Ambassador Demetrios Marantis delivered these remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C.

Ambassador Marantis. Many Americans have glimpsed Central Asia through another person's eyes and heard another person's tale. Some, like me, read Solzhenitzyn's Cancer Ward in high school, and remember Oleg Kostoglotov's exile in Ush-Terek and the hospital in Tashkent. Other Americans with a thirst for history read Hopkirk's 19th Century tale of imperial ambition, intrigue, and military adventure in The Great Game. Still others travelled to Central Asia vicariously, perhaps with Paul Theroux on the night train from Ashgabat to Mary, through Tashkent to Delhi, as described in Ghost Train to the Eastern Star. And many Americans have embraced the 13th Century Sufi poet Rumi, spiritually uplifted and inspired by his popular poetry.

But these are neither the stories that bring me here today nor the pictures of Central Asia I wish Americans to see. My concern is a different tale and a new picture. It is a story that begins with a new friendship, hope, and a bright future. After this promising beginning, the pages are blank, the story yet to be written. These blank pages sit before all of you and me, waiting to be filled. We hold the pen. We will tell the story. We are the authors of a new story of Central Asia and the United States.

What is this new story? Is it a story of the past or a story of the future? Will this tale be steeped in history past, or will it make history? Will it be a short trip of a few courageous souls, or will it be a longer journey of a group of like-minded adventurers? Will this new story inspire and uplift its reader or will it be a predictable narrative soon forgotten?

Only we have the answers to these questions. And over this week we will begin to answer them. We have come together today due to the generosity of the United States Chamber of Commerce and its member companies. I am here today as the Deputy United States Trade Representative, representing Ambassador Ron Kirk and President Barack Obama.

It is my distinct pleasure to welcome the Minister of Foreign Economic Relations Elyor Ganiev of Uzbekistan, Minister of Economy and Development Bashimmyrat Hojamammedov of Turkmenistan, Minister of Economic Development and Trade Ghulomjon Bobozoda of Tajikistan, Vice Minister of Economic Development and Trade Aziz Aaliev of Kyrgyzstan, Vice Minister of Industry and Trade Zhanar Aitzhanova of Kazakhstan, and Minster of Commerce and Industry Wahidullah Shahrani of Afghanistan. I am also pleased to welcome representatives from our international partner institutions based here and afar, as well as representatives of the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Trade and Development Agency, and the Department of State.

So many distinguished and capable people are not in one place at one time to contemplate the past or revel in the present. We are here to create the future. A future that is unprecedented and historic. We are here to mold a future that enhances the economic ties among the United States, Central Asia, and Afghanistan.

Progress towards that future is already underway. In 2004, the United States signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, or TIFA, with all five Central Asian republics. Under this TIFA, there have been annual TIFA Council meetings to promote greater trade and investment between the United States and Central Asia. We had some successes, but over the past five years together we have identified what we could do better. This year we are doing two things to revamp our approach.

First, we are adding a mid-year working group meeting as a means to actively follow up on the issues and initiatives raised during our annual meeting. A mid-year meeting will keep all of us on task and focused on our commitments. And we hope to see more successes.

Second, the United States, together with all of you, recognized that a uniform approach in the region will not allow us to respond to the nuances and differences in goals and objectives in the region. Therefore, we are establishing bilateral channels for dialogue to complement the regional approach. Tomorrow we will hold our regional TIFA talks as in the past, but throughout the week we are meeting separately with each delegation to launch bilateral talks tailored to your unique goals, challenges, and ideas.

Bilateral and regional talks will only yield successes if we dedicate ourselves to domestic economic reforms. And that domestic policy work is not just yours, it is also ours. When President Obama took office nine months ago, the U.S. economy was in crisis. Since then, the Obama Administration has worked with Congress to spur economic recovery and lay a new foundation for our economy. Together we have worked to give our workers the skills and education they need to compete, invest in renewable energy and the jobs of the future, and make health care affordable for families and businesses. These and other domestic economic reforms promise to make America's economy more competitive and prosperous for generations to come.

America's domestic economic reforms are also a commitment to Central Asia and the global economy. For an America more competitive and prosperous at home is also an America that can be more ambitious and engaged with its economic partners around the world. This engagement will not only benefit Central Asia and other regions, enhancing their exports, creating jobs and raising standards of living, but it will also create more jobs at home by increasing U.S. exports to the world.

As Americans work on domestic economic reforms and engage internationally, so must all of you. Your past hard word is already showing results and giving future work momentum. Just look at the World Bank's “Doing Business 2010” report. Central Asian countries are climbing the rankings, and some are even highlighted as top reformers.

We are dedicated to helping you climb even higher with our work in the TIFA and USAID's programs for business environment improvement, regional trade liberalization, and customs improvement. As your reforms show results, a more competitive Central Asia and Afghanistan will win plaudits, trade, and investment from companies and investors around the world. The more Central Asian economies work together, the more U.S. and other international companies will be attracted by economies of scale in the region.

Our governments are not alone in our work and our vision for our economic ties. We are hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this morning because U.S. businesses are also interested in finding solutions, to getting things done, and to creating good-paying jobs for workers in all of our countries. This kind of public-private partnership must be the foundation of our efforts and is indispensable to our success.

We must reform our trade and investment policies for our mutual prosperity, but also because good economic policy is also good foreign and security policy. Central Asia's logistical support for U.S. and NATO forces contributes to building a stable Afghanistan. But we can do more. A new initiative we are undertaking through the TIFA is aimed at increasing opportunities for the countries in the region to supply goods and services to U.S. operations. This effort can create new openings for investment and job creation in the region and, in the process, contribute to attaining our security objectives. USTR is working with the Departments of Defense and Commerce, USAID, and the Trade and Development Agency (TDA) to achieve this goal. I look forward to fruitful discussions on these issues at tomorrow's TIFA Council meeting.

I am delighted that the Ministers from Central Asia and Afghanistan are here with me today. I look forward to your remarks, and to our further discussions this week and over the coming weeks and months. That all of you have travelled to Washington today shows your interest in and dedication to working with each other and the United States in this common enterprise. I hope that you will leave Washington with the certainty of knowing Ambassador Kirk, President Obama, and I share your dedication and determination.

Together, we have the opportunity to tell a new story, to shape a new common future. It will not be easy. But we must work hard today, holding tight to the future goal we wish to achieve. We are like the man, the carpenter, and the tanner Rumi describes in his poem “Disciplines.”

“Watch the man beating a rug./

He is not mad at it./

He wants to loosen the layers of dirt./

A carpenter saws and chisels a piece of wood,/

because he knows how he wants to use it./

Curing a hide, the tanner/

rubs acid and all manner of filth./

This makes a beautiful soft leather./

What does the half-finished hide know?/

Every hard thing that happens/

works on you like that.”

Thank you very much.

Deputy Secretary William Lynn III delivered these remarks in New Delhi, India

Deputy Secretary Lynn. Thanks very much. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for coming.

Let me start by taking the opportunity to thank Defense Secretary Kumar for the very warm hospitality that we've received here in New Delhi. As you know, I'm here to co-chair with him the Defense Planning Group. I'm the head of the US defense delegation for our top level security dialogue. This is one of many groups that help guide our bilateral relations across the full spectrum of India-US relations.

As we prepare for Prime Minister Singh's visit to Washington in late November I'm delighted that we could meet in advance of his trip to discuss our bilateral defense relationship. It's a key element in the overall US-India relationship.

As you all know, the United States and India have made great strides in our defense relationships as strategic partners over the past five years. Our relationship is strong and growing. Today we have accomplished things that would have been difficult to imagine back then. The sale of major US defense equipment, frequent military exercises and increasing cooperation on issues of global security have become more routine in just a short period of time. The world's two largest democracies working together on defense issues sends a powerful message.

Along those lines, we discussed a wide range of topics in a frank and open environment. We hope to build on the common interests that we identify to move our relationship forward. We want India to succeed as an anchor of regional and global security. Our commitment is one based on mutual respect and mutual trust.

I think most importantly, we agreed to start a process that will review the 2005 new framework for the US-India defense relationship by looking at the progress we have made over the past five years and determine together where we think it would make sense to explore further cooperation.

In my meetings during the past two days I also discussed a host of regional security issues where the US and India have shared interests. These include South Asia and the Indian Ocean. As Secretary Gates said, we look to India as a partner and as a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean and beyond.

We of course also discussed Afghanistan and I reaffirmed the United States' deep and enduring commitment to the stability, security and prosperity of Afghanistan and the entire region.

It's been a very constructive two days of meetings and talks. We share many interests in common regionally and globally. It is only logical that we should look for ways to continue to broaden and to deepen our relationship across the full range of issues.

I'm happy that we could come here to New Delhi to talk about just how to do this in the realm of defense cooperation. I expect that the importance of our defense relationship will be noted as well during the state visit of Prime Minister Singh to Washington later this month.

That's the end of the formal statement I have. I'm happy to take whatever questions you have.

Q. Okay. So what were the items on the agenda that were discussed over here? In terms of both defense [trade] and a conducive policy for defense trade.

Deputy Secretary Lynn. On defense trade, the DPPG which is the sub-group to the Defense Policy Group that deals with defense trade met earlier in the week, and then they reported to us today.

The discussions that we had revolved around issues of mutual interest. On the Indian side there's interest in how do we smooth and make more transparent the export control process. As I think I mentioned, the President's actually undertaken, the President of the United States has undertaken an effort in the United States to streamline that export control process. Not just for India but more broadly for all nations.

Going back to the DPG, on the US side we discussed what the end use monitoring agreement and the successful resolution of that issue, and the other issues that as we go forward that we need to resolve to expand the defense trade relationship.

Q. Sir, I'm Sridhar Kumarasway from The Asian Age.

How do you view the recent tensions between India and China? China has protested against the visit of our Prime Minster to our northeast frontier state, Arunachal. And in this context, how do you view the forthcoming visit of the Dalai Lama? Do you believe that it could further lead to tensions? What is the view of the US on this? Because China has objected to the forthcoming visit.

Deputy Secretary Lynn. I don't know the US would have views on visits between China and India. That's something for your bilateral relationship. But we think it is a good thing for the whole region for China and India to have a positive relationship; these are the two most substantial powers in the region. It is going to be a far more stable situation if there's a positive relationship. So things that can be done to make that relationship positive are certainly things that we are interested in supporting.

Q. Manu Pubby from The Indian Express newspaper.

Two questions. One, we heard that there was a discussion on some maritime issues today. Have you talked about any areas about specific cooperation in that area?

And secondly, we all heard in the morning about [inaudible] in the United States [inaudible]. Did that take part in any of the discussions on that? We have our own issues and seeing that your forces have also joined in Iraq and Afghanistan [inaudible]?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. The answer to the second question is no, the incident at Fort Hood was not discussed. Obviously the terrible loss of life there is to be lamented and we're just I think coming to understand what the circumstances were. So I can't really elaborate on that.

With regard to maritime security, that issue did come up. This group is focused on the structure of the defense relationship between the United States and India with regard to trade and exercises and information exchange. It is not the operational group that focuses on our efforts with regard to piracy.

So we talked about how do we improve communications equipment to allow greater collaboration between our two Navies in the counter-piracy area. We talked about logistic support between our two navies. But we didn't get into the specifics of the operations.

Q. Did you talk about LSA and CISMOA?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. Both of those agreements were discussed. Absolutely.

Q. Rajat Pandit from The Times of India. What was the Indian response to LSA and CISMOA?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. Well, I think it would probably be better addressed to the Indian government, but I think they're still under consideration. They I think are looking at these agreements, but in terms of the specifics I think you have to address that to them.

Q. When are any discussions about this $10 billion fighter contract that is up?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. Again, a little bit like the maritime security answer. We discussed kind of the foundational trade agreements that would be important in any defense export by the United States to India. We didn't discuss the elements of that fighter competition or get into discussions of specifics. This was a general discussion of what things do we need in place to move forward with greater defense trade cooperation between our two nations.

Q. I'm sorry I didn't introduce myself, but I'm with the Telegraph.

Just like the end user monitoring arrangement was about three years in the making before it was finally signed, before the tax was finally frozen earlier this year, what do you say that the talks on CISMOA and the LSA are somewhere at a compatible state? That you're getting to sign it?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. Again, I think you're going to have to turn to the Indian government. Both have been discussed over the course of several years so there's been I think a pretty full exchange on the elements of those agreements, the benefits that could accrue from signing them, and the importance in terms of expanding our defense trade relationship. But in terms of action by the Indian government, that's going to have to be a question to the Indian government.

Q. What kind of action are you looking at apart from signing it?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. That's the action I mean.

Q. NDTV. It's a news channel.

Does the United States favor the foreign military sales route to give hardware to India? Or do they prefer competition?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. I think we've pursued both the foreign military sales and the direct commercial sales, and I think it depends on the particular piece of equipment and the circumstances that surround it. There are benefits to both pads and it's a matter of matching those potential benefits with the particular piece of equipment that's being sought.

Q. What about the Indian response or Indian inclination?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. That didn't come up, actually. We didn't get into preferences on that side.

Q. Shiv Aroor from TV Today.

India and the United States have just finished two series of separate joint exercises, the Yudh Abhyas and Cope India exercises. Some of us had a chance to visit both places where the exercises happened.

Did you discuss the exercises, the outcome of the exercises? And more importantly, is there still any meaningful discussion about the possible contribution of Indian troops to any American operations either in Iraq of Afghanistan or elsewhere?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. We didn't discuss that item. The discussion we had on the exercises, we have a Military Coordinating Group that oversees all of these exercises and they reported, just as you said, on those two exercises plus several others. I think we've seen they've been uniformly successful. I think both India and the United States have come away with new insights and new training opportunities because of these exercises and we're looking, as I said, part of today's meeting was to look on how do we build on and deepen that experience for both sides.

Q. Sir, two quick questions. One is a follow-up to his questions, the two sides over the years, the two militaries have built up a certain confidence for operating together and one of the recent exercises Yudh Abhyas fairly high level, the scenario was played out. But do you actually see these scenarios being employed anywhere in the near future? Do you see the two militaries in operational roles together in any particular mission?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. I think you have an example right now off the coast of the Horn of Africa where both nations are acting side by side to counter piracy. That involves coordination. It's not a joint operation per se, but it's a coordinated operation where both sides communicate with one another and discuss operations and try and share the burden, as it were.

Q. Surely that's a low end of the kind of capability with the two sides of buildup, and that's really soft coordination. Are we really looking at hard [inaudible] scenario? That's question number one.

Number two, when you're looking at the framework and your vision for the continuation of this framework agreement, are we going substantially beyond what was envisaged in 2005? What is the big picture? Where is this military cooperation headed?

Deputy Secretary Lynn. I think we think what we would like to do, I think, is to deepen each of the areas that we've built on in the 2005 agreement. In other words in the defense trade area, in the joint exercise and operations area, and in the exchange of information on a variety of topics of mutual interest. What we'd like to do is expand and deepen each of those areas and I won't get into now, but each side has brought ideas about how we would do that and we'll spend the next few months evaluating those ideas so that we would have a proposal for the two governments by the 2010 timeframe.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed in Berlin, Germany by Mathias Müller von Blumencron and Dr. Erich Follath of Der Spiegel

Q. So you're just about to send more troops into Afghanistan. Why? For what? Is it to establish democracy, the western civil society, or is it just to prevent the establishment of new bases of terrorism?

Secretary Clinton. Well, first, President Obama has not made any final decision. He has conducted a very deliberative process which has explored every assumption underlying every action, and I think it has been quite productive. But I think it's fair to say that in the course of our examination, our goal is to defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and that is a very clear goal. We're hopeful for the future of the people of Afghanistan to have a better life, to have political, social, economic development.

But we are in Afghanistan because we believe that we cannot permit the return of a safe haven or a staging platform for terrorists. We think that al-Qaida and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaida still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper, director of a lot of what goes on. In the last two months, we have arrested a gentleman who was plotting, it's alleged, against the subway system in New York who went to an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan. The porous nature of that border is one that we consider to be very dangerous. The government and military of Pakistan are now moving against some of these extremist allies. But we think that we have to prevent the return of a—I think an extremist state in Afghanistan in order to be able to control this threat.

Q. Our soldiers are dying, almost daily. On the other hand, the Afghan Government, in specifically the last election, were clearly based on fraud. How can we justify towards our people here in the West that we still send troops and have people there dying for a corrupt government?

Secretary Clinton. Well, but I don't think they are fighting and sacrificing for the Afghan Government. They're there, in the case of American troops, for the American people and the American Government. We recognize, however, that our chances of success in this struggle are enhanced by a government in Afghanistan that can be a partner, that can help to train and deploy a bigger and more effective security force. The soldiers who are in the Afghan army are also sacrificing. They are willing to fight. They are often dying alongside our soldiers.

And so the expectations that we have for President Karzai and his new government are very clear and high, that in order to accomplish the goal we set of having a country that is able to stand up and defend itself, there has to be an effort against corruption; more accountability, the rule of law, the kind of basic expectations that a government should produce. It's very clear that the people of Afghanistan do not want the Taliban back. In every single survey that we've ever seen, they reject the extremism that they lived with from the Taliban.

But they also want a government that gives them some security, that doesn't leave them at the mercy of the Taliban. So we're going to try to better organize our efforts and try to demand more from the Afghan Government itself.

Q. Shouldn't you demand a government of unity, including Abdullah Abdullah, after these elections?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that what we're interested in is an effective government that can deliver for the people. And we believe that there do have to be a number of people in the government. Who the personalities are is not as big a concern as having competent, effective, honest members of the government.

But we're not only looking at the government in Kabul. We're also looking at the government throughout the country. Because very often, it is local governance, as it has historically been in Afghanistan, that delivers services, that provides security. So we think more has to be done with the local governance structures, not just keeping all the attention on Kabul.

Q. Would that mean that America would get much more involved with the local governments and also with the appointments of the local governments? Does it mean you put more pressure on the central government to point the right people in the local areas?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that a number of us—not just the United States, but a number of NATO members as well as allies in the international forces—agree with what Prime Minister Brown said last week, that there has to be more accountability. I mean, we do see this as in our national security interest, but part of being successful and protecting our interest is having a better partner in Afghanistan.

And we will be making our views known. We will have certain measurements of accountability that we expect. And we don't think that's interference. We don't think that is out of bounds since we are committed to helping the people of Afghanistan themselves be able to withstand the threat from the Taliban. The most common kind of formulation that I and others have heard from the Afghans themselves is we need your help to get us in a position where we can defend ourselves against these threats, and then we need you to go.

Well, that pretty much summarizes what we want to do as well. (Laughter.) So we want to be more effective, but we have no intention of staying or holding territory or occupying. That is not any objective of ours. We want to leave a stable enough situation behind that the Afghans themselves can be the front lines against the Taliban and the al-Qaida extremists.

Q. For these purposes, do you have to support President Karzai?

Secretary Clinton. Well, he is the elected president, and I think once he decided to stand for the second round, he legitimized the outcome of the election. Dr. Abdullah decided not to pursue, which has happened in other places. It's happened in my own country, when somebody looks at a runoff election and doesn't think they have much of a chance and don't feel like it's worth going through it.

So there's no doubt that he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan. But it shouldn't be that he just holds the title in name only. He has to perform for his people. And he has to demonstrate a commitment to the wellbeing of the people of Afghanistan. I'm not underestimating the dangers he faces and the threats, as we saw with the terrible attack on the UN headquarters. This is a very difficult situation. But he has to show the leadership that we should expect from him.

Q. You're clearly unhappy with his efforts to fight corruption. How do you want to put more pressure on that, and how do you want to force him to be more tough on this? He probably has to fight against his own brother?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think that there are several aspects to this. One, we need a formalized mechanism to be investigating corruption inside Afghanistan that is an independent entity that is independent of the existing power structure. We also have to be more careful about what we—namely the West, NATO, other donors—do, because a lot of the corruption is fueled by the amount of money we put in and don't have appropriate measures of accountability ourselves. And we have to be tougher.

But at the end of the day, what we need to do is measure results on the ground. We need to set some standards about where money should be going and what the results should be, and monitor those and hold the people in government accountable.

Q. Madame Secretary, your real concern—the real concern for Western security is not Afghanistan alone anymore, but a nuclear-armed Pakistan, as you very well know. And you yourself recently voiced doubts. You said you— in your recent in Pakistan, it's hard to believe, and I quote you, that members of the Pakistani Government did not know the hiding places of al-Qaida and could not get at them if they really wanted to. What did you mean by that?

Secretary Clinton. Well, there are two issues here. On the one hand, the nuclear arsenal that Pakistan has, I believe is secure. I think that the government and the military have taken adequate steps to protect that. On the other hand, the safe haven that al-Qaida has found in Pakistan is very troubling. They are still actively engaged with the elements of the Pakistani Taliban that are threatening the state of Pakistan.

And it was only recently that Pakistan, through its civilian leadership and its military leadership, actually made the decision that this was a threat to them. We had been saying it was. Others had been telling them the same. But they are now committed to going after those who have attacked their army headquarters, intelligence, the Islamic University in Islamabad, so many targets that really exemplify the authority of the state and the culture of society.

So I think that my point really was to say, look, you have concerns about what we do—we, the United States, and the West. Well, we have concerns about what you do. And it is a very high priority for my government to capture or kill the al-Qaida leadership, and we need more help from you in order to be able to achieve that.

Q. You're referring to the intelligence people in Pakistan when you make this claim that they should know when everybody knows that in Qatar, Mullah Omar is having his headquarters, or at least there are some people around him who—was that—are you still—do you still fear that intelligence services in Pakistan are not reliable?

Secretary Clinton. Not at the highest levels. I am convinced that at the highest levels, we have a good working relationship. But we have tens of thousands of people in our government in sensitive positions. Every so often, we uncover somebody who's a traitor. We uncover somebody who is selling classified information or giving it to an agency of another country. So I know how governments work, and I know that it takes constant vigilance to try to root out those who might not share the values or the program of the government. And there are thousands of people in that government, and I would like to see a real effort made on the part of the top leadership to make sure that no one down the ranks is doing anything to give any kind of support or cover-up to the al-Qaida leadership.

Q. Tehran is obviously not willing to accept the newest proposals. How long, how—when is your patience ending for (inaudible) Iran?

Secretary Clinton. Well, we don't have a formal response from Iran yet. Our—

Q. They're trying to renegotiate again, again.

Secretary Clinton. And we—yeah, we don't intend to do that. I mean, we've been willing to give them more time to work through their internal political debate, because we know there is a lot of turmoil in the Iranian political system coming after the election. But our patience is not unlimited. We continue to urge them to show good faith, as they had said they would adopt this agreement in principle. It would provide an opening for us to discuss not just the nuclear program, but other matters as well, and we still are hopeful that they will decide to accept it.

Q. Why don't you take the military option off the table? Nobody is believing in it anymore anyway.

Secretary Clinton. Because we don't take any options off the table. I don't think that strategically, it is smart to begin cutting your options when the other side doesn't move at all. Let's see some good faith from Iran, let's see some action on their part. President Obama has reached out to them, both publicly and privately. We have tried to change the discussion so that they could participate with us, we could have a diplomatic engagement. But that's not a one-way street, and we have to see some reciprocity coming back from Iran.

Q. Israel, one question I have to ask about Israel: Are you capitulating in front of the hardliners? Some people said Obama, your president, was asking for a total freeze. When you were in Israel, you were praising the Netanyahu government for much less.

Secretary Clinton. Well, I think it has to be seen in context. There's never been a settlement freeze prior to any negotiations conducted by anyone—any Israeli government, any Palestinian government, facilitated by any American government. In negotiations, you often ask for a maximalist position, which is what we would prefer. We are very much in favor of ending settlement activity of all kinds.

The Israeli Government made a fair point, which is that in their legal system, they've already permitted the start of construction on certain units, but they were willing to do something no Israeli government had ever done, which was to say no new settlement activity, period. Now, ultimately, this can all be taken care of once a state's borders are determined. Then Israel does whatever it wants to do on its side of the border, and the Palestinians do whatever they want to do. But it was a positive step, and I have praised the Palestinians for positive steps they've taken on security, which the Israelis did not think was enough.

So in a situation like this, I think it's important to make clear your position. Our position is settlement activity is not legitimate. But to go ahead and say it's a positive step to end new settlement activity, something that has never been done, and to then get into negotiations so that we can discuss what the borders of a new state would be—and that would moot all of this discussion of settlements.

Q. So this was not a change in policy, but in tone?

Secretary Clinton. It was absolutely not a change in policy. There was no change in policy at all. And it is something, of course, that is disappointing to the Arabs and the Palestinians because they would like to see a total end. But it would be very difficult to go and use the Israeli army, or the legal process of Israel, to go around to people who have already been given this permit, short of a final settlement on borders, and tell them to stop construction.

So from the Israeli perspective, they thought it was a big concession. From the Palestinian perspective, it was not enough. We don't think it's enough. It doesn't correspond with what we want to see eventually. But I think it's only fair to say that it went further than anyone has before.

Q. Thank you. It's enough for starting negotiations?

Secretary Clinton. Well, we think it is, but we're the facilitator. The parties have to get into the negotiation. And I was very pleased when I was in Egypt last week that the Egyptians said they would be more than happy to host the Israelis and the Palestinians. But of course now, there are a lot of other issues that are at work.

Q. Yes. Perfect, perfect.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you.

Joint Statement between President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES: PARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER WORLD

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama today reaffirmed the global strategic partnership between India and the United States, and launched a new phase in this partnership. Commending the deepening bilateral cooperation between the world's two largest democracies across a broad spectrum of human endeavors, the two leaders recognized that the common ideals and complementary strengths of India and the United States today provide a foundation for addressing the global challenges of the 21st century.

The two leaders noted that the shared values cherished by their peoples and espoused by their founders—democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights—are acquiring an increasingly greater prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure and sustainable world. These values are exemplified by the vibrant linkages between their peoples, which are a unique asset for both countries, and are reflected in the role played by the Indian-American community.

The two leaders resolved to harness these shared strengths and to expand the U.S.-India global partnership for the benefit of their countries, for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, and for the betterment of the world. To this end, they committed to build upon the India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue announced in July 2009. President Obama stated that the United States looks forward to a stable and prosperous India playing an increasingly important role in world affairs.

ADVANCING GLOBAL SECURITY AND COUNTERING TERRORISM

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognized that the India-U.S. partnership is indispensable for global peace and security. In this context, the interests of both countries are best advanced through the values mirrored in their societies.

They acknowledged the common threat that international terrorism poses to regional and global security. They condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and declared that there could be no justification for terrorism anywhere.

On the eve of its first anniversary, President Obama reiterated the United States's condemnation of the terrorist attack in Mumbai in November 2008. The two leaders underscored the absolute imperative to bring to justice the perpetrators of this terrorist attack.

They expressed their grave concern about the threat posed by terrorism and violent extremists emanating from India's neighborhood, whose impact is felt beyond the region. The two leaders agreed that resolute and credible steps must be taken to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries that provide shelter to terrorists and their activities. These undermine security and stability in the region and around the world.

They vowed to redouble their efforts to deal effectively with terrorism, while protecting their countries' common ideals and shared values and committed themselves to strengthening global consensus and legal regimes against terrorism. They decided on a Counterterrorism Cooperation Initiative to expand collaboration on counterterrorism, information sharing, and capacity building.

The two leaders reiterated their shared interest in the stability, development and independence of Afghanistan and in the defeat of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Obama appreciated India's role in reconstruction and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. The two leaders agreed to enhance their respective efforts in this direction.

The two leaders committed to continue pursuing mutually beneficial defense cooperation through the existing security dialogue, service-level exchanges, defense exercises and trade and technology transfer and collaboration. They recognized the scope for cooperation in the areas of non-traditional threats to security, peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief, and maritime security and protecting sea lanes of communication. They agreed to expedite necessary arrangements to facilitate these activities.

The two leaders agreed that strengthening high technology trade between their countries is in the spirit of their strategic dialogue and partnership. They reiterated their shared commitment to technology security and that it is in their mutual interest to invigorate this area of their partnership.

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama reaffirmed their shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and pledged to work together, as leaders of responsible states with advanced nuclear technology, for global non-proliferation, and universal, non-discriminatory and complete nuclear disarmament. Part of that vision is working together to ensure that all nations live up to their international obligations. India reaffirmed its unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. The United States reaffirmed its testing moratorium and its commitment to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and bring it into force at an early date. Both leaders agreed to consult each other regularly and seek the early start of negotiations on a multilateral, non-discriminatory and internationally verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty at the Conference on Disarmament. They noted that nuclear terrorism, and clandestine networks are a matter of grave concern. Prime Minister Singh and President Obama look forward to the April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit and working together with all participating states for the success of the Summit.

ENSURING SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

Recognizing that energy security, food security, climate change are interlinked, and that eliminating poverty and ensuring sustainable development and a clean energy future are among the foremost global objectives, the two leaders agreed to enter into a Green Partnership to address these global challenges.

They two Leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. Recognizing their special role in promoting a successful and substantive outcome at the UNFC-CC 15th Conference of Parties at Copenhagen in December, 2009, they reaffirmed their intention to work together bilaterally and with all other countries for an agreed outcome at that meeting.

The two leaders also affirmed that the Copenhagen outcome must be comprehensive and cover mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology, and in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, it should reflect emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. There should be full transparency through appropriate processes as to the implementation of aforesaid mitigation actions. The outcome should further reflect the need for substantially scaled-up financial resources to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, in particular, for the poorest and most vulnerable. It should also include measures for promoting technology development, dissemination and transfer and capacity building, including consideration of a center or a network of centers to support and stimulate climate innovation. India and the United States, consistent with their national circumstances, resolved to take significant national mitigation actions that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change. They resolved to stand by these commitments.

Recognizing the need to create the clean energy economy of the 21st century, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama agreed to launch a Clean Energy and Climate Change Initiative. The goal of the Initiative would be to improve the lives of the people of both countries by developing and improving access to technologies that make our energy cleaner, affordable and more efficient. The Initiative will include cooperation in wind and solar energy, second generation bio-fuels, unconventional gas, energy efficiency, and clean coal technologies including carbon capture and storage. The success of this Initiative is expected to enhance the ability of India and the United States to provide new economic opportunities for their people and create new clean energy jobs.

The two leaders intend to take practical steps to promote global food security, including by advancing the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative. They looked forward to increasing India-U.S. agricultural cooperation with the purpose of promoting agricultural research, human resources capacity building, natural resource management, agri-business and food processing, and collaborative research for increasing food productivity. This cooperation would contribute to joint development of technology that would improve weather forecasting, including predicting monsoons, and technology that would contribute to food productivity and food security efforts in India.

They agreed to collaborate in the application of their space technology and related scientific capabilities in outer space and for development purposes, including in the field of agriculture.

The two leaders reiterated their intention to realize the full potential of the India-U.S. Agreement for Cooperation concerning the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy through the implementation of its provisions. They agreed to expedite U.S. firms' participation in the implementation of this agreement.

STIMULATING GLOBAL ECONOMIC REVIVAL

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama noted the new opportunities offered by their economies and their respective strengths, and their potential for future growth to catalyze global economic growth, and pledged to create conditions that would facilitate their continued expansion.

The leaders also noted that the United States is currently the largest trading partner of India in goods and services. The leaders reiterated their pledge to bolster and deepen cooperation on economic, trade and agricultural issues, including working bilaterally and with multilateral trade organizations to foster increased trade. Both leaders welcomed the potential for further expanding trade and investment between their countries, including in sectors such as infrastructure, information and communication technologies, healthcare services, education services, energy and environmentally friendly technologies.

As members of the G 20, they agreed to advance the G 20 understandings including with regard to energy security and resisting protectionism in all its forms. The two leaders agreed to facilitate greater movement of professionals, investors and business travelers, students, and exchange visitors between our two countries to enhance their economic and technological partnership.

They committed to strengthen and reform the global economic and financial architecture in the G-20, World Bank and the IMF. They resolved to seek an ambitious and balanced outcome of the Doha Round, consistent with its mandate and reaffirmed their commitment to an open, fair, equitable, transparent and rule-based multilateral trading system.

The two leaders announced their intention to develop a Framework for Cooperation on Trade and Investment. This Framework is expected to foster an environment conducive to technological innovation and collaboration, promote inclusive growth and job creation, and support opportunities for increased trade and investment—including for small and medium-sized enterprises. They agreed to launch the U.S.-India Financial and Economic Partnership to strengthen engagement on economic, financial, and investment-related issues.

The two leaders welcomed the progress achieved in the discussions on a Bilateral Investment Treaty and pledged to take further initiatives that would contribute to creating a more conducive environment for investment flows.

They recognized the contribution of the business and industrial sectors of both countries in this regard and called upon the India-U.S. CEOs Forum to identify new directions in the India-U.S. economic relationship.

EDUCATING AND EMPOWERING FUTURE GENERATIONS

Recognizing the cultural emphasis on education in both countries, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama emphasized that education holds the key to the advancement of their societies, and to a more prosperous and stable world.

They agreed that access to and development of technology was a cross-cutting requirement to meet the challenges that their two countries face. They acknowledged the fruitful collaboration between the two countries in the fields of education, research and science and technology, which has contributed to their emergence as knowledge societies.

Taking advantage of that strength, President Obama and Prime Minister Singh launched the Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative with funding from both sides to increase university linkages and junior faculty development exchanges between U.S. and Indian universities, including greater emphasis on community colleges.

They agreed to substantially expand the Fulbright-Nehru program to provide more student and scholar exchange grants in priority fields such as science, technology and agriculture. The two leaders reaffirmed the importance of expanding cooperation in higher education and research, and according priority to cooperation in the area of skill development.

They also expressed their support for the India-U.S. Binational Science and Technology Commission and the Endowment, which is expected to give a fresh impetus to collaboration in the cutting edge areas of scientific research, technology and development.

The leaders affirmed the importance of women's empowerment to advancing global prosperity and stability, and welcomed the establishment of a Women's Empowerment Dialogue to promote women's participation and equality in all spheres. They emphasized that women's empowerment is a cross-cutting goal that should be pursued across the full scope of U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue initiatives.

PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF OUR PEOPLE

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama welcomed the strong collaboration between India and the United States in the area of public health. They agreed to build on existing strong ties across academia and scientific communities by advancing public health and biomedical research collaborations between the United States and India. The two countries plan to establish a Regional Global Disease Detection Center in India and to build a partnership with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . The leaders also pledged to enhance collaboration in controlling diseases such as polio, and discovering new and affordable technologies and treatments for the benefit of their peoples and for those of other countries who seek their assistance.

TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE GLOBAL COOPERATION

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognized that the India-U.S. relationship is important for managing the challenges the world will face in the 21st century.

The two leaders underscored the compelling need to put in place global institutions which are both inclusive and effective to meet present and future challenges. They welcomed the emergence of the G-20 as a premier forum to deal with international economic issues. The two leaders recognized the scope for their countries to increase cooperation in peacekeeping, development and the promotion of essential human freedoms. They committed themselves to achieving genuine reform of the United Nations including in its Security Council in a manner that reflects the contemporary realities of the 21st century and thereby enhances its ability to carry out its mandate as a representative, credible and effective forum for meeting the challenges of the new century.

Prime Minister Singh thanked President Obama and the people of the United States of America for their generous hospitality and warm welcome. President Obama looks forward to visiting India with his family in the near future.

U.S. Treasury and India's Ministry of Finance announce historic partnership to guide economic cooperation

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced the establishment today of a new U.S.-India Economic and Financial Partnership to strengthen bilateral engagement and understanding on macroeconomic, financial sector, and infrastructure-related issues. Secretary Geithner will visit India in early 2010 for the Partnership's launch with Finance Minister Mukherjee.

Both countries recognize the importance of expanding bilateral economic engagement, noting the rapid growth of U.S.-India economic ties and the increasing range of global macroeconomic and financial issues on which the United States and India cooperate. The Economic and Financial Partnership is a significant elevation of existing bilateral and multilateral economic dialogue between the United States and India, and will serve as a platform for greater cooperation on economic issues of importance to both nations.

The Partnership will focus on three broad areas for discussion—macroeconomic policy, the financial sector, and infrastructure development—and will meet at the Cabinet level once a year, alternately in the United States and India, led by Secretary Geithner and Minister Mukherjee. Working group and sub-cabinet level meetings will be held throughout the year to advance discussions on specific economic policy areas.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Bob. And we have just come from a wonderful lunch with the Prime Minister and the Vice President, so I think this signing is yet another example of the deepening and broadening of our relationship and I am pleased to join with Minister Krishna and Dr. Ahluwalia for this occasion—a declaration of our shared commitment to develop clean energy technologies together to reduce our nations' carbon emissions as part of our larger efforts to solve the climate crisis.

I was privileged when I visited India last summer to see clean energy technologies at work, to tour a state-of-the-art green building, one of the most advanced in the world. The economic opportunities that we can derive from these technologies are very compelling. But we also can do it in a way that tackles the challenge of climate change which threatens us all. By creating and implementing clean energy technologies on a broad scale, we can mitigate the effects of climate change and help people adapt to changes that have already occurred.

This memorandum is the result of months of close consultation between our governments. It builds on the efforts that both countries have taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, India recently announced it will develop 20 gigawatts of solar power by 2022. To put that number in perspective, it is more than the total estimated amount of solar power produced worldwide today.

This memorandum also establishes a clean energy research and development institute which the United States intends to support with $50 million. It will include a joint research center with facilities in both the United States and India to make it easier for our scientists to conduct research together and to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies.

We're signing this memorandum at a very critical time, right on the eve of the conference in Copenhagen. We look forward to continuing to work with India. Our two governments have agreed that the agreement produced at Copenhagen should cover mitigation, adaptation, technology, and financing, and pledges of transparent and meaningful action from both developed and developing countries. Both India and the United States have agreed to stand behind our own commitments to reduce emissions. With this agreement, we can help India and the United States make progress on addressing climate change, increasing energy security, and strengthening economic growth.

So I want to thank both of my colleagues and tell you how pleased we are to be deepening our collaboration. It is very timely and it will be, I believe, very strongly in the best interests of both of our nations as well as the world. Thank you very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed in Brussels, Belgium by Margaret Warner of PBS

Q. Was this a hard sell to get the NATO allies to pony up more troops?

Secretary Clinton. It wasn't a hard sell, once the hard part was over; namely, getting the strategy, feeling that we had done everything we needed to do to make the very best assessment, to give the President our best advice, and the decision that he then announced on Tuesday night. Once he announced that decision, it was extraordinary the kind of support that we were getting from our friends and allies around the world.

Q. Now, I have to ask you about the 7,000 additional troops, which the Secretary General announced this morning to us, and everyone put on their websites. But how many of those are really new troops versus troops that, say, came in for the election and now are going to stay on?

Secretary Clinton. Well, Margaret, they are all new, in the sense that they will all be in Afghanistan in 2010. The troops that came in for the election were expected to have left by the end of this year. They have decided, pursuant to the new strategy, that they're going to be staying. And we have thousands of new commitments from countries that have made a real stretch, like small countries like Georgia and Slovakia, big countries like Italy and Poland and the United Kingdom, and others who will be making their announcements over the next days and weeks.

This was actually not supposed to be a pledging conference. This was supposed to be a rallying conference in the sense of people getting behind the policy with public statements, and then there'll be a force determination conference next week. But I was thrilled that we got these kind of commitments out there today.

Q. Let me finally ask you about the response in the region. The stories today were that it was really not met— this Obama speech—with great enthusiasm in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. Let me ask you about Pakistan first. There, there was just a lot of talk about the United States was getting ready to walk out on Pakistan once again. Are you surprised by this?

Secretary Clinton. No, not after the three days I just spent in Pakistan. I think that there is just a reflex of skepticism and anxiety about American intentions, and it goes back into the history of this quite young country. It's about the same age I am. They look to these historical milestones and say, well, America wasn't with us then and America left us after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. So as I said repeatedly when we were there, we have to rebuild trust.

But I think if you read those stories closely, and certainly the personal conversations I've had with Pakistani leaders in the last couple of days, there's a sigh of relief. There's a feeling that, okay, so the United States is committed not only to Afghanistan in the fight against the Afghan Taliban, but you're committed to this partnership you keep talking about. We have set up a strategic dialogue between the United States and Pakistan. It's very important to them. And we're going to continue to forge ahead. And I think we're making a little progress. I actually thought the press accounts were better than I would have anticipated.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary Robert Gates were interviewed in Washington, DC by George Stephanopoulos of ABC's “This Week With George Stephanopoulos”

Q. Secretary Gates, let me begin with you, because there's been so much focus since the President's speech on this call to begin an exit strategy in July 2011, and I want to show you what Senator McCain said earlier this week.

Senator McCain. “When conditions on the ground have decisively begun to change for the better, that is when our troops should start to return home with honor—not one minute longer, not one minute sooner, and certainly not on some arbitrary date in July 2011.”

Q. Just two months ago, you seemed to agree with that sentiment. You called the notion of timelines and exit strategies a strategic mistake. What changed?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I don't consider this an exit strategy, and I try to avoid using that term. I think—

Q. Why not?

Secretary Gates.—this is a transition. This is a transition that's going to take place, and it's not an arbitrary date. It will be two years since the Marines went into southern Helmand, and that—two years that our military leaders believe would give us time to know that our strategy is working. They believe that in that time, General McChrystal will have the opportunity to demonstrate decisively in certain areas of Afghanistan that the approach we're taking is working. Obviously, the transition will begin in the less contested areas of the country, but it will be the same kind of gradual, conditions-based transition—province by province, district by district—that we saw in Iraq.

Q. We've heard that phrase a lot.

Secretary Gates. It begins—but it begins in July, not 2011.

Q. No—and I understand that, but you talk about this conditions-based decision making and I guess that's—it's a fairly vague term. So if the strategy is working, do the troops stay? If it's not working, do they leave? How is the decision-making process going to go?

Secretary Gates. Well, from my standpoint, the decision in terms of when a district or a cluster of districts or a province is ready to be turned over to the Afghan security forces is a judgment that will be made by our commanders on the ground, not here in Washington. And we will do the same thing we did in Iraq. When we transition to Afghan security responsibility, we will withdraw in—first into tactical overwatch, and then a strategic over-watch—if you will, the cavalry over the hill—in case they run into trouble.

Q. You mentioned the actions the Pakistani Government has taken. Is Baluchistan next? Is that where they have to go next to take out the Taliban?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think that the Pakistani Government—we sometimes tend to forget that Pakistan, like Afghanistan, is a sovereign country. And Pakistani—the Pakistani army will go where the Pakistani army thinks the threat is. And if they think that threat's in Baluchistan, that's where they'll go. If they think it's in North Waziristan, they may go up there. Or they may just winter in where they are right now. But these are calls that the Pakstanis make. We are sharing information with them. We have had a steadily developing, better relationship between our militaries. And we will help them in any way we possibly can. But that's their call.

Q. How is this offense in Helmand Province going?

Secretary Gates. It's actually going very well, and the Marines have already had—I think one of the reasons that our military leaders are pretty confident is that they have already begun to see changes where the Marines are present in southern Helmand.

Q. Let me talk about a question of cost, which has been raised by our next guest. Senator Russ Feingold, as you know, is against the escalation announced by the President, but he's also gone on and wrote a letter to the President where he raises—where he says “We request that you not send any additional troops to Afghanistan until Congress has enacted appropriations to pay for the cost of such an increase, and that you propose reductions in spending to pay for the cost of any military operations in Afghanistan, a concern shared by many of the American people.”

Secretary Clinton, shouldn't this war, if we're going to fight it, be paid for?

Secretary Clinton. Well, the President has said that the costs are going to be accounted for, that the Office of Management and Budget, the Defense Department, the State Department are going to be working to make sure that we give the best projections of costs we can. I think that we're going to have to address our deficit situation across the board; there's no doubt about that, and I certainly support that. But I think we have to look at the entire budget and we have to be very clear about what the costs are.

As Secretary Gates has said a couple of times in our testimony together, we are drawing down from Iraq. There will be savings over the next two to three years coming from there. And the addition of these troops is going to put a burden on us, no doubt about it. It is manageable, but we have to look at all of our fiscal situation and begin to address it.

Q. There's also the question of the cost-benefit analysis, and a lot of people look at our own U.S. Government intelligence estimates, saying there are fewer than a hundred active al-Qaida in Afghanistan and say, why is that worth putting $30 billion more this year into Afghanistan?

Secretary Gates. It is because in that border area—Afghan-Pakistani border— that is the epicenter of extremist Jihad. And al-Qaida has close relationships with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they have very close relationships with the Taliban in Pakistan. The Taliban in Pakistan have been attacking Pakistani civilians, Pakistani Government officials, military officials, trying to destabilize the Government of Pakistan. Any success by the Taliban in either Afghanistan or Pakistan benefits al-Qaida, and any safe haven on either side of the border creates opportunities for them to recruit, get new funds, and do operational planning.

And what's more, the Taliban revival in the safe havens in western Pakistan is a lesson to al-Qaida that they can come back if they are provided the kind of safe haven that the Taliban were. This is the place where the Jihadists defeated the Soviet Union, one superpower. And they believe—their narrative is that it helped create the collapse of the Soviet Union. If—they believe that if they can defeat us in Afghanistan, that they then have the opportunity to defeat a second superpower—

Q. But if you look at that—

Secretary Gates.—and it creates huge opportunities for them in that area as well as around the world.

Q. You were the deputy director of the CIA back in 1985 when Gorbachev made the decision to expand. Eighteen months later, he was pulling out. What's to prevent that from happening again?

Secretary Gates. Well, what he did was agree with his generals to make one last push. But the parallel just doesn't work. The reality is the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. They killed a million Afghans, they made 5 million refugees out of Afghanis, they were isolated in the world in terms of what they were doing there. We are part of an alliance that—of 42 countries with us, in addition to us, that are contributing troops. We have a UN mandate. We have a mandate from NATO. So you have broad international support for what's going on in Afghanistan, and the situation is just completely different than was the case with the Soviet Union.

Secretary Hillary Clinton was interviewed in Washington, DC by Riz Khan of Al Jazeera TV English

Q. Another issue is there's a huge demand for bolstering the Afghan forces to take over the role. Twenty four hours ago, I spoke with General Stanley McChrystal on this issue, and there was a strong sense that as much as it's an issue being avoided, there is a huge shortfall in the number of Afghan forces. But with the Afghan military being paid less than NGOs are paying them—and even the Taliban apparently pays its people more—how can you make sure that you could get the kind of mass needed for Afghanistan to be able to take care of itself in the military sense?

Secretary Clinton. Well, you're absolutely right that—I don't see why anybody would be surprised that you would be paid so little to undertake such a dangerous mission and you might lack enthusiasm. But in the last week, the Afghan Government has increased dramatically the pay. And guess what? The number of recruits went up. I think it's a combination of better training, more esprit de corps and discipline, which is essential to any kind of security force, but also recognizing that these young men deserve to be paid a decent wage to support themselves and their families.

Q. Interestingly, you're reaching out, especially more recently, to the American Pakistani community and also the Pakistani diaspora around. In trying to improve their situation in Pakistan, or at least the people back home in Pakistan, what specifically do you expect them to do? What sort of role would you expect them to play?

Secretary Clinton. Well, I have been so impressed by my many Pakistani American friends who are so successful. They're professionals of all kinds, they're very successful in business. They're academics. It's an extraordinarily impressive community. And I know that many of them, from my personal acquaintance, still have deep ties in Pakistan. They often go back to see their relatives, to visit their family home. They send money to support people back in Pakistan.

And in talking with many of them, I suggested that it might be appropriate for them to think hard about forming a Pakistan American foundation that would represent the diaspora here in our country, similarly to what the Irish have done. The American Ireland Fund has been a nongovernmental effort which has, over the years, really made a difference in focusing on projects and providing scholarships to young people. And I was pleased that there was such an immediate response, and thank you for agreeing to be the master of ceremonies at the inaugural event.

But I think that having the experience and expertise, the commitment, the resources of the American Pakistani community be focused on trying to make a difference in conveying a message to the people of Pakistan about what the future could be is a very critical development.

Q. Is the U.S. being forced to act less unilaterally, having to turn to its NATO partners because of, for example, the shortfall in troops in Afghanistan, because of the need to act together on more of these issues you've discussed?

Secretary Clinton. Well, but that's part of our diplomatic philosophy. We want to work with others. There are—there's not a problem in the world that the United States can solve alone, but I would quickly add there is not a problem in the world that can be solved without the United States. So we want to create coalitions. We want to find common ground with people. There are many things we could go off and do unilaterally, as the prior administration certainly demonstrated. That's not our chosen path. We would prefer to take some more time, to be more patient, to bring people together to make the case.

For example, at the Board of Governors at the IAEA, the vote that was accumulated condemning Iran, calling for Iran to act, was shocking to some people because it was so unified. It wasn't just the United States. It was Russia, it was China and many other countries. That's because we have spent time listening and working hard to create this common ground and these common interests, and we've done it out of a sense of mutual respect. We respect and admire so many other cultures and societies. I think the President's made that clear time and time again.

But we do feel like at a certain point, the international community must speak with one voice, and we think that time has come with respect to Iran's nuclear program.

Q. Madame Secretary, thank you very much for your time.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you, Riz. Good to talk to you.

Readout of the President's calls with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia

As President Obama continues to lay the foundation for an international political agreement on climate change in Copenhagen, he is reaching out personally to his counterparts around the world. Yesterday, the President spoke with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh and Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia.

President Obama encouraged Prime Minister Hasina to help reach robust agreement at the Leaders summit later this week in Copenhagen. The President reviewed efforts by the United States on climate change and reiterated his commitment to making progress. He emphasized his desire to reach a pragmatic solution that encompasses action by all countries. For her part, Prime Minister Hasina expressed appreciation for the efforts of the United States and noted that 80% of Bangladesh's 150 million people could be negatively affected by climate change. The two leaders agreed on the importance of working closely with the Danish Prime Minister to reach an appropriate agreement and of encouraging all developed and developing countries to play a constructive role. The President also expressed support for Bangladesh's efforts to combat terrorism in South Asia.

With Prime Minister Meles, the President reviewed efforts by the United States on climate change and reiterated his commitment to making progress. He expressed his appreciation for the leadership role the Prime Minister was playing in work with African countries on climate change, and urged him to help reach agreement at the Leaders summit later this week in Copenhagen. For his part, Prime Minister Meles stressed the importance of success in Copenhagen, and the need to find ways to make suitable progress on the mitigation, adaptation, and the provision of finance for the developing countries.