: we are not seeking to block China.\u00a0 We\u2019re not seeking to keep China down.\u00a0 As I said in the speech, we\u2019re certainly not looking for conflict, and we\u2019re not looking for a new Cold War.\u00a0 But the profound differences this.\u00a0 I believe China wants a world order, which is good because order is usually better than the alternative.\u00a0 But the profound difference is this:\u00a0 The order that we\u2019ve sought to build very imperfectly, but that we\u2019ve sought to build, is profoundly liberal in nature.\u00a0 The order that China seeks is illiberal.\u00a0 We disagree, and it\u2019s as basic and fundamental as that.\u00a0 And so to the extent that China\u2019s taking steps that would undermine the liberal, in the broadest sense of the term, nature of the order, we\u2019re going to oppose that.\u00a0 And again, we\u2019ve been clear about that.\u00a0 There\u2019s no secret to it.<\/p>\n

On issue after issue, a China that is acting in a positive, productive way should be a major contributor to dealing with the problems that the world faces, from COVID to climate, non-proliferation.\u00a0 I could go down the list.\u00a0 And we will continue to seek its cooperation, its coordination, on that.\u00a0 Just a week ago, 10 days ago, we had the presidency of the UN Security Council this past month, in May.\u00a0 We used it to focus on the growing global food insecurity crisis that we\u2019re dealing with, a product of, as I said, of COVID, of climate, and now conflict because the Russian aggression in Ukraine is denying so much wheat and other grains to the world market, blockaded in Ukrainian ports by the Russians.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve sought to work with China on that.\u00a0 In fact, we invited them to take part in the ministerial meeting that we had on the food crisis.\u00a0 Regrettably, they chose not to join, but the door is open.\u00a0 China has a tremendous ability to use its power, its influence, to productive ends.\u00a0 And again, we would welcome that.<\/p>\n

On COVID, it is vital going forward, even as we\u2019re trying to bring COVID to an end, that we build a stronger, more effective, more agile global health security system that includes better real-time exchange of information, access for experts, the ability to see some kind of pathogen emerging and to be able to do something about it.\u00a0 China could be a major player in that.\u00a0 I hope that it would be.<\/p>\n

So in these in so many other issues \u2013 obviously non-proliferation when it comes to North Korea, when it comes to Iran \u2013 China has a major role to play.\u00a0 But ultimately \u2013 Dan, this is what I come back to \u2013 we can\u2019t decide for China.\u00a0 We don\u2019t purport to do that. We can\u2019t compel it to do X, Y, or Z.\u00a0 It\u2019s going to make its own decisions.\u00a0 What we can do is shape the environment in which it makes those decisions, and that\u2019s what the strategy that we put forward is all about, particularly when it comes to aligning with allies and partners.\u00a0 And there I have to say we have seen in the 15 months or so that we\u2019ve been in office a growing convergence in attitudes toward China, toward the challenge that it represents.\u00a0 Because some of the things that we\u2019re concerned about, we\u2019re not unique.\u00a0 There are shared concerns, shared grievances, and the more we\u2019re able to, as we say, align with other countries in dealing with them, the more effective we\u2019re going to be.\u00a0 Because again, if it\u2019s an economic matter, for example, if we\u2019re 20 or 25 percent of world GDP, well, that\u2019s one thing for China to have to contend with.\u00a0 If we\u2019re aligned with European partners, with Asian partners, it may be 50 or 60 percent of world GDP.\u00a0 That\u2019s a very different matter; it\u2019s something that China has to take seriously.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Let me go to one other ROW topic, and that is Saudi Arabia, and whether or not the President in fact goes later this month as has been reported.\u00a0 There has certainly been I think a surprising degree of progress in the relationship given the administration\u2019s statements about the crown prince and about the state of U.S.-Saudi relations early on in \u2013 after Inauguration Day.\u00a0 If the President does go, do you expect to see progress from Saudi on some of the human rights concerns that you expressed and the administration expressed early on?\u00a0 Do you expect to see certain steps taken to end the war in Yemen as a part of that trip, or is the need to open the oil spigots and the possibility of steps towards normalization with Israel sufficient reason enough for the President to go?<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Dan, when we came in, President Biden was determined that we recalibrate the relationship with Saudi Arabia, and to make sure that it \u2013 that relationship was serving our own interests, as well as our values, as we move forward.\u00a0 But also preserving it, because it also helps us accomplish many important things, which I\u2019ll come to in a second.\u00a0 And that\u2019s largely what we\u2019ve done.<\/p>\n

Of course, we had the murder of Mr. Khashoggi.\u00a0 That was something that we and so many others around the world took very, very seriously.\u00a0 One of the things that we did early on and that I did at the President\u2019s direction was, of course, to release our own report on his murder.\u00a0 I wouldn\u2019t underscore the \u2013 I wouldn\u2019t underestimate the significance of that, because having that report out with the imprimatur of the United States Government I think has real meaning.\u00a0 At the same time, we initiated the so-called Khashoggi Ban to make sure that any country that seeks to use tools of repression against people abroad who are criticizing in one way or another, the government would pay a price for that.\u00a0 And we\u2019ve actually used it multiple times since.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we thought it was very important to engage Saudi Arabia to deal with people\u2019s lives going forward, and to make sure that we were doing everything possible to help secure those lives.\u00a0 Yemen was one of the most important places that we wanted to do that.\u00a0 And what we\u2019ve seen as a result of our work with Saudi Arabia, as well as with the UAE, and of course with the United Nations and some other countries, is real progress in actually dealing with one of the worst conflicts the world has seen over the last decade.\u00a0 We helped achieve the first truce in eight years in Yemen just a couple of months ago.\u00a0 I\u2019m hopeful that that truce is now going to be extended.\u00a0 We\u2019ll see what happens over the next couple of days.<\/p>\n

But as a result of that, we have more humanitarian assistance moving to different parts of Yemen.\u00a0 We have, in effect, a \u2013 the guns relatively silenced, which means the people are not being killed and injured.\u00a0 We have attacks against Saudi Arabia that have ceased \u2013 and by the way, there are 70,000 Americans in Saudi Arabia, so not only do we have a commitment to defend Saudi Arabia as a partner, but we also have the interests of Americans to look out for.\u00a0 And we have the possibility, however fragile, of moving toward a more enduring peace in Yemen.\u00a0 Again, that\u2019s part of the recalibration of the relationship, and we\u2019re \u2013 applaud the work that Saudi Arabia\u2019s done to try to move us forward.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we\u2019re engaging constantly, including me in my own conversations with my Saudi counterparts, on human rights in Saudi Arabia itself, including individual cases, as well as more systemic issues.\u00a0 Saudi Arabia is a critical partner to us in dealing with extremism in the region, in dealing with the challenges posed by Iran, and also I hope in continuing the process of building relationships between Israel and its neighbors both near and further away through the continuation, the expansion of the Abraham Accords.<\/p>\n

So all of that is critical.\u00a0 And yes, energy of course is a critical piece to this, too.\u00a0 We want to make sure that there is sufficient supplies of energy on world markets at a time that this is being increasingly challenged.\u00a0 And we want to make sure that prices are held in check so that consumers don\u2019t suffer, and Saudi Arabia is a critical player.<\/p>\n

The point I\u2019m making in a long way is we want to make sure that through the relationship we are addressing the totality of our interests in that relationship.\u00a0 And yes, that goes to values and it goes to human rights and democracy; it also goes to other interests that we have that are necessary for the well-being of the American people.\u00a0 We\u2019re trying to put all of that together and take a comprehensive approach to Saudi Arabia, as we do with any other country.\u00a0 But I think you\u2019ve seen over the last 15 months or so a more effective recalibration that is making sure that our interests are front and center.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 I\u2019m going to ask you a very quick, more personal question while Sam prepares questions from members and readers.\u00a0 You\u2019ve worked for at least two secretaries of state in the past.\u00a0 You\u2019ve observed many more in your various jobs over the last couple of decades.\u00a0 What has surprised you about being in the actual chair?\u00a0 What are the challenges that you did not anticipate or fully appreciate when you were a staffer?<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 So when I first started working for President Biden when he was in the Senate and he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dan, I started with him back in 2002.\u00a0 And the job I held then was staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.\u00a0 And when I started, someone told me very presciently, there are two words in your title of staff director; only one of them counts, and it\u2019s not \u201cdirector.\u201d\u00a0 So like anyone who\u2019s been in staff jobs for many, many years, making the transition in and of itself is kind of interesting.<\/p>\n

But I\u2019ve got to say it just gives you a greater appreciation for what those you\u2019ve worked for and worked with for many years have to engage in every day, because ultimately in any institution the buck stops somewhere.\u00a0 In this institution, the State Department, it stops with me.\u00a0 There\u2019s a much bigger buck that stops at the desk of the President, but that\u2019s a responsibility that I feel, that I feel strongly, and that is much more acute by actually sitting in the chair for however long I\u2019m in it.\u00a0 So I\u2019d say that\u2019s probably the most important thing.<\/p>\n

Now, having said that, I had one huge benefit coming into this job, which is I got to spend two years as John Kerry\u2019s deputy during the Obama administration.\u00a0 And so watching him, seeing how he did the job up close virtually every single day \u2013 as well as, of course, having had the opportunity to work in different ways with Secretary Clinton, Secretary Albright, but also to be inspired by, to read about people like Jim Baker, like George Shultz, and to \u2013 and Colin Powell, who I considered a friend and a tremendous source of advice over many years \u2013 all of that just made a huge difference.<\/p>\n

But, like anything, you can be familiar with something academically, you can be familiar with it by seeing it up close.\u00a0 It\u2019s always a little bit different when you\u2019re actually doing it.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Well, I will resist the temptation to ask follow-up questions, and Sam, let\u2019s go to some of the questions from folks on the line.<\/p>\n

MODERATOR:<\/strong>\u00a0 Thank you so much.\u00a0 Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, to ask a question, please type in your name and question in the fields below and click submit.\u00a0 As a reminder, this meeting is on the record.\u00a0 Our first question is from Bonnie Glaser, who asks:\u00a0 \u201cAre you concerned about possible Chinese efforts to provide material support to the Russian economy, either legally or illegally, as Russia\u2019s economy weakens as a result of international sanctions?\u201d<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Bonnie, in short, the answer is yes, and it\u2019s something that President Biden brought up directly with President Xi when they spoke by video conference a couple of months ago.\u00a0 As the \u2013 this was just when the Russian aggression started.\u00a0 We had warned our Chinese counterparts for some weeks that this was likely and indeed going to happen.\u00a0 I think they were surprised, if not by Russia taking some action, certainly by the extent of that action.\u00a0 And one of the things that President Biden said to President Xi is we would look very unkindly at the prospect of China providing material support to Russia, either on the military side or taking steps that, for example, undercut the sanctions that we would \u2013 we were compelled to impose on Russia as a result of its aggression in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

I have to say thus far we have not seen from China any systematic effort to help Russia evade sanctions, nor have we seen any significant military support from China to Russia.\u00a0 On the other hand, the so-called \u201cno limits\u201d partnership that President Xi and President Putin signaled just weeks before the Russian aggression \u2013 we certainly see aspects of that continuing, particularly China continuing to advance Russia\u2019s efforts politically and diplomatically, parroting some of the Russian propaganda, even amplifying it.\u00a0 I think that\u2019s deeply unfortunate.<\/p>\n

And ultimately, I think it really risks doing damage to China\u2019s reputation.\u00a0 China will have to make its own calculations about that.\u00a0 One of the things that President Biden noted for President Xi when they spoke after the \u2013 some weeks after the aggression was this remarkable exodus of companies from Russia as a result of the aggression \u2013 seven, 800 companies, the leading brands from around the world, who didn\u2019t want their reputations to be at risk by doing business in Russia.\u00a0 And, of course, doing business in Russia was also made more complicated by the sanctions.\u00a0 But the sanctions themselves didn\u2019t drive this exodus.\u00a0 It was really companies deciding on their own that they were not going to do business as usual in a country that was committing this kind of aggression.\u00a0 That\u2019s something I think that China also has to factor in as it thinks about its relationship with Russia, what support it does provide, as well as thinking about its own policies going forward in its more immediate neighborhood.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Sam, let\u2019s go to the next question.<\/p>\n

MODERATOR:<\/strong>\u00a0 Our next question is from Anthony Richter, who asks:\u00a0 \u201cThis month the UN Security Council must decide whether to renew the travel ban on Taliban leadership.\u00a0 Given a steady stream of Taliban decisions negatively affecting the rights of Afghan women, how will the U.S. approach this critical vote?\u201d<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Thank you.\u00a0 So with the Taliban takeover, a few things happened at the same time.\u00a0 One of those was a UN Security Council resolution setting out the expectations of the international community for the Taliban in Afghanistan.\u00a0 Those included, among other things, an expectation that it would continue to provide for freedom of travel, so that people, if they so choose, could leave the country; that it would not countenance terrorism emanating from Afghanistan and would take steps to deal with it; and that it would uphold the rights, the basic rights of Afghans, including women and girls.<\/p>\n

What we\u2019ve seen in recent months has been, I think, a serious reverse gear on women and girls in particular.\u00a0 We\u2019ve seen the lack of access to education for girls above the sixth grade.\u00a0 We\u2019ve seen various requirements, including the imposition of wearing a veil, on women, and then penalizing their husbands or fathers if they fail to do so.\u00a0 We\u2019ve seen other restrictions on their ability to get an education, to work, to engage in society, including, for example, even commentators on television.<\/p>\n

So all of this goes directly counter to the expectations of the international community that are in a UN Security Council resolution.\u00a0 They also go against the expectations of the community that were expressed in many statements that the United States helped initiate, including with over 100 signatories on one of these statements at the time of the Taliban takeover.<\/p>\n

And what that says is that we\u2019ve been very clear with the Taliban that, to the extent they seek to have more normal relations with any country, including the United States, we have expectations that they will live up to commitments that they themselves made, as well as, as I said, the expectations expressed by the international community.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019ll see what happens in the next couple of weeks.\u00a0 But I think the international community writ large, the United States in particular, has been very clear about what we\u2019re looking for from the Taliban.\u00a0 And to the extent that they are not making good on those expectations and those commitments, that will have a real impact on the extent to which their relations with the rest of the world can be normalized in any way.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 As a follow-up on that, have the escalating warnings or fears of the worsening humanitarian crisis and food crisis in Afghanistan changed our assessment of how to approach these questions at all?<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Dan, I\u2019d say two things on that.\u00a0 First, even as we\u2019ve made clear what our expectations are \u2013 and, by the way, other expectations included access for humanitarian workers and humanitarian assistance, as well as a more inclusive and representative government \u2013 two things on this.\u00a0 We believe that, whatever the profound differences we have with the Taliban, and however they are falling \u2013 and clearly falling \u2013 short of the expectations that we have set and others have set, it\u2019s hugely important that we do everything we can to make sure that humanitarian assistance gets to people in need in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

We remain the leading provider of humanitarian assistance.\u00a0 We\u2019ve worked very hard to make sure that that assistance could get to where it\u2019s needed, and that humanitarian organizations could function effectively in Afghanistan.\u00a0 They are in the lead in doing that, but we want to make sure that, to the extent we can support that, we are.\u00a0 That includes, for example, issuing multiple licenses, just to make crystal-clear to countries and institutions around the world that the sanctions that remain in place are not designed in any way to block the provision of humanitarian assistance.<\/p>\n

The second piece of this is broader, and it goes to the question of the relationship between what we\u2019re doing on humanitarian assistance and, more broadly, what can be done so that, irrespective of anything else, Afghanistan has a basically functioning economy, so that people have a little bit of money in their pockets and can provide what they need for themselves.\u00a0 And whether it\u2019s a teacher, whether it\u2019s a humanitarian aid worker, whether it\u2019s a doctor, potentially whether it\u2019s even a civil servant, there has to be a basically functioning economy.\u00a0 And we\u2019ve been looking very hard at ways to do that that are not a direct benefit to the Taliban, but that can bring benefits to the people.\u00a0 And that\u2019s something we\u2019re working on very actively.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Sam, let\u2019s get in one more quick question.<\/p>\n

QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0 Our last question is from Emerita Torres, who asks:\u00a0 \u201cSecretary Blinken, I believe your plan to modernize U.S. diplomacy is critical, including getting more Americans at home aware and involved in policy.\u00a0 How will the State Department\u2019s institutional structure and practices change to facilitate this effort?\u201d<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Thank you, and I really appreciate the question because it is something of real focus for me, and that is a modernization agenda that we put out some months ago.<\/p>\n

And the story with these things is often the same:\u00a0 Secretaries come and go, they all have reform plans, they all seek, in one way or another, to change the department.\u00a0 We tried to be inspired by a lot of work that had already been done, and a lot of it has been done, including, by the way, by the council in various reports about how to make this department more \u2013 even more effective, more agile, more responsive to the needs of the American people, and more reflective of the country that we represent.<\/p>\n

We took those \u2013 that work to heart.\u00a0 We spent a lot of time talking to our own people about those questions.\u00a0 And of course, we consulted with Congress, because there\u2019s been a lot of good work done there over the years in thinking about how to strengthen the department.\u00a0 And all of that came together in a modernization agenda that time doesn\u2019t allow me to get into, but basically we\u2019re focused on a few core things.\u00a0 Instead of having 97 priorities, we\u2019ve really just got a handful.<\/p>\n

One of those is making sure, for example, that our people have the tools in hand to do their jobs effectively in the 21st century.\u00a0 So we have a modernization agenda that goes to technology, but also goes to flexibility in the workplace.\u00a0 That, by the way, also makes sure that we can attract the best talent going forward.\u00a0 Because we\u2019re in a competition for that talent with other parts of government, with the private sector.\u00a0 We want to make sure that what we have on offer is going to bring people into the department.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve focused our efforts, as well, on critical issues that have not necessarily been the things that the department has been known for in the past, but that are actually critical to the well-being of Americans going forward \u2013 like climate, like global health, like economics, and of course, like dealing in the cyber and digital world.\u00a0 We just stood up a new bureau for cybersecurity and digital policy.\u00a0 We got that done in record time, with strong support from Congress.\u00a0 We\u2019re going to have a senior envoy in office to deal with emerging technology.\u00a0 At the same time, we\u2019re working on strengthening what we do on global health.\u00a0 And of course, we have John Kerry, who\u2019s been leading our efforts on climate.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re also building up everything that we do on economics because these are the things that are front and center that actually have an impact on American lives, and the department needs to be in a place where it\u2019s attracting talent in those areas \u2013 again, areas that have not been necessarily right in the forefront of what we\u2019re known for and seen to be doing \u2013 and that we generate talent, including in the way people are trained throughout their careers.<\/p>\n

And then finally, let me say this.\u00a0 It\u2019s vitally important that we have a department that actually reflects the country that we represent.\u00a0 And this is not simply because \u2013 and it is the right thing to do \u2013 it is certainly not an act of charity.\u00a0 It\u2019s fundamentally because it\u2019s the smart and necessary thing to do.\u00a0 We\u2019re operating in, to state the obvious, an extraordinarily diverse world.\u00a0 And the comparative advantage that we bring to the table is having one of, if not the most, diverse countries on Earth.\u00a0 The idea that we would not bring the fullness of that diversity into the work we do at the department makes no sense.\u00a0 It shortchanges us in the world.\u00a0 It shortchanges our foreign policy.\u00a0 The ability to bring these different perspectives and experiences to bear that may give unique insights into how a diverse world is operating and affecting our interests, it would be a huge mistake to leave that off the playing field.\u00a0 At the same time, as we\u2019re grappling with problems \u2013 whatever they are \u2013 having that diversity of perspectives, opinion, experience, it\u2019s going to come up with a better solution.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019ve been engaged in a very significant effort to really and genuinely make sure we have a department that looks like America.\u00a0 We appointed the first chief diversity and inclusion officer in the department\u2019s history.\u00a0 She and her team report directly to me.\u00a0 We have senior officials in every bureau responsible for this portfolio.\u00a0 We have a strategic plan that will be coming out very shortly, a five-year plan, on how to do this.\u00a0 And part of that is actually starting at the very beginning of the pipeline, making \u2013 reaching out and engaging with communities that are underrepresented in the department, and kind of opening their eyes and minds to the prospect of serving in government, and hopefully serving at the State Department.<\/p>\n

We now have for the first time paid internships, and that in terms of the socioeconomic impact it\u2019ll have on broadening the aperture to bring people in at the outset of their careers to test out whether they might want to come here, that\u2019s going to have, I think, a significant impact.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a lot to be said on this, but I commend to those who are interested what we put out on the modernization agenda, but we\u2019re determined that by the time we\u2019re done here, we have a department that is even more responsive to the needs of the American people.<\/p>\n

The last thing I\u2019ll say is this.\u00a0 None of this is flipping a light switch.\u00a0 It is turning an aircraft carrier.\u00a0 It takes time.\u00a0 It takes sustained effort, and it\u2019s not going to be done in two years or three years.\u00a0 But my hope is that, as we\u2019re doing these things, we are helping the culture evolve in the department, and we\u2019re also creating an ongoing demand signal from everyone here that will continue through the next administration and the administration beyond that.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 That is a great note to end on.\u00a0 Secretary Blinken, a huge thank you for joining us and helping us kick off what will be a series heading into the fall, and I will look forward to welcoming all of you back for subsequent events in the next few months.\u00a0 And again, Mr. Secretary, a huge thank you and best of luck in these intense months ahead.<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Dan, thank you very much, and I really was glad to be able to join everyone today.\u00a0 And let me just close by saying we continue to look to, to be inspired by, to rely on the pages of\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>.\u00a0 The number of times that I\u2019ve read something there that has sparked an idea, helped create an initiative, given me a good argument and very constructive criticism, I can\u2019t even count them.\u00a0 This is so vital to what we do.\u00a0 It\u2019s vital to our democracy.\u00a0 It\u2019s vital to our conduct of foreign policy.<\/p>\n

So all I can say is this:\u00a0 It\u2019s great to celebrate these 100 years, but even more important are the next 100 years, and I\u2019m just grateful that we\u2019re all joined in this journey together.\u00a0 So thank you for everything you\u2019re doing.\u00a0 Thank you to everyone who contributes to\u00a0Foreign Affairs<\/em>, to everyone who edits it, to everyone who reads it.<\/p>\n

MR KURTZ-PHELAN:<\/strong>\u00a0 We will hope to persuade you to create some more room on your bookshelves for future issues.\u00a0 Thank you, Mr. Secretary.\u00a0 Thanks, all, for joining.\u00a0 Have a good afternoon.<\/p>\n

SECRETARY BLINKEN:<\/strong>\u00a0 Thanks very much.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

06\/01\/2022 05:00 PM EDT Antony J....<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-u-s-a"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=48948"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48948\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48949,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48948\/revisions\/48949"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=48948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=48948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=48948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}