Full transcript of interview with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Denis Staunton, Washington Correspondent.
QUESTION:We know about your interest in Ireland and your affection for it but your job is to pursue the American national interest. If you were to put sentiment aside completely and look at the issues that are at the top of your agenda right now, where do you see the utility or value of the US relationship with Ireland specifically at the moment?
ANSWER:I think it's valuable on several fronts. Number one, we have a very strong economic relationship that we hope can weather this economic crisis and continue to create jobs and opportunities in both of our countries. There's a synergy, in part because we speak the same language, we have a lot of the same values and shared interests we want to build on so we have a stronger partnership going forward.
Secondly, we have a lot of shared responsibilities. The commitment that Ireland makes to global security with over 800 troops I think they told me being involved in peacekeeping missions, including Afghanistan, is a significant commitment and really sets a standard, an example for other nations. And similarly, on the development and humanitarian aid front, Ireland is a leader. That gives the United States not only a partner
that we can count on to meet the problems and seize the opportunities that we face in the world today but it just further connects us going forward. And the work that we did, our country and yours, on behalf of
peace in Northern Ireland is one of the success stories, despite some of the rejectionist efforts to turn the clock back.
This is a lasting commitment that has inspired support from the entire island of Ireland but also from places around the world and because of that, it helps make the case to people in other conflicts. So there's much more than sentiment that continues to drive our relationship and gives us a chance to build greater prosperity and progress together.
QOn the subject you just mentioned about the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process beyond the borders of Northern Ireland, which you mentioned the other day, you've appointed George Mitchell to a similar
role in the Middle East. When you look at those two conflicts, where do you see the parallels, where lessons from Northern Ireland can be applied and where do you think the comparisons fall down?
AWell, that's a difficult and deep question. Senator Mitchell himself has spoken of the comparisons but has made clear that there are significant differences. On the comparison side, the conflicts were very difficult, people had historical and political and in Northern Ireland's case, religious or ideological differences aimed at the occupation that they perceived had been put upon Northern Ireland for years. And as Senator Mitchell likes to joke, when he talks about what he's attempting now, the conflict can be dated back 800 years. Now there are some in the Middle East who say, well that's a recent conflict and they don't really think that it's comparable. But I believe that his analysis would point to certain legitimate comparisons.
But there are obviously great differences in the make-up and the nature of the conflict. But one thing that is in common is the United States government's commitment to be engaged. That was something that my husband did when he was president with both Northern Ireland and the Middle East. Progress was made but there was no final resolution in a peace agreement in the Middle East in the way there was in the Good Friday Agreement. But the fact of American engagement, which we are once again committed to in the Obama administration, makes the difference. We can't predict what the outcome will be but I don't think anyone would argue that once President Clinton made a commitment, it changed the dynamics. Once George Mitchell spent countless hours listening and bringing the parties to an understanding of the other's position and trying to find ways forward, it made a difference. And that is what we're going to try to do in the Middle East.
QThe approach that your husband and George Mitchell took to that was one of inclusivity. I'm wondering in that context, because there was a certain sort of ambiguity about whether people qualified to be spoken to or to be part of it. Is there any wriggle room at all where Hamas are concerned in terms of a unity government, any nuance in terms of how they would climb over the hurdle in terms of being an interlocutor.
AWell I think the conditions are clear. The conditions were set by the Quartet, which consists of the United Nations, Russia, the European Union and the United States. The conditions were also included in the Arab peace initiative adopted by the Arab League. In order to be a participant in peace talks, you have to believe in peace and you have to be willing to sit at the table and recognise that there is another side and the other side has to be there. So Hamas has to renounce violence if it's going to pursue a political resolution which a peace process obviously presumes. It has to recognise Israel and to abide by the prior agreements that the PLO entered into. So the path is very clear. But just as it took an enormous amount of effort to get the parties to the
table in Northern Ireland, it will take both effort and change and commitment on the part of Hamas to be recognised and included in any such process in the Middle East.
QAs you know, the European Union has agreed a new treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, which has been approved by most member states which among other things, creates an enhanced foreign policy identity for the European
Union with an EU foreign minister. How welcome would that be in the United States, that enhanced foreign policy identity for the EU?
AWell, first of all, it's a matter for the members of the EU to decide for themselves. But I think there would be advantages in having an interlocutor who represented decisions taken by the EU. It wouldn't in any way eliminate the bilateral relations which the United States pursues with individual countries but on a number of matters, the EU being organised in that way could facilitate decisions.
QWould you say that in general, you believe that European political integration is essentially in the United States interest?
AI do. I believe it's in Europe's interest and I believe that is in the United States interest because we want a strong Europe. We want a strong transatlantic alliance. So again, we don't have any vote or voice in these internal European matters but the Obama administration welcomes actions that strengthen Europe and relations among European nations, a commitment on the part of Europe to be a full participant and leader in a lot of these global challenges. And I think just as we've seen over the last years the maturing and strengthening of the European Union and its institutions has proven to be helpful to Europe, which we think is good.
QYou'll be naming very shortly a special envoy for Northern Ireland. What qualities and what qualifications will you be looking for in that person and where do you see the focus of that person's role being?
ACertainly the Northern Ireland envoy is an issue that I discussed with everyone I met with over several days this week because I wanted to be sure that this was still viewed as an important position for the United States to fill. And I was reassured convincingly by everyone that it would be welcomed. Having heard that and understanding how important it is seen as a sign of continuing American involvement and interest, we'll proceed to fill the position. It's not someone who's going to negotiate a peace agreement. It is someone who will be a contact person for the parties in Northern Ireland, who will be available to facilitate and co-ordinate on behalf of any political concerns that the parties have in Northern Ireland in furtherance of the Good Friday accord in pursuit of peace.
So it will be a position that demonstrates unequivocally America's interest and commitment but it will also be a position that will be shaped by the needs of the parties who, after all, are governing themselves and assuming devolved authority and responding to challenges like the terrible killings of last week. And I think that someone who understands what it took for the people of Northern Ireland to get to this point is someone who could be of most assistance.
QIf you look ahead to the recovery which we hope will happen sooner rather than later, do you see the economic system emerging more or less unchanged or can you foresee a development where the Anglo-American system would move closer to the system in Europe? Do you see any change after the recovery?
AI think that's being worked out now and there will be a need for greater transparency and regulation. What form it takes in individual countries or between Europe and the United States I don't think has yet been decided upon. There's a general agreement, however, that we have to protect our financial system and our markets from this kind of problem from occurring again. I think that the effort to stimulate growth has been important and will continue. I've every confidence that we're going to recover and be stronger than ever. I just hope that we will put into place safeguards so that we don't find any repetition of these problems in the future.