Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel Question and Answer at the Munich Security Conference

AMBASSADOR WOLFGANG ISCHINGER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We have not a lot of time, so we'll call on a few questions. I have a huge number of cards, and I apologize -- I have to apologize to most of those who have written down their questions. We can literally take two or three or maximum of four, depending on the length of the answers.

Let me start with a question of my own, which I'd like to address -- (laughter) -- to Secretary Kerry. We had a very interesting panel discussion yesterday between Tzipi Livni and Saeb Erekat, who were both sitting right here in the first row with Martin Indyk, on the situation as where we are right now. How optimistic are you that you can actually nail this down? Question one.

And if I may add one to you, Mr. Secretary of Defense, a couple of years ago, one of your predecessors, Bob Gates, gave a pretty strong valedictorian speech admonishing us, European allies, to do more, because if we didn't do more, we would be not as useful as your allies as we should be. Now, are you today as unhappy as Bob Gates was with us? Maybe we start with the secretary of state.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well, Mr. Ambassador, I am willing to take risks, but I'm not willing to hang myself here. (Laughter.) So I'm not going to tell you how optimistic I am. I'm going to tell you that I'm hopeful.

I believe in the possibility or I wouldn't pursue this. President Obama believes in the possibility. I don't think we're being quixotic and I'm a little surprised by some of the articles that tend to write about an obsession or fanatical effort to try to achieve this, et cetera. We're just working hard. We're working hard because the consequences of failure are unacceptable.

I mean, I want you all to think about it. Ask yourselves the simple question -- what happens if we can't find a way forward? Is Fatah going to be stronger? Will Abu Mazen be strengthened? Will this man who has been committed to a peaceful process for these last years be able to hold on if it fails? What is the argument for holding on? Are we going to then see militancy? Will we then see violence? Will we then see transformation? What comes afterwards? Nobody can answer that question with any kind of comfort.

By the same token, for our friends, I see good Minister Tzipi Livni here, who has been absolutely spectacular in this process, committed to it. Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken very tough decisions to move this down the road, very tough decisions, as has President Abbas, who had the right to go to the United Nations and has foresworn it, in an effort to try to keep at the table and keep the process moving.

For Israel, the stakes are also enormously high. Do they want a failure that then begs whatever may come in the form of a response from disappointed Palestinians and the Arab community? What happens to the Arab peace initiative if this fails? Does it disappear? What happens for Israel's capacity to be the Israel it is today, a democratic state with the particular special Jewish character that is a central part of the narrative and of the future? What happens to that, when you have a bi-national structure and people demanding rights on different terms?

So I think if you, and I'm only just scratching the surface in talking about the possibilities. And I've learned not to go too deep in them, because it gets misinterpreted that I'm somehow suggesting, "Do this or else," or something. I'm not.

We all have a powerful, powerful interest in resolving this conflict. Everywhere I go in the world, wherever I go, I promise you, no exaggeration, the Far East, Africa, Latin America, one of the first questions out of the mouths of the foreign minister or prime minister or president is, "Can't you guys do something to help bring an end to this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?"

Indonesia, people care about it, because it's become either in some places an excuse or in other places an organizing principle for efforts that can be very troubling in certain places. I believe that, and you see for Israel, there's an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that?

So I'm not going to sit here and give you a measure of optimism, but I will give you a full measure of commitment. President Obama and I, and our administration are as committed to this as anything we're engaged in, because we think it can be a game-changer for the region. And as Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed said -- he's here somewhere -- to a Paris meeting of the Arab League the other day, spontaneously, he said, you know, if peace is made, Israel will do more business with the gulf states and the Middle East than it does with Europe today.

This is the difference of six percent GDP per year to Israel, not to mention that today's status quo absolutely to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It's not sustainable. It's illusionary. There's a momentary prosperity. There's a momentary peace. Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank. This year, unfortunately, there's been an uptick in some violence. But the fact is, the status quo will change if there is failure. So everybody has a stake in trying to find the pathway to success.

And final comment I would say, Mr. Ambassador, is after all of these years, after Wye, after Madrid, after Oslo, after Taba, after Camp David, after everything that has gone on, I doubt there's anyone sitting here who doesn't actually know pretty much what a final status agreement actually looks like. The question is, how do you get there?

That's political courage, political strength, and that's what we have to try to summon in the next days. And I'd just tell you, I am hopeful, and we will keep working at it. And we have great partners of good faith to work with. And I'm appreciative for that.

AMB. ISCHINGER: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: Ambassador, thank you. Let me just add a couple of sentences to what Secretary Kerry said. First, I enthusiastically support what Secretary Kerry is doing.

We all know, there is risk in everything. There is risk in status quo. The risk is always there in anything, in complicated areas of the world. But I believe there's far more risk in letting this slide.

I noted in my comments that, not in the context of this particular issue, but overall, on security issues, it's going to continue to take, as the world is very instructive on this point and the history has been particularly instructive, committed leadership and vision to address any big challenge.

And as much risk and uncertainty that is in this one, I do strongly applaud and support what John's doing here. It's clearly in everyone's interest.

As to your question, Secretary Gates may have said it a little differently than I did, but essentially I said the same thing as Secretary Gates did. This is a partnership. Partnerships mean partnership. Everybody has to participate. Everyone has to contribute. Everybody has a role to play, because not only is something new today with restrained resources in everyone's budgets -- I get that -- the realities of what we're each dealing with in our own respective countries, own respective political dynamics and dimensions.

But if your nation's security is not worth an investment, is not worth leadership and fighting for that investment, then you've got the wrong leadership or -- again, history's been instructive on this point -- then the future of that country is in some peril. It's going to take some courage and vision and strong leadership to make this point clear to all of our constituents, and the Europeans must play their role, as well. Thank you.

AMB. ISCHINGER: Thank you very much. Among the many questions that were handed to me, there are two that are almost identical. And I'm going to take these two together. The first one is from Lord Powell from the U.K. And they're both on TTIP now, and they're both addressed to both of you as former senators. And I read the first question from Charles Powell.

TTIP is, indeed, vital, as Secretary Kerry says. Is it achievable now that the Senate majority leader intends to deny the president fast-track trade promotion authority?

And the other question is from an American, Charles Kupchan, from Georgetown University. Professor Kupchan raises the following question. TTIP is, quote, "the next big thing," unquote, for the Atlantic relationship. As former senators, please discuss the prospects for congressional support, especially in light of Senator Reid's recent comments.

So this is exactly the same question. I don't know which one of you wants to take that one.

SEC. KERRY: Well, I don't -- look, I respect Harry Reid, worked with him for a long time. Obviously, our colleagues are here, you know, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and former Senator Joe Lieberman, and I think all of us have learned to interpret a comment on one day in the United States Senate as not necessarily what might be the situation in a matter of months or in some period of time.

Let's get TTIP done, put it in its context, then we wage the fight. And I'm not at all convinced that what we've heard is going to -- you know, I just think that there's a lot of room here still, so I wouldn't let it deter us one iota, not one iota. I've heard plenty of statements in the Senate on one day that are categorical, and we've wound up finding accommodation and a way to find our way forward. So this should not be a deterrent. And I hope nobody will let it stand in the way.

On the merits, this is a major initiative for us, for Europe, for the relationship with the world. And when you combine it with the TPP, it really has a capacity to achieve what the WTO has not been able to succeed in, and it could have a profound impact on jump-starting the economies for all of us. It's worth millions of jobs, and in the end, jobs are a very powerful political persuasion.

SEC. HAGEL: This TPP is clearly in the self-interests of both sides of the Atlantic, clearly. And I would suspect that our senators here this morning would have a better sense of this than two former senators, but this is a good example of what I was referring to in my remarks about, let's be smart and let's be wise and let's be collaborative and use all of the opportunities and mechanisms that we have to enhance each other, culturally, trade, commerce, exchanges.

We all know that a secure economic base, a dynamic, strong economy is the anchor of any nation's freedom. Without the money, within the resources, your options become very limited, very quickly. So I would hope that this would get done by the United States Senate. It's clearly in everyone's interest. Thank you.