Secretary's Remarks

Secretary's Remarks: Remarks to New Zealand - U.S. Council

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:26:35 EDT

Remarks to New Zealand - U.S. Council

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Auckland War Memorial Museum
Auckland, New Zealand
July 26, 2008

Thank you very much, Winston. Thank you for that kind introduction. And I want to thank you also for your friendship and your colleagueship over these last couple of years. Winston has been with me in many different multilateral settings, as well as in our bilateral settings. And I can say, in some of those multilateral settings, it's a good thing to see a friendly face across the table.

I also want to acknowledge former Prime Minister Bolger, for his leadership of this council.

I am really honored to have this opportunity to visit New Zealand. It is my first time as Secretary. Now, of course it will be my last time as Secretary as well. And I want to thank you for realizing that that's not an applause line.

But I have long wanted to come to New Zealand. It is a very special place, and I am tremendously enjoying the opportunity to be here. I appreciate the fact that all of you are here this evening. I know that it is early enough so that you can still get home for that important rugby game that is being played later. And I would have expected, given that in America, if we were getting ready for such an important match, we would all be home putting our game faces on and getting ready, I thought we would have a smaller turnout. So thank you all very much for coming here.

I am a huge sports fan, and I plan myself tonight to watch. I was in Australia, as you know, just yesterday. And Australia is a good friend and a good ally. And I know that they are passionate, too, about their rugby. So I am not going to create a diplomatic incident. I will just say this. The Wallabies have their hands full with the All Blacks. I wish you the best of luck in bringing the Bledisloe Cup back to New Zealand. And I have been fully informed of all the compelling controversies and drama that attend this game. And so I am looking forward to tonight.

New Zealand and the United States, Kiwis and Americans, have a long history of partnership. It is one that is grounded in common interests, but it is elevated by common ideals. And it is always defined by the warmth and the respect of two nations, but more importantly, of two peoples who are bound together by countless ties of friendship and family and shared experience.

We do not always agree on every point of policy. But we share our opinions in good faith, and openly, in the way that friends do. Our partnership is strong and enduring today in this century, as it was when our citizens stood shoulder to shoulder throughout the last century to be on the front lines in defense of freedom, to expand the reach of peace and prosperity, and not just here in the Pacific, but indeed, across the globe.

Now, today, that relationship is being put to good use to look at the challenges of the 21st century, a century that is being defined by different challenges, but by challenges, nonetheless: challenges of the proliferation of dangerous weapons, dangerous weapons that could end up in the hands of those most dangerous of people, terrorists, and that, in fact, are already in the hands of dangerous regimes.

And I, therefore, very much appreciate the fact that New Zealand has been an active partner in promoting security and peaceful aspirations of nations. The support of New Zealand for the Six-Party framework to try and denuclearize the Korean peninsula has been really extraordinary. And I was saying earlier that when the North Koreans exploded a nuclear device in 2006, one of the first calls that I made was to Winston Peters, who immediately was there to support us and to work toward the Security Council resolution that we passed. And then he went to Pyongyang in 2007 to press the case for denuclearization, and continues to do so, as he has just done, at the Asian regional forum. And so, New Zealand's friendship and support in this very important endeavor has been very much appreciated.

I want to thank New Zealand, too, for its leadership in the Pacific Island Forum. The Pacific Island Forum has had important work to do. The Solomon Islands was a place of crisis just a short time ago, but it is a place that is improving. And I look forward to meeting with the leaders of the Pacific Island Forum. There is especially hard work to do concerning Fiji, where the return to democracy is an absolute necessity, where free peoples everywhere are speaking out for the importance of elections in Fiji, and that those elections should not be based on any other conditions but the ability to hold an election -- something that the government of Fiji has promised to do, and has promised to do next year, and should do forthright.

We are also cooperating not just in these big security challenges like proliferation and cooperation on terrorism, but also to open our markets globally. And in that regard, it is very good to be here with the business council. I know that you work hard to increase our bilateral business ties, to increase our bilateral investment, to increase our bilateral trade. And I want to assure you that the United States and President Bush remain open to open markets and to free trade.

It is not always an easy proposition to defend these days. There are plenty of demagogues who would say that all of the economic problems before us are really because we trade freely. In fact, we all know that our economic problems would multiply if we did not trade freely, and that the global trading system needs to be as free and as open as possible.

It requires, also, fairness in trade. And that's why we work together, through the WTO and other organizations, to make sure that countries live up to their obligations. And in this regard, the challenge and the opportunity posed by China, as it becomes a truly significant influence and force in this region, to make certain that, if China is going to be the force that it is in the international economy, that it will do so on a level playing field, that it will take the structural reforms that are needed, that it will defend intellectual property rights, that it will open its markets for financial services and other elements, that it will indeed be a responsible player in a global trading system.

Now, as we work to increase bilateral investment and bilateral trade, you've got a lot going for you. I was just helping out myself a little bit with Australian fashion -- with New Zealand fashion. And I want you to know that you've got good dress makers out there. And so it's a lot of fun to come to a place like New Zealand, and to see the growth of the economy here.

We are cooperating also in the global effort to enhance energy security, to reduce climate change -- which have to go together -- because, as we have been discussing, energy, security, climate change, and economic growth have to go hand in hand, especially through technology and innovation. And that is going to create new industries and new opportunities for economic growth.

And here, too, we have to be guided by the fact that China and India cannot be set aside from any efforts at reduction of climate change and (inaudible) security. Indeed, no matter what we do in climate change, we would absolutely never be able to harness greenhouse gas emissions unless China and India find new technological ways to grow their economies. We know that they are going to insist on economic growth. We have to hope and encourage them not to go through the same energy-intensive, carbon-intensive uses of energy that we ourselves have gone through.

And so, the work that we do together in climate change, the work that we do together in the UN framework convention on climate change must include, as the United States has insisted, China and India. It is a position that I know you share.

Now, we are cooperating in other important ways, too. And here I want to mention one very special way. I had a chance to talk to Winston and to the Prime Minister about the very good work that you are doing on the front lines of freedom in Afghanistan.

And so, let me just close with a few words about that, because we all know that once in a while you need a little help. We all needed help at times in our history to throw off tyranny, to throw off fear. And the Afghan people now need that help. This is a terribly poor country. It's a country, really, with not much going for it in terms of resources. But it's a country that's got spirited people, people who, after 30 years of war and difficulty, are still determined to build a better future.

And, therefore, to have the people of New Zealand completely devoted to that cause through a fine provincial reconstruction team that is operating in Bamian Province is just another sound -- is more sound evidence of how well we work together when we defend at freedom's frontiers.

The First Lady was recently with the Kiwi provincial reconstruction team in Bamian, and she came back filled with praise for what you're doing there. And it is extraordinary, what you are doing there. It has been a model of success. It is one of those models that we are actually trying to extend with best practices, so that others can see it.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, New Zealand and the United States are cooperating on all of the challenges and more. And in the years ahead, I am confident that our partnership is going to grow stronger and broader. Indeed, as an academic, I am personally pleased that this year we are -- as Winston has said, we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-New Zealand Fulbright Commission.

The number of faculty student exchanges that our countries enjoy are multiplying and expanded dramatically in recent years. It has never been higher than it is now, but as we go to the roots, back at the time of the establishment of that commission, we know that it came along at a time when Fulbrights undoubtedly were taken by people whose generations really built the foundation for U.S.-New Zealand friendship. It means we have to keep expanding those people-to-people ties, so that successful generations can feel the same kinship.

So, whether it is your support for regional and international security, trade, or the environment, whether it is the chance to show off a little bit of the talent of New Zealand through the wonderful choir that just performed for us, or, as I said, for New Zealand's dress makers to show off their talent, or for your wonderful traditions of your indigenous people to show their talents, this is a great place. It is demonstrating that it is a place that believes in tolerance, it's a place that believes in human dignity and human rights. It is demonstrating that it's a nation that, while small in size, is great in vision and even bigger in spirit.

It is a place where peace and democratic values are flourishing. And it is a place that hasn't been content to just have peace and democratic values for itself, but is insistent that those values should be for all human beings, and that New Zealand, like the United States, will not rest until peace, prosperity, and democracy are common across our humanity. Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

2008/T21-12

Secretary's Remarks: Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Smith at Mercedes College

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:47:36 EDT

Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Smith at Mercedes College

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Perth, Australia
July 24, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much. And first of all, thank you very much for this great Mercedes College welcome. It makes -- it reminds me of being at St. Mary’s Academy, which is where I went to school, in Denver, Colorado. And it really -- it’s so warmly welcomed. And my good friend, your Foreign Minister, Steve Smith -- we were talking when we first met. He came to see me and the first time that we met in Washington, D.C., and he said, “When you come to Australia, you have to come to Perth.” And of course, I said, “Okay, I’d love to do that.” And here I am. So he did that very well.

And he told me also that he wanted to come here, that his lovely daughter -- where’s Maddie? Is she around? So I think Maddie also has had something to do with getting me here. (Laughter.) So it’s a pleasure to be with you.

Well, I was trying to think what I might say to you about my life and how I’ve gotten to where I am. And I thought I would start by saying that to get where I am, I never intended to be where I am, and that’s maybe the most important lesson, because I started out life in Birmingham, Alabama. As a kid, my mom was a schoolteacher. My dad was a high school guidance counselor and a Presbyterian Minister. And from the time that I was about three-and-a-half years old, I was going to be a great concert musician. Because my mother was a pianist, my grandmother was a musician, and my great-grandmother was a musician. And I studied piano and I studied very, very hard, and went off to college to be a music major, studied for a couple of years. And at the end of my sophomore year I had a very, very difficult revelation, which was that I was pretty good, but I wasn’t great. And I was going to end up playing in a piano bar someplace, but I was not going to end up playing Carnegie Hall like I’d planned to do.

And so I went back and I started to look for a major, and luckily for me, I wandered into a course in international politics taught by a man named Joseph Korbel. And Joseph Korbel was the father of my predecessor, Madeleine Albright, who was the first woman Secretary of State of the United States. So it was a sort of interesting connection.

But that just says one thing to me, because many of you are going to be getting ready to go off to college. I’ve met a couple of – the Head Girl and Deputy Head Girl, and we talked about what you might do. And I’d only have one suggestion, which is when you go to college, don’t try to determine what job you’re going to have when you get out. Try to determine what your passion is. Try to figure out what it is you really love to do. And college is great, because you’re going to go and you’ll take courses in the whole range of human knowledge. And it may be that what you’ll end up doing has nothing to do with what you would have expected to do. It may even be something that you don’t even understand very well until you’ve taken a few courses in it. But finding your passion is the most important thing that you can do in the next few years ahead of you.

Now by finding your passion, I mean finding something that makes you want to get up and go and do that everyday. And my passion turned out to be the study of the Soviet Union. Not because I had a drop of Russian blood, I can assure you that – (laughter) – but because I was just interested in it.

And so my second message to you would be that when you find your passion, don’t worry if it’s something that seems a little odd that you’re interested in that, because there is no reason that a black woman from Birmingham, Alabama should have been interested in the Soviet Union. I just was interested in the Soviet Union. Don’t let anybody define for you what you should be interested in. Your horizons should be limitless at this point. You have to find that special combination of what you’re good at doing and what you love to do. And when you find that combination of what you’re good at doing and what you love to do, life is going to work out.

I’m not a great believer in five-year plans. I’m a great believer in finding what you love to do and doing it well. And life does have a way of working out. So when you go off to school, explore, have an opportunity to look at everything that’s before you, and then you may be surprised; something may choose you rather than the other way around.

So that would be my message to these wonderful young women. You’ve got a great future ahead of you, and I know you’re having and have had a great experience here. I can see the care and, indeed, the love, in the faces of your principal and your teachers and those who are guiding you. And so you’re very, very lucky to be in a place where education and faith and reason are all together. You’ve got a great life ahead of you. Just don’t let anybody put limits on it because you’re a woman or because you are from some particular ethnic group or because you’re Aboriginal or whatever you are. What you want to be and who you’re going to be is really up to you.

MS. BARBER: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you, Madame Secretary. While we have you as a captive audience, would you mind if we had a few questions?

SECRETARY RICE: I’d be delighted.

MS. BARBER: And Minister Smith, you’re not off the hook either. We’ll be asking you a few too.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: I don’t think anyone’s asking me any questions. (Laughter.)

MS. BARBER: Adeal, would you like to lead off with a few questions?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what do you actually do day-to-day as Secretary of State?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, the Secretary of State, like your Foreign Minister, is the chief diplomat for the United States of America. So I represent the United States in all matters of foreign affairs.

On any given day, I will start my day at 4:30 in the morning so that I can exercise. You have to be sure you find time to exercise and take care of yourself. And then I get into the office at about 6:30 or so, and I read the morning newspapers to see what’s happened overnight. Some people come in and they brief me about what’s going on in the world.

And my day is a combination of having meetings and discussions within the United States Government about what U.S. policy is going to be, so perhaps I’ll meet with the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Treasury, with whom I spend a lot of time, or the United States Trade Representative, and there will be a question: Well, what should be the agenda when you meet with the Foreign Minister of Australia? And so we’ll have a discussion.

The rest of my time is spent meeting foreign leaders when they come to the United States. And just, for instance, on Monday when I get back, the Prime Minister of Pakistan is coming and I’ll meet with him. The next day, the Defense Minister of Israel is coming. And then the next day, the negotiators for Israel and Palestinian -- the Palestinian Authority are coming so I can help them try to find a way toward Palestinian-Israeli peace, and the establishment of a two-state solution.

Now, that’s about, I would say, 50 percent of my time. I spend about 50 percent of my time in some other country, Australia or Germany or Latin America. So those are the kinds of things I do. (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: Marisa?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what is the main challenge you have faced as a woman in your work as a U.S. Secretary of State?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, at this stage in life, I don’t think that I face particular challenges because I’m a woman. I think at a certain point -- and you will get to that point – I’m Secretary of State and that’s what matters. And the challenges that I face are because I’m Secretary of State.

And I try very hard to give other people the benefit of the doubt, right? Now, I’m black and I’m female. And I’ve been black and female all my life. (Laughter.) So when I walk into a room, I try not to think, wow, is that person looking at me strangely because I’m black and female? Or is it because I’m black? Or is it because I’m female? I think, maybe they’re looking at me strangely because, I don’t know, maybe my hair is a little bit askew, or something like that. So I think the first thing is, try not to think too much about whether the challenges are coming at you because of gender or race. They may be coming at you simply because it’s a particular challenge. You may have a difficult interaction with somebody just because you have a difficult interaction.

Now, it’s absolutely true that there are still prejudices against minorities and prejudices against women. And it’s most often that people will underestimate your capabilities because you are a female or you are a minority. And the best way to deal with that is, just don’t let them underestimate you. Be prepared, be tough, be prepared to take on whatever questions come at you. And you’ll find that sooner or later, it won’t matter that much.

MS. BARBER: Thank you. (Applause.) Melissa, I think you have a question for Minister Smith, actually, so --

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, good.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Here’s trouble.

MS. BARBER: Yeah.

SECRETARY RICE: All right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Mr. Smith, what is different for you now as far as the Foreign Minister, compared to your role in The Opposition?

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Well, when I was in Opposition, I had a bit of opportunity to be Maddie’s dad, and now I have not much. (Laughter.)

There are three, sort of, parts of my life now. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member for Perth, and then what you do, you know, in your family. So I’m here in three capacities: Minister for Foreign Affairs, Local Member, and Maddie’s dad, which is what most of the girls describe me as. (Laughter.)

But Madame Secretary and I were discussing this in the car on the way here, is that because of the offices that we occupy -- not because of us as individuals, but because of the offices we occupy, our lives are not our own. There is so much that we have to do to discharge obligations in the name of our nation. And so when I go overseas, 95 percent of what I do overseas is already determined: programs determined, meetings determined, you’re representing your nation and discharging it. So sometimes I say to friends and colleagues I live in a parallel universe, because you’re so focused and guided by the obligations to your nation and the obligations of the day.

It’s also -- and this is one of the joys of the job. I mean, I have this adage now of work hard, try and do good deeds, but also have fun. But one of the necessities of the job is its unrelenting nature. There is always something that you have to do; always some decision that you have to make. And so at 10 o’clock at night, if you’re overseas, your staff and your ambassador or high commission will say, Minister, there’s nothing more that you need to do, there’s no more decisions you need to make. And then at 6 o’clock in the morning or at 11 o’clock at night, someone will knock on your door and say, Minister, there actually is a decision that you need to make.

So there is an unrelenting aspect to it. That’s part of the joy of the job, because you’re always trying to make good decisions on behalf of your nation. But your life, in that sense, is not your own, not as it used to be before that obligation was given to me. But it’s terrific fun. You’re away from home a lot, so that has its – you know, it brings its own, sort of, difficulties. But you only do these jobs for a limited period. The Secretary of State has a maximum of eight years, effectively two four-year terms. And we’ve seen now the expiration of the second term of the current United States Administration.

In Australia, you don’t know whether the job will last for a day, a year, or a decade, which is one of the reasons I say to myself, while I’m doing the job, work hard, do good deeds, have fun. (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: Now, Madame Secretary, you realize that you are in a majority female audience here, so this next question is really important. Patrice?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when do you get to go shopping? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I love to shop. And I come by it honestly, because when I was five or six years old, some of the first things I can remember doing with my mother -- my father, as I said, was a minister, so he would go to the church on Saturday to work on his sermon, and my mother and I would head for the stores. And I loved to shop.

Now I don’t have as much time. As a matter of fact, I have almost no time to shop. And sometimes people will -- my friends will shop for me. They’ll say, oh, I saw this great dress, and I think you should get it. So I have a lot of -- kind of a network of people out there who shop for me. (Laughter.) But I’m looking forward to getting back to shopping, you know. There’s a shopping mall about five minutes from my house at Stanford, and it’s kind of unfortunate, because if there’s a shopping mall that close to your house, it’s too easy to get to it.

So I don’t have nearly as much time. But it’s a great pastime, shopping. I love it. Even if I don’t buy anything, I love to just go in the stores and look.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: Charlotte, would you like to come forward and ask your question?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what do you like to do when you go on vacation?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I like to go on vacation and be very active. I’ve never been somebody who can sort of sit on the beach and do nothing. I get bored really quickly. So when I used to have time to vacation -- now I don’t have much time to vacation -- but I would take one week and go to tennis camp, and practice my tennis game really hard, and then one week to go to chamber music camp, where I would play with a string quartet. And we would meet and we’d play music eight, nine hours a day and then go to concerts in the evening. And that’s what I really love doing.

And I still try to play the piano a couple of times a week, and I still play with a chamber music group about once a month. So when I go back and have a chance to be on vacation, that’s what I’ll do. I’ll probably go to -- and the United States has a lot of great chamber music camps in different parts of the country, usually in really beautiful, mountainous areas. I love the mountains. I’m more of a mountain person than a water person. So if I can get to the mountains and play Brahms, that’s probably my favorite vacation. (Applause.)

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: I know Charlotte. And Charlotte’s been on a holiday with us. Charlotte’s definitely a water person. (Laughter.)

MS. BARBER: Nikki, you have another question for Minister Smith, I think.

QUESTION: Mr. Smith, what is your most memorable achievement so far as Foreign Minister?

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Well, it’s hard to judge. One of the -- I never expected to become Foreign Minister. I thought I was going to be Minister for Education, so I had all these things worked out in my mind as how to make improvements in education. And in fact, the first conversation that the Secretary and I had when I first became Foreign Minister -- we spoke as much about the power of education as we did about foreign policy.

And I might just quickly digress. If you’ve ever asked me the question, why did I want to bring the Secretary of State here to Mercedes, it was to reinforce two things: the power of education and the power of equality. And if you had the chance for education and you live in a society where people treat everyone as equals, anything is possible for you individually. And the Secretary -- 25 years ago, 30 years ago, no one could have possibly envisaged in the United States that it’s been nearly 12 years since we last saw a white male Secretary of State, so that just shows you what -- how you can transform societies with the power of education and the power of equality.

One of the things that I have not so much struggled with, had difficulty with -- one of the things that is difficult in foreign policy is that it’s like moving incremental plates. You know, the relations between nations, like the relations between people, just instead of dealing with one person, you’re dealing with millions. And so the actual achievements, you get incrementally. And they’re difficult to see. Occasionally, you have the chance to do something which, if you weren’t there, wouldn’t have occurred. And in one of my predecessor’s case, Gareth Evans, for example, it’s generally acknowledged that without Gareth Evans, there would not have been a peace process and a peace settlement in Cambodia. And so that’s regarded as an achievement by him.

I’ve been here six months, so I can’t describe something of that nature. I think until today, the best thing I’ve done in terms of a good thing to do for Australia’s foreign policy approach and our relations with other neighbors was to bring the Indonesian Foreign Secretary, the Indonesian Foreign Minister to the modern day successor of my own school, take him into a class of Year 10 boys and girls, and they spent half an hour speaking Indonesian to him, because it was an Indonesian language class. And there was an Indonesian TV camera in the room, and beamed that back to Indonesian TV. That’s the best publicity Australia has had in terms of its relationship with Indonesia for a considerable period of time.

And the reason I did that is because when I was Indonesia, I discovered that Australia was building or repairing 2,000 Indonesian high schools as part of our development assistance. And you can have good relations between ministers, good relations between governments, good relations between nations; but the thing that really, in the end, brings a firm partnership and friendship between nations is what we call the people-to-people exchanges. And in people-to-people exchanges, there’s nothing, in my view, and I’m sure the Secretary shares it -- there’s nothing more powerful to build people-to-people exchanges than education.

So young -- historically, one of the best things Australia did was what we used to call the Colombo Plan, where we got young students from Southeast Asia coming to Australia to study in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ’70s. Now we do that through scholarships and through encouraging young students from other nations to come to Australia. When they go back to their own countries, they’re ambassadors for Australia for life. What we’re now trying to do is to encourage young students to go to countries in our region and study, to learn their languages, to appreciate their culture more, so that they can become ambassadors for us in those countries, but also become ambassadors for those countries when they come back to Australia.

So it’s a very small thing, but it just, to me, crystallized and underlined how our relationship with Indonesia, which from times has been problematic, really now has become a first-class relationship. And the relationship I have with Foreign Minister Wirajuda is personally very strong. And what is often a difficult relationship just because you're neighbors is now probably in the best state that we’ve seen it historically. And that’s very important for Australia. So it’s a small thing, but to me it was quite memorable. And it was widely appreciated in Indonesia, because they said to themselves, well, here we have young Australians actually wanting to understand our language, understand our culture, and genuinely take an interest in it.

SECRETARY RICE: Can I just add on exactly that point? Because one thing that I would encourage you all to do is study a foreign language and go to another country. And you never know what -- you know, for me, it was Russian. My mother tried desperately -- I had nine years of French. I was dragged off to French lessons when I was nine years old, and it never really stuck. I can understand French, I can read French, but I could never speak it.

The first time I heard the Russian language, it was like falling in love. And Russian has always been, for me, a language that just resonates with me. And so learning another language and knowing other cultures is really important. And Australia, like the United States, is continental size. And so you can go a long time and never really learn anybody else’s language. But it’s important to do that. And I hope when you go off to college -- I know you’re studying languages here. I think French, Italian perhaps?

MS. BARBER: Yes.

SECRETARY RICE: But when you go off to college, I really hope you do that.

And I wanted to just comment on something else that Stephen said in response to the question. You know, really, it takes a long time for change to come in the international system. And it is happening imperceptibly for a long time, and then all of it seems to come together. And the last time I was in government, I was the White House Soviet Specialist at the end of the Cold War. And it really doesn’t get much better than that. I got to be a part of the liberation of Eastern Europe and the unification of Germany and the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union. But in fact, those were policies that the United States had been undertaking for more than 40 years that finally came to fruition.

So sometimes in jobs like Stephen and I have, really, what you’re doing is you’re laying groundwork and foundations and building relationships and working on relationships that may not come to fruition and may not really blossom and prosper for many, many years to come. But if I can be very pleased about one thing, it’s that I think that both Australia and the United States have always stood for one important principle, and that is that we’re very lucky to be free people. We’re lucky to live in democracies.

And we don’t really believe that anybody should have to live in tyranny. And so when I look at people around the world who no longer live in tyranny, whether it’s in struggling places like Afghanistan or Iraq, or in Eastern Europe, where they finally are liberated from communism, it’s heartening to know that countries like Australia and the United States have stood with people like that so that they no longer have to live in tyranny. Nobody should have to live in a dictatorship, nobody.

MS. BARBER: Thank you. (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: Jordana, I believe you have another really important question for Dr. Rice.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what is George Bush like as a boss? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Well, he’s a great boss, because he’s got a great sense of humor. He’s really -- we have the same sense of humor. It’s really important to be able to laugh with somebody, you know. If you -- probably among you, you have friends and you think one of the things that keeps you going is that you can laugh at yourself and you can laugh at absurd situations. And the President has a very good sense of humor. And we’ve known each other a long time. I started working with him at the end of 1998 when he decided he was going to run for President. And he was finally elected in 2000, and I’ve now been with him for all that time.

The other thing is that I think he believes very strongly in certain principles, and that’s important. You know, power is -- can be corrupting if you don’t have a firm foundation of what you’re trying to do and believe in who you are. And if you’re President of the United States, you have to want America to stand for something. And the President does.

The other thing is I have a great relationship with his family. The President has two terrific daughters, of whom he’s enormously proud. Jenna just got married. Maybe some of you saw that. And Barbara lives in New York. But one thing that I love about the President and the First Lady is that when you go to some social event with them, they have friends from the time that they were in grade school, people who went to middle school with them, or people that they knew in college.

And as you get older in life, you realize that if you have no friends from other times in your life, something’s wrong. People who have friends for a long, long time, people who have friends who have known them when they weren’t famous, those are people who are firmly grounded and who have a good set of core values. And so one lesson that I’ve taken from the President and the First Lady is to make sure that I nurture my friendships from a long, long time ago. (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: Now you would probably expect the next question to be asked of you, but in actual effect, we’re going to ask a male perspective on this one. So Hannah, would you like to come forward and ask your question.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: I was supposed to be sitting it out, right? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And Mr. Smith, what advice do you have for young women considering a career in politics?

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Well, I’d listen to the advice that the Secretary of State gave, which is, one, it has to be your passion. The great joy of my life is that I’m doing the only thing I ever wanted to do. For as long as I can remember, all I wanted to be was a Member of Parliament. I was only interested in current affairs, in politics, in history, and because I grew up in Western Australia in, sort of, the ‘60s and ‘70s, the focus was almost exclusively on state matters, on what was happening in WA. So it took me a while to work out what I call the jurisdictional choices.

But the great joy of my life is that I’m doing the only thing I ever really wanted to do. And – but what I did first was to make sure that I had a good grounding in that. So I finished school and went to UWA, went to the University of Western Australia, and I studied law, not because I was – ever wanted to be a lawyer for a long period of time, but I thought it was a good discipline, a good grounding, and a thing that could give you a good basis for analysis and doing what I ultimately wanted to do. And there’s no doubt that in my own case, that’s been a considerable, considerable advantage.

If you’re a young woman who is interested in politics, you should do what any young woman in Australian society should do. The first thing you have to do is finish Year 12. There’s a killer statistic in Australian education. If you finish Year 12, then you double your chance of going on for a further qualification of any description, type, university, whatever it is. And secondly, you double your chances of being in gainful employment for the rest of your adult working life.

So if you’re interested in politics, I’d do a couple of things. One, I’d finish Year 12. Two, I’d get a bit of life experience before I plunged in. I’ve always thought that the best time to go into a parliament is sometime between 35 and 40. Why is that? At 35 to 40, you’ve had a bit of life experience. Generally, you’ve had a couple of jobs. Generally, you’ve got family and community attachments. And if it works out, then you can do it, you know, for a decade or a decade and a half, and at sort of, you know, 55, 60, you can think about finishing up and then still having time for another career, another role. And if it doesn’t work out at 35 to 40, well, then these things happen and you move on and do other things.

So if I was interested in that, I’d, one, finish Year 12, two, I’d do something else just to give myself a bit of life experience, but three, I’d also always have this in mind: Public life, politics, whether it’s Australia, the United States, the only certain thing about our noble profession -- and I’m old fashioned, it is a noble profession – trying to do public good – do good deeds in the public interest – the only certain thing about our noble profession is its uncertainty. You never quite know when events might change.

And there are events over which you often don’t have any control; you lose your seat because your party loses an election, and you never get the chance. So one of the things that I’ve always found very important is, you’ve got to be firmly grounded, you know, in your own community. You’ve got to – I think the people who are best at public life are the people who, if they stop doing it tomorrow, life would just go on. Sure, there would be disappointment in not continuing to do it, but I think the most important attribute for doing well in public life is having reference point, having axes that revolve around your own community.

And in my case, that’s always been turning up on a Saturday or Sunday morning, watching kids sport, having my ear bashed by the parents who say you’ve done this wrong, you’ve done that wrong, et cetera. It keeps you genuinely in touch, but it also keeps you real, so that if for some reason, it finishes tomorrow, there’s still a life that goes on. (Applause.)

SECRETARY RICE: Stephen, you do realize that if you’re sitting out there, 35 or 40 seems like many, many, many years from now. (Laughter.) Yeah?

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: I know.

SECRETARY RICE: Trust me, it’s not. (Laughter.) Comes faster than you think.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: But it – the thing that – I go to a lot of high school graduations, so I see the – you know, the young men, the young women in year 12 now, so they’re 16, 17. They’re like me and my mates were when we were at 26, 27. So there’s modern communications; the modern world has accelerated the aging process. But I still think that if you want to go into politics, do something else first just to give you a few reference points.

MS. BARBER: And we have to remember 50 is the new 40, so we’re doing pretty well.

SECRETARY RICE: Absolutely, I’m there. (Laughter.)

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Well, the other great change in Australian post-World War II society is that we’ve extended life expectancy to 80 for men and 82 for women. So there is – girls, there is plenty of time left. (Laughter.)

MS. BARBER: Chantel, would you like to come forward and ask a question?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, where is home for you and how often do you get to go there?

SECRETARY RICE: Where is – I’m sorry?

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Home, home.

QUESTION: Where is home?

SECRETARY RICE: Home for me, well, it’s a – kind of a complicated question. I was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and a lot of my family is still in the South. My parents and I were transports to Denver, Colorado when I was 12 years old. But I moved to Northern California, to Stanford University, where really, I now consider home, in 1981, which I now realize is well before any of you were born, but that’s all right. It’s – (Laughter.) So I’ve lived in Stanford – at Stanford and it’s Northern California – it’s right near San Francisco – for a lot of years. I really consider it home. I don’t get back very often, because it’s a long way from Washington to California. It’s been about once a year since I’ve been in Washington.

But the President of the United States – a new President of the United States will be inaugurated at noon on January the 20^th, and shortly thereafter, I’ll go back to California, because I love the Western United States and I really consider it home now. (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: And we probably only have time for one more question, but I know Danielle was really keen to ask this one, so I’m glad we’ve had time for it.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, would you ever consider running for president? And what would you see as the major hurdles to overcome if you were to run?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the major hurdle to overcome is I’ve never run for anything. I didn’t actually – I was just asking Lucy how one becomes head girl and I understand you run for it. I never ran for head girl, Lucy, so – no, I’m really not somebody who is likely to be in political life as an elected official.

I admire colleagues and friends who do want to run for office. In fact, democracy depends on having good and honorable and decent people who are willing and able to submit themselves to the test of electoral politics, and then, having gotten the mandate of the people, go on to remember where that mandate comes from. Because I think one of the dangers sometimes of being in politics is that you can lose sight of the fact that it’s quite a temporary mandate, you know? It’s only something that’s there by the will of the people as long as the people will it.

So I think it’s a terrific system. There’s certainly nothing better. But it’s not quite for me. I’ve been very lucky. And in the United States, we have a system that’s quite different than your system in Australia, which is that our ministers, our secretaries, tend – do not come from elected office. Most often, they – my – I come out of academia. My colleague, the Secretary of Treasury, came – was a Wall Street – chairman of Goldman Sachs in Wall Street. The Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, was a longtime civil servant who then left and became a university president and came back.

So we come from different backgrounds rather than coming through the parliamentary system and being a part of the party apparatus. So we have a very – it’s fortunate that you can go in and do your public service and then return to whatever you came from. And deep in my soul, deep in my being, I’m an academic. I love the world of ideas. I love writing. I love teaching, especially. I miss teaching. I care deeply about education because – and Stephen and I – as he said, we connected on this point.

I think education is important for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, because in a democratic society, particularly one that is multiethnic, and like our societies are, people really have to believe, and it has to be true, that it doesn’t matter where you came from; it matters where you’re going. It really has to be true that the circumstances of your birth are not determinative in how you’re going to end up. And the only way to equalize different circumstances of birth is through education. And so it’s critical to the proper functioning of multiethnic democracies that people be educated.

Secondly, if you don’t have an educated population, the society just stagnates. One issue that I’ve been very interested in since I’ve been Secretary of State is women’s empowerment around the world. You know, before Afghanistan – the Taliban was thrown out of power in Afghanistan, they would not allow women to be taught how to read. They wouldn’t let women go to school. And the reason was very obvious. This was because it kept them in their place. If you don’t know how to read, if you’re not educated, then you’re not going to aspire to very much. And you can be controlled and you can be – no, you can’t challenge anything. And so women were not allowed to read and be educated.

So one of the things that we’ve worked very hard on is girls’ education around the world and women’s education around the world, because as much as I believe that women’s empowerment is about running for political office and all of those things, women’s empowerment first begins with educating women. So I’m a big believer in the power of education, and when I leave, I’ll go back. The United States has a lot of problems in our own educational system, a lot of problems in our public schools, and those are some of the issues that I really want to work on. And I’ll leave elected politics to my friends like Stephen. (Laughter.) (Applause.)

MS. BARBER: Thank you both. As you would have already heard, Dr. Rice is an accomplished pianist and, as often happens, though, plans do change and our lives often take very different directions. But when thinking of what gifts to give you, Madame Secretary, the obvious choice was the gift of a song. So I would like to present to you, on behalf of the whole college community, 12 of our very talented young women, and their conductor, Mrs. Claire Gamlin.

(Song was performed.) (Applause.)

SECRETARY RICE: That was beautiful. That’s my – one of my favorite songs, so thank you.

MS. BARBER: I would now like to call forward our Head Girl, Lucy Fitzsummons, to present you with a copy of a book, Madame Secretary. The book is actually the story of Mercedes College. It’s called Out Of These Stones. And of course, our history dates from 1846 through to – the book covers the period, 1846 to 1996. But as you’d be aware, we are very proud of our heritage and the future that we are all creating as we walk in the footsteps of the Sisters of Mercy. And we’re very fortunate also that while many of our sisters have moved into other ministries, there are many of them here this morning to join us, so it’s wonderful to have them with us too. So Mercedes is the oldest existing secondary school in Western Australia, and we certainly hope you enjoy reading our history. (Applause.)

So on behalf of the students and the staff at Mercedes College, I would like to thank you sincerely for taking time out from your busy schedule to visit with us. We’ve been truly blessed. And we thank you too, Minister Smith, for including us in Dr. Rice’s itinerary. We just wish we would have had more time, and I don’t think there would be any person in this room who wouldn’t wish that they were sitting opposite you in a comfortable chair with a cup of coffee having a chat. And just the little time that we’ve had to spend with you this morning, I get the feeling that you’d like nothing better than that too. So thank you.

Staff and students, would you please stand as our guests leave and please show your appreciation to Dr. Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, and of course, Minister Smith. (Applause.)

2008/T21-8

Released on July 25, 2008

Secretary's Remarks: Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:27:09 EDT

Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Kings Park
Perth, Australia
July 25, 2008

Video Excerpt

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: All right. Well, thanks. Everyone all right? Okay. Well, thanks very much, ladies and gentlemen. I’d just like to make some opening remarks and introduce the Secretary of State. I understand the ground rules are three per side, so I’ll do my best to emcee.

Firstly, can I again, Madame Secretary, officially welcome you to Australia, to Perth, and in the course of our day, to my electorate. This is, in my view, a very significant visit. It reflects the warmth and the enduring nature of the Australia-U.S. alliance. And it’s an alliance which has served us well for over 60 years. And the alliance is enduring. Governments in Australia come and go, administrations in the United States come and go; the alliance continues to be part of the indispensable strategic security and defense arrangements between our two nations.

Of course, in addition to that, and the very many number of important regional and international issues that the Secretary and I have discussed, both in our time coming down from Singapore and the course of the day, I’ve endeavored to show the Secretary some of the attractions of Perth. Last night at the University of Western Australia, the Secretary was able to meet a range of Perth attributes -- academic, intellectual, research, religious, sporting and commercial -- in particular, our minerals and petroleum resources industry.

This morning, we started off with coffee in Mount Lawley, at the suburb that my family have lived in since 1967, and I was pleased to be able to introduce my mum and dad and my son and, subsequently, my daughter, to the Secretary. We then went to Mercedes College in Perth, and I think there it’s true to say that the power of education and the power of equality can open up anything for any young woman or, indeed, for any young man, Australian, American, of whatever nationality. And I think, Secretary, at Mercedes, people were very much impressed by your commitment to education, what education can do in terms of opportunity, but also your commitment to treating people equally, irrespective of race, color, religion.

We’ve just come from Swanbourne Barracks with the SAS, where we paid our respects to the contribution that the SAS and Australian Defence and combat services generally make. We also met families from servicemen who have died in Afghanistan or in the Middle East in the course of the service for their country. And I was very pleased that the Secretary was able to speak to the families and pay her respects and regards to them. As you’ve seen, we’ve just laid a wreath at the State War Memorial, again, to recognize the enduring nature of the relationship, and also the joint contribution and sacrifice that Australian servicemen and women have made over a very long period of time.

So Madame Secretary, I’m very pleased to have been able to both invite and welcome you to Western Australia. Our bilateral conversations in Perth and en route from Singapore have, again, been very productive, just as our earlier ones in Washington and Kyoto and Paris have been. So we’re very pleased to see you. I’ve certainly enjoyed the night and the day, so I hope you have. And I’d like very much to you – very much for you to make some opening remarks to the Australian and United States media, and then we’ll take their questions.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you very much, Stephen. This has been a wonderful trip. You said when we first met that I had to come to Western Australia to really see a part of Australia that was very special, and you couldn’t have been more right. And Perth is a beautiful city. I’ve loved the opportunity to be at the University of Western Australia, a place that has a lot of links to California. I’m told that there are only -- that Herbert Hoover was here; of course, he’s a Stanford alum, George Schultz, my good friend, the only other Secretary of State, also a Californian, and now, to be here.

And it was great to be with the folks there last night in the broad community from Perth. It was really wonderful to see your parents and your son and to be with Jane as well. Your parents are so proud of you and, well, they should be. But it’s always great to be with people and their families, because you get a little glimpse of who they are. And I loved being there. I also loved the flat white that I enjoyed, and now I know something else that I can order and order with a kind of aplomb that says I know Australia.

I appreciated very much the opportunity to be at Mercedes College with the fine young women there, including your daughter, and of course, to pay respects to the families of the fallen and to talk with the wonderful SAS soldiers. I said there, and I truly do believe, that the United States and Australia share a wonderful and productive and effective alliance. We clearly have, in many, many engagements, many wars, as we’ve just seen, we’ve defended freedom together. But the reason that we’ve defended freedom together is we share much more. We share values and we share a fierce determination to defend our way of life and to defend our freedom. And there is no better friend for the United States than Australia.

We -- of course, in speaking to the families, I want to note to the people of Australia that the sacrifice that they’ve endured, of course, can never fully be repaid. There are fathers and husbands and sons who will never come back, and nothing that I can say will change that. But I hope that it is well understood that the sacrifice is appreciated, because nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And that is the message that I wanted to give to the families and that I give to the Australian people.

I’ve also appreciated the opportunity we’ve had to go through the complete bilateral and global agenda, both in our conversations with our colleagues at the Asian Regional Forum, but also in our bilateral discussions here. And we’ve covered the full range of issues in our more than two- and-a-half-hour bilateral on the plane. But I do have to reveal a little secret. We did spend a little bit of the time with Stephen trying to explain cricket to me, and I trying to explain American football to him. As long as there are no tests, I think that sooner or later, I’d like to try out my knowledge, and I hope he’ll have a chance to try out his knowledge.

In short, Stephen, thank you for the invitation to this really beautiful place, this very special part of Australia. It reminds me of the Western United States, the kind of openness and optimism that is here. Being here on the grounds of this wonderful park, having visited the wonderful memorial, it’s a great opportunity to celebrate what is an extraordinary relationship between the United States and Australia, and our friendship as well.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Well, thanks very much, Madame Secretary. For the record, I should say that the bilateral lasted for three hours; one hour on regional and international matters, and hour and a quarter on cricket, and three quarters of an hour on American football.

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.)

Now, in accordance with the usual customs, the first question to the United States media.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’m Matt Lee from AP.

SECRETARY RICE: Right.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the issue of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been some – has been a source of worldwide anger and frustration. You may have noticed here there were some small protests and at your next stop, in Auckland, there’s a group of students who have offered a $5,000 reward for anyone who can successfully perform a citizen’s arrest on you for violations of the Geneva Convention.

I’m wondering (a), if you’re aware of this and what you make of it; and, more importantly (b), how are the plans going to close down Guantanamo? Can you commit, can the Administration commit to closing it down by the time President Bush leaves office?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, protest is a part of democratic society, and student protests are particularly a long-honored tradition in democratic society. And I can only say that the United States has done everything that it can to end this war on terror, to live up to our international and our national laws and obligations.

Guantanamo is a detention center that, as the President has said, we would very much like to close. The problem, of course, is that there are dangerous people there who cannot be returned and put among innocent populations. We are hopeful that there will be the beginnings of the bringing to justice, the military tribunals for those people who are there. But let’s not forget that a lot of innocent people have died at the hands of terrorists. And we must do everything that we can within our obligations legally and in terms of our treaty obligations to prevent that from ever happening again. And the President is dedicated to that.

We have tried to return people from Guantanamo to their home states if at all possible, but there are some people that we’ve not be able to do that with. And the one thing that we cannot do is to release people into a population that is innocent and would be unable to defend itself.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Okay. First question from the Australian side.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, this morning a student asked you if you were keen on becoming President. Have you ruled it out completely?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. (Laughter.) Look, it’s – I’m sure it’s a great job, President. But I really -- I know what I want to do with my life. And I know the great honor that I’ve had of serving the United States as its chief diplomat. Look, the United States is an extraordinary country. It’s a country that I love very, very deeply. It’s a country that I’ve been proud to represent. It’s a country that sometimes has to take difficult decisions, and we’re not always popular in taking those decisions. But I hope that people know that we’ve always taken them in hopes of defending freedom, defending values, and making the world a better place.

And in representing my country, I’ve been proud to be able to say that our country’s come an awfully long way. You know, I was born into segregated Birmingham, Alabama. There was actually no guarantee that my father could vote when I was born in 1954 in Alabama. And that I stand here as Secretary of State, and as I said to Stephen, in 12 years, we will not have had a white male Secretary of State. It says something very special about the United States.

And so it’s a great country to represent abroad. And when I’ve done that – and I’ve got a sprint ahead of me still until I’m done, but when I am, I look forward to returning to my home. I look forward to returning to working on the many issues that concern me, but especially -- one of the reasons Stephen and I have become, I think, good friends is he has a great and abiding interest in education, as do I. And since I believe very strongly that great multiethnic societies like the United States or Australia, great multiethnic democracies, have to be certain to provide educational opportunities for their people, have to be certain that it is true that it doesn’t matter where you came from; it matters where you’re going, that circumstances of birth are not, in fact, a hindrance to who you will be. That’s what I’d like to do, is to go back and make sure that I do my part to secure that again for America.

And so I have enormous admiration for people who do run for office, like my friend here, and we certainly put them through their paces, as an electorate should. But I know where I’m going and who I am on that score.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Second question from the United States media.

QUESTION: Sue Pleming from Reuters. Australia has pulled its combat forces out of Iraq. Secretary Rice, would you like to see more of those forces move to Afghanistan, where there’s a great need for more forces? And for both of you, do you think that Pakistan is doing a good enough job in the border areas?

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, let me just say how much we appreciate the contribution of Australia’s forces. And we were able, because of Australia’s openness and cooperation, I think, to achieve the withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq that had been a part of the promise of the incoming Australian Government. And we were able to do it in a way that provided safety and consistency for the forces remaining on the ground.

And now in Afghanistan, we’re fighting together in some difficult places, like Uruzgan Province, where many of the Australian forces are. And the contribution is tremendously appreciated. Look, we all have to look at what we can do. And I know that on the reconstruction and civil side, which is, after all, a part of the counterterrorism, counterinsurgency struggle as well, Australia is doing even more.

But what we need to do – it relates, Sue, to the second part of your question – is to look hard at how the Taliban is regrouping, why the Taliban is fighting in the way that they are now. They generally are taken on and defeated pretty handily when they come in actual military formations. But they certainly are – there’s an uptick in the terrorism, not just against forces, but against the Afghan people. And in that regard, everybody needs to do more, but Pakistan does need to do more. That border, we understand that it’s difficult, we understand that the Northwest Frontier area is difficult. But militants cannot be allowed to organize there and to plan there and to engage across the border. And so yes, more needs to be done.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Thank you. Just to add to those remarks, firstly, in the case of Iraq, as you know, that was an election commitment, and we implemented that. That was done with the full cooperation of the United States Administration, also with the Iraqi Government and also other partners in Iraq, in particular, the British. And as a logistical exercise, that was a very, very successful exercise.

And I was in Iraq recently. In the course of being in Iraq, I announced a substantial increase in respect of Australia’s contribution on the civil reconstruction side. In addition to securing peace and stability in troubled areas, we also have to give those nations the chance to grow their capacity. And so our increased assistance in Iraq goes to building state institutions, increasing capacity.

So far as Afghanistan is concerned, we have nearly a thousand troops in Afghanistan, about a thousand and 60-odd. We are the largest non-NATO contributor. We are in Uruzgan Province in the south, where the fighting is often at its most difficult and its most dangerous. And this morning, we had the pleasure of meeting people who had been in that theatre. We make a substantial contribution. We’ve made it clear that we don’t see any increase in the combat or military or defense capability that we have in Afghanistan, but as well, in recent times, I’ve also announced, when I was in Afghanistan, a further substantial Australian contribution for nation-building and capacity-building.

We are very grateful for the role that our forces play in Afghanistan. And at Swanbourne Barracks, I said to some of the regiment there that they do really need to understand that the work they do in difficult and dangerous circumstances is very genuinely appreciated by our friends and allies. I also made the point that – and in the vernacular, that the work they do in conjunction with our friends and allies, whether it’s combat or a peacekeeping role, helps give Foreign Ministers of Australia street cred when they walk in the door. That is unambiguously the case. And it’s a very important role that they play for international peace and security, but an important role they play on behalf of their nation.

When it comes to Pakistan, I have made the point, as I did to the Pakistan representatives in Singapore in the course of the ASEAN Regional Forum, that we are very concerned about the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. We don’t believe that that can be regarded simply as a bilateral matter between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is an issue which has regional and international community consequences. There is no doubt that the current international hotbed of terrorism is in that area, is in the Pakistan border area in Afghanistan.

One thing we know about modern terrorism: it is mobile and moves very quickly, either north and west to Europe, or south and east to Asia. And Australia has already been on the receiving end and adverse consequences of terrorist activity in Southeast Asia. So we have raised the border issue with the Pakistan Government, as we have with our ally, the United States, and other friends in Afghanistan, in particular, the British.

But this is an area where both the regional community and the international community needs to do more. We do need to engage Pakistan more in a dialogue and we do need, in my view, to be rendering assistance to Pakistan at a time which is very, very difficult for them.

Second question, Australian media.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, Western Australia is a state with significant uranium reserves. Has your agreements or talks with India and Australia’s role and what part we could play come up in your talks? Do you think there’s a role for us there?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we have talked about the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal. I’ll ask Stephen to speak to the Australian position, but the -- we’ve made very clear that we believe that this is an agreement that serves the interests of the U.S.-Indian strategic relationship. It serves the interests of India in terms of its needs for energy that is not hydrocarbons-based. They want a civil nuclear program and this is a way for them to have one.

And frankly, it serves the interests of the nonproliferation regime. India is not a party to the NPT, but the regime, the broader regime, is one in which even non-NPT states need to take certain obligations in terms of proliferation, and India has a good record in terms of proliferation. And the fact that Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, has been supportive of this deal, I think, supports the notion that this is good for the international nonproliferation regime.

I know that there will be consultations coming up soon in the IAEA Board of Governors, and then in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Australia, of course, will participate in those. And I don’t expect that Australia has yet to make a decision. That’s not what’s being asked, but I know that I’ve had -- I found a very open hearing and listener as we’ve put forward the case for this deal and -- as the Indians have, as well.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Well, there are two separate issues. First is the export of Australian uranium. The government has a longstanding party policy position which is we don’t export uranium to a country that is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And I’ve made that clear to Indian officials and the Indian Government pretty much from day one of the new Australian Government’s term in office.

The India-U.S. nuclear civil arrangement is a separate matter, and a matter, indeed, that my memory is, Secretary, that when we first met in Washington, we discussed it there, as we have regularly, and as I have with Indian officials and Minister Mukherjee, recently, and as the Prime Minster did, Prime Minister Rudd, with Prime Minister Singh in the margins of the G-8 meeting recently.

Our position on the U.S.-India civil nuclear arrangement is that if and when the arrangement emerged from, effectively, the Indian parliament to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency, then we would put our mind to the detail of the agreement. The vote of confidence in the Indian Prime Minister and the Indian Government in the course of this week now makes it almost certain that the arrangement will proceed to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors.

The fact that our policy position prevents us from exporting uranium to India does not prevent us from joining a consensus to support the Civil-Nuclear Deal. And I’ve indicated both to the Indian Minister of State, who was in Singapore, and to the Secretary of State, that we are now looking in detail at the arrangement and agreement, looking at the views of other players in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Atomic Energy Agency itself. And we’re doing that with a positive and constructive frame of mind. We don’t proceed on the basis that our policy position on the export of uranium prohibits or prevents us from supporting that arrangement, and so we’re looking at it in a positive and constructive manner. And we’re also, as I’ve made clear consistently to the United States and India, when we do that assessment, looking very carefully at the strategic importance that both the United States and India place on this arrangement.

I think it’s third strike. You’re out over here.

QUESTION: Yes. I’m Lachlan Carmichael from AFP news agency. Madame Secretary, you’ve been telling us -- Madame Secretary, you’ve been telling us about progress made privately between the Israelis and Palestinians towards a draft peace agreement. Next week, there will be the trilateral in Washington. Will you be able, finally, to give some public details of the progress they’ve been making, and will you be applying pressure to (inaudible) both sides into that deal you really want before you leave office – or before President Bush leaves office?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the first answer is no. We won’t be providing details of what goes on in the trilateral. They are -- the Israelis and the Palestinians have their first serious peace process in seven years, and they are discussing very sensitive and difficult issues. I would remind that the most effective negotiations they probably ever had were Oslo, and no one even knew they were negotiating. And they -- so I think they’re really rather wise to negotiate seriously, to work with each other, to see if they can overcome differences without having a daily accounting of how well they’re doing or how badly or who’s up or who’s down. And that’s what they want to avoid. And I’m going to stick scrupulously to the same view.

I think the United States can help them to see where there are points of convergence, and that’s what I generally do in the trilaterals. I think I can also – because I stay in very close contact with all of my colleagues in the international community, including Australia, I think I can represent to them some of the things that the international community might be willing to do to help them in getting to a deal or in making the deal work.

Now, there is still time for them to, in accordance with Annapolis, reach agreement by the end of the year. And we’ll keep working toward that goal. But the most important thing right now is to take note of how very seriously they are negotiating, to note that there was not, even last year, a peace process at this time, and to recognize that since this President came into office, the notion of two states living side by side in peace and security has just become kind of common wisdom; we all say it. Well, in fact, in 2001, that was not the position either of the Likud government of Ariel Sharon, or of much of the international community.

And so the President has, in stating clearly American policy for a two-state solution, in helping to get through the extraordinary difficult years of 2001, 2002, 2003, the second Intifada, in helping to get through the withdrawal from Gaza, the Lebanon War, and then launching Annapolis, I think has laid a firm foundation on which these two parties can finally end their conflict. The work now is to keep pressing ahead, but pressing ahead in a way that preserves the workability of this process. And that really means preserving the confidentiality of their discussions.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Okay, last one. We’ve had the two opening (inaudible) from the Australian side. Now, it’s first change.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, if we could just lighten up as we wrap up here. President Bush is coming to the end of his term. Over the years, satirists have had a bit of fun with him. In Australia, he may be seen as a larrikin. What’s he like as a boss?

SECRETARY RICE: President Bush, what’s he like as a boss?

QUESTION: Yeah.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, he is somebody who really proceeds from a kind of deep sense of principle, and he sometimes finds things outrageous. He finds -- I mean, he’s outraged by certain things. And I’ll tell you something that he finds very difficult to deal with. He finds it difficult when he sees people who live in tyranny. I know that that’s considered somewhat old fashioned, to believe that no man, woman or child should have to live in tyranny, but as somebody who himself is free, he’s offended by the continuance of dictatorships in this world.

Now, I think that has united us and united this Administration. I know that there’s sometimes a misreading of that to suggest that we’re somehow naïve, that on our watch, all dictatorships were going to go away, we were going to end tyranny for all time. That’s not the point. Because everyone understands that the ending of tyranny is a long, long, long term process that takes generations and generations. But if somebody doesn’t speak up for the principle that it’s simply wrong for men and women to live in the absence of freedom, then it’s never going to happen.

And you know, I’m a firm believer that it’s all right to be a little bit on the side of too optimistic and too idealistic, rather than too cynical and too pessimistic about human beings and what they can achieve. Because if you look back over history, whether it was the founding of the United States of America itself, which probably never should have come into being, given the great struggles against the British Empire or our own Civil War, which almost did end the American experiment; to the collapse of a country with 30,000 nuclear weapons and 5 million men under arms peacefully without a shot, in one night the hammer and sickle came down, the tricolor went up; did we think any of that possible? Well, those things that seemed impossible now seem, in retrospect, inevitable.

So I think the President is someone who, if he has to err, he’ll err on the side of idealism and optimism. And you know, when you have to get up and go to work every day post-9/11, where for us, quite frankly, every day is September 12^th, it’s an awfully good thing to work for somebody and for the President of the United States who really is, at heart, an idealist and an optimist.

Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Thanks very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER SMITH: Thanks, ladies and gentlemen.
2008/T21-9

# # #

Released on July 25, 2008

Secretary's Remarks: Roundtable With Press

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:21:09 EDT

Roundtable With Press

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Singapore
July 24, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: I thought what we would do, everybody, is start with the our -- some of our local journalists, and then we’ll get some of the imports after that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Imports? (Laughter.) Imports and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, I’ll leave it with imports.

SECRETARY RICE: Imports.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is there somebody who’d like to start off with a question?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, who’d like to start?

QUESTION: Let me start question.

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). I wonder the relation – I mean, the – what your stand now between Thai and Cambodia coming to Europe. (Inaudible.) I don’t know if this premature for the two countries to discuss in the UNSC and I want to hear from you what your – timing.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, well, thanks a lot. It is something that has been a subject of discussion. We’re concerned about it, and there needs to be a way to resolve it peacefully. My understanding is that there is an effort to -- it hits by the bilateral discussions, but that ASEAN is also taking a role of watching and trying to help where necessary. We’ll continue to consult with the regional states. It hasn’t really been taken up before the Council yet, although there’s been a potential request passed. But I made very clear to all of my ASEAN colleagues that the United States will be very much interested in and, in fact, guided by the regional assessment of what needs to be done here.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY RICE: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it -- right now, because there are bilateral discussions going on and because ASEAN is taking a role. But again, we’re going to be guided very heavily by the views of the countries in this region. And I’ve had a chance to raise it with several of them.

QUESTION: I have two questions for you, actually. The first one is, what is the U.S. Government response to the recently released report by the Commission of Truth and Friendship between Indonesia and Timor-Leste? It concluded that Indonesian military and police committed a systematic – gross violations of human rights. Do you think (inaudible) should be held responsible?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I was heartened by the rapid response of the Government of Indonesia and by President Yudhoyono, who immediately -- I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but talked about the deep pain that it caused him to have this report, promised that the Government of Indonesia would be, certainly, implementing the recommendations of the report. And so this is a good democratic government that has a strong record of wanting to work and to be responsive on human rights issues.

We’ve known for a long time that there are concerns about reform in the military, need for reform in the military. The United States has been active in helping and to -- encouraging that agenda with Indonesia. I do believe that the military-to-military contacts which the United States restarted some three, three and a half years ago with Indonesia, are helpful in what has been -- what is a not always smooth transition from military rule to civilian rule in a democratic society.

So we’re going to continue to work closely with the Indonesian Government. We will help in any way that we can. But I’m content to leave to the Indonesians and Timor-Leste, which put together the commission, how to carry out its recommendations. But I think the spirit in which it’s been received and the seriousness with which the government takes the report and its recommendations is a --

QUESTION: Do you think that an international court could be an outlet for this issue?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I can’t speak to that. I think the recommendations of the commission, I’m sure, will be implemented. And that the government and -- both governments will find a means to make certain that justice is done.

QUESTION: Okay. One more question.

SECRETARY RICE: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Are your government and Indonesia in talks about the Naval Medical Research Operations in Indonesia? And your government insists that all the American crew be given diplomatic immunity and privileges and --

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the United States has standard practices about this worldwide. And so we will have to decide – and we’ll, with standard practices – well - look, we and Indonesia are good friends, and we’ll work this out.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Good morning.

SECRETARY RICE: Good morning.

QUESTION: I’m from Malaysia, so I hopefully (inaudible), I support this relations, (inaudible) sense that the U.S. has been interfering with domestic criminal case of -- from Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. So Washington seems to make (inaudible) remarks against the case. To us, Malaysia – it’s just local, domestic, criminal case.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the United States has long spoken and will continue to speak about cases that we think need to be thought about in terms of the political circumstances. We are always going to speak about human rights cases, about political cases. But again, we do so in a spirit of respect for Malaysia, and it’s -- the United States doesn’t recognize this very firm barrier, but there are certain things that are simply internal affairs when a case of this kind comes up. But we’re going to continue to work with the Malaysian Government. And I’m going to see my Malaysian counterpart in a little bit.

QUESTION: But Mr. Anwar is going through all the local due process of law.

SECRETARY RICE: And we look for -- one of the things that we’ve said is that we want to see a transparent and -- rule of law to be completely followed here, and that part of the comfort level or the confidence that states need to bring to the international system is that their systems are -- their judicial systems are, indeed, responsive to rule of law and transparent and fair. That’s been (inaudible).

QUESTION: But you must remember the -- our police and our --

SECRETARY RICE: I think I’ve answered your question.

QUESTION: Majority of them are trained by the Americans and the British.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

SECRETARY RICE: No, no -- but the evenhanded application of rule of law is very important.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We are from the Straits Times, in Singapore.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: I just have two questions. Number one is, do you have anything arising from your discussions with our Foreign Minister George Yeo? And number two is whether the U.S. intends to institutionalize the Six-Party Talks and make anything that arrives from it into a more formal system?

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm. On the second point, the September 2005 agreement foreshadows the idea of a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. I think we -- the Russians are the co -- are the chairs of the working group that is working on that issue. And we had some discussion yesterday about the principles. It wasn’t a very long meeting, so we didn’t have an in-depth discussion, but I think it’s something that, at an appropriate time, the parties will want to establish.

Right now, the work of denuclearization takes precedence. And certainly, it’s the most urgent work, being able to do it verifiably and to do it as rapidly as possible. But there’s a great deal of interest among the parties. I think one of the points that was made was that we’ve developed a kind of habits or patterns of cooperation about an issue that really could have pulled the parties apart. And I don’t mean here the North Koreans. I mean the -- when you think about the kind of variable interests of China and South Korea and Japan and the United States and Russia concerning the North Korean nuclear program, to have a forum in which this has become a reason for cooperation rather than for conflict, is pretty rare. And so I think we will want to build on that, but there -- it’s going to have to come at an appropriate time.

As to my meeting with my colleague, George Yeo, it was a very good meeting. We -- you know, we have an excellent relationship with Singapore. We talked mostly, frankly, about the region and about the ASEAN agenda, because I wanted to make sure that I fully understood what was on the minds of my colleagues. It was a meeting that took place just shortly before I had the U.S.-ASEAN ministerial. And so we talked principally about regional issues, and about Burma and about the Thai-Cambodia issue. I asked for some – about them and --

QUESTION: Can I ask just one more follow-up question?

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: P – our PM, on the first day of the meetings here, was talking about ASEAN and a possibility of it losing relevance in the region. And I wanted to see, from an American view, whether you concur or you (inaudible) view on that issue?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, any organization, if it doesn’t keep moving forward, can be subject to losing relevance. But I have the sense, at least, that ASEAN is an organization that has an agenda for moving forward. I know of some of the larger-scale plans on integration and the difficulty that those may – some of that may encounter. But for instance, we had an interesting discussion yesterday about the full integration of the new members, which come in at lower standards of economic development and prosperity, because there is a concern, I think, that some of the countries that are new to ASEAN – you don’t want, in effect, two speeds within ASEAN. This is a debate that the European Union, of course, went through. They put together funding to be able to support the integration of states that are new members. I think one of the real miracles, for instance, was what happened with Ireland, where the EU support for Ireland brought it very quickly up to the level of the other EU states.

And I know that ASEAN is looking at questions like that. One very interesting suggestion was made by my colleague from Laos, who suggested that one of the problems is that the new states’ English language capacity among the diplomatic corps, among the civil servant corps, is not as strong as some of the longer standing members. And we even talked about whether the United States might want to participate in trying to help on capacity-building. So I think there are a lot of ways for ASEAN to have a very active future, but any organization has to keep moving forward. And to the degree that there are problems like Burma, I think that if those problems are not ultimately resolved with a Burma moving closer to the general values that are there in the ASEAN charter, then you really are going to have problems for the organization. And so it’s not an organization without challenge, but I think it’s an organization that’s got a very, very good future, and certainly, the United States has been very active in our own engagement.

QUESTION: Madame, before moving into the other region, just a point on Burma, I read somewhere that you said earlier that you would put pressure to ASEAN to do more about Burma. Have you done or -- what about that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we had a good discussion on Burma. Of course, the Burmese Foreign Minister was there. The ASEAN charter aspires to rule of law, human rights, development of more pluralistic political systems, integration into the international community states. And Burma is out of step, badly, I would say. And when you have a situation that you’ve had with the cyclones, where days and weeks go by with an international community sitting literally off-shore -- France, Great Britain, the United States sitting off-shore, willing and ready to help, but the Junta refusing to let people in need be helped, you wonder what – how does this – how can the international community stand by and let that happen?

Now I give a lot of credit to ASEAN for developing the mechanism for assistance and for speeding up assistance after a period of time and becoming a kind of international clearinghouse, if you will, for contact with Burma, and that was a useful role. But it should never have happened in the first place. And now the question is, given the slight opening that this has provided, is there a way to move Burma to a political track that would finally make something of what is right now a kind of mockery, which is this roadmap to democracy which is going nowhere, and would it be possible for regional states and neighbors to press the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi, to allow real opposition to get on a pact.

So that’s what I meant by pressing to do more and we had a good discussion.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, guys.

QUESTION: On Korea, on your – (laughter) --

SECRETARY RICE: Now all the good questions are (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Now the move to a parallel universe. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Or is it the real one? But on the – on your meeting yesterday with your colleagues in the Six Parties, this was the first time the ministers have met since the Six-Party Talks began in 2003, and now the issue is verification. You know, it’s political season in Washington, there are a lot of people saying a lot of things about this protocol that you’re working on, that you proposed to the North Koreans.

Could you address the issue of how strong this protocol will be? Could you speak to what you’re going to leave? It seems you’ll have – this will have to also be continued by the next administration, and so there are people concerned that there might be some holes in this protocol entrance of being able to really verify whether the North Koreans (inaudible).

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, it is a protocol that we have shared with and worked some with our other Six-Party colleagues – or Five Party colleagues. And the meeting was about verification yesterday, overwhelmingly. And I think you will note that the – that Minister Yang noted that the discussion about acceleration was about the verification protocol. And so I don’t think the North Koreans left with any illusions about the fact that the ball was in their court and that everybody believes they have got to respond and respond positively on verification.

We will try to do several things. The first is that this declaration has left some questions. And we have to have a way to add to those questions, we have to have a way to – nobody is going to trust the North Korean number on how much plutonium they need. Fortunately, there are very good, tried and true, as one of my colleagues called it yesterday, international – internationally recognized methods to verify the number of kilograms of plutonium make.

So this will be – will have to be specific. It’ll have to have specific measures. It’ll have to have means for access. And it will also have to have means to continue this process as new information becomes available. One of the facts is that in this process, thus far, we have learned more about some activities, questionable activities in North Korea than, frankly, we had learned before we engaged in this process. And so I – this will be a strong protocol, that all of the parties yesterday talked about a rigorous protocol, talked about one that is to international standards. So I think we’ll – we have to have a protocol that allows us to know what has happened there and is – still has to be.

Now we have to recognize that the achievement thus far of essentially setting back, if not ending the North Korean capacity for the production of plutonium is important. It may have been an oil reactor, but it was by no means obsolete, given that it was making plutonium up till very recently. And given the proliferation risks of plutonium in the hands of a opaque, nontransparent regime, particularly in ever larger quantities, it is very important to shut down that capability. And having done it now with four other parties who have the right mix of incentives and disincentives, I think it makes it more difficult for the North Koreans to start reversing themselves.

But the ball is in the North Koreans’ court and we’ll see what they come up with.

QUESTION: And in the 45 days, just to follow --

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- on this, the President said that the terrorism list – he notified Congress there is a --

SECRETARY RICE: Right.

QUESTION: -- 45-day period.

SECRETARY RICE: There’s a 45-day notification period, which is a minimum notification period. I think it should be very well understood that unless we’re satisfied that we can verify the declaration, we’ve been very clear that we’re taking that into our assessment of when to go forward.

QUESTION: But does that mean that you want the protocol to be agreed on and accepted by the North Koreans by this 45-day deadline?

SECRETARY RICE: Nick, as I said, it’s a 45-day minimum notification, but we certainly expect, and we’re watching very carefully, to see whether or not North Korea is going to come through on the essential issue, which is verification, and to act accordingly.

QUESTION: One question on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nicholas, we got five minutes left, so why don’t we give some of your colleagues --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, (inaudible).

QUESTION: My question wasn’t right. No, I meant are you still going to delist North Korea before it (inaudible) the protocol? That’s my question.

SECRETARY RICE: As I said, we will have to know about the prospects for verifying this declaration, because the President’s made very clear we’re going to take that into account before we make any decisions. But I just wanted to clarify it’s a 45-day minimum notification, not maximum.

QUESTION: You’ve said that you’d be looking for a very strong protocol on all the parties. You’re talking about this vigorous protocol. Could you be a little bit more specific as to what this protocol would entail, the IAEA inspectors, how many of them on the ground doing what?

SECRETARY RICE: No. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could you be so specific as to what --

SECRETARY RICE: Sue, a lot of this is still to be worked out. But first of all, I expect that there would be – and we’ll have to work out what IAEA – you all remember that this is verification under a Six-Party framework, and the verification of the disablement was actually carried out by the United States, Russia and China. So I can’t get into details about it, but it’ll be – I think the best line that was used about it was it has to be an internationally acceptable standard.

QUESTION: I have an --

MR. MCCORMACK: Guys, we can do some pictures right now.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I have an extremely easy question, which is --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you give us five minutes on the plane to Perth to ask because I don’t – I’ll let someone else go.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I have a non-trip question --

SECRETARY RICE: A non-trip question?

QUESTION: -- that I would like to ask.

SECRETARY RICE: All right.

QUESTION: Yes, is that possible, Sean? Can we do that?

SECRETARY RICE: I’m going to have the Australian Foreign Minister with me.

QUESTION: Well, we would do both.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Just like with Miliband.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay, yes. All right, all right, we’ll – yeah.

QUESTION: Okay?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: So then I can --

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I don’t want to take away from these guys. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I’ll ask about Foreign Minister Lavrov and Foreign Minister Yang. Did you discuss any sanctions regime for Iran during your talks here, given the response you’ve seen so far?

SECRETARY RICE: We’ve reviewed that Iran has to come forward in two weeks and that everybody’s committed to both tracks. But frankly, in this context, we spent a good deal more time preparing for the Six-Party bilateral. And the Foreign Minister and I were also – you know, we also had a number of other issues that we needed to talk about, including some work that we’re continuing to do on the – on Georgia, on the 123 Agreement, I’ll – you know, so big agenda with Russia.

QUESTION: So Foreign Minister Lavrov didn’t come out and say, yes, I’m – you know, I’m with you and your comments on let’s go to the Council if they don’t make this --

SECRETARY RICE: I didn’t ask him that.

QUESTION: No?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, I didn’t ask him that. You know, as I said, we didn’t – we didn’t need to have a very long discussion on Iran. Everybody knows what the Iranians did and we’ll see what they do in two weeks. And I’m pretty confident that people are not prepared to let them stall.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right?

QUESTION: You haven’t (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Could you (inaudible)?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, it’s a tremendous, tremendous step forward for Serbia and its European identity. It’s tremendous – it’s kind of hard to use the word, “victory,” given the harshness of what he’s responsible for. But for all of the people who perished as a result of his policies and – it’s – I hope it provides an opportunity for some healing from those scars.

The Balkans is trying to – the whole region is trying to overcome this – a long, long history that has been (inaudible) unkind, but one that, as most of Europe was moving forward and after the Cold War, the Balkans, of course, fell into extreme darkness. And this is an end to one more step in an end to that great nightmare. We have been active with the Europeans and with others for years in helping to cooperate to try to locate him. And it showed tremendous will on the part of this new Serbian Government. And I just hope that there will be accelerated efforts to reach out to this Serbian Government. I think the European accession – European association agreement is a good step.

We, of course, some time ago, even before this government, made Partnership for Peace available for NATO. But the Serbs are making a step forward and closing an ugly chapter in their past. And I just hope that (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: All right, guys?

SECRETARY RICE: All right. Thank you. Thanks very much.

2008/T21-6

Released on July 24, 2008

Secretary's Remarks: Keeping Promises Among Partners

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:55:42 EDT

Keeping Promises Among Partners

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Real Clear Politics Op-Ed
July 24, 2008

In any partnership, the coin of the realm is trust and responsibility - in other words, saying what you mean and doing what you say. In the dramatic rescue on July 2 of 15 hostages, including three Americans, held captive for many years by guerrillas and terrorists, deep in the Colombian jungles, we saw a powerful reminder that the United States has no better partner in South America than the government and people of Colombia.

Colombia's leaders, especially President Uribe, had promised us that our three abducted citizens would be treated no differently than the many Colombian men and women who shared their fate. Colombia never wavered in this promise, and never cut any side deals with the guerrillas that could have freed their citizens at the expense of ours. This was not an easy act of solidarity, but Colombia remained true to its word.

In the breathtaking rescue mission, carried out with the utmost skill and professionalism (and without a shot being fired) by the Colombian Armed Forces, our partners did great honor to themselves - and a great service to us. We will never forget that. Nor will we forget the many Colombians who still have not found rescue from their guerrilla captors.

That our Colombian partners made good on their promise in this instance is important enough, but this is not the exception; it is the norm.

More than a decade ago, with its country wracked by the worst insurgency in the hemisphere, with its economy contracting, and with its democratic state on the brink of failure, Colombia resolved to turn the tide. Its government and people set out an ambitious plan to secure and expand their country's democratic development, and they asked for our support - political, economic, diplomatic, and military. Starting under President Clinton, expanding under President Bush, and with bipartisan support in Congress all along the way, the United States has fully backed Colombia in meeting its bold promises of success. And the results speak for themselves.

Our Colombian partners said that they would win their fight against domestic terrorism and reclaim their country. Today they are.

They said they would combat social exclusion in Colombia by building the capacity and expanding the reach of their democracy. Today they are.

They said they would open their markets, trade freely and fairly, fuel economic growth, and create opportunities for social justice for all of their citizens. Today they are.

And our Colombian partners said they would protect the lives of all of their citizens, including trade unionists, and bring murderers and criminals to justice. Today violent crime has plummeted, law and order is expanding, and President Uribe's government has taken the courageous step of extraditing 15 major drug traffickers and paramilitary leaders to the United States to stand trial in our courts for their crimes against our citizens.

Colombia has done all of this - and more. And the United States has supported them every step of the way. With the momentum of more than a decade's worth of shared progress at our backs, with Colombia on the cusp of self-sustained and lasting stability, and with Democrats and Republicans having shown that they can implement a long-term bipartisan strategy to achieve a critical national interest - the success of a democratic Colombia - now is the last time that we should begin going back on our word to Colombia. And yet that is exactly what we risk doing if Congress fails to pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

In addition to being a slap in the face to our Colombian partners, sacrificing this trade agreement at the altar of domestic politics would be no favor to U.S. workers. More than 90 percent of Colombian goods now enter the United States duty-free, while our exports to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35 percent. This agreement would level the playing field for our workers, so they could send the products of their labor to Colombia on the same terms that Colombians now send theirs to us.

Passing this trade agreement will be a culmination and realization of our partnership with Colombia. It will help the Colombian government and people to lock in their democratic and economic reforms. It will signal that Colombia, like a growing number of our fellow democracies in the Americas today, is a reliable place to invest and poised to compete effectively in the global economy. It will affirm that the future of our hemisphere belongs to democratic citizens, of the left and the right, who want their elected leaders to govern justly and lawfully, to expand economic freedom and trade, and to invest in their people. And it will send a message across the world that the United States will honor the promises we make to our friends and allies.

Colombia has stood by us. We have stood by them. And we have succeeded together. Now is not the time to jeopardize the fruits of our partnership, but to consolidate them. Now is the time to keep our word to Colombia, just as they have kept their word to us. Anything less is no way for a great nation to conduct itself - and no way to repay a faithful partner.

Released on July 24, 2008