SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you very much.
Thank you, President De Meyer, for welcoming
all of us here to SMU.
Thank you, Ambassador Adelman, for your exemplary
service here in Singapore, strengthening and
deepening the already very strong relationship
between our two countries.
Thank you also for the Minister of State and
the Minister for Education and the Speaker
of the Parliament for being here with us.
And thanks to the American Chamber of Commerce
and the U.S. ASEAN business council for helping
to cosponsor this event.
It has been three years since I was last here
with President Obama, when we came for our
first APEC meeting.
And that trip helped launch what has been
called our pivot to the Asia Pacific.
As Secretary of State, I have visited the
region many times.
And I was just in Australia with Secretary
of Defense Panetta for our annual AUSMIN consultations
with our Australian counterparts.
Tomorrow I will join President Obama in Thailand.
And then we will go together to Burma and
on to Cambodia for the East Asia Summit.
Now, I think one of the questions that may
be on your and others' minds is: "Why is the
American President spending all this time
in Asia so soon after winning re-election?"
Well, the answer for us is very simple.
Because so much of the history of the 21st
century will be, is being, written in this
region.
America's expanded engagement represents our
commitment to help shape that shared future.
The strategic and security dimensions of our
efforts are well known.
But the untold story that is just as important
is our economic engagement.
Because it is clear that not only in the Asia
Pacific but across the world, increasingly,
economics are shaping the strategic landscape.
Emerging powers are putting economics at the
center of their foreign policies, and they
are gaining clout less because of their size
of their armies than because of the growth
of their GDP.
For the first time in modern history, nations
are becoming major global powers without also
becoming global military powers.
So, to maintain our strategic leadership in
the region, the United States is also strengthening
our economic leadership.
And we know very well that America's economic
strength at home and our leadership around
the world are a package deal.
Each reinforces and requires the other.
I must say this is a lesson that Singapore
learned long ago.
Today the non-stop flow of people, goods,
and capital through this small nation is proof
that a country does not need to be big to
be mighty, to be respected, to be a real leader.
Every country wants to do business in Singapore,
so every country has a stake in cultivating
good relationships with Singapore.
With only 1/60 of the population of the United
States, Singapore is our 15th largest trading
partner.
More than 2,000 American companies base their
regional headquarters here.
Two-way trade exceeded $50 billion for the
first time last year.
And U.S. direct investment surpassed $116
billion over the last decade.
That makes Singapore's security and stability
a vital interest for the United States.
This connection between economic power and
global influence explains why the United States
is placing economics at the heart of our own
foreign policy.
I call it economic statecraft.
Now, these ideas are hardly new.
After all, it was Harry Truman who said our
relations, foreign and economic, are indivisible.
But today that carries renewed urgency.
Last year I laid out America's economic statecraft
agenda in a series of speeches in Washington,
Hong Kong, San Francisco, and New York.
Since then, we have turned this vision into
action in four key areas: first, updating
our foreign policy priorities to take economics
more into account; second, turning to economic
solutions for strategic challenges; third,
stepping up commercial diplomacy -- what I
like to call jobs diplomacy -- to boost U.S.
exports, open new markets, and level the playing
field for our businesses; and fourth, building
the diplomatic capacity to execute this ambitious
agenda.
In short, we are shaping our foreign policy
to account for both the economics of power
and the power of economics.
The first and most fundamental task is to
update our foreign policy and its priorities
for a changing world.
For the last decade, as you know, the United
States focused enormous time, resources, and
attention on a war in Iraq that is now over,
and a war in Afghanistan that is winding down.
Responding to threats will, of course, always
be central to our foreign policy.
But it cannot be our foreign policy.
America has to seize opportunities that will
shore up our strength for years to come.
That means following through on our intensified
engagement in the Asia Pacific and elevating
the role of economics in our work around the
world.
Here in Asia the United States is taking concrete
steps to protect and update an open, free,
transparent, and fair economic system that
has made the region's spectacular growth possible.
Through APEC and ASEAN, we are working with
partners like Singapore to improve regulatory
standards, harmonize customs procedures, and
reduce trade barriers.
We've ratified a free trade agreement with
the Republic of Korea that will improve competitiveness
and transparency, while boosting American
exports by as much as $10 billion a year.
In negotiations with China and India on bilateral
investment treaties, we are seeking a level
playing field between American companies and
their competitors, including state-owned enterprises.
And with Singapore and a growing list of other
countries on both sides of the Pacific, we
are making progress toward finalizing a far-reaching
new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
The so-called TPP will lower barriers, raise
standards, and drive long-term growth across
the region.
It will cover 40 percent of the world's total
trade and establish strong protections for
workers and the environment.
Better jobs with higher wages and safer working
conditions, including for women, migrant workers
and others too often in the past excluded
from the formal economy will help build Asia's
middle class and rebalance the global economy.
Canada and Mexico have already joined the
original TPP partners.
We continue to consult with Japan.
And we are offering to assist with capacity
building, so that every country in ASEAN can
eventually join.
We welcome the interest of any nation willing
to meet 21st century standards as embodied
in the TPP, including China.
The United States is also moving economics
to the center of our agenda elsewhere in the
world.
For example, we want to improve our economic
partnership with our allies in Europe.
That is every bit as compelling to us as our
security partnership through the NATO alliance.
So, to that end, we are exploring negotiations
with the European Union for a comprehensive
economic agreement that would increase trade
and spur growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
Africa.
Africa is currently home to 7 of the world's
10 fastest-growing economies.
I deliberately said that slowly because so
many people look surprised when I say it.
And so, we are changing the way we do business
with Africa.
Certainly regarding our development agenda,
but also trying to do more to harness market
forces and private-sector solutions for these
growing African economies.
In Latin America, which remains the destination
for 40 percent of all U.S. exports, we have
ratified free trade agreements with Colombia
and Panama, and we have begun discussions
with a new group called the Alliance of the
Pacific, formed by Mexico, Colombia, Peru,
and Chile to expand their competitiveness
in the global marketplace.
Now, our next step will be to transform these
regional efforts -- the TPP, the EU agreement,
our bilateral trade deals -- into a truly
global vision.
In the same way that the general agreement
on trade and tariffs offered a global blueprint
following World War II, we need new arrangements
to take on the challenges that inhibit trade
today, from non-tariff barriers to preferential
treatment for state-owned enterprises.
As we do more to define our foreign policy
priorities in economic terms, we also need
to update the tools we use.
So our second main area of action is finding
ways to tap economic solutions for strategic
challenges.
Just look at what's happening now in Burma.
The cost of economic sanctions and the benefits
of rejoining the global economy helped spur
the government to begin opening up.
And we are very grateful to the wise counsel
we received from Singapore along the way.
The United States is responding not just with
growing diplomatic engagement, but also with
new economic ties that we believe will help
encourage further political and market reforms,
and thereby improve stability over time.
This July more than 70 executives from 38
leading U.S. companies visited as part of
the U.S.-ASEAN business council delegation.
And I understand that the American Chamber
of Commerce here in Singapore led a similar
trip in August.
The United States is also supporting World
Bank programs that will provide more than
$80 million for infrastructure projects in
the country's townships, and financial support
for small businesses.
Burma is part of a region where progress has
been slowed by insecurity and mistrust.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
As Burma opens up and establishes new ties
to its neighbors, it could become a commercial
hub linking markets in India and Bangladesh
with Southeast Asia.
An Indo-Pacific economic corridor powered
by new energy and transportation infrastructure
and fewer trade barriers could create jobs
and help lift millions out of poverty.
It could also promote stability and drive
cooperation on shared challenges like narcotics
and human trafficking, refugees, and natural
disasters.
Now, this all might sound ambitious.
And, I confess, it is.
But we cannot shy away from big goals.
The post-World War II generation that built
the modern global order and established institutions
and agreements that fostered unprecedented
security and prosperity are really the examples
we should be following, in those footsteps,
thinking bigger, working harder to create
the arrangements that will give us another
100 years of security and prosperity.
The same goes for another regional vision
we call the New Silk Road, a web of trade
and transportation links reaching from the
steps of Central Asia to the southern tip
of India.
Forging stronger economic ties across this
region is a key element in our long-term strategy
for Afghanistan.
If you look at the map, you see why Afghanistan
has been fought over and part of the great
game for so many generations because of its
very strategic position right in the middle
of this trading route.
So, even as we move forward with the security
transition under NATO ISAF in 2014, and the
end of our coalition combat mission, we are
focused on shoring up Afghanistan's economic
future, because we know that, without that,
stability and security will certainly be elusive.
This is a point that has too often been missed
in serious foreign policy debates.
The long, hard work of economic development
may not be glamorous, but it is essential,
even in war zones.
And certainly the increasing economic relationship
between India and Pakistan is good news, first
and foremost for the Pakistani and Indian
business people and consumers, but more generally
with the hope that those kinds of ties can
lead to even greater cooperation in the future.
We are also using new economic tools to address
one of the world's preeminent security challenges:
Iran.
A broad coalition is revolutionizing how the
international community enforces sanctions
and builds pressure.
We went after Iran's central bank and finance
sector, and we reached out to private insurers,
shippers, oil companies, and financial institutions
to help us target pressure points that make
it harder for companies and governments to
do business with Iran.
Now we see results.
Every major importer of Iranian oil has lowered
their consumption.
All 27 nations of the European Union have
joined a boycott.
In one year, Iran's oil exports are down by
more than one million barrels a day, costing
the Iranian Government at least $3 billion
each month.
And, in fact, because of increased production
in other places in the world, we have not
seen the spike in oil prices that so many
people feared and predicted.
Now, regimes in places like Tehran and Pyongyang,
that violate international norms and beggar
their people in pursuit of greater military
strength pose a stark contrast with emerging
economic powers that are delivering benefits
for their people.
The example of Iran also illustrates how powerful
economic tools can be when we apply them both
creatively and collectively.
The Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah, the
Haqqani network, and others, are all vulnerable
to sophisticated and meticulous market pressure.
Someone has said that the threats we face
are perhaps enhanced because of how interconnected
we are in the world because of globalization.
But so are the responses.
And we have to be smarter about how we identify
and use them through international cooperation,
robust coalitions, and determined diplomacy.
The third major area of focus for economic
statecraft is commercial diplomacy that boosts
U.S. exports, opens new markets, and levels
the playing field for American businesses.
Let me hasten to say this is not just about
American prosperity.
Although, as you might guess, as the American
Secretary of State, that ranks very high on
my list of priorities.
That is always our goal.
But this is about finding more opportunities
for all of us to prosper together.
It's about helping the next wave of emerging
economies achieve the same kind of growth
that Singapore has enjoyed.
It's about rebalancing the global economy
so Americans export more, Asians import more,
and we avoid financial crises and build middle
classes.
So, the United States is stepping up our game,
using our network of more than 270 embassies
and consulates to advocate for American firms,
and help achieve President Obama's goal of
doubling U.S. exports in 5 years.
With 95 percent of the world's customers living
beyond our own borders, this has become an
economic imperative.
So our diplomats are working to make it easier
for U.S. businesses to find answers and get
advice about navigating markets.
We're helping them connect with foreign partners
and compete for contracts.
And whenever a U.S.
Government official travels overseas now,
we try to include business events on our schedules.
In fact, later today I will visit a General
Electric aviation facility here in Singapore.
We are sending more trade missions, like the
one I mentioned to Burma.
And this summer I led the first delegation
of American CEOs to the U.S.-ASEAN Business
Forum in Cambodia.
Three heads of state and more than a dozen
key ministers were eager to engage with them.
Back in Washington, we have convened conferences
bringing together business leaders and government
officials from more than 100 countries.
We're proud to go to bat for the Boeings and
Chevrons and General Motors and so many others.
But we're also working to help industries
large and small that have not been traditional
exporters.
Ultimately, this effort is more than hooking
a big fish here and there.
We want every company -- American, Singaporean,
or any other -- to have that level playing
field and a chance to compete on the merits.
That is a recipe for shared prosperity.
Yet in too many places businesses trying to
break into markets face resistance, including
trade barriers that are going up not along
national borders, but behind them.
And these obstacles stem from political choices,
not market forces.
And it will take serious and sustained diplomacy
to address them.
Wherever companies face discrimination, the
United States will stand up for the rules
of an open, free, transparent, and fair economic
system, and we expect all like-minded economies
to share that responsibility.
Now, recently we saw a break-through when
India retooled its policy on foreign direct
investment.
Their old rules barred companies that carry
multiple brands in one store -- like Wal-Mart,
Target, and Costco, or similar foreign companies
-- from doing retail business in the Indian
market.
That limited competition.
But, more than that, it prevented the kind
of knowledge transfer and supply chain modernization
that India needs.
So we and -- I should note -- other countries,
as well, raised this issue with India's leaders
at the highest level for years.
And we are pleased that Delhi has now agreed
to loosen its restrictions.
But to take advantage of a more level playing
field, American businesses must step up, too.
Here in Singapore, U.S. firms operate on every
corner.
But elsewhere, too many are sitting on the
sidelines.
I hear it over and over when I travel: "Where
are the American businesses?"
And at a time when America's domestic growth
depends more than ever on our ability to compete
internationally, this has to change.
And when U.S. businesses do compete, we want
to work with them to make sure their suppliers
at every link in the chain are meeting international
standards like labor rights, intellectual
property, and environmental impact.
And, finally, a level playing field means
lowering the barriers that keep women from
fully participating in the global economy.
You knew I would get to that, didn't you?
Mountains of evidence make this so abundantly
clear.
No nation can achieve the kind of growth that
we all want and need if half the population
never gets to compete.
And we cannot afford any longer to exclude
the energy and talent that women add to our
economies.
The World Bank has done some ground-breaking
research on this, pointing out what it would
mean to tear down the barriers, some of them
still very explicit.
There are countries that deny women credit,
there are countries that prevent women from
opening businesses or running them without
male fronts.
There are countries that prevent women from
inheriting businesses.
There are so many still existing legal barriers.
And then, of course, there are the attitudinal
and cultural barriers that are somewhat less
obvious, but no less difficult.
And in the World Bank's research, tearing
down all those obstacles would raise GDP everywhere
in the world, including in my own country.
In my own country it would be by nine percent.
So, think about what this would mean in a
time where we are still facing global economic
problems.
And so I always say that we've got to do more,
not just because it's the right thing to do,
but because we cannot afford not to do it.
The fourth and final area we are focused on
is making sure America's diplomats and development
experts have all the skills and support they
need to actually implement economic statecraft.
So, we are focused on recruiting, retaining,
and rewarding the most talented people we
can find.
I appointed the State Department's first-ever
chief economist.
And I combined our work on energy, the environment,
and economics under a single under secretary
position to maximize synergy and cooperation.
We are ramping up our training curriculum
for economic officers, and developing new
tools and incentives to help them do their
jobs.
Now, these kinds of changes unfold over years,
but they show a commitment to match our practices
to our priorities.
And they will help hard-wire economic statecraft
into American foreign policy.
Now, let me offer three quick examples that
really show the intersection of economics
and security.
Let's start with cyber theft.
Now, most countries outlaw breaking into the
headquarters of a company to steal proprietary
information.
Yet when it comes to cyber theft of that same
material, many look the other way or even
encourage it.
This is more than just bad international behavior.
It is bad economics.
If we set a precedent that cyber theft is
acceptable, everyone will eventually suffer.
So I named the State Department's first coordinator
for cyber issues, and we are advancing concerted
strategies to address these really legitimate
and troubling concerns.
Next, on energy.
We know energy can be a source of healthy
competition, with countries racing to develop
new technologies and renewables.
But it can also be a source of conflict, fueling
corruption and instability.
And how the world uses energy is a key factor
as to whether we will finally address the
threat of climate change.
So we have created at the State Department
a new Bureau of Energy Resources, and made
this issue a priority in our diplomacy.
And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism:
a challenge at once economic and strategic.
Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises
are not necessarily problematic in all cases.
But they do often lack the transparency and
accountability that come with private boards
and investors.
And then, diplomatic challenges arise when
states abuse their economic advantage to bully
their neighbors or box out competitors, like
when we see countries cut off gas flows in
the middle of winter over a political disagreement.
So, the State Department, working with seven
other U.S.
Government agencies, launched a comprehensive
study on state capitalism.
And in the coming weeks, we should see a final
report with detailed recommendations for how
we engage on the challenges posed.
Now, let me add that many of the questions
that I have discussed today about the relationship
between strategic and economic issues deserve
deeper study.
Perhaps, President De Meyer, at this institution.
Almost a new foreign policy discipline.
And I hope scholars at think tanks and universities
will help us explore the implications and
design more effective responses.
The ambitious agenda we've been working on,
and that I have described to you today, will
require a sustained commitment from secretary
to secretary, from president to president.
And the United States has to keep asking tough
questions of ourselves and our partners around
the world.
We need to form coalitions of like-minded
nations that deal in the changing dynamics
of power and influence.
And, as economic strength and global power
converge, all countries need to think about
the way their domestic decisions reverberate
on the international stage.
And that is especially true in my own country.
When I was traveling through Asia last summer,
during the height of the debate over the debt
ceiling back home, leaders from across the
region pulled me aside to ask if the U.S.
Congress would actually allow America to default
on our debt.
Let's be clear.
The full faith and credit of the United States
should never be in question.
Today, as Washington gears up for another
round of budget negotiations, I am again hearing
concerns about the global implications of
America's economic choices.
Now, I am out of politics, but let me assure
you that, for all the differences between
the political parties in my country, we are
united in our commitment to protect American
leadership and bolster our national security.
Reaching a meaningful budget deal is critical
to both.
It will shore up our ability to project economic
power around the globe, strengthen our position
in the competition of ideas, shaping the global
marketplace, and remind all nations that we
remain a steady and dependable partner.
For us, this is a moment, once again, to prove
the resilience of our economic system, and
reaffirm America's leadership in the world.
As Ambassador Adelman said, "I've been in
the business of advancing American leadership
for a long time now.
I've seen the ups and downs firsthand, our
greatest triumphs and our wrenching heartbreaks.
And through it all, I've only grown more convinced
that our global leadership depends on our
economic strength, and more confident that
the United States has what it takes to keep
leading in the 21st century."
This much is clear: the future belongs to
those who can anticipate opportunities, who
follow the trend lines, not just the headlines,
countries like Singapore, which transformed
itself into an Asian tiger in the decades
after independence, and continues to innovate
and excel.
Global leadership is not a birthright.
Not a birthright for the United States or
any nation.
It must be constantly tended and earned anew.
Americans' ability, however, to reinvent ourselves
has been a national strength since the first
settlers arrived in search of new shores and
new opportunities.
It is part of our DNA.
It is part of who we are, as Americans.
And I know the United States will rise, as
we always have, to meet the challenges of
this new international landscape, firm in
our purpose, innovative in our approach, and
unwavering in our determination to succeed.
And we look forward to a future of peace and
prosperity and opportunity for all.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
