Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks en route to Astana, Kazakhstan

Secretary Rice. Good morning. How are you? We are going to go to Kazakhstan now. It's an important stop because Kazakhstan is a very important regional actor. It's a country with which we have a lot of relationships built on economic ties, built on regional engagement. And, of course, we are looking forward to discussing with Kazakhstan the issues concerning its OSCE chairmanship that will come up in 2010, and the importance of meeting its commitments on political reform and human rights. We will have that discussion.

But this is really also a trip that is emblematic of our engagement with central Asia as a whole. We have been very active in thinking of central Asia as a place that has important links to Afghanistan. And I think much of that is being realized. So, I look forward to an opportunity to go to Kazakhstan, after having had a very nice trip to India. I just wish I could have stayed longer in India.

Q. The Russian government sometimes accuses you of trying to poach their allies. Like Nazarbayev, who has sort of been on the fence a bit, done exercises with NATO, but also with the Russians, how do you respond to this Russian anxiety, that you are trying to take an ally of theirs away?

Secretary Rice. Well, we don't see any of this as a zero-sum game. First of all, Kazakhstan is an independent country. It can have friendships with whomever it wishes, and I think Kazakhstan has wished to have friendships and relationships with all of its neighbors. And that is, I think, perfectly acceptable in the 21st century, so we don't see and don't accept any notion of a special sphere of influence. And so, we look forward to continuing to build our relationship with Kazakhstan. But there is nothing zero-sum game about it.

Q. But there is no danger, is there, of sort of creating another Georgia-style situation?

Secretary Rice. Oh, I think Kazakhstan is quite capable of defending its independence.

Q. Is there anything in particular that you would like Kazakhstan to do more in Afghanistan, or to help you in some way in Afghanistan?

Secretary Rice. Well, when I met with the foreign minister at the United Nations General Assembly in advance of this trip, we talked some about some of Kazakhstan's interests in infrastructure and energy projects in Afghanistan. Obviously, Afghanistan is still just emerging, in terms of its reconstruction programs. But I do think that Afghanistan and Kazakhstan could have quite an important set of ties along infrastructure and energy lines.

Q. Would that include, in any way, helping a sort of back-up supply route for—in the event that supplying, you know, US troops in Afghanistan gets cut off by other countries?

Secretary Rice. That hasn't been the issue. The issue, really, has been more economic reconstruction and energy.

Q. With the India external affairs minister, did you discuss Kazakhstan, and the role India and Kazakhstan could play together? There is also uranium that Kazakhstan has. Would India be importing some of that uranium? Is that—

Secretary Rice. We didn't talk about that issue, but we did talk about the important regional links between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and central Asia. If you think about that as a sort of north-south or south-north corridor, obviously for Afghanistan, in particular, to succeed, it's going to have to be regionally integrated.

It has always been strongest, economically, when it was regionally integrated, when it was once a land bridge for the region. I think we don't think in terms of land bridges any more in the modern economy, but it still has critical links to its neighbors in the region.

Q. What does Nazarbayev need to do on human rights?

Secretary Rice. Well, there are a set of commitments that the Kazakhs undertook, as a part of the decision that was taken by OSCE for their chairmanship. And so, we can review those. But they won't be surprising to you, in terms of media, freedom, ability of opposition to organize, and the like. But they are set commitments, and I expect Kazakhstan to live up to them, and they have their commitments that they have taken that they have said that they want to live up to.

Q. And you're going to bring that up today?

Secretary Rice. Well, of course, we will talk about the OSCE and the commitments.

Q. Any particular cases you will bring up, any special cases?

Secretary Rice. No, this is really—what we have tried to do with Kazakhstan is to talk principally about political reform in the structural sense. And that is, principally, what I am going to talk about.

Q. No special human rights cases?

Secretary Rice. We have already raised some cases. I will talk with David Kramer when I get on the ground, and see where we are. David Kramer, from Human Rights, will be with me.

Q. Could you tell us anything about Ambassador Negroponte being in Iraq?

Secretary Rice. Just, he was in Iraq. He was there, he goes periodically, as we all do, to Iraq. And he was in Azerbaijan, you know. And so he wanted to go over to Iraq for several days and see how it is. It's an opportunity for him to help us also think a little bit about transition planning—when-ever you start a troop draw-down, as we have, you have to be concerned about how civilians will continue to perform their functions. So that's one of the things John is looking at.

Q. Working on the security agreement? Is that -

Secretary Rice. Well, the security agreement is being negotiated by our negotiators. I am certain that he is going to have discussions with Iraqi leaders about it. But it's going along. There wasn't anything specific that he went to do on the security agreement.

Q. Are you close to finishing that, finally?

Secretary Rice. Finally?

Q. Well, you said you were close before, so—

Secretary Rice. Well, we are close. But, as you might imagine, because it's an important and difficult agreement when you're trying to work out arrangements that are both going to protect our people and be responsive to Iraqi sovereignty, that just takes some time. But John isn't doing anything particularly about it, although he will talk to Iraqi leaders.

Q. Have you decided not to open an interest section in Iran?

Secretary Rice. We continue to look at the idea. I think it's an interesting idea. But, you know, we are going to take a look at it in the light of what it could do for our relationship with the Iranian people.

Q. It's still a possibility in the Bush administration?

Secretary Rice. We are still looking at the idea. Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Minister Marat Tazhin delivered these remarks in Astana, Kazakhstan

Foreign Minister Tazhin. We have discussed a very broad range of issues, first of all, that have to do with our bilateral cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States of America. We have a large volume of bilateral relations, both in the area of economy, transport, trade, and other areas. A very detailed, concrete discussion has taken place on the whole gamut of issues having to do with bilateral relations, and we also discussed a lot of issues concerning international relations.

I will not—I do not want to get ahead of the speech of Madame Secretary, but I just would like to briefly summarize the status of cooperation between the United States and Kazakhstan. This relationship is stable. We are constantly in contact. And I would like to declare myself wholly satisfied with the outcome of the talks. And I would like give the floor now to the State Secretary.

Secretary Rice. Thank you very much. And thank you very much, Minister, for having me here. This follows on our very substantive and successful meetings in New York. I am, indeed, very pleased at the state of relations between the United States and Kazakhstan.

We have had an opportunity to talk about a range of issues, about regional issues, about the growing economic ties between our countries. We also have had a chance to talk about the upcoming chairmanship of the OSCE in 2010 for Kazakhstan, and the commitments that have been made there, and also your plans for the future of that organization.

And so, thank you very much. I look forward to my meetings with the Prime Minister and with the President. It is always good to be in Astana. It is always good to be with you. And I look forward to the further development of our relationship. Thank you.

Q. I'm Susan Cornwell with Reuters. This is a question for Foreign Minister Tazhin.

You have managed to remain a special friend of Russia, as well as opening up to the West, your country has. And you have even conducted exercises with NATO. I wanted to know, did the Georgian war make that balancing act more difficult for you? And do you consider your country to be part of the Russian sphere of influence? Thank you.

Foreign Minister Tazhin. It's an interesting question. But I should say that our relationship with Russia, I can formulate, it's just like excellent. We have very politically correct relations. Russia is our strategic partner. And I think that all question about the change of level of influence and so on, it's just, from my point of view, and from my vision, it's just some versions and some sort of expert community, or maybe media community, and so on.

At the same time, I should underline that our relationship with the United States has stable, has strategic character. And in 2006, during meetings of President of United States and President of Kazakhstan, it was very openly stated that our two countries have stable and strategic relationship.

So, I should answer to your question just one—by one word, no. This does not mean, what you mean. I think that it is very important that this working relations with the United States and with Russia have a good and very solid (inaudible). Thank you.

Q. So I have a question to FM Tazhin and to Secretary Rice. What is your take on the prospects of bilateral cooperation, especially in the area of energy? Thank you.

Foreign Minister Tazhin. I believe that this relationship hinges on those agreements and contracts that have already been signed. It's a very transparent relationship that we have in the area of energy. And I do believe that they will be developing along those plans that we have had.

Secretary Rice. We have a very open relationship across a whole, broad range of issues. We have discussed, for instance, economic relations, trade relations, energy relations, based all on transparent relations—many of them commercial relations between companies. The United States, of course, doesn't own any companies, and so these are relations between commercial entities.

But I think that what you should take from this discussion—and it speaks a bit to Sue's question, as well—is that this is not some kind of contest for the affection of Kazakhstan between the countries of the region. Kazakhstan is a country that has excellent relations with all of its neighbors. That is the way that it should be. It has excellent relations with the United States. We have talked some about the relations that you're developing with Europe, which are also very important, and expect that these will serve Kazakhstan well.

But, in terms of our relationship with Kazakhstan, it's based on mutual respect, on transparency, and on the desire to see a more prosperous and open region here in Kazakhstan, as well as in Central Asia, more generally. Thank you.

President George W. Bush and President Ivan Gasparovic delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Bush. It is my honor to welcome the President of Slovakia to the Oval Office. Slovakia is an ally and friend of the United States. And in my time as President, I have come to admire this President. He's an easy man to talk to. He's got good, strong opinions, and I appreciate his values.

We talked about a variety of subjects. I assured him that the United States will take strong action in dealing with the current economic situation. And I also talked about our common desire to have a—to work with our European friends to develop a best as possible common policy.

During my presidency I was pleased to support Slovakia's ascension into NATO. I was confident that Slovakia would be an excellent partner and ally in NATO, and history has proven me correct. And I thank the people of Slovakia for supporting the government's decision to deploy troops into Afghanistan to help that young democracy never be a safe haven for terrorists, and to serve as an example of the transformative power of freedom.

Finally, we talked about visa waiver. I told the President that Slovakia has made a lot of progress on visa waiver. And I expect that in mid-November there will be a—you know, a positive decision for the people of your good country, Mr. President. And I congratulate you and your foreign ministry for working hard on this issue. And I'm glad to welcome you to the Oval Office.

President Gasparovic. Mr. President, allow me to start by thanking you for inviting me. This is an extraordinary day for me. And I believe it is also a satisfaction to the people of Slovakia for them to see that Slovakia [sic] has a favorable disposition towards our country, and that we have good relations. I believe that basically our relations, we are currently at our highest point.

It was during his presidency that President Bush supported Slovakia on its way to NATO, which, in turn, helped Slovakia to become a member of the European Union. These were two very important steps and decisions that allowed Slovakia to build its reputation as a credible country. And it is this credibility that allows Slovakia to attract foreign investments into our country. Slovakia continues to be a prosperous country and a country that has and receives credibility in foreign policy, as well.

We talked about many difficult issues. We talked also about the financial crisis and about the steps that need to be taken in order to overcome this crisis and to reinvigorate the financial system.

I'm very glad that Slovakia and its economy is currently in the situation where we will not likely be taking a direct hit from this financial crisis. Slovakia is in a position where we're able to mitigate many impacts of this crisis. On the other hand, Slovakia is the world's largest per capita car producer. This means that Slovakia's exports and foreign trade will suffer. However we believe that we can take steps to mitigate this impact.

I was glad that in my capacity as the President of the Slovak Republic, I was able to reassure the President that Slovakia will continue to stand behind its commitments and its dedication to NATO, and that we will continue to be present in Afghanistan. Moreover, Slovakia will increase the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan by 100 percent.

In closing, I want to say that I believe, Mr. President, our meeting today was a very strong message of the good relations that Slovakia has with the United States, and vice versa.

President George W. Bush delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Bush. Thank you all very much. Good morning. Secretary Paulson, Secretary Rice and I just had a productive discussion with finance ministers of America's partners in the G7—Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan. I'm pleased to be with Prime Minister Junker of Luxembourg, who is the President of the Eurogroup of countries, Managing Director Strauss-Kahn of the International Monetary Fund, President Zoellick of the World Bank, Chairman Draghi of the Financial Stability Forum. Thank you all for coming.

I appreciate the spirit and common purpose that these leaders have brought to Washington. We recognize that the turmoil in the financial markets is affecting all our citizens. Citizens are rightly concerned about the crisis. And we understand that in dealing with the financial crisis, we're really helping people be able to have a better future themselves.

In my country, it is important for our citizens to have understood that which affects Wall Street affects Main Street as well. And all of us recognize that this is a serious global crisis and, therefore, requires a serious global response for the good of our people. We resolve to continue our strong efforts to return our economies to the path of stability and long-term growth.

The United States has a special role to play in leading the response to this crisis. That is why I convened this morning's meeting here at the White House, and that is why our government will continue using all the tools at our disposal to resolve this crisis. At our meeting, Secretary Paulson and I described the bold actions the United States has taken over the past few weeks:

To help thaw frozen markets, the Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented measures to boost liquidity. The Securities and Exchange Commission has cracked down on abusive practices in the markets. Federal agencies have significantly expanded the amount of money insured in bank and credit union accounts. My administration worked with the Congress to pass legislation authorizing the government to recapitalize banks by purchasing troubled assets or providing insurance or purchasing equity in financial institutions. These extraordinary efforts are being implemented as quickly and as effectively as possible. The benefits will not be realized overnight. But as these actions take effect, they will help restore stability to our markets and confidence to our financial institutions.

I'm pleased that other G7 countries are making strong—are taking strong measures. Finance ministers and central bankers have acted to provide new liquidity to markets, strengthen financial institutions, protect citizens' savings, and ensure fairness and integrity in the financial markets.

As our nations confront challenges unique to our individual financial systems, we must continue to work collaboratively and ensure that our actions are coordinated. The joint interest rate cut earlier this week was a good example of effective cooperation. Yesterday, G7 finance ministers and central bankers agreed to a plan of action:

The G7 nations have pledged to take decisive action to support systemically important financial institutions and prevent their failure, provide robust protection for retail bank deposits, and ensure financial institutions are able to raise needed capital. We've agreed to implement strong measures to unfreeze credit, ensure access to liquidity, and help to restart the secondary markets for mortgages and other assets. We've all agreed that the actions we take should protect our taxpayers. And we agreed that we ought to work with other nations such as those that will be represented this afternoon in the G20 forum.

As our nations carry out this plan, we must ensure the actions of one country do not contradict or undermine the actions of another. In our interconnected world, no nation will gain by driving down the fortunes of another. We're in this together. We will come through it together.

I'm confident that the world's major economies can overcome the challenges we face. There have been moments of crisis in the past when powerful nations turned their energies against each other, or sought to wall themselves off from the world. This time is different. The leaders gathered in Washington this weekend are all working toward the same goals. We will stand together in addressing this threat to our prosperity. We will do what it takes to resolve this crisis. And the world's economy will emerge stronger as a result.

Thank you very much.

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Bush. Buongiorno. Fellow citizens, distinguished guests, thank you all for being here as we receive a wonderful visitor—the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic, Silvio Berlusconi. He is a man of accomplishment, a statesman from a great nation, and a warm friend of the United States. Mr. Prime Minister, you honor us with your visit, and Laura and I are so pleased to have you come to the White House on Columbus Day.

On this national holiday, America remembers the explorer from Genoa, who led a fleet of three tiny ships on a great journey of discovery. Christopher Columbus earned his place in history by introducing the Old World to the New. And in the story of his life, Americans see qualities that are so much a part of our nation—the vision to take a risk and to explore the unknown, the courage to persevere through difficulty, and the optimism to greet every new day with confidence and joy.

Italy is rightly proud of Christopher Columbus. And America is proud that so many other Italians have journeyed across the Atlantic and made this land their home. Generations of Italian immigrants have strengthened America with their own traditions of faith in God, pride in family, devotion to country, and love of life. In more ways than can be counted, the United States is a better place for the influence of the sons and daughters of Italy.

With the visit today of Prime Minister Berlusconi, we reaffirm the close and trusting friendship between our two countries. For more than six decades, America and Italy have been partners in the work of freedom and progress. We look to the future with confidence.

Together, we have worked to build a strong transatlantic alliance that helps guard the lives and liberty of our peoples. We know that further growth of NATO will serve the interest of all who cherish freedom, security, and peace.

Together, we're standing firm against the forces of brutality and instability in our world. Our countries and other peaceful nations have been targeted by terrorists. We will fight those enemies until they are defeated. Our security is threatened by the proliferation of deadly technologies. We're acting to remove that danger. Civilization is challenged by extremist ideologies with a will to power—and we are determined to overcome hatred and intolerance with the values of decency and justice and democracy.

Together, we are giving support to rising democracies, and defending the innocent against the violent. Italy has shown that commitment by deploying forces to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and by leading NATO training operations in Iraq. Italian forces are also serving the cause of peace and stability in Lebanon and Kosovo and Bosnia. And, Mr. Prime Minister, America is proud to be your ally in missions that will bring forth a better and a safer world.

As allies and friends, the United States and Italy have formed strong bonds of commerce and understanding. By our commitment to free markets and the spirit of enterprise, we've helped ourselves and others to succeed and prosper. And in these times of economic turmoil, we're working with other governments to resolve the troubles of the financial markets. Just this weekend, I met with the Finance Minister of Italy and his counterparts from the G7 and G20 nations. All of us will continue taking responsible, decisive action to restore credit and stability, and return to vigorous growth.

Despite many challenges, the United States and Italy know that we are very fortunate countries. We count our blessings, and we share a belief that material wealth brings responsibilities. So we've joined with other industrial powers to fight hunger and disease in Africa, and to promote the development that can lift nations out of poverty and despair. We have been generous, and we've given new hope to millions who suffer. We will not grow tired in the cause of progress, and human rights, and human dignity.

At this crucial time in history, with so much yet to do, relations between the United States and Italy are superb. There's a genuine respect between our peoples, and Prime Minister Berlusconi and I have shared that respect in all our dealings. In these years I have deeply appreciated his friendship and his wisdom. The Prime Minister is a man of sincerity and principle, who speaks his mind and keeps his word. And because of his high spirits and boundless optimism, it is always good to see him and to spend time with him.

So on this beautiful Columbus Day, Laura and I are proud to greet him on behalf of our whole nation. Mr. Prime Minister: Mio caro amico, benvenuto— my dear friend, welcome to the United States.

Prime Minister Berlusconi. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much for inviting me here on this day, which marks the day of the friendship between the United States and Italy; the day which bears the name of Columbus, that, as President Bush so rightly said, is somebody that both Italians and Americans can look at as an example of courage and vision and firmness.

Mr. President, I, too, have a written speech, but you have already said all of the beautiful things I would have liked to say. So I'm telling you what comes really straight from my heart. I've been honored over these years by the possibility of cooperating with you. I've found in you a man of great ideals, great principles, a man of vision, but in particular, a person who has been able to pursue those visions with firmness.

Never, ever I found, in all of the meetings we had over these years, in you the calculations that sometimes politicians made. I've always found in you the sincerity and the spontaneity of a person who strongly believes in what he does. And it was always easy for me to share your ideas, to share your visions, to be next to you, to stand next to you, because we are always bound by these common love for freedom, love for democracy, respect for the others, and the feeling, this common feeling that we are here just to serve our peoples. And I'm a hundred percent sure and positive that history will tell—will say that George W. Bush has been a great, very great President of the United States of America.

And I would like also to thank you for the compliments that you addressed to the Italian Americans. And I'm also happy and proud and grateful to see that many Italian Americans now sit in leading positions in your country. They are in the American administration, in the justice system, in the various companies and businesses. And they have provided a very important contribution to the closeness of your country.

Today we are in a crisis, in a global crisis which has never happened before in the world economy. Yesterday, I attended in Paris a meeting among the leaders of the countries belonging to the Eurozone— the countries sharing the same currency, the euro. And we've taken decisions which I hope we can be positive in order to prevent a financial crisis from affecting the real economy.

I'm a hundred percent sure and confident that we have the means and ways to prevent this from happening, and that the wealth of our citizens enjoy will not be affected by this. And the most important thing, as a matter of fact, is that the United States and Europe can act in a concerted and coordinated way.

We've been fighting together extremism and terrorism, and we will continue to be on your side, we'll continue to fight that until the enemy of freedom will not be defeated—the enemy of freedom, which doesn't have any love at the basis of its action—until it will be completely defeated.

And as far as I'm concerned, and please allow me to say that from a personal level, I will continue in the next four years of my government to act towards the United States as I've always been doing. And it has always been extremely easy for me to behave like this, because I'm deeply, very grateful to the United States because the United States has saved my country and my people from Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.

Today we are in a crisis, in a global crisis which has never happened before in the world economy.

I'm deeply grateful to the United States because through the Marshall Plan, it allowed my country to get out of poverty and start a path toward wealth and well-being. I'm grateful to the United States because over the many years of the Cold War, it protected the whole West from the East. And I'm grateful to the United States because still today, through the sacrifice of many young lives, it helps—it pro-tects—the West protects the countries against terrorism which comes from those countries which plot on the basis of evil against the countries of freedom.

And I want to share with you a short story. After the war, a young Italian student received a prize from his father because of the very good scores that he had achieved in school, in high school. He was sent on a journey, vacation to Rome. After visiting Rome, on the last day of their vacation, the father told his son, “Now we're going to have a very important day, the most important day. I'm going to take you to a sacred place.” He took him to Anzio, to a cemetery of Ital-ian—of American soldiers.

And the father told his son, “Read those names and read those births and death dates. These are young people, young soldiers who have crossed the ocean, who have come here and made the extreme, last sacrifice to give back to you freedom and dignity. You owe them everything which is good in your life today. You have to swear here today that you will never, ever forget that you owe them everything you have, and you will always be grateful to their country and to them for what they gave you.”

That young person took that cause, and, you, George, already understood that that father was my father, and that young student was myself. I have never forgotten that cause. I don't forget it; I will never, ever forget it.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, George. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, all. And it's again a great pleasure and a great honor for me to be here and on this day.

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Bush. Good morning. Prime Minister Berlusconi and I just had a very good discussion. That's exactly the kind of meeting that you would expect when good friends get together.

Mr. Prime Minister, I appreciate your leadership. I want to thank you for your gracious words earlier today. I want to thank you for giving the American people the honor of celebrating Columbus Day with the leader of Italy.

For more than 60 years, the United States and Italy have worked together to strengthen transatlantic alliances and to help freedom expand across Europe. Today we're addressing global challenges with determination and vision and with confidence. America and Italy are working to stabilize global financial markets. People all over the world are understandably concerned about the global financial crisis and about how it will affect their families and their businesses.

I appreciate Italy's participation in the meeting of the G7 and G20 finance ministers over the weekend. Both the G7 and G20 issued important statements committing to work together to help resolve the crisis. I welcome the bold and specific follow-up actions by European nations to pursue the G7 action plan. And the United States is also acting, and we will continue to implement measures consistent with the G7 action plan to help banks gain access to capital, to strengthen the financial system, and to unfreeze credit markets and restore confidence in our financial system.

These are tough times for our economies. Yet we can be confident that we can work our way through these challenges. And America will continue to work closely with the other nations to coordinate our response to this global financial crisis.

America and Italy are working with other nations to fight terror and maintain stability and secure their democratic future. More than 8,300 Italian troops are deployed in regions of conflict around the world. They're helping to fight extremism and to defend liberty and give more people the hope of a better future. About 2,100 Italian troops are supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Italy leads Regional Command West, as well as a provincial reconstruction team.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's willingness to modify restrictions on where Italian forces can operate in Afghanistan. Italy has deployed carabinieri to support the NATO training mission in Iraq. They're doing a fine job. These are highly professional, highly skilled folks that are helping the Iraqi people.

In Lebanon, Italy is the single largest contributor to the United Nations peacekeeping mission. We discussed the need for Syria to respect Lebanon's sovereignty, to cease its support for terror, and to open full diplomatic relations with Lebanon's elected government.

Italy has deployed more than 2,300 troops to maintain stability in the Balkans. Our two nations support an independent and democratic Kosovo, and we're working to ensure that the new European Union mission deploys throughout that country. We agree that all Balkan nations should be invited to join the EU, and other transatlantic institutions as they qualify for membership.

We discussed Iran. We agreed that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. We discussed the importance of full implementation of United Nation's sanctions on the regime in Tehran.

America and Italy are working closely to end the conflict in Georgia. We firmly support Georgia's democracy and sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States and the EU agree that the territory of Georgia includes the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We're working to meet the humanitarian needs of the Georgian people and help displaced families return to their homes.

To earn the respect of the international community, Russia must show respect for the sovereignty and territory of its neighborhoods. Russia must accept the responsibilities and obligations of international leadership.

Mr. Prime Minister, Laura and I are looking forward to our dinner with you tonight. We look forward to celebrating the enormous contributions that the sons and daughters of Italy have made in America. And we look forward to honoring the strong alliance that binds our two nations together. Welcome.

Prime Minister Berlusconi. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you for this extraordinary invitation. My presence in Washington today is also the tribute of a friendship, personal friendship which binds me to President Bush, as well as the friendship between our two peoples.

And the fact that I'm here on your special celebration of the Columbus Day gives me opportunity of paying homage not only to America, but also to Italian Americans. It is also a thanks to that America which has welcomed and made them part of this country, which offered them the opportunity to enjoy wealth, and offered them the opportunity to give a contribution, which I think has been an important one. Many of the Italian Americans now are leading the country. They sit in Congress and the Supreme Court, in the state government buildings, and key roles of this administration, the administration of the biggest democracy in the world.

Our two countries have tackled together also, recently, the challenges and the problems. Our friendship is a special friendship which has its roots in common values, in sharing a world which is inspired by love for democracy and freedom. This is the deep meaning of this bond—not only a personal bond which I have for President Bush, but also the bond which unites our two countries and our two peoples.

Today, more than ever, values do matter, in a moment when two visions, opposing visions of the world are confronted—the vision of ignorance, of prevarication, violence on the one hand, and the vision of freedom, of respect of rights and equality of all human beings on the other side.

Over these years we have shared a difficult historical moment—the tragic September—9/11, which has changed the world. We have been called upon to tackle difficult challenges, being aware of the fact that enemies must be defeated with every means available, with the strength of our beliefs and our heritage of ideals. The globalized world continues to test us by submitting us to bigger and new challenges that we can't but give concrete answers to these challenges.

And once again was the fact of being concrete and the efficacy of the actions we agree upon which is helping us to solve one of the most recent crises which have affected our countries, that of the financial crisis, which we must absolutely prevent from being a crisis affecting real economy, as well.

Upon indication of the other leaders of the countries which in Europe share the single and the same currency, I reported and briefed President Bush about what we decided yesterday during the summit meeting of the Euro-area countries. This proposal will be then submitted to the European Council meeting, which will be held on Wednesday. And I also informed President Bush that today at 3:00 p.m. in various countries—Germany, U.K., Italy, France—council of ministers meetings were held, which have concretely implemented through low regulations provisions, the decisions which were made yesterday, in order to support real economy, in order to make it possible for liquidity to be guaranteed to our banking systems so that banks can continue to play their role and do their job—that is support investment by businesses and companies and support consumption.

I think this is really the objective we must pursue with a coordinated and concerted action—that is, what has been developed over the world, in the world of markets, which have moved away from reality should not affect the reality of economies. And the concerted and common action between the United States and Europe will certainly have chances to make the real economy—to prevent real economy from being affected by what has happened all over the world in the financial markets.

So we will continue to work together. President Bush has also expressed the intention to have a meeting among the leaders within the G8 in the next few weeks. I absolutely agree with him. I think that everything which can be done for a coordinated action, just to pursue a common method and behave in the same way, versus this global crisis, is something which is positive.

I would like to close my statement by telling President Bush and expressing my appreciation, my friendship, my congratulations and my love and esteem. I've been working with him very well. There has never been a moment when I saw in him interests which are not general interest. I never saw biased interest. There has never been a moment when I saw in him something different from a very sincere and pure feelings and sentiment.

He is a person—he is a man of vision. He is an idealist. And also he has the courage of implementing what he believes is right, what he thinks needs to be done to pursue the ideals which he considers to be right for himself, his people, and the world. The United States has taken over the responsibility of taking care of the world.

I would like to express a special thanks to President Bush and to his people for what America and United States have been doing over these years. And not only did they save us, save Europe from Communism, Nazism many years ago, but also, the United States has helped us to achieve welfare, wealth and well-being. They were next to us all through the Cold War years. Every time a wound opened in the world, the United States sent its troops, paying a very high price, in terms of human lives, to guarantee freedom of not only the United States, but the rest of the world, as well.

And I think we, all European citizens must be grateful to the United States for this. We must be grateful to the American people. We must bow in front of the sacrifices, and the sacrifices of so many lives, and we have to state and say that never, ever—the U.S. troops continued to stay in countries where they had intervened to help people save their lives. So they never stayed there to occupy out of interest. And this has to be remembered by all Europeans.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for being here. And believe me, believe me that my feelings are shared by the great majority of Italians and European citizens, as well.

Thank you very much. Thank you again.

President George W. Bush, President Nicolas Sarkozy, and President Manuel Barroso delivered these remarks in Camp David

President Bush. I want to welcome two friends to Camp David: President Sarkozy of France, who is representing the European Union, and President Barroso of the European Commission. We're really glad you're here.

I'm looking forward to an important discussion of the global financial crisis, which is having an impact on hardworking people all across the world. The first task is to stabilize the financial markets in our own countries. Given that the world has never been more interconnected, it is essential that we work together because we're in this crisis together.

That's why over the past few weeks the United States and our partners in Europe have cooperated closely to address this challenge. Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and four other central banks carried out a coordinated interest rate cut. Last weekend, G7 finance ministers and central bank governors approved a plan of action to stabilize our markets, rebuild confidence in our financial systems, and restore the flow of credit to our businesses and our consumers.

As part of this action plan, leaders in Europe have taken measures to provide financial institutions with additional capital, provide credit guarantees, and increase deposit insurance.

In the United States, we're taking systematic and aggressive steps to help banks rebuild capital and resume lending. For example, the Treasury Department will directly inject capital into banks by purchasing equity shares. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has temporarily guaranteed most new debt issued by insured banks, which will make it easier for these banks to borrow needed money from each other. The Federal Reserve is launching a new program to provide support for commercial paper—a key source of short-term financing for America's businesses and financial institutions.

These are historic measures, suited to our system, which I believe will work. These measures will take time. We're dealing with a significant problem. But the American people and our friends around the world can know that we have confidence that the measures will work.

In addition, G8 leaders issued a statement this week expressing support for an international meeting on the financial crisis. I've been in touch with Prime Minister Aso of Japan, who happens to be the President of the G8. We've been consulting with the Japanese. I look forward to hosting this meeting in the near future. Both developed and developing nations will be represented. And together, we will work to strengthen and modernize our nations' financial systems—so we can help ensure that this crisis doesn't happen again.

For this meeting to be a success, we must welcome good ideas from around the world. So I'm looking forward to hearing from President Sarkozy and President Barroso this afternoon, and from other leaders in the days ahead. And of course I'll share my ideas, as well.

As we make the regulatory and institutional changes necessary to avoid a repeat of this crisis, it is essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism—a commitment to free markets, free enterprise, and free trade. We must resist the dangerous temptation of economic isolationism and continue the policies of open markets that have lifted standards of living and helped millions of people escape poverty around the world.

This is a trying time for all our nations. I am confident that we will overcome the challenges we face. With determination and focused action, we will weather this crisis, return our economies to the path of prosperity and long-term growth.

Mr. President.

President Sarkozy. President, my dear George, thank you for having invited us. We—and by that I mean I, myself, and President Barroso—have a mandate from the 27 members of the European Union to come here and say first and foremost that this is a worldwide crisis and, therefore, we must find a worldwide solution.

Each region of the world, each part of the world, to begin with the United States and then the European countries and now Asia, are trying to find an answer to the crisis, but this answer will be all the more effective insofar as we find it together, we speak with one and the same voice, and we build together the capitalism of the future.

I say things that I deeply believe here. This may be a great opportunity if we do not fall back into the hateful practices of the past—practices that have led us exactly where we are right now. The President of the United States is right in saying that protectionism and closing one's borders is a catastrophe. He is right to say that it would be wrong, catastrophic, to challenge the foundations of market economics. But we cannot continue along the same lines because the same problems will trigger the same disasters. We can only go forward with a sense of responsibility and that those who have made the mistakes bear the brunt of their errors and shoulder that burden of responsibility.

And we have come here on behalf of Europe to say to this great American nation that we wish to build a better world—the world of the 21st century; that we wish to work hand in glove in building this world with you. But we must not waste any time. We want a summit— nations of the G8—as has been stated, and no doubt the G5 countries, so that together with Asian states and others, we find a worldwide solution. This must be done forthwith, as President Bush has said, possibly even before the end of the month of November.

And we believe that insofar as the crisis began in New York, then the global solution must be found to this crisis in New York—all of us putting our heads together, we must look on the fundamental rules that will apply to this 21st century of ours. We live in the 21st century, but we continue to apply 20th century rules. Hedge funds cannot continue operating as they have in the past; tax havens, neither; financial institutions that are under no supervisory control—this is no longer acceptable, this is no longer possible. Together, among friends, among allies, we must be able to say to the world that we are determined to find a solution together, to find answers together.

George, my friend, together with José Manuel, myself, we speak with one and the same voice. We have brought European nations together; that was no easy task. There were British traditions, French traditions, German traditions, Latin traditions—but we found a solution. And why were we able to do so? Quite simply because this is such a serious crisis, it is such a systemic crisis.

And it is on that note that I wish to end. Why must we make haste? We must make haste because we must stabilize the marketplace as swiftly as possible by coming up with answers. Once calm has been restored, we must avoid at all costs that those who have led us to where we are today should be allowed to do so once again. We believe in the capacity and the ability of the American people to come up with the answers the world is waiting for, is expecting, because this sort of capitalism is a betrayal of the sort of capitalism we believe in.

And that is the reason why, with President Barroso, we have come to make Europe's voice heard. And next week, we will be chairing the Europe-Asia summit and get across the same message.

In today's world, this world of ours, we cannot leave anyone out—anyone out of the global worldwide solution that we need to this crisis. Thank you, Mr. President, for having invited us. Thank you for using your term of office right up until the very end to help the world find the answers to a crisis that we must contain. We must not give way to fatalism.

President Barroso. Mr. President, George, thank you for receiving us here at Camp David. This is a global financial crisis that requires global solutions. Europe is taking decisive action. Our 27 member states and European Union institutions have worked and have agreed this week on a common framework for directions to deal with the financial crisis. This includes measures to address liquidity in interbank markets, recapitalization of banks, and guaranteeing households' deposits. Coordination and consistency of countries' decisions is the way to secure an efficient response to these unprecedented challenges. For these unprecedented challenges, we need an unprecedented level of global coordination.

The European Union and United States account for a very significant share of world finance. Around 77 percent of world also finance is from the United States and from Europe. The Europeans and Americans must now join efforts and extend our cooperation to major developed and emerging countries. We must act swiftly to respond to the urgency, but we must also look forward at the medium and long term.

The international financial system—its basic principles and regulations and its institutions need reform. We need a new global financial order. Together, the European Union and the U.S., we can make a difference together. We should show the way towards an international response to the financial crisis and contribute to global growth.

This is why Europe wants the calling of an international summit as soon as possible to launch an effective world response to world crisis. It's precisely because if you live in open societies and open economies—open societies need rules, the rule of law, the rule of democracy. Markets also need rules; if possibly, commonly agreed rules. And as President Sarkozy just said, we'll be this week also in Beijing for the ASEM summit where we hope to engage also with our partners around this very line.

Addressing the financial crisis must go hand in hand with providing our enterprises and citizens the conditions for creating wealth and jobs. I really believe we have a very strong responsibility. Thank you very much for receiving us.

Statement of the United States, France and the Presidency of the European Commission

The three leaders had a very positive discussion about the continued coordination of steps needed to solve the crisis in today's global economy. They agreed they would reach out to other world leaders next week with the idea of beginning a series of summits on addressing the challenges facing the global economy.

World leaders will be consulted about the idea of a first summit of heads of government to be held in the U.S. soon after the U.S. elections, in order to review progress being made to address the current crisis and to seek agreement on principles of reform needed to avoid a repetition and assure global prosperity in the future. Later summits would be designed to implement agreement on specific steps to be taken to meet those principles.

President George W. Bush and Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

President Bush. Thank you for your steadfast leadership and your courage. Ambassadors, thank you for joining us. The ambassador of Croatia and Albania are here for a special reason. Congressman Engel—I think he's here. Right in front of us. Congressman, we are so honored you have taken time to be here. Deputy Secretary England, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, thank you for coming. Ambassadors, members of the administration, members of the Diplomatic Corps, friends of freedom: Welcome, we are glad you're here. This is a special moment in the hopeful story of human liberty, as America formally declares its support for Albania and Croatia's entry into NATO.

With today's ceremony, we celebrate two young and vigorous democracies seeking to assume new responsibilities in a time of terrorism and a time of war. We strengthen America's partnership with nations that once found themselves in the shackles of communism. We rejoice in taking a major step toward welcoming the people of Albania and Croatia into the greatest alliance for freedom the world has ever known.

The United States is proud to have supported the NATO aspirations of these nations from the beginning. Laura and I fondly remember our visits to Tirana and Zagreb, where we met people who are showing the world the potential and the promise of human freedom. The citizens of Albania and Croatia have overcome war and hardship, built peaceful relations with their neighbors, and helped other young democracies build and strengthen free societies. The people of Albania and Croatia are helping move the world closer to a great triumph of history: A Europe that is whole, a Europe that is free, and a Europe that is at peace.

The invitation to join NATO is recognition of the difficult reforms these countries have undertaken on the path to prosperity and peace. In return, NATO membership offers the promise of security and stability. The United States and our NATO allies will stand united in defense of our fellow members. Once Albania and Croatia formally join NATO, their people can know: If any nation threatens their security, every member of our Alliance will be at their side.

The road of reform does not end with acceptance into NATO. Every member of the Alliance has a responsibility to enhance, promote, and defend the cause of democracy. I'm confident that Albania and Croatia will deliver on their commitments to strengthen their democratic institutions and free market systems. Albania and Croatia's entry into NATO is an historic step for the Balkans. In the space of a single decade, this region has transformed itself from a land consumed by war to a contributor to international peace and stability. America looks forward to the day when the ranks of NATO include all the nations in the Balkans—including Macedonia. I thank Macedonia's ambassador for joining us today. We're proud of the steps you're taking to strengthen your democracy. The great NATO alliance is holding a place for you at our table. And we look forward to your admission as a full NATO member as soon as possible.

We are now one major step nearer to welcoming into the Alliance Albania and Croatia…

Our nations seek a path to NATO— other nations seek a path to NATO membership, and they have the full support of the United States government. Today I reiterate America's commitment to the NATO aspirations of Ukraine, Georgia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Montenegro. The door to NATO membership also remains open to the people of Serbia, should they choose that path. All these nations treasure the blessings of liberty because they remember the pain of tyranny. And they share NATO's solemn commitment to defend the free against the unfree, and the weak against the strong.

The lasting strength of the NATO Alliance is a testament to the enduring power of freedom. And the expansion of this Alliance will lead the way to a safer and more hopeful world. On behalf of my fellow Americans, I offer congratulations to the people of Albania and Croatia on this historic achievement. May your children always honor the struggles you endured. May the stories of Albania and Croatia be a light to those who remain in the darkness of tyranny. And may your example help guide them to a brighter day.

It's now my honor to welcome the Secretary General to the podium. Mr. Secretary General.

Secretary General De Hoop Scheffer.

Credit where credit is due. Mr. President, Madam Ambassador, Mr. Ambassadors, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: Almost 60 years ago now, when NATO's founding treaty was signed right here in this city, one delegate expressed the hope that it would prove to be a continuous creation. Today's ceremony is ample proof that this hope has been realized.

With Albania and Croatia, two more proud democracies will soon enter our transatlantic family. What started with 12 nations will soon comprise 28. There is no stronger vindication of the enduring nature of the Washington treaty and of the values that it enshrines. Our Atlantic Alliance was born in the Cold War, but it has long outlasted the circumstances that brought it into being. NATO today is an active Alliance and actively working to defend its values against threats from wherever they may come; an Alliance whose members are committed to developing the instruments and the capabilities that are needed to fulfill their demanding missions; and an Alliance determined to work with other nations and organizations to deal with the many challenges before us.

Today we will be witnessing the United States of America ratification of the Protocols of Accession. Given the indispensable political and military role of this nation in our Alliance, this is a most significant moment. We are now one major step nearer to welcoming into the Alliance Albania and Croatia, two more countries who have demonstrated, by word and by deed, that they are willing and able to shoulder the responsibilities of NATO membership.

Their accession will be a boon for NATO, as it will strengthen our common effort to safeguard and promote security and stability. But—and you, Mr. President, said it already—it will also be a boon for southeast Europe and a vivid demonstration that southeast Europe can shed its tragic past. Both countries have set an example for others to follow and we will encourage and support all those who aspire that same goal—for the Europe we are seeking to build should be a continent where nations are free to determine their own future and not have their future decided by others.

Mr. President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: Even after almost 60 years, the Washington treaty indeed remains a continuous creation. This treaty has not only sparked a unique Alliance, it has also helped to create a unique transatlantic community, a strong community of shared values and interests, a community which shall be strengthened further with the joining of Albania and Croatia.

And let me end, Mr. President, by crediting you for your relentless investment and your relentless energy of making NATO a larger and more successful Alliance. I think we have seen in your eight years the energy this Alliance deserves—but without your personal commitment, I think this would not have been possible. Let me add that finally, on a personal note. Thank you very much.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks in Tallinn, Estonia

Secretary Gates. Good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking the leaders and people of Estonia for hosting this event. Over the past two days we've had a number of good, productive meetings on Ukraine's preparation on the path toward NATO membership. Ukraine currently participates in all NATO-led missions and continues to build expeditionary forces compatible with alliance requirements and goals.

While Ukraine's track record is impressive, they cannot rest on past achievements. They must speed the pace of security-sector reform, specifically addressing the defense budget shortfalls and urgently needed improvements in planning and prioritization. Despite political uncertainty, the leadership in Kiev must continue to show the sustained commitment required to join the alliance.

In addition to the NATO-Ukraine meeting, one of the main reasons for my trip here has been to support countries in this region that wish to integrate more fully with the West, be they NATO members or aspirants. These nations are, quite understandably, on edge due to Russia's incursion into Georgia last summer.

Russia's more recent behavior has been troubling as well. Within hours of the conclusion of the American election, Russian President Medvedev responded by threatening to place missiles in Kaliningrad— hardly the welcome a new American administration deserves. Such provocative remarks are unnecessary and misguided.

As we've tried to make clear, Russia has nothing to fear from a defensive missile shield or, for that matter, the presence of democratic nations on its periphery. Rather than engaging in the kind of rhetoric associated with a bygone era, the United States would prefer that Russia works with us to combat mutual security threats. We will continue to seek a constructive, positive relationship with the Russian government.

In closing, I would like to reaffirm America's unwavering support for our Baltic partners and the NATO aspirations of Ukraine, as well as our abiding commitment to the principle of collective security on behalf of all alliance members.

Q. (Inaudible) from The New York Times. What will the U.S. government do between now and the foreign ministers' meeting in December to convince those allies who are reluctant to extend MAP to Ukraine to do it? And if the foreign ministers do not formally extend MAP to Ukraine, how can that be viewed as anything but weakness and disarray in the alliance? Thank you.

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I think that the situation in both Ukraine and Georgia is unique, in the respect that the heads of government of the alliance unanimously granted membership to NATO or promised membership in NATO to both countries at Bucharest in April. And so now it is a matter of how we move that process forward.

There are various pathways to membership. Some have not gone through MAP at all; some are still in MAP. It's an application process. In a way, the application's already been signed and sealed at Bucharest. So how we move the process forward, I think, will probably be the subject of consultations among, particularly, foreign ministers, between now and that meeting in early December.

Q. And how it would be viewed in Moscow if MAP is not extended?

Secretary Gates. Well, I think that the key action that was taken was the action taken at Bucharest in April, and I think that there is an inevitability about it, and the question now is how the process unfolds. I think that if the Russians see the failure to adopt MAP in December as a victory that would be a mistake, because of the actions that were taken in Bucharest.

It's also clear, as the secretary-general made clear, that as he identified, that Ukraine still has some distance to go in being ready for membership in the alliance. They need to do more in terms of generating public support for joining the alliance at home. They clearly need to further their defense reform efforts in terms of resources, prioritization, planning and so on.

So I think in many respects, the question is, what is the path to membership— the membership that has already been promised in Bucharest. And it's clear that there are some steps in particular for Ukraine that have to be taken before they are ready for membership.

Q. Mr. Secretary, as you may know, President Medvedev says in a Le Figaro interview today that he could be willing to forgo placing missiles near the Polish border if the U.S. were to scrap the missile shield. Do you see that as a credible offer, and if not, what would you— could you elaborate on what you hope to see as the way forward?

Secretary Gates. Well, no, I don't think that's a credible offer.

The—we have once again codified and put forward to the Russians the detailed proposals that Secretary Rice and I have made for partnering with Russia in missile defense. Quite frankly, I'm not clear what the missiles would be for in Kaliningrad. After all, the only real emerging threat to Russia's periphery is in Iran. And I don't think the Iskander missile has the range to get there from Kaliningrad.

So I think this is an issue apparently between ourselves and the Russians. Why they would threaten to point missiles at European nations seems quite puzzling to me.

Q. Mr. Secretary, yesterday, you said that Russia had nothing to fear from countries integrating more fully with the West.

Should Europe fear a Russia that is, as you say, threatening to point missiles at other countries, in Europe, and a Russia that appears to be more isolated from the U.S. than it has been in a long time?

Secretary Gates. I think that I would go back to the comments I made at Wehrkunde, a year ago February.

We do not want a relationship with Russia headed toward the past. We want a relationship with Russia that points to the future. And that actually means greater integration of Russia with the rest of Europe as well as with the United States.

It means a Europe whole and free that we talked about, in 1989-1990, that extends into and includes Russia. There's no desire to exclude Russia from these relationships. And we just hope that the evolution of politics and economics, in Russia, moves Russia toward resuming the movement toward integration with Western institutions.

There is no desire to exclude Russia whatsoever. We want them to be a part of this family. And we're going through a period when they've chosen to take a different kind of line. I'd like to believe that it's transitory and that we'll resume a more productive and positive relationship going forward.

Q. (Remarks in Ukrainian.)

Secretary Gates. We will have bilateral defense consultations with the Ukrainian military and Ministry of Defense in December. I anticipate that this will be a subject. We've actually discussed it in some detail. I've met my Ukrainian counterpart now three times in the last six weeks. And we discussed it in Washington, we discussed it in Macedonia, and there was a very brief discussion of it yesterday when we met.

There are provisions for the U.S. to transfer ships to other countries. There is, apparently, a Ukrainian interest in this. It is an involved and, frankly, expensive process. It requires congressional approval in the United States to do this. And the costs of transferring the ships and refurbishing them are fairly substantial. And given the level of resource issues for the Ukrainian military, it's a question whether that is the best investment for them.

We're open to those discussions and prepared to move forward, but there needs to be a clear understanding that it is a complicated and an expensive process.

Q. Peter Spiegel with the Los Angeles Times. The secretary-general, just before you, described this as a stocktaking meeting. I wonder if you could take stock, particularly of our allies— (off mike)—West European allies. Have you noticed any change in attitude, since the Georgia incursion and the Russian bellicosity of late, about their attitudes towards Ukrainian and Georgian ascension to MAP?

Secretary Gates. Well, not really. I think that the countries that were eager to move forward promptly with MAP are still in that position, and those that are not ready are still not ready. So I think that subsequent to the Russian incursion in Georgia, there certainly has—as I have said on several occasions, I think all the countries, regardless of the public positions they've taken, look at Russia through a different set of lenses now. But I think in terms of their concrete policies, and particularly with respect to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, I personally have not detected much shift in that.

Q. (Off mike)—News Agency of Ukraine. Secretary, recently EU leadership stated that Russia already fulfilled its obligations to withdraw all troops from occupied Georgian territory. Do you share that view? And what do you see the way forward in the Georgian settlement? Thank you.

Secretary Gates. This is more Secretary Rice's area than mine, but I think that it's very important for Russia to fulfill all of the terms that they agreed to in the proposals put forward by President Sarkozy. My impression is that they are in the process of doing that.

I think it's—I think that the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was ill advised—I think something that is highlighted by the fact that, as best I can recall, only one country in the world has joined in that recognition.

So I think—I think we probably have a protracted process in front of us in terms of the ultimate resolution of these issues. But my impression is that the Russians are in the process of at least conforming with the Sarkozy proposals.

Thank you all very much.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Rice. All right. I wanted to come down before the Thanksgiving holiday and before some significant meetings that I'll participate in next week, just to give you a little bit of an update on where we are on a couple of issues and then I'm happy to take your questions.

As you know, I'm going to travel to Brussels to attend the NATO foreign ministers meeting that takes place on December 2nd and 3rd. I'll have a number of meetings during those days. As usually happens, we'll talk about the international agenda more broadly, as well perhaps, in some bilaterals with my colleagues. But the primary focus will be on NATO's work, on the work that we're doing together in Afghanistan, and on making certain we're doing everything that we can within the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Ukraine mission to support those states.

I expect a good discussion on the important topics. I just want to say a word about the question of Georgia and Ukraine because there have been some stories about what it is that is being discussed there. There is a British idea—and I want to emphasize not an American idea, a British idea—that we look at different ways to fulfill the terms of the Bucharest Declaration. As you remember the Bucharest Declaration says that at some point in time, Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO. It does not anticipate or suggest there would be lower standards for entry into NATO. It does not suggest that there needs to be an accelerated time table. It is the same open-door policy that we've had about meeting standards, but it does say that Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO.

How they get there, what mechanisms are used—we believe that the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Ukraine Commission can be the bodies with which we intensify our dialogue and our activities with Georgia and NATO. And therefore, there does not need at this point in time to be any discussion of MAP. And so this is the nature of this. It really is just a question of how we would execute the Bucharest decision. It is not a change in policy.

I want to say just a couple of other things that are not, of course, concerned with my trip to Europe. But next week we will also have in Beijing a meeting of the Six-Parties heads of delegation. Chris Hill will lead our delegation. And the focus on that meeting will be for the Six-Parties to sign on to the Verification Protocol that has been initialed by the United States and North Korea on behalf of the parties. And again, how does this work? The United States has been the chair of the subgroup on verification of the denuclearization working group, which the Chinese chair. And we have a document; we also have a number of assurances and a number of understandings that now will need to be codified by the Six Parties.

Let me just say one final thing, which is to just note that we have a lot of men and women from the Foreign Service, from the Civil Service, from other government agencies, but a lot of State Department people serving very far away from home as we come upon the Thanksgiving holiday. Thanksgiving is, frankly, my favorite holiday because it's a time for reflection, it's a time for gratefulness, it's a time to be with family and friends. I know that in places like Kabul and Baghdad and across the world, while our officers will not be able to be with families, that they will be with friends.

And I just want to underscore that one of the things that I will give thanks for this Thanksgiving, and that I'm immensely grateful for, is the extraordinary service of our people around the world, for their tremendous dedication and commitment, and for the personal joy and honor that it has been as Secretary of State to serve with them. And so my very special Thanksgiving prayer will be for our men and women in uniform, for our diplomats abroad, for all of the Americans who are serving abroad in the service of U.S. interests and values.

Q. Today, the Iraqi parliament has decided to delay the vote on the SOFA deal until tomorrow. And there is also a discussion now about a referendum that might take—that might happen which could crater the entire deal even if the parliament approves it. I'm wondering what you think of, first, the delay and also the possibility of a referendum.

And then if I might, also just wondering what your thoughts are on the Venezuelan election.

Secretary Rice. In terms of delay, it's a democratic process and it is taking some time. But I expect that they're going to continue to work on it and that they will—that it is in the COR and that it's being discussed. And I don't know precisely when they'll take a vote, but I do know that Prime Minister Maliki and Speaker Mashhadani are committed to having a vote and having a vote very soon.

As to the referendum, it's my understanding that such a referendum would, of course, be subject also to a new law to organize a referendum, but that in any case, it would not delay the going into force of the SOFA and the Strategic Forces—the Strategic Framework Agreement as of the 1st of the year.

Q. So you have no concerns about the whole idea?

Secretary Rice. Well, look, I haven't seen the language. I have not had—I talked to Ambassador Crocker, but of course, this is going on in Iraqi politics. But my understanding is that nothing here delays the entry into force of the agreement, and that's really the important point.

Q. Venezuela?

Secretary Rice. What? Oh, Venezuela, sorry. Well, it means that opposition is alive and well in Venezuela. It means that some of the policies of the government which have, frankly, not been in the interest of the Venezuelan people, are being opposed by Venezuelans. I think it is important to note that at least the opposition has been able to express itself, and the United States has stood firmly for the democratic process in Venezuela.

But I also want to note that the United States has stood as firmly for the view that it is our work to have a positive agenda for our engagement with the people of Latin America; not to get involved in their internal politics, not to have litmus tests of left or right, but to stand for the things that we believe that democratically elected governments that are governing wisely stand for, which is economic growth and trade and the ability to deliver for their people in terms of social justice. And so we're going to continue to pursue that. But obviously, the opposition in Venezuela has made its voice known and that's important.

Q. Secretary Rice, a follow-up on Venezuela?

Secretary Rice. Yeah, yeah. Pardon me?

Q. A follow-up on Venezuela?

Secretary Rice. Yeah, sure.

Q. Russian ships are now in the waters off Venezuela. What do you make of this? What should—do you take this as a threat, these joint exercises?

Secretary Rice. Oh, I don't think there's any confusion about the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. And so just as the United States believes that we can have good relations and can engage to military-to-military contacts wherever there are countries that wish to have us do so, I assume that we can say the same about Latin America. But I just don't think there's any question about who has the preponderance of power in the Western Hemisphere.

Secondly, I would note that the— Venezuela, as a regional actor, has a number of conflicts and has had some destabilizing behavior toward some of its— towards some of the states in the region. And so it is important that that be taken note of and that anything that is done in this hemisphere does not further exacerbate the effect of Venezuelan policies on neighbors like Colombia. But you know, a few Russian ships is not going to change the balance of power.

Q. Secretary Rice, on—on Iran.

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q. There's a report today quoting a senior Iranian official as saying that the Iranians now have 5,000 working centrifuges spinning. One, do you have any reason to believe that that report is true, or do you view it as an exaggeration?

Two, the Obama—President-elect Obama has, during the course of the campaign, signaled a willingness to talk or to engage more with the Iranians and with fewer conditions than the Bush Administration has. Do you see any particular danger in such engagement ahead of the Iranian elections and the possibility that Iranian particular actors could use it for their own electoral or political gain?

And lastly, on an interests section, can you rule out the possibility of an interests section being opened in Tehran by the U.S. Government during this Administration? And if so, can you give us some kind of a feel for what are— what is your hesitance about this? It would give you eyes and ears on the ground for the first time in a very, very long time and would allow you to reach out to the people in a way that is much harder when you don't have people on the ground.

Secretary Rice. All right, the three questions that Arshad has asked. First of all, I have actually myself not seen the report that you referenced, but we tend to rely on the IAEA because it's not clear that one gets a clearer picture from—it is clear that one does not get a clear picture from the Iranians on these issues. So we rely on the IAEA.

The point is that they are continuing to pursue enrichment and reprocessing capability. They are continuing to try to perfect the technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapons technology. And that is what the international coalition that we have put together, the P-5+1, is trying to stop. And of course, it's produced Security Council resolutions. It has produced national measures that are putting pressures on the Iranians. It is a country that is more and more isolated, whose economy is in very tough shape, and where there's actually a lot of criticism of the policies of the government in advance of this election. And so I do think that there is considerable pressure on the Iranian Government, and one has to hope that the Iranians will start to—that Iranians will start to emerge who wish to reverse this isolation.

In terms of what the President-elect may choose to do, I'm not going to comment. I will give my advice and analysis to my successor when that person is named, and I'll do so privately, and then you won't hear from me again on it.

When it comes to the interests section, the President took an in-principle decision based on his belief and our belief that in the context of a policy that is firm—and I want to emphasize firm—in the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions, Iranian aggression in the Middle East, and Iran's oppression of its own people, that a presence, an increased presence for the United States that would focus on the Iranian people— that is, the ability to facilitate visas, the ability to be a place to which Iranians could come, much as the interests section acts in Havana—that in the context of a firm policy, this is something that the United States might want to pursue. We have continued to pursue how that might go forward.

But frankly, the point at which we most likely would have done it, we were right in the middle of the Georgia-Russia conflict, and then a number of other international events I think just made it difficult to do. And so I think that within the context of a firm policy toward Iran, something that reaches out to the Iranian people is very important. And you rightly say that eyes on the ground is also very valuable. But it is awfully important that it be understood that the constituency here is not the Iranian regime, but the Iranian people. At this late moment, I think it is probably better that this decision be left to the next administration.

Q. And just so that I'm clear, you began by saying that the President had taken a firm decision in the context of—

Secretary Rice. I said an in-principle decision in the context of a firm policy toward Iran.

Q. Okay, just so we're clear, the in-principle decision was conditional that this was something the U.S. Government perhaps should pursue or was that this was something the U.S. Government should do?

Secretary Rice. Well, we were—on the basis of his decision, we were actually doing the work that would be needed to do to see how it could be implemented and what it could do. Because the one thing we wanted to be very clear was that it would have to have the capability actually to issue visas.

Q. Right.

Secretary Rice. Now, there were intervening events that I think made it not a good time to raise this with the Iranian regime, because obviously we would have had to raise it with the Iranian regime. But in the context of a policy that resists Iranian aggression and that clearly does that so that there are no mixed messages, particularly to regional allies who have great concerns about Iran's hegemonistic ambitions, it's something that one could do.

Q. About NATO?

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q. You said that there is not going to be any need for discussion on MAP. Does it mean that you agree with the arguments of the Europeans that Georgia and Ukraine are not ready for MAP?

Secretary Rice. Georgia and—

Q. And what exactly do you want these commissions—

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q.—NATO-Georgia and NATO-Ukraine to do effectively?

Secretary Rice. Georgia and Ukraine are not ready for membership. That is very clear. The point of view of the United States was stated at Bucharest that we think—thought that MAP is a way to prepare countries for membership. But there are other ways to prepare countries for membership. I would note that Poland the Czech Republic never had MAPs, for instance. And so we do have the Georgia-Ukraine—the Georgia-NATO and the Ukraine-NATO Commissions. Intensifying our work within them, intensifying our contacts within them is, we believe, a good alternative and will send a very strong signal that, while these countries are not ready for membership and still have many, many standards that they would have to meet, that we will remain true to the Bucharest Declaration that they will, at some point in the future, be members of NATO.

Q. I want to follow up on Arshad, actually.

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. Just to be clear, The U.S. did not raise this idea with the Iranians?

Secretary Rice. No. With the Iranians, no.

Q. Do you have any sense of whether they are supportive of the idea of having American diplomats in Iran?

Secretary Rice. I do not know whether they are. You know, we've seen public statements both ways. But for us, the issue was and always was—and the reason that it took some time to try and figure out how we would implement such a decision—that this would have to be a platform for serving the Iranian people, facilitating their contact with the United States, facilitating the kinds of exchanges that we have done. We've had Iranian basketball teams and artists and disaster relief workers. They have hosted the American wresting team. And this has to be about the Iranian people. And it is not—it's not an uncomplicated matter. And let me not use a double negative. But it is a complicated matter as to how one arranges such an interests section under the conditions that (inaudible) in Iran.

Q. I wonder, given the fact that there has been cooperation between the Administration and the transition team on the economy, on issues like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, have you consulted with anyone in the transition team when you make those decisions to leave the interests section decision for later, to go to the Six-Party Talks in North Korea?

Secretary Rice. No, we're not at that level of detail. But when we have had a transition team working here, they've had, I think, very good discussions. I met with some of them yesterday. We've talked about various issues, both in terms of management of the Department and in terms of policy issues and where we're leaving them. When I have a successor named and John Negroponte has a successor named, I expect that we'll have more intensive discussions about those matters, because we would want—I would want my successor to be fully informed and ready to hit the ground running on day one. And so we will have those discussions, and we've been doing them at the level of the transition teams, but obviously, when there are actual successors that will facilitate it.

Q. I just want to go back to SOFA for a moment.

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. You've mentioned that you believe there will eventually be a vote, but are you aware of some of the issues that have come out in press reports and there have been source reports about bartering issues and possible secret language, and also the possibility that there are massive differences in interpretation and in translation?

Secretary Rice. We believe that these are conforming texts. I don't speak Arabic, but one of the things that we do with the Iraqis is that we go line by line to conform the text and to make sure that there is common understanding of what is meant here. And of course, there are— first of all, there isn't any secret language. Of course, there are issues that are opposed by some in the Iraqi political system and supported by others. It's a democracy, and people are going to have their views and their says.

But I want to underscore a couple of things about the agreements. First, the SOFA and the Strategic Framework Agreement allow the United States to continue to be a partner for Iraq on the military side through the SOFA with a legal basis for our forces that allows us to help the Iraqis fully secure the gains that have been made, and does so with respect for Iraqi sovereignty. And that's the reason that the SOFA has been negotiated in the way that it has.

The Strategic Framework Agreement is a broader document that talks about the broader relationship and the continuity over time of our efforts on the economic and social and cultural sides.

But what we should not lose sight of here is that this is an agreement with a major Arab state that is being publicly debated in a democratic environment in the center of the Middle East. And that is an enormous achievement. And when the vote takes place, as Prime Minister Maliki and others have intended it to, we will move forward.

Q. Also, to follow up on Iran—

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. Short of opening an interests section, are there interim measures that you guys would consider suggesting, or at least maybe bringing to the next administration? I was able to talk with some Iranian officials recently, and they talk of things like loosening restrictions on their journalists in the United States or giving Iran credit for an increased security in Iraq. I mean, are those things that—

Secretary Rice. Well, let me just speak to the credit to Iran for security in Iraq. I don't think so.

Q. They don't deserve it?

Secretary Rice. No. I'm sorry to say that the Iranians cause nothing but trouble in the south. And their allies were defeated in Basra. That's what happened. The increased security in the south is because the special groups that they trained and equipped were defeated by the Iraqi army. Now, if that was a contribution to security, so be it. I think I would characterize it in a slightly different way.

I want to just underscore a couple of things that we have done to prepare our country for the long run concerning Iraq. There was no office of Iraqi affairs in the Department of State, believe it or not, before we came here.

Q. Of Iranian.

Secretary Rice. I'm sorry. Of Iranian affairs. Yeah, there were plenty on Iraqi affairs. There was not on Iranian affairs. And we now have an office devoted to that. We put the facility in Dubai to give—to get us closer to the Iranian people, to allow them to have easier access to visa facilitation, easier access to us.

I've mentioned a number of the programs that we have done in terms of exchanges. I remember quite well myself meeting with some Iranian artists. It was a fantastic experience. And I was just talking with David Stern, and the Iranian basketball team was just here.

And so there are a lot of things that we have done to reach out to the Iranian people, and I think to—I should also mention a tremendous emphasis on training our officers in—our Foreign Service officers in Farsi, because the fact is that over almost—well, now it is almost 30 years since the United States left Iran. I do think there was a deterioration in our capability to speak the languages, understand the country. The people who have been in Iran, most of them were—who had Iranian experience, most of them had retired. And so we've been trying to rebuild that cohort. And that is extremely important for the United States to do, is to build its capability on Iran, because it's an important country. It's going to be an important country for a long time.

But our focus has been to try and make clear to the Iranian people that there is a different road than their government is taking in terms of engagement with the international community, that isolation does not have to be the course.

Q. Madame Secretary, how do you assess the status of FYROM vis-à-vis to NATO due to the upcoming ministerial meeting in December, as you told (inaudible), and do you expect any problems by them since the U.S. Government decides FYROM become a NATO member? And also, if you can tell us about the Visa Waiver Program for Greece.

Secretary Rice. Well, we are still trying to fulfill the requirements. Greece is still working on some of the requirements. We sincerely hope it will happen soon. I think the President said that at the time of the ceremony that he had in—at the White House.

In terms of the—of Macedonia, it is our great hope that this name issue can be resolved. I keep saying quickly—it's obviously not going to be resolved quickly. But it is important that both sides recognize that whatever happens on the name issue, the real benefit here of the incorporation of Macedonia into NATO—it will benefit NATO, it will benefit Macedonia, it will benefit Greece, it will benefit the Balkans. And so Dan Fried, in particular, has been trying to work with Ambassador Nimetz to get a compromise, and we continue to try to do so.

A couple more? Yeah.

Q. Madame Secretary, do you expect any further initiatives—specific initiatives between now and the end of the Administration on any of the sort of major issues that have been facing you during this time?

Secretary Rice. Oh, I don't know.

Q. And on the North Korea issue, do you expect to have a signed, sealed, delivered verification protocol by the end of that Six-Party meeting that will be agreed upon?

Secretary Rice. Well, that is the purpose of the meeting. There is no other purpose for the meeting. And so we have had some discussions with all the parties. I had extensive discussions with my Chinese counterpart, as the President did with President Hu, as well as with the South Koreans, the Japanese, and with the Russians. And so this needs to get done. I might just note that the disabling has resumed and it needs to continue to conclusion. But this verification protocol is now the key.

As to other initiatives, look, we continue to work on making certain that the pillars of Annapolis, including what is going on on the ground, are solid and strong and moving forward. Interesting piece in the newspapers this morning about Hebron and the movement of Palestinian forces into Hebron, which I think is something most people didn't think they would ever see. And we will continue to work on those kinds of issues.

I also am now very actively engaged on the issue—the piracy issue. I had extensive discussions with the Russians, the Chinese, the Panamanians, the—lots of people about the problem that is there with piracy. We will see what more needs to be done through the UN. It's kind of ironic. Thomas Jefferson came in worried about pirates. It looks like I'm going to leave worried about pirates. But it is seriously an important issue to maintain freedom of navigation of the seas. And some of it, of course, comes—well, most of it comes from the instability in Somalia. So that is also an issue that we're spending a lot of time on, and how to get a support— peacekeeping support for the forces that are on the ground in Somalia, and those are the Ethiopian, Ugandan, and Burundian forces.

Q. I tried to think—

Q. Going back to Annapolis, can you—

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q.—talk about your meetings with the Israeli Prime Minister this week and give us a sense of where the process stands at this point?

Secretary Rice. Yes. Well, again, as— there is still a lot that—even in complicated political times that can be done. The Prime Minister continues his discussions with Abu Mazen and the negotiators continue their discussions. And I think they're continuing to work to narrow differences. They are continuing to have pretty intensive discussions on all of the issues.

They—you may have noticed the release of prisoners that the Prime Minister recently did in terms of the Palestinians. And the work on the ground in terms of the security forces is moving forward, and I think moving forward in a very positive way. So everybody continues to work to deliver on the goals of Annapolis. The political situation, in general, makes it difficult perhaps to finish an agreement, but there is certainly a lot of work that can be done and we'll see where they are over the next couple of months.

Q. Shimon Peres has been saying publicly that he supports the spirit of this resurrected Saudi peace plan from 2002. Are you getting any sense—

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q.—that the Israeli Government are at all seriously considering that plan?

Secretary Rice. We're talking about that, because the Arab Peace Initiative— previously the Crown Prince Initiative— does offer a kind of broader framework in which one could understand what needs to be achieved in order to have broad peace in the Middle East, not just the conclusion of a Palestinian-Israeli plan. And I'm very pleased that a lot of good discussions are going on about precisely that, and yes, we are talking about how it might be used.

Q. So you're supportive of it as it stands?

Secretary Rice. Well, I think we've been supportive all along. As you remember, the Arab Peace Initiative is one of the elements mentioned in the Annapolis declaration.

Q. Madame Secretary, on Afghanistan—

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q.—Minister Karzai's been sharply critical of how the war is being waged. He's asking why NATO has been unable to defeat the Taliban. He's asking or suggesting the possibility of setting a definite timeline for the end of the war. And he's even saying that if he had his way, he would stop American and NATO aircraft from bombing. What's your response to that?

Secretary Rice. I think we have to do— and I've had lots of conversations with President Karzai, and I've assured him that we too are concerned about what he is concerned about, which is civilian casualties. I think we all understand too that the Taliban operates in a way that puts them in civilian areas, making it difficult to respond to their aggressions.

But there are a number of things that we are doing. You know that there is an Afghan review underway to look at some of our—some of the elements of our policy and to see what we need to do differently and what more we can do to build on what has already been achieved there. I would just note that one of the most important achievements and something that really can be built on is Afghan military forces, the Afghan army, because ultimately, the Taliban is going to also have to be defeated by Afghans. This is not for NATO to do. This is for NATO to do with the Afghan people.

It's also going to be very important that governance improve, and I understand that there are places where security is prohibitive to get strong governance. But the building of the institutions, the fight against corruption, the work to make sure that ministries are operating, that is work that we need to do in partnership with Afghanistan and in partnership with President Karzai. And I'm quite certain that he is devoted to that goal as well.

And finally, as to a timetable, I don't think one sets timetables on when wars end. We'd like it to end as soon as possible. And if we do the right things, I think you will see that it will. But I just wanted to note that while there are difficulties in Afghanistan, there are also a lot of assets in Afghanistan to deal with the problem. And one of the things that has changed over the last couple of years that we're really working very hard on is that clearly, the interaction between Pakistan and Afghanistan, while it is improving at a political level, particularly under President Zardari and President Karzai, the increasing problems in the FATA have created new circumstances for Afghanistan. And getting a hold of that and working with the new Pakistani Government to deal with that space, that geographic space, is extremely urgent and important. Just a couple of last questions. Yes.

Q. Madame Secretary, Iran has launched yesterday a new rocket into space. How do you view this new (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. Well, I don't know. And look, the Iranians are launching things all the time. I would hope that they would be instead trying to work toward not being so isolated in the international system. But again, I don't think anybody—I'll say the same thing I said about the Western Hemisphere. I don't think anybody is confused about the balance of power in the Gulf either.

And the United States has had a period of enhancing the capabilities of our allies in the region. You know of a number of the packages, security cooperation packages, to places like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and et cetera. So we have enhanced the— and the Israelis. We have enhanced the capabilities of our allies. The United States has increased its presence in the region. We also have begun to take advantage of the potential of missile defense in the region, and that is probably the best answer to some of these Iranian efforts, is to make certain that we are fully exploiting the technologies and the sophistication that the United States can bring to missile defense into other technological answers to any Iranian buildup.

We also have worked hard to caution states that might sell weapons technology to Iran that it is destabilizing to the region and that it should not be done. And so there's a program for dealing with the Iranian efforts to—aggressive efforts. But I don't think we—I think we want to continue on the course that we're on, which is enhancing the capability of our allies, enhancing our own capabilities, and exploiting the potential for missile defense.

Q. The Foreign Minister of Botswana today said that Zimbabwe's neighbors should take more forceful action to squeeze Mugabe out of power.

Secretary Rice. We would agree.

Q. One—yeah. One of the things he talked about was closing off borders so as to prevent the flow of goods in. Here's the question. The South Africans have never shown—the South African Government has never shown a willingness to get very hard with Mugabe, and I wonder if you think that the idea of, for example, closing off borders is now something that the neighbors should consider, or that just inflicts—

Secretary Rice. I—yeah, look, I don't—I can't comment on a proposal of that kind. I think that would be very, very difficult. But I do know that—I would just note that the United States has sought a number of sanctions resolutions in the Security Council. We've not been able to do it. We've done some, but we've not been able to do ones that I think really have teeth. The United States has therefore done a number of things unilaterally. I think that the Europeans have worked very hard at this. There are a number of African states that have spoken out.

But frankly, we need more help from the region. And I think it is short-sighted on the part of the region to let this continue, because it looks to me as if what Mugabe is doing is that he is pulling as much power into his own hands as he possibly can. MDC, I think, is being squeezed out and intimidated. And what started out as power-sharing talks don't look very promising. And if this goes in that direction, then the impact on South Africa is going to be very great, because you have a lot of displaced people living in South Africa who hope to go home if Zimbabwe becomes more stable. So it is short-sighted for the region to allow Mugabe to do this, and I believe that the region has the capacity to put enough pressure on him to get a reasonable power-sharing arrangement.

Q. How so?

Secretary Rice. By making very clear that the region, not just—and by the way, if the region makes it clear, I think they'll have tougher standards in the—tougher action in the international community as well.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in Brussels, Belgium

Secretary Rice. Good evening. Well, I have just concluded my last ministerial as the Secretary of State for the United States. And I had a chance to participate, obviously, in the discussions of the important issues before us, but also for a moment to reflect with my colleagues on the extraordinary eight years that I have spent here, first as National Security Advisor accompanying President Bush to various summits, and then as the Secretary of State over the last four years through several ministerials, as well as NATO summits.

I said to my colleagues that as someone who remembers very well coming here in 1990 when we were in the midst of ending the Cold War, and when questions were being asked—well, if the Warsaw Pact is going out of existence and the Cold War is ending and Germany is unifying, will there be any purpose for NATO. And to see how this alliance has prospered and grown and reformed and renewed itself is truly a great joy.

I took note of the fact that it is an alliance that now has 12 of its 28 members who were former captive nations. They have really invigorated this alliance. They have reminded us of our purpose in securing democracy as well as securing— as well as our security. I was pleased to note that nine of those countries have come into the alliance during President Bush's term, including the Baltic States, which was, of course, a very important step forward for this alliance.

The open door policy of this alliance continues. And when you listen to the testimony and testimonials of the states around the table about how the prospect for NATO membership and the process of readying for neighbor—for NATO membership has helped them with their internal reforms, to overcome old differences, to put in place new democratic structures, to keep a solid coalition and constituency for reform internally, I am also very gratified by the fact that I think this open door policy is well established in NATO.

In that regard, we did not take up the issue of a decision on MAP for Ukraine and Georgia. A lot has transpired since Bucharest. We reaffirmed Bucharest and all of its elements, but what we did do here, which is very important, is to empower the commissions—the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Ukraine Commission—to intensify their work in helping these states to make progress toward the Bucharest goals and aspirations.

I noted, too, that this is an alliance that has transformed its capabilities and has transformed its mission, that it is now assisting new democracies whether in the tough circumstances of Afghanistan, a country that we must remember has had almost 30 years of civil war and one of the poorest countries in the world. NATO's mission there is difficult but necessary, and it is a mission to which this alliance is greatly committed.

And we also, of course, are helping to train Iraqi military officers. We are helping with planning for relief in Darfur. And we had a wonderful Mediterranean dialogue in which we sat with the foreign minister of Israel—foreign ministers of Israel, Egypt and Morocco to talk about the Mediterranean region. And finally, this is an alliance that now regularly invites other democracies from around the world like Japan and Australia, South Korea to come and discuss with it the issues of common security.

And so this is a remarkable alliance. I think it is the most remarkable alliance in human history. It is a voluntary alliance of great democracies committed equally to security and to liberty. And I said to my colleagues that it had been a great privilege to be with them, but as I leave, I know that this alliance is not just in great hands and great shape for now, but that this is an alliance that is going to go well, well into the future. Thank you and I'll take a few questions.

Q. Madame Secretary, what are you hoping to achieve by your trip to India in terms of reducing Indo-Pakistani tensions? And secondly, did the United States provide a warning to India in the month before the Mumbai bombings that you believe that they were—they would soon succumb to—have an attack?

Secretary Rice. Well, first, on the issue of my trip to India, as the President said, I am going to, of course, express solidarity with the Indian people. This was a horrible attack. It was, of course, also an attack that killed American citizens. And it is therefore of very great concern to the United States. It underscores the importance of getting to the bottom of what happened, both to bring those who perpetrated this terrible crime to justice, and to try and prevent further attacks of this kind. And in that regard, I want to consult with the Indian Government further about what we can do to help.

I've already noted that everyone should cooperate fully, and Pakistan in particular needs to cooperate fully and transparently. I was pleased to see the statements of the Pakistani Government that they intend to do so, but that is the nature of my trip to India.

As to the reports that I have seen, as you have, I don't really know the source of them, and I'm always reluctant to speak to unnamed sources who are speaking on background, because one never knows what they're talking about. That's one of the problems with the unnamed source issue. But we obviously—we try to pass information to countries all around the world if we pick up information. But I'll tell you, having been on the receiving end of information sometimes which one could constitute as, quote-un-quote, “warnings,” they are often difficult to act on, sometimes not very concrete. And I would just note that the problem with terrorism is that information is useful, but it isn't always something that can prevent.

So the real problem we have with terrorism is that terrorists can be right once and we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And in that regard, I have some not just sympathy, but empathy for what the Indian Government has gone through.

Q. But did you pass on specific information that there was increased chatter as you had before 9/11?

Secretary Rice. Sue—Sue, I don't know who this source is, and so I don't know what they're referring to. As I said to you, I've been on the other side of this, and I'm not going to respond to whether there are—chatter or whatever. But I just know that the problem is that information is not knowledge, and that's one of the problems that we have. And I know that the Indian Government is looking hard at how it might have more effective counterterrorism responses, how it might better use information. We've been through in that United States; it is a tough business, particularly for a democracy. And so I have to tell you, I have a lot of empathy for what they're going through.

Q. Thanks. Madame Secretary, are you concerned at all that in compromising on the MAP question and also on— apparently, on the question of renewed contacts between NATO and Russia, that the United States looks as if it's signing on somehow or is placating Russia? And in the end, was it more important to you to go out on a high note, or not to go out on a sour note with NATO, than it was to avoid that appearance?

Secretary Rice. Oh, Anne, you know me. I don't at all mind standing my ground. But I thought this was a good position for the alliance to be in. The first is that on the gradual reestablishment of contact with Russia, reengagement with Russia, that was actually the position of the United States coming in. I think you will remember, when I spoke in the briefing room, I talked about the United States having no in-principle objection to reengagement with Russia. It was a question of on what questions, in what form. And I think the idea of working through a kind of informal contact with the NATO-Russia Council is not a problem for us.

I think that the Secretary General will report back to the NAC before any formal program of engagement with Russia, such as was the case before the invasion of Georgia, is put into place. And so I think this is the perfectly logical place to be.

You would note, of course, that I've met myself with Sergey Lavrov a number of times. The President has met with President Medvedev. This isn't an issue of isolating Russia, but it is an issue of what kinds of contacts are appropriate. And I think this is a completely appropriate thing for the alliance to do.

As to MAP, again, we did not take up a decision about MAP. A lot has transpired since Bucharest. We did want to reaffirm the Bucharest decisions, and we have done that. But I think the really important thing here is that everyone knows that this is going to be a long process. And the practical steps that we can take within the Georgia—the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Russia Commission to help these states progress toward the goals of Bucharest, I think that's the new element here. And we're very pleased that that was accepted by the alliance.

Q. Thanks very much. James Blitz, Financial Times, thank you. I just wanted to follow up that. What is the message that Russia should take from this? People have used the phrase, “It's not business as usual.” Can they take the view that this is now business as usual? And do you exclude the possibility that President Medvedev could be invited to the 60th anniversary summit at Strasbourg/Kehl?

Secretary Rice. Well, I'm not going to prejudice that decision since I—the President and I won't take it. So I think we will leave that one.

I don't think that this is in any way business as usual. An informal session of NATO ambassadors is not the kind of extended and highly articulated program of contacts that have been characterized— characteristic of the NATO-Russia Council. We've had some technical discussions. I think that's also appropriate.

Again, this isn't an issue of isolating Russia. It's an issue that this united, unified alliance says to Russia that what they did in invading Georgia was unacceptable to the alliance. That has been very clear. We have also, by the way, I think, through our unity, essentially denied Russia its strategic objectives: The Georgian Government is intact, Georgian democracy is intact, the Georgian economy is recovering. Yes, Russia is sitting in South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the resounding support of Nicaragua and Hamas. So I frankly don't think this has been a very good outcome from the point of view of Russia. And what it's gotten Russia is a lot of scrutiny about what the various relationships ought to be. The only reason we're having a discussion about phased reengagement with Russia is because Russia's invasion of Georgia cut off what had been a highly articulated program of engagement. So no, it's not business as usual.

It's also the case when one talks about Georgia and Ukraine, Bucharest clearly set the terms, clearly talked about the eventual membership for Georgia and Ukraine. And a lot has transpired and not just—let's be frank, not just in terms of the invasion of Georgia, but also a lot has transpired in those two countries. And I think we all want to concentrate on helping to solidify and consolidate their democratic governments. And to help them to do that, I do think that the engagement through the commissions will help them, and most certainly the engagement through the commissions will help them to answer a number of the questions that countries have about how to move them forward in accordance with Bucharest.

Q. But first, if I can ask you, you're a scholar of Russia and you spoke with pride of the expansion of NATO under the Bush Administration. Do you also recognize the sense of encirclement Russia feels? You know Russia began in Kyiv and Kievan Rus. You know it lost its empire. You know it feels diminished. Do you also feel some responsibility for that feeling on the part of the Russians, which I think you recognize as sincere? And—or do you think it's just old-fashioned thinking and they need to get over it? Or is there something more that the Bush Administration could have done or should have done to ease that entry into a different world?

Secretary Rice. Steve, first of all, I have acknowledged and acknowledged in the speech that I made that the '90s were very, very difficult for Russia and Russians, and that we in the West and Russia did not see the immediate aftermath of the Cold War in the same way. Russia saw humiliation and deprivation and a pretty chaotic environment. I was in that Russia in—every year between 1991, when I went back to Stanford, and 19—and 2000, I think, with the exception of 1997.

And so I recognize that Russia was going through a difficult period after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union—fully acknowledge that. But what I can't accept is that somehow the United States and our allies created a circumstance in which Russia should have, could have, felt encircled. Rather, what we tried to do was to reach out every hand of friendship—and I include, by the way, the Clinton Administration in this and the Bush Administration—try to reach out every hand of friendship that we could possibly reach out: the formal expansion of G-8, the efforts to support Russian accession into the WTO; the creation of the NATO-Russia Council, the beginning of EU-Russia talks. I could go on and on and on.

The whole idea here was that a Europe whole, free, and at peace had a place for Russia in it. It was to be based on a common understanding that the 19th century was over, that this is not about competition and conflict and domination, but rather about cooperation in a framework in which one treats one's neighbors, even if they were once a part of the Soviet Union, as equals in the international system, not as subjects somehow, not as states to be a part of some sphere of influence, but rather, as equals; and that in treating them as equals, one would welcome good relations between the United States and those states that are on the periphery of Russia, between Europe and those states that are on the periphery of Russia, and that we would cooperate on everything from counterterrorism, to counternarcotics, to counterproliferation, to the Middle East, to North Korea, to Iran, and so on and so on.

So I have to tell you, on this one, yes, as a Russianist, my conscience is clear. I think we did everything that we could to try and welcome Russia, a new Russia, into the transatlantic space. I still think that that is the future. I believe quite firmly that there is no Soviet Union with pretensions of an alternative course for the development of human history, so it's not an ideological conflict. I do believe that Russians have become accustomed to the travel and to the openness and the contact with the world that has been the benefit of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I have no quarrel with the strengthening of the apparatus of the state, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the liberties of the Russian people, of the freedom of the press, of a judiciary that is free and independent. And so I still think that there is a future out there with a Russia that is more in the nature of what President Medvedev himself described that can see its interaction with the rest of the world not in zero-sum terms, but in terms of true cooperation and friendship.

I know that from time to time issues like missile defense have been a problem. But again, we should be cooperating on missile defense. And so I believe very strongly that we had the right view of how to bring Russia in, and I still think that it is the right view. And again, I—it's the Bush Administration, but it was the Clinton Administration before us as well. And so I'm hopeful that that Russia will still attain.

Thank you. Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen delivered these remarks in Copenhagen, Denmark

Prime Minister Rasmussen. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this press conference. I have had a very fruitful meeting with Secretary Rice. Secretary, your decision to visit Copenhagen is an illustration of the strong bilateral relationship between the United States and Denmark. We have cooperated closely on a wide range of international issues, and we have had a high frequency of constructive visits and meetings.

Allow me to commend you personally, Secretary Rice, for your important contribution to the strong relationship between the United States and Denmark, and for your contribution to international politics (inaudible). Especially, the challenge to make progress on the peace process in the Middle East has been a personal priority for you. Your efforts to bring peace to the region deserve much praise.

During today's meeting, Secretary Rice and I had the opportunity to discuss some of the important global challenges facing us. Firstly, we touched upon the situation in Afghanistan and our combined efforts to bring peace and stability to the Afghan people. It is a long and hard struggle. Regrettably, yesterday, Denmark once again suffered casualties. It is an unbearable loss for all of us, and I send my warm and sincere condolences to the bereaved families.

But I would like to stress that we remain committed to Afghanistan. We cannot allow Afghanistan once again to become a safe haven for terrorists. Denmark has recently launched a new five-year strategy on Afghanistan that combines our military, political and civilian efforts. The strategy has broad political backing in Denmark.

Secondly, we discussed the heinous terrorist attacks in India. Secretary Rice informed me about her recent talks in the region, the attacks underline the continued need to stand together in the fight against terrorism. And finally, we exchanged views on European issues including the relationship between Russia and its neighbors. The European Union and NATO need Russia as an active partner in international cooperation, and Russia needs us. We share common challenges that we can only serve by joining forces. At the same time, we reconfirmed that the United States and Denmark are strong supporters of the—Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the countries in Eastern Europe.

Secretary Rice. Well, thank you very much, Prime Minister, and let me first express the deep regret of the United States for the loss of life yesterday of the two Danish soldiers. I had an opportunity last night to say that the United States, of course, extends condolences to the families and to friends and to the Danish people.

No loss can ever be repaid. No life can ever be brought back. Yet we all know that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And therefore, these people have not died in vain, but in the noble cause of trying to help the Afghan people to fight off terrorism, to build a decent life for themselves a democratic way, and in doing so, to strengthen the security for all of us. As you said, Afghanistan must never be allowed again to become a safe haven for terrorism. And that is the fight in which we are engaged.

Prime Minister, I want to say too that coming here has been an opportunity just to underline and underscore what a good friend Denmark has been to the United States, and I know will continue to be because we do share common values. And in sharing that set of common values, that common perspective, we know that our work will never be done as long as any man, woman or child has to live in tyranny. And it really is a noble cause to promote democracy, and in doing so, to make ourselves safer.

I also want to thank you, Prime Minister, for your personal good friendship to the President and to me. I had a chance to tell Foreign Minister Per Stig last night that I value his friendship. We've been very close friends throughout this whole time. It's great to have friends as countries. It's even better to have friends as people. So thank you very much.

We did have a very good discussion of the situation in India and Pakistan, and I said to the Prime Minister what I have been saying, which is that this is a terrible attack, a sophisticated attack. It raises questions about the importance of making certain that everything is done to bring the perpetrators to justice, but also to prevent follow-on attacks. And in that regard, Pakistan has a special responsibility to act. And I was assured that they will act, but they need to act urgently and transparently. And the Indian people who suffered a great loss also are acting through their government to improve their capabilities on the counterterrorism side. And the United States is going to be very active in helping them to do so.

We did have a very good discussion of European issues and a kind of around the world tour, but let me just say one thing about the European issues. I was just at NATO for the last time as Secretary of State, and as I sat at this table with countries, now 12 of them who were former captive nations, it just shows how extraordinary history is. It shows that something that one day seemed impossible, within a few years, can just seem inevitable. I don't think that any of us just a few years ago would have believed that we would have been sitting at the NATO table with Estonia and with Albania and with the Czech Republic.

Perhaps even less would we have believed that you and the President would have had the pleasure to be together at a NATO summit in Latvia. What an extraordinary thing that this alliance, which has been devoted for so long to freedom and to the security of democratic peoples, has evolved in this way. And, Prime Minister, Denmark, of course, has been a stalwart in recognizing that NATO's true mission is indeed the collective security of democratic states, and that means not just strong militaries, but also a strong commitment to values. So thank you very much for that.

Q. Madame Secretary, a recent investigation by the Danish Government was unable to conclude whether Danish airspace was used by the CIA as part of a prisoner rendition program. And the investigation said that it was due to insufficient response from the U.S. Government. Would you care to comment on that?

Secretary Rice. Well, I will comment. We have respected Danish sovereignty and we will continue to do so. And I have given to the Foreign Minister guarantees and assurances about how we will deal with this issue in the future, and that is the commitment of the United States to do so.

Q. So is that an answer that Danish airspace wasn't used as a part of the program?

Secretary Rice. I have given a commitment to the Foreign Minister about the future, and I have said that we have respected Danish sovereignty.

Q. Just a question about Afghanistan. There has been a great deal of discussion throughout the time whether there were sufficient troops in this mission to start with. Looking back, anything you regret about the Afghanistan mission?

Secretary Rice. I think you have to divide Afghanistan into two periods. In that initial period, the strategy was very much to rely on coalition support for Afghan forces. We have to remember that the footprint of foreign forces on Afghan soil is an issue. The Soviet Union at one point, I think, had 140,000—150,000 troops on Afghan soil. And there was a reaction against that.

And I think in the initial stages and really going for a very long time, building the Afghan forces, using support to the Afghan forces has been important—we're still going to need to build a larger number of Afghan army forces. And indeed, there has been an increase authorized for the building of those forces.

What has really happened in recent times is that quite frankly, the safe haven across the border has become a place that the Taliban has been able to regroup and to operate in ways that they couldn't just a couple of years ago. And in that world, in that regard, it is clear that we do need more forces. The United States is committed to doing that. Europe is committing and NATO is committing to that.

But I want to underscore something that the Prime Minister said. It's not just military forces. Counterterrorism work, counterinsurgency work is the union of military force to clear the terrorists, but also to build governance and to reconstruct in the areas that you cleared. And so that, and pulling ourselves closer to the Afghan people, I think, will ultimately bring success in Afghanistan.

Q. Mr. Prime Minister, President-elect Obama is going to ask for more troops from the other European countries. Do you think he's going to get them?

And Madame Secretary, how far is the Administration on the review on Afghanistan, and when will it be published?

Prime Minister Rasmussen. Well, in my opinion, we need more troops in Afghanistan. We have to make sure that the mission will be a success. We must prevail. And we need more troops. This is the reason why Denmark has already decided, last year, to increase the number of troops by 50 percent, which brings Denmark among the major troop-contributing countries.

Secretary Rice. As to the review, it is underway. It's really, frankly, almost complete. It's being reviewed by the principals of the National Security Council, and it is going to be discussed with our friends. And at that point, I expect that some elements of it will be made public in some way. We haven't determined what can and what cannot. Part of it is that one has to deny to enemies a sense of how you intend to fight them. But we will obviously want to make some elements of it public, and that review is coming to a close.

Q. When?

Secretary Rice. I can't say, Sylvie, but we're close to having reviewed its findings and we are starting to review them with our friends and allies and with— most importantly, with the Afghans.

Q. This is Sue Pleming from Reuters. Zimbabwe is suffering from a cholera outbreak and the government has actually appealed for international assistance. Separately, Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for Mugabe to be forced out of power and says that if he does not quit, then he should face war crimes at the international tribunal in The Hague.

What do you think should happen? Do you think it's time now for the international community to push Mr.

Mugabe out? And how can you resolve this humanitarian crisis which seems to be deteriorating daily?

Secretary Rice. It's well past time for Robert Mugabe to leave. I think that's now obvious. The fact is that there was a sham election. There then has been a sham process of power-sharing talks. And now, we are seeing not only the political and economic toll that is being taken on the people of Zimbabwe, but the toll in the humanitarian dimension as this cholera epidemic has broken out.

The United States will always do anything and everything that it can to help innocent people who are suffering. And we are not going to deny assistance to people in need because of their government. But if this is not evidence to the international community that it's time to stand up for what is right, I don't know what will be. And frankly, the nations of the region have to lead it.

The United States and Europe have been united on this, and it is frankly—many African states have spoken up in this way about the need for change in Zimbabwe. But many others have been silent. And it is really time for the people of Zimbabwe to have a better future. And this has the potential, we now see, to be not just a problem for Zimbabwe, but for all of southern Africa. And so I sincerely hope that this is going to spur the states of the region to stronger action.

Q. But you don't think it's up to America and the Europeans to take action to force him out?

Secretary Rice. Well, without help in the region, it's very difficult to have the tools that will bring about a just resolution in Zimbabwe. The United States and Europe can't do everything alone. Other states are responsible too. And the southern African states should be the most responsible at this point, because they have the most at risk. And the people of Zimbabwe have suffered long enough.

Prime Minister Rasmussen. I fully agree with the Secretary of State. We share this analysis. The European Union as such stands ready to assist the Zimbabwean people. But we need to see a clear implementation of the power-sharing agreement. And I fully agree with the Secretary of State that Africa must take the lead. So we would encourage the African Union and regional organizations like SADC to take the lead, put pressure on President Mugabe and his regime. We need speedy progress. One final question. Yeah?

Q. When will a new NATO secretary general be appointed? And do you think our Prime Minister would make a good candidate?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, a new NATO secretary general would be appointed long after I'm back at Stanford. And so it will be up to NATO. The current Secretary General serves until the summer, and so it's premature to have those discussions.

I will just say that the Prime Minister has been a real leader in NATO, and whatever role he plays or does not play in the future, I know that when we have strong leaders at the head of state level, this is an alliance that's going to prosper. And I couldn't be more proud of the work we've done together in NATO, and I frankly couldn't be more proud of the alliance. Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by the Financial Times in Washington, DC

Q. Secretary, thanks so much for the interview. I wonder if we could begin just asking what do you make of the people who say that in your second term you really made a valiant effort to rebuild the international ties which frayed in the first?

Secretary Rice. Well, obviously, in the first term, we had to do some difficult things, not all of which were well received in all quarters. I might note, I think that the relationships with our Asian friends and allies, China, Japan, South Korea, the deepening relationship with India, was never subject to those sorts of strains. But I don't think it's anybody—any secret that there were strains with some of our NATO allies—not all, but some. And the proximate reason for that was Iraq and disagreements about Iraq.

But by the time I became Secretary, people had moved on to be concerned about stabilizing Iraq, because whether you agreed with the war or not, everyone understood that a stable Iraq was going to be essential to everyone's interest.

Similarly, I think that we were in a postwar phase in a number of circumstances and trying to then reassure that we were going to turn to diplomacy to stabilize various situations around the world. And I felt—I really did think that it was my responsibility to try to do that. And frankly, it's why I spend so much time on airplanes. You can't really work on relationships by telephone. You can't work on relationships by video. You have to go.

The one area in which I really did, with the President's very strong support, take a conscious decision to change course was on Iran, where I went to Europe in February of 2005. And it was my first trip as Secretary, and I was stunned at the degree to which there was a split with our allies, our closest allies. And I expected—I remember it was an interview—a press conference with Jack Straw, and I thought all the questions would be about Iraq, and 75 percent of them were about Iran. And we'd somehow gotten ourselves into a situation where we were the problem and Europe felt that it needed to mediate between the United States and Iran. Well, this is no place to be, and so we designed a strategy which culminated in the May 2006 decision and we made some tentative first steps to support the negotiations and decided to join the negotiations, creating then the P-5+1 as Russia and China also came on board. So that was a conscious decision to change course because I felt we were in the wrong place with our best allies.

Q. Seemingly, you take it as a compliment that you probably can't sort of divulge—as taking as a compliment that the first term is seen as non-diplomacy, the second as diplomacy, and you happen to be the diplomat of the second term. That's how—that's the shorthand—

Secretary Rice. I know, but you know, I was National Security Advisor in the first term and I don't think of it as a period in which we didn't have diplomacy. Colin Powell did extraordinary work on Iraq, for instance, with 1441 passed unanimously and then putting together a strong coalition on Sudan, where we got the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. I mean, there are lots of examples of diplomacy.

But there's no doubt that the first term, both because of the attack in—on September 11th, then the war in Afghanistan, then the war in Iraq, was less a time of solidifying gains and building relationships, and more a time of, you know, a different kind of engagement.

Q. Looking forward, Secretary, when you talk about things like Iran, is it right that there seem to be very strong elements of continuity with the Obama approach? You sent Bill Burns. He talks about a carrot and a stick. And just in the principles that he's set out so far, even as President-elect, what measure of continuity do you see?

Secretary Rice. Well, I'm certain—and I don't want to speak for the new administration—they will do things in their own way. But I think that we've left in place some diplomatic structures that are ways of managing, and I think ultimately resolving, these really difficult issues, whether it's the P-5+1 on Iran, where we still as a group have an offer on the table, where I signed the letter, where Bill Burns received the answer. And I—when I talk to our allies, they believe that that is the structure in which this is ultimately going to be resolved.

Similarly, even if the—if you look at the Six-Party Talks, even though we've had a recent set of difficulties, we managed to get an agreement with the North Koreans that they will denuclearize, shut down the reactors so that they haven't made any plutonium since 2005. They've begun or have significantly disabled those complexes, and they agreed to a verification protocol. What they didn't agree to were some of the writing down some of the verbal assurances that they made about closing certain loopholes in it. So again—but a multilateral setting with the parties that can really help. And I don't hear anyone saying that you shouldn't continue in that vein.

Annapolis was just affirmed by the Security Council as the basis going forward for Palestinian-Israeli negotiation. And some lesser known structures like the Gulf Cooperation Council countries that meet regularly, have met regularly with me, and Egypt, Jordan and now Iraq, gives you a kind of regional structure in which to deal with these issues.

So I think the reason that perhaps there's some—might be some elements of continuity is that what we've tried to do is to arrange or to organize international groupings that can first manage and then resolve these very difficult problems in a multilateral way.

Q. Very good. How stable a partner is it, given the Putin narrative is now under such stress—the narrative of stability and security? There was that Medvedev speech in November the 5th which made no strategic sense to a lot of people.

Secretary Rice. Well, I think it's stable. I don't worry about the stability of Russia. But I think there is a question of going forward on what is Russia going to base its legitimacy. If it's not a set of values that's—if it's not the ability to deliver a better life, if it's not modernity, and if it's not both domestically and internationally, I don't know quite where that leaves Russia. And I think that's probably the debate that's going on internally in Russia.

I thought that when President Medvedev made his speech about the I's—you know, investment and innovation and so forth— that that was where Russia wanted to go. Maybe it still is. Maybe it still is.

Q. So you see it in a state of flux, rather than unstable?

Secretary Rice. I see it as a state of flux. I don't think—I don't think stability is quite the right word for it. But it's definitely this great transformation or transition. This post-Soviet transformation isn't over, and that's very clear.

Q. And this is probably not a question you can answer quickly, but I guess you'll have to. How, without characterizing it—couching it as advice to your successors, how should the relationship between the National Security Advisor and the Pentagon chief and the Secretary of State work? What's the ideal way, based on your experience?

Secretary Rice. Right. Well, the first thing is to realize that the National Security Advisor has a lot of responsibility and very little authority. Because the National Security Advisor—I used to tell the President it was like trying to get things done by remote control, because you don't have diplomats that report to you, you don't have armies that report to you, you don't control the money supply, you don't print the money, you know, like the Treasury. And so you have to try to bring people together around the President's priorities, and so in a sense you're a very, very high-ranking staff member. And it's a tough job. It is not an easy job.

The most important thing is to have the secretaries do as much of it as they can. I think—I actually don't think that the interagency should try to do every issue. Very often now, and it works very well for us, Bob Gates and I will solve issues together, or Hank Paulson and I will solve issues together. We don't go to the interagency to do it. And I think that's when it works best.

But I told Steve Hadley once, I said, “You know, I really much prefer being coordinated than coordinating.” And it's not easy. But it is a job that also depends a lot on personal chemistry, because you really just have to be able to get people to work together.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Rice. I am delighted to be here with my colleague, the Foreign Minister of Ukraine. Ukraine obviously is a very important partner for the United States and a good friend. We have long believed that Ukraine's independence, its democracy, is essential to a Europe whole and free and at peace. The Ukrainian people are a proud and a good people, and we are very proud, Foreign Secretary, to be your friends and to work with you.

Today, we are going to put into a charter those sentiments. This charter underscores our principles of relations. It outlines a way to advance cooperation in defense and security, in economics and trade, in energy security, in democracy, and in people-to-people contacts and cultural exchanges. The charter will assist the United States and Ukraine as we continue to work together on a wide variety of issues like energy security and trade, combating HIV/AIDS, and implementing reforms to strengthen transparency in Ukraine's institutions.

The United States supports Ukraine's integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures. And in that regard, I want to assure you that the declaration at Bucharest which foresees that Ukraine will be a member of NATO when it can meet those standards is very much at the center of our policy. We look forward to helping you to execute the decisions of Brussels to intensify the work of the Ukraine-NATO Commission toward the fulfillment of the Bucharest declaration.

Ukraine's a friend and partner. I believe this will be our last chance to meet, but we've met many times, and particularly over the last year. We were talking about the number of times that our presidents have met and various officials. But I want you to know that I'm a great admirer of what you're doing for your country. I look forward to seeing you in another capacity and to returning to Ukraine for a good time.

Foreign Minister Ohryzko. Very good, very good. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Dear Madame Secretary, dear friends, I probably will switch on Ukrainian after that.

I would also like to say a few words about our relations. We very highly value our strategic relationship with the United States of America. During the last few years, our relations have truly attained the level of a strategic partnership, and the events that have taken place during that time bear testimony to this. And this year has truly been a very intensive one as far as our bilateral contacts go, including visits by the presidents of our countries—to our respective countries, and also including a number of contacts at various international fora.

During President Bush's visit to Ukraine, the roadmap was signed. And today, as a culmination of this process, we are signing the United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership and Security. This is a very important document because it summarizes our efforts during the past year, but it also has a very important dimension for our future. I would like to call your attention to the areas in this document that address defense, security, the economy, human rights, the increased importance to cultural and people-to-people contacts, and also to the presence of the United States in Ukraine, in particular in the Crimea.

It's also very important that we are going to increase our contacts in the regions. This will provide an added stimulus to—or impetus to our relations.

So I am very glad and very satisfied that today, on the eve of Christmas, on the eve of New Years, we have such a very important and festive occasion. I would like to thank my colleague for all her work during this past year and wish her all the best, much success. We will be pleased to see her. We're looking forward to seeing her in Ukraine anytime. The people know you in Ukraine, they respect you there, and we'll be glad to see you anytime.