Center for American Progress

Transcription

1 Center for American Progress A Discussion on the Obama Administration's National Security Policy Moderator: Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress Speaker: Benjamin Rhodes, White House Deputy National Security Adviser For Strategic Communications Location: Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. Time: 12:00 p.m. EDT Date: Monday, January 30, 2012 Transcript by Federal News Service Washington, D.C.

2 NEERA TANDEN: Welcome to CAP. We re very excited to have Ben Rhodes today, the White House deputy national security director for strategic communications. It s fitting that we re having this conversation with Ben today just a few weeks though it might feel like years now but just a few weeks after the end of the war in Iraq. We consider the end of the war a singular achievement and accomplishment of President Obama s, and has really allowed the president to focus on Afghanistan and taking the fight to al-qaida. I think often we lose sight of the connection between these things. But one point we like to make here at the center is that in January of 2009, SEAL Team 6 was actually in Iraq, and so that allows us to understand how much this accomplishment means. Here at CAP we re particularly proud of our role in pushing a series of policies and a central argument about ending the war in Iraq back in 2006 in the fall of But it was obviously most critical to have political leaders and a president who believed that ending the war in Iraq could actually make the country safer. And so we obviously applaud this tremendous accomplishment by the president, and recognize that it is a singular accomplishment but also a singular promise that has been kept. And at a time where, you know, there s a lot of rough-andtumble public discourse political debate out in the world, where lots of accusations get shuffled around, I think it is important for us to remember that this wasn t a position that this isn t a product of shifting positions or taking one position on the campaign trail and doing something else when you re president. This is a promise the president made years ago that he accomplished. So I think we also will focus today on the general ideas around an Obama doctrine. And for me, I can say that one thing that has really taken hold is a focus on the long game of foreign policy not a particular focus of the day-to-day s headlines, but how the world has shifted, not in a matter of days or months but years; the president s vision, which has really taken into account the changing dynamics in the world; and most importantly allows him to have that longterm focus, which has resulted in a day-by-day victory over not victory, but a day-by-day set of accomplishments over the war on terror and the battle against al-qaida; and most importantly demonstrate itself in the hunt and killing of Osama bin Laden, which I hope we ll hear more about today. And with that, I d like to just say a few words about Ben Rhodes, who I first met on the Obama campaign three years ago. Back then it was Senator Obama. And in terms of all the national security speeches we saw during that campaign, I have to say it was a lot harder to see where Ben Rhodes ended and Senator Obama began, because they shared a unique understanding of the world: the importance of America s leadership; how indispensable that leadership was, is; and how important strong alliances are to them; and that America can lead the world through alliances and continue that leadership and not alliances weren t something that held us back. And I think if we look at the broad swath of the last three years, that vision has held for the last three years, and we ve seen singular accomplishments from it. And I think we ll hear more about that today.

3 Thanks, Ben. Ben Rhodes. (Applause.) BENJAMIN RHODES: Thanks a lot, Neera, for that introduction. Neera of course was a critical member of both the campaign and the administration, and played a critical role in a signature legislative achievement of the administration the passage of health care. I remember well when Neera first moved out to Chicago, when our campaigns came together behind the common goal of electing Barack Obama. It s I also remember a lot of people saying, wow, are the Clinton and Obama teams going to be able to come together? It s been through such a long, tough primary. And what I always said is, I actually felt closer to the Clinton campaign than even my family, because they were the only people in the world who went through the exact same thing that I did for all those months. And Neera proved to be a tremendous colleague, and she s doing a great job here. I ll just open by saying a few words about kind of the overview of what we ve done and where we re going on foreign policy and national security policy. And I think CAP is a good location for a number of reasons. It was one of several organizations really that grew up in the period of time between 2003 and 2005 as progressives were working to deal with the policy and political realities of a new world. On national security in particular, many of us were confronted with the fact that we opposed really the organizing principle of the U.S. foreign policy at that time, the war in Iraq. And yet support for that policy was often held up as a litmus test for being strong on national security. And so what I think CAP and many other organizations did, and Senator Obama did, is put together methodically a vision of a stronger model of U.S. national security that moved beyond the Iraq war. When then-senator Obama ran for president, we had a platform that was really distilled I think into a simple sentiment. We wanted to end the war in Iraq, focus on al-qaida and restore America s standing in the world. And I think, three years after he s taken office, we can see a clear line of results to that pledge. He has ended the war in Iraq. We have decimated al-qaida s leadership, including Osama bin Laden. And we ve very much restored America s position and leadership in the world. It s also important to note, as Neera did, though, that even as we deal with the immediate face threats that we face, that we ve also looked beyond them to the position that America wants to hold in the world in the years and decades to come. And I ll talk about both those short-term actions we ve taken around really the legacy issues, in particular the wars, and then also the longer-term framework that President Obama has built. First, to deal with the critical legacy issues that have occupied so much of our time these last few years, the wars chief among them: In Iraq, as Neera said, the president has kept his commitment to end the war. After taking office, he pursued a more aggressive time table than had previously been contemplated by the U.S. administration: to remove a hundred thousand troops by August of 2010 and to shift fully into a support role to the Iraqi security forces in

4 August of 2010, when we ended our combat mission which I think created also some time and space for the Iraqis to be in the lead in terms of providing for their own security. This year, we completed the drawdown of U.S. forces, consistent with our security agreement with the Iraqi government. And this was a decision that, frankly, the U.S. and Iraq, after much discussion, determined was really in the best interests of both nations: to complete that drawdown and to build a new relationship between two sovereign nations, without a U.S. military presence in the country, but with a U.S. partnership that will manifest itself on security and many other issues. And now we re going forward with building that partnership and using our diplomacy to support a peaceful, united and democratic Iraq that is sovereign. Now, as Neera said, Iraq was the overwhelming focus of U.S. foreign policy for so many years. It s almost hard for some of us to remember that today. But really for, you know, five years or so, Iraq really consumed both the policymakers in Washington and our actions around the world. Ending the war in Iraq has been a critical part of our shift to a more focused effort against al-qaida that s manifested in resources allocated against al-qaida; it s manifested in how the government spends its time. Neera of course gave one very potent example of the fact that we had special forces capabilities and other capabilities that had been really focused on Iraq, that have now been dedicated to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the effort against al-qaida. I think what s important to step back and remember, too, though, is that we ve changed the framework from what was a global war on terrorism under the Bush administration to a more focused effort against an identifiable network of people, al-qaida and its affiliates. And that shift in our framework has allowed us, I think, to target force against those who want to attack the U.S. homeland with greater precision; and moving away from the type of large-scale deployment, for instance that we saw in Iraq. That is, of course, both most manifest in the action to take out Osama bin Laden. But we ve also decimated al-qaida s leadership ranks. The al-qaida core in Afghanistan, Pakistan has never been weaker. We ve also been able to work with partners to take out al-qaida leadership in places like Yemen and Somalia. And we believe, even as we have much more work to do, that we have put the organization on a path to defeat. Afghanistan and Pakistan is, of course, a centerpiece of that effort to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-qaida. The president increased our resources there in 2009 in order to reverse the Taliban s momentum, which had been ascendant, and to give time and space for the Afghan government s security forces to build out their own capacity. Now we ve begun a transition to the Afghans. And 2012 will be a year in which the U.S. and our partners begin to move in the direction of an end state in Afghanistan by keeping the pressure on the Taliban and the Haqqani network; pursuing a transition to the Afghan security forces which includes U.S. troop reductions; pursuing the possibility of a political resolution to parts of the conflicts; and continuing our efforts to build the capacity of Afghanistan s security forces in government.

5 I think one overarching point is worth remembering when we take a step back here. There were roughly 180,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan when the president took office. Now there are half that number, 90,000. And that ll continue to come down to roughly 68,000 at the end of the summer. And I think what s striking is that we ve been able to strike decisive blows against al- Qaida s leadership, even as we have brought down this number of U.S. troops serving in harm s way. So there you haven t seen a situation where we are bringing home troops and our enemy is gaining more space. It s actually been the opposite. We ve been able to wind down the wars in a way that allows us to focus more pressure on al-qaida. And that s of course a testament to the skill of our troops and counterterrorism professionals, and it s also a testament to President Obama s decision to move towards a more targeted model of the use of military force than the war in Iraq was. So in addition to managing these very critical legacy issues, I ll also just say a few words about the broader efforts we ve done on the long-term front. And, in a word, we call this rebalancing: aligning America s resources and attention to the areas that are the greatest priority to our security interests going forward. I won t touch on every issue under the sun, but I will highlight a few priority issues for the administration that have guided our efforts to date and will guide our efforts going forward. We re continuing to pursue a comprehensive nuclear security and nonproliferation agenda. The administration is methodically implementing the president s Prague vision that he laid out in 2009, recognizing that we share the view that runs across both parties: that the greatest danger the United States can potentially face is a nuclear weapon or materials in the hands of terrorists. And we also need to stem the tide of proliferation that had continued for the previous post-cold War era, with where we saw India, Pakistan, North Korea of course, moving in the direction of their nuclear capability, and Iran moving aggressively to pursue a nuclear capability. On that front, the broader nonproliferation front, which we view in a comprehensive basis we have achieved a New START treaty with Russia that has deep cuts in our deployed arsenals and allows us to establish our leadership under the NPT. We ve reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our own nuclear security strategy. With Iran, what we ve done is pursue pursued a dual track of the openness to engagement to the Iranians with pressure that accompanies Iran failing to live up to its responsibilities. And I think the critical point here is that we made the issue not about the United States and Iran; we ve made the issue about Iran and the international community and their failure to live up to their obligations. And we could not have done that if we didn t pursue the engagement strategy that the president put in place in It s what allowed us to bring a very robust international coalition together to put pressure on Iran, to increase economic sanctions, to increase their political isolation both in the region and the world.

6 And right now I think Iran is faced with a greater array of pressure than they ve ever faced before, certainly in recent memory. We similarly tightened the pressure on North Korea, which has faced increased sanctions, even as we ve stepped up our efforts to cut down on the smuggling of nuclear materials and proliferation activities in that part of the world. Finally, it s also worth noting, on the nuclear side, that we ve made progress on the fouryear lockdown goal that CAP and many other organizations worked on for many years. This the president hosted the first nuclear security summit in Washington, where many nations signed up to a road map towards locking down nuclear materials. And this March we ll attend a nuclear security summit in Seoul, where we ll update our progress on this issue and continue to point the way forward on the nuclear lockdown goal. So the bottom line, I think, is that we see a situation where nuclear materials are more secure from terrorists around the world, and nuclear outliers like Iran face greater consequences from the international community for their actions. Beyond the nuclear agenda, we have dramatically re-oriented American foreign policy towards the Asia-Pacific. This is something we signaled for several years, and I think something that is becoming very manifest in the in the world today, most notably on the president s recent trip. Now, this is the world s fastest growing region economically. It s a region with a host of emerging powers; and one in which we felt America was underweighted, frankly, in 2008 and 2009, when we took office that the U.S. wasn t a part of the dialogue and discussion about the security architecture in the region. We weren t accessing new markets as fast as we d like. And we felt that we had to take a very methodical approach to reestablishing America s presence in the region. And we ve done that in a number of ways. We ve shored up our core alliances and partnerships in the region, even as we ve built a cooperative relationship with China on a range of issues. We ve joined and worked to shape the regional architecture by engaging ASEAN, the Southeast Asian nations, at the head-of-state level, and joining the East Asia Summit this year and making it a forum to discuss not just economic, but political and security issues such as the South China Sea as well. We ve increased our evolving security presence in the region most notably, recently, through the announcement of a rotating presence of U.S. Marines in Australia, which will allow us to be more forward-deployed in the South Pacific. And the defense budget strategy that the Pentagon and the president rolled out, of course, prioritizes the Asia-Pacific going forward. We ve increased our exports to the region. The president s goal of doubling U.S. exports to create jobs is very much focused in the Asia-Pacific. And of course, that is involved in direct work that our businesses have done and commercial diplomacy that we ve done in support of them. But it also includes our trade agenda.

7 Not only did we complete the South Korea free trade agreement, but we ve reached the broad outlines of a new Trans-Pacific Partnership that brings together a host of the leading economies in the Asia-Pacific region in a new type of high-standard trade agreement. And I think the success of that initiative is measured in the benefits it ll have for the United States, but also in the fact that we see an increasing number of countries expressing an interest to join it. And finally, we ve pursued an historic opening with Burma in the Asia-Pacific, encouraging its democratic reforms. And here I think you see our willingness to engage and pursue an engagement with a government like Burma s yielding positive results, where you see dramatic steps taken by the government to open up political space, to let political prisoners out of prison. There s a lot of work to be done, but we re going to be working the Burma account very aggressively in the months and years to come because we see great potential for that country to finally realize the aspirations of its people. So in each of these areas, we re going to continue to work to make progress on the direction the president has set. And if we continue on this course, I think what you ll see in 2016 the U.S. posture in the world will look very different than it did in And the biggest increase you ll see in economic, political, and military resources is really going to be in this part of the world, given its huge importance economically and politically to the American people. We ve also supported the advance of democracy around the world through an approach that empowers movements for change, rather than trying to necessarily impose U.S. outcomes on situations. Now, the Arab Spring, of course, is the most prominent movement for democracy around the world. I would note, though, that we have been invested in the success of elections in Sub-Saharan Africa as well Cote d Ivoire was a focus of this administration, to make sure there was a legitimate transfer of power there. An independent South Sudan continues to be not just an outcome that we work for, but we re trying to support continued resolution to the issues between Sudan and South Sudan. And we are also working to support, again, democracy in Southeast Asia, notably in Burma. So the Arab Spring is most prominent, but I think we see positive signs on democracy in other parts of the world. In the Arab Spring context, we re working to support the consolidation of democratic transitions in Tunisia and Egypt, which, of course, have many difficult hurdles ahead. We intervened in Libya to stop a massacre and to support a Libyan revolution that ended the Gadhafi regime. We pursued that intervention in a way that didn t lose a single American life, and frankly, shared the burdens far more dramatically than recent American military interventions. So that s something we can discuss as well. But we see the potential for the U.S. to have a partner in Libya going forward, after many years in which we, of course, had a great deal of challenges with the Gadhafi regime. We have helped build an international façade of pressure against the Assad regime, which is showing signs, really, of collapse, although we face a tremendously difficult situation in Syria. And we ll be working at the U.N. Security Council in the next couple of days to try to increase

8 the international support for a political transition in Syria that ends the violence and moves beyond the Assad regime. So of course, you know, from Yemen to Bahrain, different countries in the region are at different stages of reform. And there are enormous challenges that await the United States. And I think this is something that is going to be not just an issue for this year, but pursuing the emergence of a more democratic model of stability in the Middle East and North Africa will be a prominent task not just for the next year, but really, for the next five years, next decade, for the United States. And, of course, in that context, we will maintain our ironclad support for Israel s security, as our friend and ally in that region. We ve also pursued a new model of international cooperation on economic issues and global development. This, of course, is rooted in the need to respond to the global financial crisis that was inherited in We did that through coordinated stimulus, reforms to put in place new rules of the road, continued consultation with the other major economies. But there are also longer-term shifts we ve made across the economic and development and environmental areas. First of all, we shifted to make the G-20 the premier forum for international economic coordination, recognizing that to have these discussions in the 21st century, you need China at the table. You need India, Brazil, Indonesia all the countries represented in the G-20 to deal with those issues. And we think we have a model set up to continue to pursue coordination. We ve also, similarly, launched a steady effort to combat climate change through an international framework that includes the United States coming to the table, but also includes other major economies like China and India as well. And there was progress on that in Durban, most recently, although a lot of work remains to be done. And then in our development policy, we ve focused on capacity building through our Global Health Initiative, which aims to fight disease, but also to build up the capacity of public health systems; through our food security efforts, which also provide not just assistance, but helps countries develop the ability to feed themselves. So these are initiatives that are not just about dollar amounts. They re about fundamentally changing the way that America pursues the development and growth agenda abroad, and it s something we re going to continue to work on very aggressively going forward. And finally, I ll just say that we ve aimed to lead by example. The president has always thought the best way to promote American values is to live them at home and to restore the strength of America s example to the world. I ll just touch on a couple of areas where we ve done that. For all the debate about detention and the legal issues that is ongoing, it s worth noting the important changes that have been made among them, banning torture without exception, reforming military commissions to bring them in line with the rule of law, and substantially reducing the population at Gitmo without adding to it. These were hugely controversial

9 questions several years ago. Today, they re taken for granted. But we re going to have to continue to build on them as we, again, conduct our activities on terrorism and other issues in line with the rule of law. And we ve led by example in other ways from repealing don t ask, don t tell, so all Americans can serve in our military, no matter who they love; providing disaster relief in Haiti, and the president believes, again, that America s response to natural disasters is an important part of our leadership; and pursuing more transparent governance, which has allowed us to set up a new global initiative on open government. And while, you know, this hasn t gotten a ton of attention here, in many ways the Open Government Initiative that we launched at the U.N. is a model for a new kind of international collaboration one in which you have emerging democracies like Brazil joining the U.S. to lead with the power of their own example. So I think when you see all this activity around democracy abroad, around democratic development, and around bringing other countries to the table as we pursue those values, you see the notion that the democratic model is actually very much ascendant. And the notion that an authoritarian model is going to eclipse the model of democracy is not bearing out. So I know that s not an exhaustive list. You could go on about any number of things going forward, but I wanted to just give an overview before Neera and I have some questions here. There are certainly issues where we have not made as much progress as we would have liked. I would put the Middle East peace process as high on that list, for instance. There are daunting challenges that are going to test us throughout 2012, including, of course, Iran and its nuclear program, our relationship with Pakistan which has been a challenging one the ongoing eurozone crisis, which we ve worked carefully with our European partners to support their efforts to resolve. So many issues that are right in front of us, as well as the longer-term changes that we re seeking to foster. And there are important priorities that are going to get greater prominence this year, including our leadership in the Americas. And the president will be going, of course, to the Summit of the Americas and will have a chance to talk about some of the partnerships we ve built on the economic and security side in our hemisphere. And in dealing with these efforts, we re going to draw on President Obama s commitment to restore America s strength and influence abroad. And we outlined, kind of, the core pillars of this in our National Security Strategy. I ll just quickly go through those now. First of all, a recognition that strength at home leads to strength abroad. That s a key reason why the president is investing in areas like energy, education, research and development because we recognize that the source of our strength abroad is our values. It s our military power, but it s also very much the strength of the American economy and the strength of the American people to be at the cutting edge.

10 We also have a conviction that strong alliances are a force multiplier. And I think you ve seen us methodically strengthen our alliances, from Europe to Asia, while also getting allies to step up to the plate and do more to bear a share of the burden. And I think the NATO summit that we ll host in Chicago in May will be an opportunity to talk about what we re doing on European security, what we re doing on missile defense, and also what the model of intervention that we pursued in Libya is one in which, of course, many countries bore the burden. So alliances are at the core of many things that we re doing. I m often a little mystified by the criticisms around our alliance relationships, which tend to be on very ancillary issues like whether a Churchill bust is in the Oval Office or not. I can confirm that the Churchill bust is in the White House residence. But suffice to say, I think the U.S.-U.K. alliance, for instance, is in as strong a shape as it s been in a long time. We ve also focused on deepening relationships with emerging powers to deal with the types of issues I talked about. That includes cooperative relationships with China and Russia, which we ve invested a lot of attention in. But it also includes steadily increasing and deepening our ties with countries like India, Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia, who are going to be critical to America s ability to operate globally and to solve challenges on a regional basis around the world. And then, finally, we have invested in an effective international order that strengthens America by building coalitions to share burdens and enforcing clear rules of the road that isolate those nations who violate those rules. And I think it s important, and the president s gone out of his way to underscore that America has a key stake in the success of the international system precisely because a rules-based order is one in which America can thrive and we can deal with the challenges that I ve outlined. So that s the world that President Obama is working to shape one in which America s leadership is renewed and at the forefront. And we see the arc of history continue to bend in the direction of our interests and our values. I think we ve established a clear record of keeping the country safe and dealing with the core challenges that we face, while also laying out a clear road map for people as to what America s going to be focused on going forward into the 21st century. So with that, I m happy to talk to Neera, here. (Applause.) (Break.) MS. TANDEN: So I m going to ask a few questions, and then we ll have some time for a few questions from the audience. So my first question is on this notion that America is declining and, in fact, it even has its own ism, declinism. What do you say to folks that argue that America s power is on the decline, that it s that we are weaker than we were three years ago? MR. RHODES: Well, I think, first of all, the notion that America is in decline is just not borne out by the facts. And frankly, America is in a much stronger position than it was three years ago. You know, I think you can take any number of metrics that demonstrate that from our economic recovery, from the degradation of al-qaida to, frankly, the view of the United

11 States in many parts of the world, which has dramatically increased, as well as a stronger set of alliances and partnerships around the world. But, I mean, just to take a couple of examples that I think speak to how this has shifted just in the course of the last three years take the bin Laden operation. There is no other country in the world that could come close to conducting that type of use of force the ability to track down Osama bin Laden to one particular compound in Pakistan, then execute a precision use of force like that, that removes America s most dangerous enemy and deals a tremendous strategic blow to al-qaida. I think that speaks to a capability that is unparalleled. Similarly, the Asia-Pacific trip, I think, was a dramatic signal of U.S. leadership in the world, because the countries of the region wanted us there. You know, there is a huge demand signal for U.S. leadership around the world today, more so than was the case several years ago. The countries in the region wanted to join in a trade agreement with us, with the TPP. They wanted us at the table at a forum like the East Asia Summit. There was a desire for increased security cooperation. So I think what we see there is a real hunger for U.S. leadership, which, I think, of course, counteracts the notion that America is somehow pulling back from the world. And of course, the last point which I think is critical is that there s no other nation that comes close to playing the role that America plays in underpinning the international system, enforcing international rules of the road, and standing for a set of universal values. Even those emerging powers that are out there whether it s China or any other country they re not seeking to play that role. MS. TANDEN: Right. MR. RHODES: And the president spoke about this at length in London. But we really play an indispensable role, and there s no other notion that can come close to filling that space. MS. TANDEN: Great. Let me also follow up on the issues around Iran. How do you respond to those who say the administration isn t doing enough? You talked a lot about the alliances really unprecedented coordination that s taken place but where do you see the trajectory of this? MR. RHODES: Well, first of all, I think we ve done more in the last three years than any U.S. administration has done before to deal with this challenge of Iran s nuclear program in particular. And everything that we ve done has been committed to moving forward on this dualtrack approach, where we have an engagement path that allows for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict but also while allowing a diplomatic resolution, tests Iran, and frankly, holds up to the world Iran s intransigence, that they refuse to walk down that path. And so what that s been able to do is establish a foundation of international pressure, through the U.N. Security Council resolution, that put multilateral sanctions in place that are far tougher than anything we could have done by ourselves. So that investment in diplomacy and

12 that investment in relationships have allowed us to dramatically impact Iran s government and its economy. And from that foundation of multilateral pressure, we ve built up with our own national actions and with coordinated actions with the EU, for instance, which recently announced a new round of sanctions with countries like Japan, South Korea, and many others around the world. And so what we ve done is created a framework where we can steadily dial up the pressure and increase the cost to Iran for being outside of its obligations, while continuing to hold open the promise of a diplomatic resolution if they come to the table. And I think that this year will be about continuing that dynamic, so that there s a cost for Iran for being outside its obligations but there s an opportunity for them to shift course. Also, I d say that the international situation has flipped, and that the issue, in many respects, in 2008, was this is a bilateral issue between Iran and the United States. Why won t the United States come to the table? And I think, again, by building the coalition we have, we ve put Iran under greater isolation than they ve ever faced before, frankly. And they very much are the outlier. There are not many places that they can look to for support. And frankly, with the Syria situation that the Assad regime finds itself under, you have the potential for another significant blow to Iran, in that their closest ally in the region is a regime that is showing signs of collapse. MS. TANDEN: So can I follow up on Syria which is, obviously, a very dynamic situation? But what do you what do you see the United States role in relationship to Syria, and how that is playing out? And what do you see as its impacts throughout the region going forward, especially in the next several months? MR. RHODES: Well, I think, you know, our role on Syria has been: How can we facilitate a broader international front to apply pressure on the Assad regime? You ll recall, the president, when he called for Bashar al-assad to step down over the summer we coordinated that with a number of our European allies who came with us in that announcement. And then they also came with us in imposing a very strong set of sanctions on the Syrian regime which, again, have had an impact. I mean, we see signs, of course, that there s an impact on the Syrian economy. There s an impact on their reserves. There s an impact on their ability to finance their crackdown. And what we have tried to do in the Syrian instance is build out pressure. We re also working with the regional countries, like Turkey, like the Arab League, to make it clear to Assad that there needs to be a political transition and that, frankly, increasingly it s clear that there s not a scenario where he can hold on to power. We ve run into challenges, of course, at the U.N. Security Council, where we haven t passed as strong a resolution as we d like because there s still be opposition from some of the countries that are permanent members of the Security Council.

13 But we re going to continue to press that in New York. We re going to continue to press what we can do with like-minded countries around the world to apply sanctions. We re going to continue to support regional efforts that address the violence and, again, support a political transition. And so our role is being a catalyst for as many voices and as many actors as possible, to send a clear signal that there needs to be a transition and that, frankly, there will be support for that transition in the international community. It s going to be very difficult and challenging, because there s a terrible and tragic volume of violence in Syria on a day-by-day basis. But we believe the only solution of that violence is for Bashar al-assad to recognize the reality that he has to step down and enable a transition. MS. TANDEN: And you referenced this briefly, but, you know, the president has invested a lot of resources and time and relationships to a whole slew of emerging nations, but particularly India, Brazil, Turkey. And you referenced how that those relationships give the United States more room to maneuver over the long term. And obviously Turkey is a great example of, you know, a strong partnership that s been able to have real impact on events over the last year. And I m wondering if you could talk a little bit more about those relationships, because I do think it is an example of a focus on the long game or the long term and how it pays dividends. If you could talk a little bit about India, Turkey and Brazil, then that would be helpful. MR. RHODES: Yeah. I mean, you know, the foundation of everything that we do in the world is our core alliances in Europe and Asia, for instance. These are countries that we cooperate with as a matter of interest, but also we cooperate with them globally. So the Europeans are with us on nearly every global issue. Japan, South Korea, other Asian treaty allies are a core part of our foundation there. But I think what we ve also said is to deal with the full spectrum of global challenges in the 21 st century, where power dynamics have evolved such that you have a more diffuse set of actors who are playing a key role, you need to really deepen these relationships with emerging countries. And there ll be direct benefits from those relationships bilaterally. So for instance, with India and Brazil, there are huge opportunities for the U.S. economy, for, again, deepening our economic ties and expanding our export relationships with those countries. That was a focus, for instance, of the president s trip to India. But they re also very much strategic goals embedded in those relationships with Turkey, for instance. They ve been a key partner with us on a number of these issues since the Arab Spring began. In Libya they played a very important role in supporting the international contact group that, again, provided a foundation for support for the TNC as the transitional authority and for a post-gadhafi Libya. In Syria they ve really stepped up to the forefront, frankly, after a number of conversations between President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan, and being much more

14 aggressive and sending a signal that there needs to be change in Syria, and that they re going to support a political transition there. You saw Prime Minister Erdogan take a I think a very interesting trip around the region several months ago, speaking about the importance of democracy the importance of secular democracy taking hold across the region. So I think Turkey is both a NATO ally, but also a country that we can work with on a set of regional issues. Similarly, with India and Indonesia, those are both countries that we very much want to bring into the framework of how political and security issues are dealt with in the Asia-Pacific region. We want to have more voices at the table. And we want to have those relationships, of course, bilaterally but also on a multilateral way. So I think a lot of this is about and I d just note on Brazil the Open Government Partnership that I noted was launched by the U.S. and Brazil together as co-chairs. And you have Brazil, an emerging democracy, seeking to rally other nations around the world to adopt democratic practices through open governance. Now, that s a powerful shift. And it s a role you didn t necessarily see emerging democracies playing, you know, 10 or 20 years ago. And we support, again, those efforts by countries like Brazil and India that are democracies, that are thriving economies, to join with us in supporting those types of values around the world. So, you know, there s a direct economic benefit to the American people, there s strategic value in dealing with regional issues, and then there s also the global context where these are democracies and we want to see, you know, them working with us to foster the type of inclusive world in which nation s play their role, but individuals have their rights respected as well. MS. TANDEN: So I m going to ask one more question, then we ll have time then we ll go to the audience. But just on that final point about China, you know, you said at the end of your remarks that, in the competition between authoritarian regimes and democracies, the world is clearly moving towards democracy. How do you see our relationship with China evolving? And what do you see as the hot spots in the next year and several years in that relationship? MR. RHODES: Well, you know, I think we on the president s Asia-Pacific trip we were very clear that the United States felt the need to be deeply engaged in the Asia-Pacific region because of our interests, also because of the interests of the nations of the region that wanted us there. You know, and we re going to engage, you know, through security relationships, political efforts and economic initiatives like the TPP. Now, these are not aimed at China or any one nation. They re aimed at increasing the U.S. engagement in what is a critical region. And frankly, the ability to have a cooperative relationship with China is not a zero-sum against the U.S. playing a greater role in the Asia- Pacific. And in fact, what if you I think what the nations of the region want is both. You know, they want the U.S. to be deeply engaged and they want the U.S. to be able to work with China on a cooperative basis.

15 But we re going to disagree with the Chinese on some issues. And I think the markers that the president laid down is we re going to work together where we have common interests. Where we disagree, we re going to be very clear about what those differences are. And I think the most acute differences, you know, looking ahead to the end of your question, really are on the economic side. The president spoke about this a lot on his trip, which is that you have if China s not abiding by rules of the road, you know, support for that economic relationship is, you know, (fraying?) across the United States spectrum both sides of the political aisle, labor and business. MS. TANDEN: Right, yeah. MR. RHODES: And so that s why we re going to continue to press things like intellectual property protections, you know, addressing issues like indigenous innovation, and, frankly, (renewed?) to our own affirmative agenda. The TPP sets very high standards in these areas, and we re also going to do it by pressing China directly, where we feel like there s a they re outside of an international norm. Currency s been the most prominent one, but there are also many other areas that have to do with the ability of our companies to operate with confidence in China. MS. TANDEN: Great. And we ll take some questions. If you can identify yourself, that d be great. Right there. Q: Zhang San (ph) with CTI TV of Taiwan. Ben, to follow up on the China question, the Chinese vice president, Xi Jinping, is coming for a visit. How do you see the significance of this visit, particularly in terms of how you are going to press China on a number of issues, particularly the economic issues you have mentioned? Is this a window of opportunity for the U.S. to reset its relationship with China? And one other question is, President Ma has just won his re-election in Taiwan, probably to the U.S. delight. How do you expect U.S.-Taiwan relations to improve in the next few years? Thank you very much. MR. RHODES: Well, on Vice President Xi s visit, you know, I think what we found is we have set up very regular mechanisms to communicate with the Chinese at all levels of our government. So you ve had President Obama have more engagements with his counterparts than I think any previous president. You ve had the strategic and economic dialogue, which is a framework to deal with issues at State and Treasury. The White House is deeply invested in China policy through Tom Donilon, for instance. What that means is you have forums to raise issues, both to, you know, align our approaches where we agree as I said, and we ve had a lot of work to do together on nonproliferation issues, for instance but also, frankly, to raise, very directly, disagreements. And I think, again, this visit is an important one because, you know, Vice President Xi, of course, is entering a leadership transition year. And Vice President Biden traveled to China, now will reciprocate that visit and have an ability to make sure that we re, you know, investing in and supporting that line of

16 communication, but also, frankly, continuing the discussions that President Obama had on his Asia-Pacific trip that had dealt with a lot of these economic issues. And our view is to be transparent about it, and to be consultative about it with the Chinese, and where we have concerns, to raise it directly with them so they have an understanding of where we re coming from. So I think it s one more marker and one more milestone in our ability to keep those open channels with the Chinese government and to make sure that we have a mechanism to address these issues, both on the security side and the economic side, and to do so, frankly, at the, you know, beginning of a of an important year for China and for the United States. And on Taiwan, I think, you know, our view has been that, you know, we support we supported President Ma s efforts on pursuing cross-strait relations. I think we ll continue to support those efforts, maintaining of course our close relationship with Taiwan. But again, I think we see promise going forward for there be continued efforts to promote greater cross-strait ties and the U.S. will support that. MS. TANDEN: I m trying to get some actual audience questions. In the back, right over there. Yeah. Q: Thank you. Good morning good evening good afternoon. Excuse me. Warren Bays (ph) with The Borgen Project. I d like you to amplify a little bit more about your comments about the role of development, particularly we have military leaders in the United States retired and active. We talk about soft power and the importance of development in their effort. And yet, in Congress we have so many opponents who are looking to cut foreign aid. Any advice, any strategy that the administration will pursue to try and maintain our foreign assistance programs? MR. RHODES: Sure. Well, in the first instance, you know, we believe very much in the importance of having a strong U.S. development policy. And frankly, I think the argument that you ve heard us make and that you ve heard made not just by our top civilians but by our military leadership, is the critical role that development plays in ensuring America s national security, that if we are not investing in not only is it a part of our leadership and part of what we can do to lift up regions of the world that can become critical partners of the United States, but if we re not investing in efforts to combat hunger and disease and state failure and corruption that that leads to instability, that leads to conflict, that leads to a far greater price in the long run than a development policy cost in the short run. So it s a there s a very direct connection between our ability to affect outcomes on the ground through our development policy and our long-term national security, and frankly, our long-term economic interests, because frankly those nations that, again, continue to move up the ladder of development become critical economic partners, potential markets to the United States. And in terms of our priorities, I think, well, you ve seen us do though is focus on areas where we can make a big difference, but we can also build the capacity of nations so that they can carry their development policy forward. So our Global Health Initiative builds on PEPFAR, builds on a lot of the good work that was done under the Bush administration to combat

17 HIV/AIDS and other diseases. But it also invests in the strength of the public health system so that over time we d like to not only combat and ultimately bring about the end of HIV/AIDS, but we also want to, again, have much stronger public health systems in place so that countries developing countries around the world are better positioned to deal with their own health challenges. On food security, we similarly there s an emergency component of addressing something like a famine in the Horn of Africa, but then there s a longer-term program on a multilateral basis that the United States is leading to invest in the capacity of nations to feed their own people. And that, too, frankly over time will make it less necessary for there to be aggressive foreign assistance, because you want to get a point where nations have the capacity to feed themselves. So there s both the ability to deal with short-term challenges, but we re also ceding a long term program where we want to see capacity built in developing countries so they can take on these challenges. The only other one I d add is energy and climate, again, where the ability to finance cleaner development is both a critical climate imperative in the framework of what was done in Copenhagen and Cancun and Durban. But it s also going to be a part of, again, fostering economic growth in a way that leads to a cleaner environment but also a more healthy global economy going forward. MS. TANDEN: I think we have time for one more question. The woman in the the woman. MS. : Oh, you mean a real person? MS. TANDEN: The real person over there. Sorry. (Laughs.) MR. RHODES: For the record, Laura s a real person. MS. TANDEN: (Laughs.) Q: Hi. Rachel Oswald, Global Security Newswire. A couple of Kremlin officials have said that they don t anticipate any new arms control talks getting under way or any missile accord missile defense accord being reached before the election season is over here. Would you agree with that? MS. TANDEN: OK. And for the record, I thought she was a real person. So (laughs) my apologies. And this is, unfortunately, our last question. MR. RHODES: Well, thankfully, I get to talk to Laura all the time. MS. TANDEN: (Laughs.) MR. RHODES: The you know, I think with Russia, you know, we have I mean, it s actually worth stepping back and addressing (on the?) broader context, which is, first of all,