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

President Bush. I want to thank General McKiernan for giving me a briefing on Afghanistan.

Before I talk about our visit, I do want to say this: I appreciate Senator Harry Reid's leadership in the United States Senate when it comes to the financial rescue plan. I also appreciate Mitch McConnell['s] leadership, as well. The Senate will be voting on a very important measure tonight. It's a—the rescue plan, the bill has been improved by raising—by other things, raising—temporarily raising the cap on FDIC insurance.

It's very important for members to take this bill very seriously. It's important to get credit flowing again so that small businesses in our communities will be able to finance their operations, so that local municipalities will be able to get the money they need to take care of the needs of local citizens, so that states will be able to meet their needs.

It's very important for us to pass this piece of legislation so as to stabilize the situation so that it doesn't get worse and that our fellow citizens lose wealth and work.

The Senate is going to take this bill up tonight. I'm hopeful they'll pass it, and then the House will have a chance to vote on it Friday morning. As I say, the bill is different, it's been improved, and I'm confident it will pass.

General, thank you for coming. I appreciate your service to the country. General McKiernan is briefing me on the situation in Afghanistan, what he is going to need to make sure that we continue helping this young democracy succeed.

Obviously, this is a situation where there's been progress, and there are difficulties. There's been progress when you consider the fact that millions of young girls go to school that didn't have a chance to go to school before in Afghanistan. That's incredible progress. There's progress when you realize that health care needs are being met for the first time in—around Afghanistan. There's progress when there are roads being built so farmers can get product to market. That's progress.

There's difficulties, of course, because killers can't stand this progress. And the General's job is to work with obviously not only our troops but the thousands of troops from NATO countries there to provide the security so the progress continues. And there's been some tough fighting, and we honor our American troops who have sacrificed so that Afghanistan never becomes a safe haven again for extremists who would harm our citizens.

We talked about the comprehensive strategy necessary to succeed. I announced more troops for Afghanistan, and the General, of course, is continually to assess his needs. But we also must make sure there's a civilian component that runs alongside our military, that there's good governance, and that there's aid programs that are effective and focused on the people of Afghanistan, and that the infrastructure progress continues to be made.

And so I want to thank you for your service, thank you for your candid briefing, General. I want to thank your family, as well as all the other families who are standing by those who wear the uniform, as this nation continues to defend her own security and defend young democracies.

General, you and your troops are laying the foundation for peace. You're making a sacrifice today so that future generations of Americans don't have to worry about harm coming from a place like Afghanistan, and future generations of Afghans can grow up in a hopeful society. And I'm proud to be your Commander-in-Chief.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks en route to New Delhi, India

Secretary Rice. Well, we're on our way to India and then to Kazakhstan. We'll talk about Kazakhstan on the way there. But I'm very much looking forward to going to India, really to just affirm the extraordinary progress that we've made in U.S.-Indian relations under the visionary leadership of President Bush and Prime Minister Singh. I think this is a relationship that is now—has now a firm foundation to reach its full potential.

In bilateral terms, of course, the Civil Nuclear Agreement is important and I— but I think we can now draw a line under that and talk about the breadth of this relationship. And really, in everything from defense cooperation to educational cooperation to agricultural and economic cooperation, this is a relationship that is very strong and broad and deep. And it's, of course, a relationship that's based first and foremost on values; the Indian and American democracies, both great multiethnic democracies. With all of the excitement and cacophony that comes with that, it is really an extraordinary moment for U.S.-Indian relations.

We also can now move from this foundation to global issues. We are working together on Afghanistan. We've worked together on humanitarian relief, as evidenced in what we did at the time of the Indonesia events. And there is much more that the United States and India can do together. So I look forward to going and spending, unfortunately, a short time in India. But I think it does show that the relationship is now ready to move to this new level and to exploit all the things that we can do together.

Q. Are you going to actually—ma'am, are you going to sign the agreement? And does the agreement on the nuclear cooperation serve, in any sense, as a model for other countries that might do a similar deal?

Secretary Rice. I think India is really sui generis. It is a state that has had—really, very good proliferation record. Obviously, it posed some challenges because of its strategic nuclear programs, but I think what you saw in the IAEA Board of Governors, in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and ultimately, in the Congress, is a recognition of what Mohamed ElBaradei has said, which is that bringing India and Indian civil nuclear programs and facilities and their future into the IAEA framework is a win for the proliferation regime as a whole. I think India is, in many ways, sui generis in that regard.

The—in terms of what we signed, look, there are a lot of administrative details that have to be worked out. This was only passed in our Congress two days ago. The President is looking forward to signing the bill, sometime, I hope, in—very soon, because we'll want to use it as an opportunity to thank all of the people who have been involved in this. That means the U.S.-India—the Indian American community, the U.S.-India business community, and the diplomats and others who have been involved.

So, you know, we're working through administrative details, but I'm going to draw a line under this one way or another, because this is now time—it's time to put the historic agreement, say that that's done, and move on to what else we can do, because we've got a very broad relationship.

Q. So it may or may not be signed during this trip? It's being worked out at the last minute.

Secretary Rice. It's got to be worked out at the last minute, because there are so many administrative issues—

Q. Right.

Secretary Rice.—that we have to deal with.

Q. I don't understand what the administrative issues are. What—could it be—

Secretary Rice. Well, the—for instance, we have to enroll the bill

Q. All right.

Secretary Rice.—when it comes over from the Congress. So look, the important thing about this trip is to talk about the next steps in the U.S.-India relationship, not the last step, which I feel we, in some ways, put a line under that when we talked about in the State Department, so we'll see.

Q. Does the President have to sign before you can sign? Is that what—

Secretary Rice. The President does not have to sign before I sign. But we're working through the details of this. I'll let you know. But the whole purpose of this trip is to move forward, not to look at where we are.

Q. Back to the India nuclear cooperation deal. You need the Indians to sign a convention on liability, limiting damage if there's an accident before U.S. businesses can really benefit from this. How soon do you think that will happen? Or is that one of the things you have to work out with the Indians?

Secretary Rice. We have a letter of intent from the Indians that we believe is a very firm set of commitments and a framework for making sure that our businesses can do business in India. So I'm satisfied about the details of all of this. This really is about administrative matters, not about the substance of it.

Q. During the debate on the Hill, there was talk about what's to keep them from testing again. Do you think it's part of your mission on this trip to talk to them about that again and talk—say—you know, deliver a warning message of any kind about, you know, not testing?

Secretary Rice. I think we've been very clear about U.S. views on this issue. The Indians have a lot at stake here. And they have made very clear that what they want to do is they want to move on to civil nuclear cooperation. And I think they understand the grounds on which we've done this. The United States is going to remain true to its commitments under the Hyde Act and true to the commitments that President Bush has made to President Singh. And I know that the Indians will do the same.

Q. The Administration has mentioned that it is reviewing its strategy in Afghanistan, Pakistan. I haven't personally heard what you have said on that topic, though. Do you think that the strategy needs to be, in some way, changed or firmed up in some way?

Secretary Rice. Well, we are, in fact, reviewing where we are. I think it's only appropriate that we do so. We have a lot of new factors, including a new Pakistani Government that we're working very closely with, including an obvious uptick in Taliban activity, likely coming elections in Afghanistan next year, likely the increase—well, not likely—the increase in American forces that Secretary Gates has announced. And while I think there's been a lot of progress in a lot of the country, everybody continues to be concerned about the South, and then to a certain extent, the Southeast. So it's a good time to review that strategy. I think we've learned a lot of lessons.

One of the things that's come out of this review—I think you recognize—is that we believe that the number of Afghan armed forces, the Afghan army, needs to be increased. We're also—I've asked the State Department that we take a hard look again at how the PRTs are operating in Afghanistan. We've had a lot of experience now and a lot of success with a larger civilian component to the PRTs, where you can have better integration in a COIN strategy of the military strategy and the reconstruction strategy. Ironically, the PRTs were born in Afghanistan and I think they've done a very good job. But we've learned some things from the way that they operated in Iraq. And I think we want to go back and look at those lessons because the—Afghanistan is going to be a—is going to have a decentralized political and economic structure. We've spent a lot of time, rightly, making certain that there is—that we're working toward a really functioning central government that can extend its writ into the provinces.

But I personally feel that we have not done as much as we need to, to improve local governance, to improve the relationship between local governance and traditional structures, like the tribal structure. And so I think it's a good time to review all of those—all of those issues.

Okay.

Q. How can the Indians help you most in Afghanistan? Is it the intelligence about the movement of militant groups in (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. No. First of all, India has a very good relationship with Afghanistan and is a good neighbor for Afghanistan, has significant investments in Afghanistan. And so it's really in the context of being part of the coalition of states that really want to see a stable Afghanistan and are contributing to it. Obviously, we have information-sharing as well. But I would emphasize the political and economic support for Afghanistan. And by the way, that's a discussion I would hope to have in Kazakhstan, as well. Because Afghanistan is in the future and it's another element of what we're trying to do.

Afghanistan in the future is going to have to be regionally integrated to be successful economically. And so when you think about—we tend to think about the regional problems that are there because of the FATA and the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but there is also, in the future, a regional integration strategy with the Central Asian states and India and, ultimately, Pakistan and Afghanistan having close economic and logistical ties.

Q. Was India and Kazakhstan represented at the Friends of Pakistan the other week in New York?

Secretary Rice. No. I said Kazakhstan concerning Afghanistan was the point.

Q. Sorry, yeah.

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. How much of your message in India is “Buy American?”

Secretary Rice. You know, it's not. I'm confident that the United States will— American companies will compete with— we're free traders. And we believe that American companies will compete. Now, what we have done, I think, is to demonstrate that the United States was willing to take a strategic step that has made it possible for India to enter a new realm in terms of its ability to cooperate and to be integrated into what is a global industry that is bigger than just nuclear reactors. Nuclear technology and technological cooperation are—there are a lot of associated industries. And so I think the Indians recognize that the United States took that strategic step and help India get through the NSG and the IAEA and so forth.

But ultimately, what American companies are really asking is an opportunity to demonstrate their capability and what they can do. And that's what we expect that they will do.

Q. (Inaudible) defense contracts? You did talk about a—

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. (Inaudible) business—military—

Secretary Rice. No, we are actually in discussions with the Indians about military sales. That's in another channel and it'll continue as well.

Q. How—does the nuclear deal—in any way, does it smooth the way for sales?

Secretary Rice. No. Look, what the Indian deal—what the—

Q. (Inaudible) in some ways or—

Secretary Rice. What the civil nuclear deal does is that it removes, for India, a barrier to full integration on a whole range of technologies. But more importantly, I think it is symbolic of a relationship with India that's now at a very, very different level. And at that different level, one would expect that economic relations, defense relations, a whole range of relationships, including business relationships, will flourish. But they'll flourish on their own terms. But, yes, the framework for U.S.-India relations is significantly different than it was when President Bush and Prime Minister Singh took this on in 2005.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee delivered these remarks in New Delhi, India

Minister Mukherjee. Secretary Rice and I have just had very constructive and useful talks. It is always a pleasure to welcome a good friend and trusted partner to India. Under Secretary Rice's (inaudible), India-US relations are today better than they have ever been before and have been transformed into a truly strategic partnership. During our discussions (inaudible) range of subjects. We were both very satisfied with the status of our bilateral relationship and are convinced of its future potential. Today India and the US engage as partners across the entire range of (inaudible). The civil nuclear energy initiative is now in its last lap. We look forward to signing our 123 Agreement and bringing it into effect soon. I am grateful to Secretary Rice for all that she has done to make possible this landmark achievement and transformational event. It is this agreement which has opened the door for India to international nuclear commerce.

What India and the US are doing today has direct benefits for our peoples, and assists India's effort to develop. Whether it is energy, agricultural research, trade or high-technology, India's (inaudible) a knowledge society leads us to work very closely with US. Today the USA is India's largest trading partner, our largest source of investment and a major source of technology. As India grows and develops, our relationship with the US too will grow and develop.

India-US relations today have more than bilateral significance. We naturally also discussed the regional situation and global issues. Ours is a neighborhood of several challenges. India seeks a peaceful periphery (inaudible). We have an interest in the peace, stability and prosperity of our neighbors, and will make our contribution to these outcomes.

Among the global issues that we discussed, we found commonalities of approach. We determined to continue working together on (inaudible) issues, ranging from climate change to UN reform, including that of the UN Security Council.

As we looked back with satisfaction at the transformation of India-US relations, we are convinced of the future prospects of this relationship. The vision for this relationship laid down by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush is one that serves the interests of our peoples, and those of the region and the world. India and the US, as two democracies with shared values, look forward to building this partnership based on principle and (inaudible) in the years to come.

Secretary Rice. Thank you very much, Minister Mukherjee, for hosting me here, for the wonderful hospitality, for the wonderful lunch, and the good company, but also the very substantive discussions that we have just finished. I look forward to seeing the prime minister a little bit later. President Bush very much enjoyed hosting him in Washington, just nine days ago.

I think it is fair to say that, as I come here to Delhi and work with you, Minister, we both have a lot to be pleased about, particularly that I think we are executing the vision of Prime Minister Singh and President Bush for closer and deeper relations between the United States and India.

We have, of course, just concluded the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. A lot of people have worked very hard, diplomats and parliamentarians and civil servants, and politicians. I think that everyone has worked to bring this into being, and the negotiations have sometimes been tough along the way, but it is because it is such an historic agreement, and historic achievement. We have all persevered, and the United States will stand by its commitment.

And I believe, in that regard, the unanimous support of the International Atomic Energy Agency, all 45 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, 298 members of our House of Representatives, and 86 members of our Senate—that's an enormous bipartisan margin—it shows that the U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreement has broad support, bipartisan support, and broad and deep support.

This gives a new platform for cooperation in energy matters. We all need to find ways to diversify our energy mix, and we look very much forward to helping India to develop civil nuclear power. We believe that it is important that the IAEA, and, in fact, Dr. ElBaradei was an early supporter of this, because it builds on India's very good proliferation behavior to strengthen, we believe, the IAEA framework.

We believe it is also very important for our technological cooperation, as it moves forward. But, of course, this relationship goes very much beyond the civil nuclear power agreement. It is a relationship that is seeing ever larger numbers of travelers and of students and of scholars and of business people. And families, because of course, the United States enjoys the tremendous energy and vitality and vibrancy of an Indian-American community that remains very committed to seeing progress between the United States and India.

People are using these ties to gain new technologies, to innovate. Investment is flowing both ways, creating jobs in both of our countries. Bilateral trade has set new records. And, indeed, we have opened up new channels between our governments, as well, in trade and technology, in agriculture—one of the very earliest elements of cooperation between the United States and India—in education, in defense cooperation. I think it's fair to say that this is now one of the broadest relationships that the United States enjoys.

And we are also putting this good relationship to use, globally. We have had discussions today about Afghanistan, our joint desire to see Afghanistan peaceful and prosperous. We are working together on issues like climate change. And, of course, as we look to transforming our economies, we hope to work together increasingly to make certain that world trade prospers, and continues so that our economies can continue to grow.

I think it's fair to say, Minister, that the last several years have, indeed, been better years for U.S.-India relations. But as President Bush gets ready to end his administration and pass on to his successor, strong relations around the world, I think that this will be one of the very strongest. I know that whoever becomes President of the United States will continue to build on the firm foundation that Prime Minister Singh and President Bush began in 2005. Thank you very much.

Q. I have a question for the minister and for the Secretary of State.

Dr. Rice, we were all expecting the two of you to sign the 123 agreement today. Can you tell us why it is taking so long for the President to sign it into law? What the procedure is now? Is it just a procedural delay, or is there something else?

And also, there are some concerns India has with the bill that's been cleared in the U.S. Congress. Would the President be addressing those concerns in his signing statement?

And Mr. Mukherjee, technically India and the U.S. could have signed this agreement, even before the President signed his statement. Why did India choose not to do that?

Secretary Rice. Well, the President will sign the agreement very soon. He wants to sign it very soon—sorry, the legislation— very soon.

There are administrative details that have to be worked through. For instance, just to give you an example, a bill, once it's passed on Capitol Hill, has to be enrolled, it's called. It then has to be transmitted to the White House. I think you know that this has been a busy time for our legislative branch over the last several days.

But indeed, the President very soon looks forward to signing the legislation. And, of course, the administration has made clear in a number of fora and we will make clear again, that the Hyde Act is completely consistent with the 123 agreement that we have signed with India, and the 123 agreement is consistent with the Hyde Act. The United States will keep its commitments to both.

Minister Mukherjee. So what the signing is concerned as—we have completed the process of registrations, and the approval of the registration in the US Congress is (inaudible). After the signing of the President, then the process will be complete and after the process is complete we'll be in a position to sign at a mutually convenient date (inaudible). And I hope it will be signed shortly.

Q. [I]t's Lachlan Carmichael from the AFP News Agency. I wanted to ask Madame Secretary and Mr. Minister about the commitment that Madame Secretary made to one of the top congressmen in the U.S. to go to the NSG, and ask the NSG to amend the rules, demanding a ban on the transfer of reprocessing and enrichment technology to countries such as India, that haven't signed the NPT.

How soon will you do that, and what will you do to achieve that? And how does Mr. Minister feel about that? I understand you're not so happy about it.

Secretary Rice. This is a criteria-based approach for the NSG on this matter, Lachlan, so we have the language correct. And, indeed, this would now be a global issue. And the United States has been seeking this for some time. So there is nothing new here, it's just a matter of whether or not it is de-linked from other issues. But this has been U.S. policy for some time.

Minister Mukherjee. So far as NSG clearance is concerned, it has enabled the NSG member countries to enter into civil nuclear cooperation trade with India. This is just an enabling provision. Directly through the bilateral arrangements the details of implementing the agreement will be finalized.

In respect of the facilities for reprocessing, when (inaudible) enter into bilateral arrangements, these issues will be addressed. As I mentioned, this is an enabling provision. All aspects of the contract, bilateral contract, cannot be addressed in an enabling provision. The bar which prohibited, which did not allow the NSG members to enter into nuclear trade with India—that has been removed with the approval of the India specific safeguards agreement by the board of governors of IAEA and cleared by NSG members. And how we will resolve through the bilateral arrangements—that would depend on the contracting parties. Thank you.

Q. I represent INS News Agency. My question is addressed to Madame Secretary of State. Madame now that the 123 deal is almost done, what is the 456 in India-US relations? And also, what can India and the United States do together to deal with terrorism flowing from Pakistan and surrounding (inaudible)? Thank you.

Secretary Rice. Right. Let me be clear. The 123 Agreement is done. It's a matter of signing that agreement. And so I don't want anyone to think that we have open issues. We, in fact, don't have open issues. These are administrative matters of signing agreements, just to be very clear.

In terms of the situation in Pakistan, we have had a very good discussion. The United States has encouraged the cooperation between Pakistan and India, encouraged dialogue between Pakistan and India, which has taken place.

My colleague, Foreign Minister Mukherjee, was one of the first visitors to Pakistan after the new government came into being there. I think we all have a stake in a successful, civilian government in Pakistan that can deal with Pakistan's considerable challenges, be they economic or political, but particularly in terms of terrorism.

And Pakistan, more than anyone, has an interest in the—fighting terrorism, as is witnessed by the fact that the great Benazir Bhutto was, of course, gunned down by these militants.

And so, we all have an interest. I don't think that there are any interests in conflict here. But to the degree that a good relationship between India and Pakistan is going to help, which I think it will, I have to say that I found, both on the Pakistani side, within the government, and on the Indian side, a full understanding of that, and a willingness to pursue it.

Minister Mukherjee. I would just like to add (inaudible) already Dr. Rice has stated. We are (inaudible) mechanism for this issue, including the recent discussion with President (inaudible), Dr. Manmohan Singh our prime minister, and (inaudible) discussed tackling the problem of terrorism and we're assured by Pakistan President (inaudible) that the territories of Pakistan will not be used for carrying out the terrorist activities against India. We do hope (inaudible) established, they will be more effective to tackle this (inaudible). Thank you.

Q. I'm Susan Cornwell with Reuters, and this is a question for Secretary of State Rice. Madam Secretary, have you made any progress in getting North Korea to hand over their verification protocol for their nuclear program? And is North Korea willing to consider handing it to China first, and then being delisted from the U.S. nuclear— the U.S. terrorism list?

Secretary Rice. Susan, I don't have any update for you. I have spoken only briefly with the Assistant Secretary Hill, who was, at the time, in Pyongyang. I will talk with him on Monday, when I return to Washington, and we can review the discussions that he had in North Korea.

But one thing was very clear. The North Koreans have an obligation to give a verification protocol—and I would say it's to all six parties, of course, or to all five parties, a verification protocol that gives confidence that we are able to verify the provisions of the declaration that North Korea made, and begin to answer the substantial questions that that declaration raised.

And so, what we will be looking at is the verification protocol, and what the North Koreans have said about it. But I don't have any specifics for you on the outcome of Assistant Secretary Hill's discussions. He himself has said that they were substantive. I'm sure they were. We will see when he gets back if they were productive.

On the Occasion of Signing H.R. 7081

I am pleased today to sign into law the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act, which approves the U.S.-India 123 Agreement. The passage of this legislation by the Congress marks another major milestone in achieving the vision that Prime Minister Singh and I set forth on July 18, 2005, to transform the relationship between our two countries and to establish a strategic partnership. This Act will strengthen the relationship between the United States and India and deliver valuable benefits to both nations.

The legislation does not change the terms of the 123 Agreement as I submitted it to the Congress. That Agreement is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act and other elements of U.S. law. This legislation is important as it enables me to bring the 123 Agreement into force and to accept on behalf of the United States the obligations contained in the Agreement.

The Agreement grants India advance consent to reprocessing which will be brought into effect upon conclusion of arrangements and procedures for a dedicated reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards.

In addition, the legislation does not change the fuel assurance commitments that the U.S. Government has made to the Government of India, as recorded in the 123 Agreement.

The passage of this legislation reflects the common view of my Administration and the Congress as to the value of nuclear cooperation and is in the interest of the United States and India.

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

President Bush. Thank you for coming. Welcome to the White House. Today, I have the honor of signing legislation that builds on the growing ties between the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States. This legislation will enhance our cooperation in using nuclear energy to power our economies; it will help us work together even more closely to reduce the danger of nuclear proliferation across the world.

This legislation represents more than three years of hard work by a lot of people. I appreciate the work of the Indian-American leaders from across the nation. I thank the members of the United States Congress for working hard on this piece of legislation. I'm especially grateful for the leadership provided by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who worked hard to make sure this bill made it through both Houses at the very end of the session.

I thank the leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committees in the House and the Senate—Senator Joe Biden; Dick Lugar;

Chris Dodd, who is with us; as well as Representatives Howard Berman and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I also welcome the members of Congress here on the stage who worked hard to get this legislation done. I appreciate so very much the contributions of two leaders who played an important role in crafting this legislation—the late Henry Hyde and the late Tom Lantos.

Other members who've joined us—John Warner, Senator from Virginia; Eliot Engel, Democrat, House Foreign Affairs committee member from New York; Congressman Joe Crowley from New York. Members of the administration who have joined us—Mr. Vice President, thank you. I appreciate the hard work that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did to bring this deal to fruition—as well as Secretary Sam Bodman, at the Department of Energy.

I am so honored here that—to have the Ambassador of India to the United States with us—Ambassador Sen, thank you for joining us. And I appreciate very much the incredibly efficient work of our Ambassador, David Mulford, and his wife Jean-nie—thank you for being here. You didn't do so bad yourself, Ambassador.

I thank the congressional staff who worked hard on this legislation. I congratulate you for the constructive work. I appreciate the supporters of the U.S.-India Nuclear Civil Agreement that are here today. All in all, welcome. This is a—it's a big deal.

Even though the United States and India are separated by half the globe, we are natural partners as we head into the 21st century. Both our nations emerged from a colonial past to establish vibrant democracies. We have welcomed investment and private enterprise to become leaders in the global economy. We have stood against the dangers posed by extremists, who have carried out attacks in both our countries. We have demonstrated that we cherish liberty, honor human dignity, and respect the rule of law.

Despite these common interests and values, it was not long ago that relations between the United States and India were strained. In recent years, we've worked to transform our relationship into a strong strategic partnership. One area where we saw tremendous potential for cooperation is energy. As our economies have grown, our demands for energy have grown, as well. It's become increasingly clear that we need to generate that energy in ways that are safe and clean and secure.

One energy source that can generate large amounts of electricity with zero emissions of air pollution or greenhouse gases is nuclear power. So three years ago, Prime Minister Singh—who I consider a dear friend—and I resolved to work together on a landmark agreement paving the way for our nations to cooperate on nuclear power. By undertaking new cooperation on civil nuclear energy, India will be able to count on a reliable fuel supply for its civilian reactors, meet the energy demands of its people, and reduce its independence [sic] on fossil fuels.

For our part, the United States will gain access to a growing market for civilian nuclear technologies and materials, that will help American businesses create more jobs for our people here at home.

Our agreement will also strengthen global nonproliferation efforts. India has committed to operate its civil nuclear energy program under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international guidelines. India will continue to build on its strong record of responsibility in operating its nuclear facilities. And India and the United States will cooperate more closely to keep the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of extremists and terrorists.

The bill I sign today approves the 123 agreement I submitted to Congress—and establishes the legal framework for that agreement to come into effect. The bill makes clear that our agreement with India is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act and other elements of U.S. law. By passing this legislation, my administration and Congress demonstrate our common view that nuclear cooperation is in the interest of both the United States and India.

The legislation makes no changes to the terms of the 123 agreement I submitted to Congress. It enables me to bring that agreement into force and to accept on behalf of the United States all the obligations that are part of the agreement. The legislation does not change the fuel assurance commitments that the United States government has made to the government of India, as recorded in the 123 agreement. The agreement also grants India “advance consent to reprocessing”— which will be brought into effect upon the conclusion of arrangements and procedures for a dedicated reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards.

This agreement sends a signal to the world: Nations that follow the path of democracy and responsible behavior will find a friend in the United States of America. The American people are proud of our strong relationship with India. And I am confident that the friendship between our two nations will grow even closer in the years ahead.

Laura and I send our best wishes to the hundreds of millions of people in India and around the world who will begin celebrating the ancient festival of Diwali later this month. As we offer our prayers for a happy new year, we can be thankful that the relationship between the United States and India has never been more vibrant and more hopeful.

And it's now my honor to sign the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee delivered these remarks in Washington, DC

Secretary Rice. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is truly an historic occasion, and I want to thank all of you for joining us here. But most of all, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Foreign Minister Mukherjee, who flew all the way here from New Delhi to do this signing. Thank you very, very much.

I also want to thank the members of the Indian delegation for traveling for this special day. I want to thank, obviously, the negotiators, the teams that have put this together, and our two very fine ambassadors. Thank you.

On behalf of President Bush and all of us here at the State Department, welcome to Washington, because without your personal dedication and relentless hard work, we would not be here today.

Many thought this day would never come, but doubts have been silenced now. The agreement we are about to sign is unprecedented and it demonstrates the vast potential partnership between India and the United States, a potential that, frankly, has gone unfulfilled for too many decades of mistrust, and now potential that can be fully realized. The world's largest democracy and the world's oldest democracy, drawn together by our shared values and, increasingly, by our many shared interests, now stand as equals, closer together than ever before.

That we do so now is due to one factor and one factor alone: statesmanship; the courage in democratic statesmanship, both in New Delhi and in Washington. Prime Minister Singh literally risked his political future for this agreement, and then remade his government to gain the support that he needed. And President Bush first saw the potential and the need for transforming the U.S.-India partnership all the way back in 1999 when he was still the Governor of Texas, and he's made it one of his highest priorities.

That is what democratic leaders do. They deal with the world as it is, but they lay out a vision of the world as it could be, a vision of a new, better reality; and they lead their nations to expand the scope of the possible. I know I speak for my friend, Foreign Minister Mukherjee, when I say how honored we are to serve such leaders and to play the roles that we have in helping to shape this diplomatic triumph for both our nations.

Let no one assume, though, that our work is now finished. Indeed, what is most valuable about this agreement is how it unlocks a new and far broader world of potential for our strategic partnership in the 21st century, not just on nuclear cooperation but on every area of national endeavor.

And so today, we look to the future, a shared future in which both our nations together rise to our global responsibilities and our global challenges as partners. Let us use this partnership to shape an international order in which all states can exercise their sovereignty securely, responsibly, and in peace. Let us use this partnership to tackle the great global challenges of our time: energy security and climate change, terrorism and violent extremism, transnational crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Let us use this partnership to protect and promote our common values: human rights and human dignity, democracy, liberty, and the rule of law for people who are diverse in background but joined together in spirit and aspirations. And let us use our partnership to drive a new social justice agenda for the 21st century by promoting good and uncorrupt governance, by expanding free and fair global trade, by advancing health and education, and supporting the millions and millions of people who are striving to lift themselves out of poverty.

India and the United States can do all of this and more together. There is so much that our two great nations will achieve in this new century. And with the conclusion of this civil nuclear agreement, our partnership will be limited only by our will and our imagination. India and the United States have taken on an extremely difficult challenge. We've met it. We've succeeded together. Now, I believe there is nothing that we cannot do together.

Minister Mukherjee. Your Excellency, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States of America, honorable members of the U.S. Congress, distinguished secretaries of the U.S. Administration, excellencies, friends of India who have joined us today. I thank the Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice for her gracious remarks.

Today is an important day for the India-U.S. relations, for global united security, and for our common endeavor to promote sustainable development while addressing environmental challenges. In signing the agreement between India and the United States of America for cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, we have brought to fruition three years of extraordinary effort by both our governments. This agreement is one more visible sign of the transformed relationship and partnership that our two countries are building together. In doing so, we implement a vision and understandings reached in July 2005, March 2006, by President George Bush and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Both India and the United States have now completed all of our internal procedures to be able to sign this path-breaking agreement. We have particularly noted and welcome the strong bipartisan support which with the U.S. Congress endorsed the agreement. We see this bipartisan support as a vote for stronger India-U.S. cooperation to the mutual benefit of our people.

The signing of this agreement has also been preceded by the unanimous approval by the IAEA Board of Governors of the related safeguards arrangement and by the consensus decision of the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group to enable cooperation by its members in peaceful uses of nuclear energy with India.

The significance of the agreement is that it is the first step to civil nuclear cooperation and trade between India and the U.S. This is an agreement about civil nuclear cooperation, and reflects a careful balance of rights and obligations. The agreement has been passed by the U.S. Congress without any amendments. Its provisions are now legally binding on both sides once the agreement enters into force. We look forward to working with the U.S. companies on the commercial steps that will follow to implement this landmark agreement.

It is also the first step to India's cooperation with the rest of the world in civil nuclear energy. By reinforcing and increasing the nuclear element in our country's energy needs, which is so vital to sustainable growth rate. Nuclear power will directly boost industrial growth, rural development, and help us to expand every vital sector of our economy.

It is also (inaudible) India to respond with her global partners to the challenges of climate and global warming by strengthening her economic growth and sustainable development. The wide-ranging initiatives announced by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and the U.S. president in July 2005 and March 2006 have led to a transformed relationship between our two countries.

Our engagement and productive bilateral dialogue include clean and efficient energy, high technology, defense, space, education, agriculture, science and technology, civil aviation, infrastructure development, and information technology, to name just a few. These will, I am sure, again gain momentum with the signing of this agreement. We look forward to working with the U.S. in promoting nonproliferation, containing and fighting pandemic, climate change, ensuring food security, cooperating in disaster relief management, and other regional and global initiatives.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to each and every person who has made this day a reality. To the President George Bush of the United States of America, who steadfastly believed in this outcome and actually made it happen, to his Secretary of State Madame Condoleezza Rice who has spared no effort in working with my government on challenging details and who was instrumental in the positive income of the negotiations and the finalization of the text of the agreement—and to the U.S. Congress, who gave this agreement with India their strong bipartisan support. The enthusiasm and support of the Indian-American community sustained us through this process and theirs was an invaluable cooperation.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks en route to London, England

Secretary Rice. Given the lateness of the hour, I'll happily just take your questions. But obviously, I'm going to go first to London for consultations with the British.

This was a previously planned trip on our way to the NATO ministerial, but obviously, given the events in India, and the relationship between Pakistan and India— we and Britain have very close ties. We have maintained very close contact. We've cooperated very closely on issues concerning Pakistan, concerning India. And so I think this is fortuitous that I'm going to be in London for these discussions.

I'm then going on to the NATO ministerial. And as you now know, we will depart the NATO ministerial a little early and go to New Delhi. The President has asked me to do that to express our sympathies with and our solidarity with the Indian people, and to express our absolute determination to help in any way that we can to help end this terrorist threat and to bring those who perpetrated this horrible crime to justice, to—because I would just underscore that we share the grief and the anger of the Indian people, but of course, Americans were also killed in this attack and they were killed deliberately because they were Americans. And that makes this of special interest and concern to the United States.

Q. Do you—when—one of the militants who was arrested after the bombing has said that he was trained in Pakistan and was part of one of the two main Pakistani Muslim militant groups. Do you believe the Pakistani Government when they say there was absolutely no Pakistani involvement at all?

Secretary Rice. Well, what we're emphasizing to the Pakistani Government is the need to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and to do that in the most committed and firmest possible way. And I've spoken with President Zardari. I've spoken with Foreign Minister Mukherjee. Steve Hadley has spoken with his counterpart. And on all scores, the Pakistanis have emphasized their desire to get to the bottom of this and to help in any way that they can. And so I don't want to jump to any conclusions myself on this, but I do think that this is a time for complete, absolute, total transparency and cooperation. And that's what we expect.

Q. In your discussions with the Pakistanis, have they assured you that they have played no role in this at all as far as they know? And you said that you were going to be, you know, working together with the Indians to prevent this kind of terrorism threat. How are you going to do that? Do you—are you going there with any specific ideas for the Indians?

Secretary Rice. Well, we've already had very good cooperation with India, and we have a number of U.S. Government agencies that are helping support in any way that we can the investigation. Obviously, information is the long pole in the tent when one deals with terrorist situations. But of course, we have been concerned about this for some time. The embassy bombing in Kabul was reason for concern. And so we will help and cooperate in any way that we can.

In terms of Pakistan, again, the Pakistani Government has said that it will be cooperating, it wants to cooperate, and that it's prepared to follow the leads wherever they go. And that's what we expect.

Q. Do you think the Pakistani Government should send their head of intelligence in India as it was at first scheduled, and then abandoned?

Secretary Rice. Well, this is a decision for the Pakistani Government. But I do think that it is extremely important that there be the highest levels of cooperation between Pakistan and India at this point, and that means all institutions. And I assume that there is going to be law enforcement cooperation as well as intelligence cooperation in getting to the bottom of this.

Q. Are you concerned that this could escalate Pakistan-India tensions to the point of actual conflict?

Secretary Rice. Well, I'd just note that the lines of communication are open between them; that when I speak with the Indians, they talk about the very good initial statements from the Pakistani Government. They have talked on the telephone. This is a different relationship than it was a number of years ago. Obviously, they share a common enemy, because extremists in any form are obviously a threat to the Pakistanis as well as to the Indians.

So this obviously is a difficult task for this new Pakistani Government. It's still early in the civilian government's existence. But in speaking with President Zardari and in speaking with the Foreign Minister, they know that this is a time to step up to the task that they've got.

Q. Do you have any updates on the number of Americans killed, and do you have any more details on that? There were still people who were at risk.

Secretary Rice. Yes. And the latest that I have is what's being reported. The number is six, I think, that was most recently reported. There are still unfortunately a bit of a—well, it's no longer really a rescue operation, but an operation to identify and—but as far as I know, six. And the word that we're getting is, to the best of our knowledge, all known Americans are accounted for at this point.

Q. And do you think that this marks sort of a new era in terrorism in some ways because Americans were singled out, as were other foreigners? Are you afraid that this might escalate and that somehow, this was different from other attacks?

Secretary Rice. Well, clearly, Americans were targeted. Brits were targeted; foreigners were, in a sense, targeted by the very targets that they chose. But this terrorism threat has been very deep and growing for a long time. We've made a lot of progress against these organizations. But yes, I do think that this is an element that bears watching, and that gives us every more reason to make sure that we get to the bottom of it, and as quickly as possible. I think we should sit down—

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Secretary David Miliband delivered these remarks in London, England

Foreign Secretary Miliband. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to One Carlton Gardens. Above all, welcome to my colleague and friend, Condi Rice, for her nearly 24-hour visit in the UK. So we're delighted to have you back.

It's not like it's a quiet time in foreign affairs at the moment, so I don't want to tempt fate by saying this is necessarily your last visit to London, but it may be the last occasion I get the chance to say publicly what I've said privately, which is that you have had a record of incredible distinction in all of the posts that you've held in U.S. Government, first National Security Advisor and then as Secretary of State. And you've carried out your task with determination, with incredible energy, and with a resolute focus on getting results. Because I think for you, diplomacy has only ever been about getting things done and making a difference. You've also carried out your task with enormous charm and grace and friendship, and for that we are extremely grateful. And I believe you've always seen the U.S.-U.K. friendship and partnership as being at the heart of the drive to build security and prosperity around the world.

There is talk about a successor being appointed, I gather. Suffice to say that you will be a very hard act to follow, Madame Secretary. We've got a series of discussions today and tomorrow morning before you fly off to Brussels for the NATO summit. We've dedicated ourselves over the last hour and a bit to talking about the situation in India. Both of our countries have lost innocent people in the terrible atrocities last week. Both of us have very strong ties to India and to Pakistan. And I think we know that violent extremism is a threat to the very integrity of both those countries. And so for that reason, we intend to do all that we can to work to use our influence to ensure that those who are responsible for the atrocities are brought to justice and that the drive to reconcile India and Pakistan to build links between those two great countries are taken forward.

Secretary Rice is traveling from here to India after the stop in Brussels. And that will be very important to that shared drive. No doubt over the next nearly a day, we'll talk about a whole range of other issues on which we are working closely together, but maybe we can leave that for questions.

Condi, if you would say a few words, to say hello to our friends from the press, and then we'll take some questions.

Secretary Rice. I'll gladly do that, David. Thank you very much. And I just want to thank you, as my colleague and as my friend, for the wonderful working relationship that we've enjoyed. I do think this is likely my last official visit to London. But it, fortunately, won't be my last visit to London, that's for certain. And I hope that we can stay in touch. You've brought tremendous energy and skill to this position.

But I just want to say that you read about, as a student of international politics, the special relationship but you don't know really how special it is until you've experienced it. And we have had extraordinary challenges, extraordinary tasks, but also extraordinary opportunities. And I hope that when the final history of this period is written, that it will be said that we dealt resolutely with the challenges, but we also explored and pursued the opportunities, and that we did so on the basis of the great values that unite our country and the great values that, when they are pursued, really do make not only for a more secure world, but a more just one.

We have indeed had a very good discussion of the tragedy in India and the subsequent events there. David was just in the region. And we had talked shortly after you returned. And I am on my way there. Obviously, this is a time when everyone in the civilized world needs to unite not just in condemnation of these terrorist attacks, but also in a commitment to be decisive in following up whatever leads there are in making certain that the people who perpetrated these attacks are brought to justice.

It was, of course, a terrible day for India, and we have—we extend our condolences to the people of India. It was also a terrible day for the United States and for Great Britain and for a number of other countries as we lost nationals. And in the case of Great Britain and the United States, these were people who were singled out because they were British and because they were Americans, and that gives us a qualitatively different character from the point of view, certainly, of President Bush and, as I understand it, the British Government.

And so we will be working with India. We intend to work with Pakistan as well. The people who perpetrated this must be brought to justice. And ultimately, the terrorists have to be stopped because they will keep trying to bring down the civilized values and the civilized world as long as they are not challenged. And that means that challenging them and resolutely going after them is the only choice that we have.

Foreign Secretary Miliband. Good. Who wants to fire off? Michael (inaudible) from the Times.

Q. (Inaudible) from the Times. President Bush was pretty adamant in the Bucharest summit in April that he wanted Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO, or at least to join the membership action group. Now it seems as if this is not going to be offered to them at the NATO foreign ministers meeting. Was it just the war in Georgia that changed your mind? And will you support the resumption of NATO relations with Moscow?

Secretary Rice. First of all, let me point back to the Bucharest declaration, which was very clear in its statement of NATO's intention concerning Georgia and Ukraine, and that is that Georgia and Ukraine will one day—will be members of NATO. I think the sentence is actually very clear: Georgia and Ukraine will be members of NATO.

We believe strongly in NATO's open-door policy that states that are prepared for NATO membership and can assume the responsibilities therein should be welcomed into the organization. But there is a long road ahead for both Georgia and Ukraine to reach those standards. And the United States stands resolutely for those standards, meaning that there should be no shortcuts to membership in NATO.

We have the Ukraine and Georgia commissions, which—the Ukraine commission has been in place for some time. The Georgia commission was created at our last meeting in Brussels. And we believe that those commissions can be used to continue to help prepare these states for eventual membership in NATO. And so we will be in Brussels tomorrow. I'm certain that we'll have a broad discussion of this. But I think there's—you can talk about tactical difference among—differences among the allies, but no one wants to see a circumstance in which Ukraine and Georgia are shut out. And that's why the Bucharest declaration reads as it does.

And as to the question of NATO-Russia ties, we have, in principle, no problem with the resumption of ties between NATO and Russia. Indeed, there have been, at lower levels, the resumption of those discussions. But it's simply a matter of what is appropriate and what was appropriate at a time when, clearly, Russia's behavior in Georgia was quite contrary to all of the values and principles on which NATO stands.

Foreign Secretary Miliband. I think it's worth saying that the heads were absolutely clear when they met in April. They settled the theology of this issue in the declaration. And now the task is one of practice: How do we implement what the heads have decided? And anyone you talk to, not just in NATO, but anyone you talk to in Georgia or in Ukraine, will tell you that there are important practical steps that need to be taken to help boost their own capacity, and that is the first thing that is going to be essential. And I think we can find a lot of common ground about the implementation of the agreement that was come—that was came to last April.

Yeah.

Q. Madame Secretary, you said earlier that the Pakistani Government is a very young, civilian government. How confident are you that this government is going to get all the cooperation it needs from the Pakistani military and intelligence?

And Mr. Miliband, the Secretary is going to India this week. Do you plan to go to India, too, in the next few days?

Secretary Rice. We treat the Government of Pakistan as a whole. And the President of Pakistan is the elected Pakistani President and he has, therefore, the legitimacy that comes with election and that is the legitimacy that comes from the Pakistani people. That is true also of the Prime Minister and, of course, the military serves now in a civilian government. And we expect that that will be the case going forward. We have obviously good contacts with all Pakistani officials from various institutions through our various bilateral institutional ties. But the Government of Pakistan has a legitimate and elected president and that is whom we will—with whom we will deal concerning the situation.

Foreign Secretary Miliband. I'm pleased to be able to have the opportunity to report that I spoke with the Indian Foreign Minister just before our lunch today. I obviously expressed the condolences of the British people to the Indian Government and also our thanks for the way they've—the efforts they've put in to deal with the crisis. I also emphasized how committed we are, not just as a government but as a country, given our very large populations of Indian and Pakistani origin to seeing better relations between India and Pakistan as the foundation of stability in that region of the world. These are two great countries that should be trading—even sometimes arguing—but certainly working together.

And it seems to us absolutely essential that everyone understands now that violent extremism is a threat to the very integrity of Pakistan, but also the integrity and character of India as the world's largest multi-faith democracy. And so the stakes are very high indeed. They are stakes that we are determined to work with the Indian and Pakistani authorities separately. But they also need the Indian and Pakistan authorities to work together. And that's real responsibilities for both sides, quite demanding on both sides, to chase down the people who have perpetrated this atrocity to work together at all levels to ensure that this is done and to translate what I think is a popular understanding that these countries have to live and work together into real action together.

Q. Tim Marshall Sky News. Welcome, Madame Secretary. Do you think Hillary Clinton would make a good Secretary of State, regardless of the name and the position? Any words of advice for your successor?

And Foreign Secretary, do you accept that India has to be seen to respond in robust fashion, that its population demands it after Mumbai?

Secretary Rice. Well, let me start by saying I suppose the announcement is going to be shortly. I've tried to avoid and to give the President-elect the courtesy of making the announcement. But since we're in different time zones, let me respond.

The first time that I met Senator Clinton was actually a world away from Washington, when she brought her freshman daughter to Stanford University where I was provost. And so our relationship goes back quite a long way. And I am very fond of her. I think she has worked very hard on behalf of the country. I think she really comported herself very well in the campaign. And she's an inspiration to a lot of people and a lot of—not just women, a lot of people. I know that she will bring enormous energy and intellect and skill to the position. And most importantly, I know her to be somebody who has what you need most in this job, which is a deep love for the United States of America and for its values, a respect for differences that we may have with friends and allies, but always recognizing that the core of who we are as Americans unites us with very many around the world, particularly Great Britain.

As to advice, I'll give her that advice privately, and then she won't and you won't hear from me again, because—I will certainly not make the effort to comment on everything that is done. I think that we've had a good run, but I'll tell you something. The two-year term is not a bad idea.

Foreign Secretary Miliband. The two-year term?

Secretary Rice. No, sorry, the two-term—four years.

Foreign Secretary Miliband. The two-term—the term limits?

Secretary Rice. The term limits, American term limits.

Foreign Secretary Miliband. Well, we're looking forward to today's announcement as well. Obviously, Senator Clinton brings an enormous breadth of experience to her role. The point that I would account, I think, is a determination to defy fatalism. She's someone who believes that human effort can engineer change, and I think that's a profoundly important quality that she shares with Secretary Rice, and it's one that I think will bring a great deal to international affairs. And we very much look forward to working with her.

In respect of the situation in India, I think that the Indian people, like people anywhere in the world when they're struck by terrorism, want to know that their government develops a plan to tackle that terrorism. That doesn't mean symbolic acts. It means real acts with real partners to effect real change. My conversation with the Indian Foreign Minister today was about those real acts that are going to be necessary, not just from India to improve its own defenses, but from its neighbors, notably from Pakistan.

And I think it is very important that the whole world says that Prime Minister Singh on the one hand, President Zardari on the other, are two men who are committed to the proposition that India and Pakistan have so much more to gain from working together than from being divided. They know the costs of division between those two countries. Their early work together over the last few months has opened up the economy across the line of control, has developed political talks, and now those are under the greatest possible scrutiny and the greatest possible strain. I think it's precisely at this moment of strain and scrutiny that we need very strong statesmanship and leadership to assert that it is joint action and cooperative action that will make the difference between stability and instability. And that's certainly what we'll be working for.

Q. Yes. Madame Secretary, the degree of closeness that both the Pakistani Government—the proceeding one and the current—and the Indian Government have had to the United States have been a problem for both of them over the last year in various respects. By going to India now and by highlighting the fact that Americans were killed and that the United States takes special interest in this act as a result, do you risk heightening tensions either between India and—or anti-Americanism in either country?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, Anne, in terms of the relationship with India, we've just been through a kind of banner year for U.S.-Indian relations. The United States spearheaded the reentry—or the entry of India into the IAEA framework and a civil-nuclear deal that I think was of extraordinary importance to India and is seen to have been as such. And I was just in India, as you know, and I find there that the level of comity and, indeed, friendship between India and the United States is unparalleled, really, throughout our history.

We also were the ones, along with Britain and others, who championed the free and fair elections in Pakistan and the coming to power of a civilian government. And so we have had—we don't always have agreement, but we have good relations with these two governments, good relations with these countries. And when I say that Americans were killed, I'm stating a fact. I'm also stating yet another reason why our solidarity with victims of terrorism in India after this latest attack—or, for that matter, victims of terrorism in Pakistan who have suffered at the hands of these extremist.

I think what it is is a message that this is, for all of us, a great challenge. But it is—it's a war that we're all fighting together, because these extremist have gone after Americans, they've gone after British citizens. They've also, of course, killed more Pakistanis and Indians than anyone else.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice was interviewed in a roundtable in London, England

Q. Sure. Well, I suppose the big issue that's been occupying our minds for the last week has been, obviously, the events in Mumbai.

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q. And I know you're going there on Wednesday. And I guess the big fear now is that this incident is going to spark some new tension or potential conflict between India and Pakistan. And so I suppose I would like to know what you're planning to do to prevent that happening.

Secretary Rice. Well, the most important thing that can happen now is to have absolute commitment on the part of everyone to investigate what happened and bring people to justice for what they did, and in doing so, perhaps, to also learn of any further activities that this group was—might have been involved in. That's going to require great cooperation between India and those of us who have been active in the war on terror, like the United States and Great Britain.

And I know that that cooperation is going on, but it's also going to require the cooperation of Pakistan. And the Pakistani Government has said that—President Zardari has said rightly that extremism in any form is a threat to Pakistan, as well as to India. And I fully expect, therefore, the commitment of Pakistan to absolute transparency and wherever the leads go to completely follow them up. And that's just going to be absolutely necessary. The United States, like Great Britain, lost citizens and so we have a special interest in this. And we're going to pursue every avenue that we can to find out what happened here.

So that really is the issue now, and we continue to hope that the Indian and Pakistani Governments will maintain the open lines of communication that they've thus far had. And we will continue to impress upon them the importance of those open communications, but this is a very serious time for commitment to getting to the bottom of this.

Q. Let me just follow up on Richard's. What you're outlining—of course, the investigation is very important, but what you're outlining really is just a whole new strategy. Because it is—basically, people in this room are reasonably clear of what sort of results the investigation will throw up. Then the question is what kind of response from India is proportionate, possible, too dangerous. The (inaudible) is quite possible if it's demonstrated this is done by groups, not necessarily under the control of the Pakistani Government, but operating out of Pakistan. The Indian Government cannot afford to do absolutely nothing in that direction.

Secretary Rice. Well, let's remember that wherever they're operating from, they are extremists and terrorists who have— who want to destabilize not just India, but also many of them want to destabilize Pakistan. So I think a firm response by the Pakistani Government, should it be demonstrated that some of this was coming in—coming from Pakistan, will be very important.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions about precisely how this happened. But there are two reasons to this. First, to be really transparent, to be really tough on this and very committed, number one, because people need to be brought to justice. But equally importantly, as we learned with terror incidents of this sort, there are often wider efforts or intentions to do other things, and so you really want to get to the bottom of it, both as a preventive and as a—and bringing them to justice. So I don't think it's a holding pattern. I think it is right now the most important thing we can do.

Q. Some people are asking the question today, is it possible for the U.S. to say to India that there should be a controlled response to this, when the U.S. itself takes such a robust response to the problem of core al-Qaida in the FATA r egion and the tribal areas? Is there a problem? Does that sort of hamper you in some ways in making the case for a controlled response?

Secretary Rice. Well, what you want to do is to make a response that is going to deal with the problem, first of all, and prevent future attacks, and that is going to— not going to have unintended consequences and, therefore, make the situation worse. And so I think when you talk about making a response, those very circumstances or those various elements have to be kept in mind.

And what the Indians have been saying, and we are in full agreement with them, is what they want most right now, what they believe is absolutely critical, is to find out, with full cooperation from Pakistan, how this happened and what these people were planning and how they carried it out. And that is what they've emphasized, and that is, we think, the right course. So that's how you think about a response, is how do you deal with the circumstances at hand, but how do you also prevent attacks in the future, and how do you bring people to justice for what happened.

I think the Indians also are spending a good deal of time looking at their own capacity to prevent attack, and we will try to be helpful there. But you know, let me just say a word about prevention and warning and all of those issues having been through this. The fact is that the terrorists only have to be right once; you have to be right 100 percent of the time. And that's a tough fight. And so I know that there will be a lot of looking at what the Indian Government might have known or should have known or could have known. But these terrorists are not easy to—they can't be deterred and they're not easy to preempt. And so we will help on that score as well.

Q. But I mean, do you at all equate the two? I mean, it could—using the same justification that the United States has used for sanctioning cross-border attacks in Pakistan from Afghanistan, could the Indian Government launch cross-border attacks against similarly determined terrorist cells they find in Pakistan?

Secretary Rice. Look, I'm not going to speculate on what the Indian Government may choose to do, Anne. But the question is: How do you best deal with the fact of the attack, the consequences of it, and prevention of future attacks? And the best way to deal with that would be through cooperation between Pakistan and India, and that's what we are encouraging. And in fact, this is a time for absolute transparency and for letting evidence lead where it may.

Q. But the chances of getting full cooperation from an Indian perspective are probably quite slim, aren't—

Secretary Rice. Well, I don't think so. I—it depends on what actually did happen here. But it also is incumbent upon Pakistan to realize the seriousness of what happened here. First of all, let's remember that this isn't the first attack. Bad things happened in Afghanistan, to India as well. Secondly, this attack was broad and pretty brazen. And it clearly was meant to target not just—not just to terrorize, but in fact, going as it did after Mumbai, an Indian financial center, hotels that foreigners frequented, to try and shake the confidence of the international community and the safety of India.

And it also, of course, went after Americans and it went after Brits because they were Americans and Brits, and Israelis as well. So this is a qualitatively different— they're all serious, but this is a qualitatively different set of circumstances than we have seen in the past, and it requires a qualitatively different response on the part of Pakistan.

Q. The attack on the Indian parliament was followed by Indian troops going to the border. Everyone got very concerned. So do you think that—given that there is huge domestic pressure, there are elections coming in India, do you see that as a potential response? Do you think that the United States could persuade India not to do that?

Secretary Rice. Well, as I said, you—I think you look at response for effectiveness, what is it going to do about the problem, and not to try to create or not to have unintended consequences in trying to deal with the problem or to create new problems in trying to deal with this one. So I am hopeful, and in conversations with Indian counterparts they are very focused on the—getting to the bottom of this. And again, it's not—it is getting to the bottom of it before the matter of bringing people to justice, but it's also getting to the bottom of it to prevent further attacks. And so that is the focus now.

It is also—it has been a different relationship between India and Pakistan. The relationship has evolved a lot since 2001, and hopefully that will give some space for a joint and cooperative approach to dealing with this very serious matter. But I do not want to under—to diminish the seriousness of what has happened here, and very serious.

Q. You're going there to show solidarity to the Indians, but are you also going there to urge restraint on their part so that this doesn't escalate into a much broader—

Secretary Rice. I'm going there to show solidarity, but also to talk about what can be done, and should be done, to get to the bottom of this so that this threat can be dealt with in a way that—you can never eliminate the possibility of further attacks, but that really, really begins to diminish it.

Q. When you talk about absolute transparencies, doesn't that require President Zardari to admit that he has a problem inside his own state of (inaudible)? Is that something you can really, really stick him to—

Secretary Rice. Well, I think what it requires of Pakistan is to let the evidence fall where it falls and to react accordingly. Because the last thing that this Pakistani—new Pakistani civilian government needs is to have this continue. You know, ultimately, Pakistan needs to be seen as a place that has a handle on extremism if it is to grow and prosper and have the good relations around the world that it's seeking. And everybody has goodwill toward this government. I was at the Friends of Pakistan meeting at the UN back in September at the UNGA. There's a lot of goodwill toward this government because this is a new chapter in Pakistan with the civilian government there. And everyone knows that it's difficult and everyone knows that this is the—there are historical problems that this government is trying to deal with. But that really is the task before them. Because if they can't deal with the extremism, then Pakistan is not going to prosper.

Q. Does President Zardari have enough authority over his own security agencies to guarantee the kind of cooperation and transparency that you've asked of him?

Secretary Rice. Well, he brings something to the table that hasn't been there for a long time in Pakistan, which is the legitimacy of having been elected, and having been elected with a commitment to the rule of law and having been elected with a commitment to civilian rule and control of the security institutions. Everybody knows that one doesn't have day one with a military government and day two with a civilian government and everything works perfectly, right? So I'm not trying to paint a picture here of the ease with which this can be done, that this can be done with ease, but this is a critical moment for Pakistan to bring all of its institutions into a common strategy to defend Pakistan. And defending Pakistan means rooting out extremism. Defending Pakistani interests means cooperating fully. Defending Pakistani interest means investigating this so that further attacks can be prevented. President Zardari has said many times that Pakistan itself is suffering more and more from extremism. Well, you can't have different colors of extremism. Extremism is extremism and they come from the same root. And therefore, this is an important time for Pakistan and all of its institutions to defend Pakistani interests.

Q. Did you have any evidence that the people who perpetrated this were possibly trying to weaken the U.S.-led operations against the tribal areas in Pakistan?

Secretary Rice. You know, we—I can't say that we have all that much insight into motive at this point. I suppose over time. But again, this is—we have to think of this as a whole. And extremism that has been dealing—has been the (inaudible) this region has several different faces.

Now, I want to—I've said a lot about Pakistan's obligations here. India also has obligations, which I'm sure that they will exercise, to also be transparent and to work closely with the Pakistanis and with the United States and with Great Britain. And I think that they will do that. This is a time for everybody to pull together and take on this event.

Q. I want to ask you about Guantanamo. Do you think it should be closed down and how difficult would it be to close it?

Secretary Rice. Well, the President says—he said for a long time that he'd like to close Guantanamo. And I think it's well-known that I've been an advocate of that. The problem is you've got 200-plus very dangerous people, and the question is what do you do with them. And these are people who say regularly: If I'm let out of here, I will go immediately and start killing Americans again. And so you clearly can't simply release these people on civilian populations. And there are a number of issues with trying to put them into kind of normal prison populations, as you might imagine. So I—we've brought down the population of Guantanamo quite a lot by transferring people back to their homes, their countries of origin. In some circumstances we can't do that because of fear of persecution. When we can't, we've tried to find third country options for them.

But I think this speaks to a larger issue. John Bellinger, our legal counsel at State, has been doing a lot of work and traveling around a lot to try to get a conversation going about what kind of framework we really do need to deal with this particular threat, where you are having to—where the kind of traditional legal framework, particularly in the United States, in which holding someone on a basis of future threat is difficult, even though you know that this person is a future threat, we don't really have a legal framework for that, which is why it's been done within a war framework. But if you don't hold a person who you know is a future threat, then you risk the deaths of thousands of innocents. So I do think that this is something for the international community to take up. And John has gotten a lot of interest from various counsels around the world about trying to look at the framework for dealing with terrorists, both in terms of detention power and in terms of how to deal with information garnered from them so that you are not compromising your ability to actually prevent attack. And I think ultimately this is going to have to require a new legal framework internationally.

Q. Madame Secretary, can we go back to Hillary?

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. There are more and more women chosen as foreign ministers around the world. You have been working on women's empowerment. How do you explain the fact that there are more and more women head of diplomacy? Is it that because they are more diplomats or they are more convincing or how do you explain that?

Secretary Rice. No, it's a really interesting question. This will be three out of four in the United States, which is pretty remarkable when you think about it. And the other was a black man, so white men are trailing pretty badly.

I don't know, Sylvie. I've long—I used to do work as an academic on something called the politics of elites and that was not about elite people. What it meant was looking at how people actually end up being chosen for different positions and how—what kind of funnel puts people into positions. And I think what you're seeing is that increasingly the pool of people who might become Secretary of State is diverse in the United States. And so you had a black national security advisor, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who becomes a major figure and becomes secretary of state. Now, you probably 30 years ago would not have had that person. So Colin Powell is in the pool because he's had these other jobs.

In the case of my own case, you know, I come out of an academic background, as does Madeleine Albright. But you know, I sign on with an unknown governor from Texas and do the campaign side and end up as national security advisor. So you have more and more women and minorities in those pools. So these things don't come out of thin air. You know, it's also the reason, by the way, that I think you're starting to see and will see more women and minority candidates for president.

Where do we get our presidents? This will bore all of you, but I'm sorry for the American history lesson here. But where do we get our candidates for president? Overwhelmingly, senators and governors, the occasional general. So if you don't have blacks and women who are senators, governors or generals, they're not going to be president. So when you finally get that pool right, then you start to see people rising to those positions. And that's what I really think is happening. I don't think there's some sort of natural selection that's taking place for foreign minister. But I do think you're seeing more and more people in the pool.

Q. I just wanted to ask about Russia. You're going to NATO tomorrow.

Secretary Rice. All right?

Q. You've already signaled that, and I think President Medvedev has welcomed the fact that Georgia and Ukraine won't be invited to join the Membership Action Plan and that maybe there are other ways, okay. You also earlier at the press conference talked about—it sounded as though you were talking about the time being right to resume talks with Russia within NATO. And I wondered if you could explain within what framework—

Secretary Rice. Yeah, sure.

Q.—and whether you feel that— what's the (inaudible) of this? Is it because actually the United States has slightly revised its view of what happened in August, that there were mistakes made by President Saakashvili? Is it because there were a lot of other crises; here's one with India and Pakistan, there's the financial crisis? And the last thing one needs is to have a major row with Russia?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, let me just—on the question of NATO contacts with Russia, I said in principle, we don't have any problem with it. I think the timing is really a matter of—is Russia continuing to meet its commitments to President Sarkozy and is Russia acting on its quite ill-tempered decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia? And I think those are the—for me, the touchstones of when it makes sense.

Now, let me just pick it up there. I'll come back to Bucharest in a minute. Look, this turned out badly for Russia, very badly. Their invasion of Georgia just turned out badly. They didn't—they did not succeed in bringing down the Georgian Government, even though Sergey Lavrov told me that that was one of their aims, they didn't. Georgian democracy is intact. Not only that, they didn't succeed in bringing down the Georgian economy. Georgia now has one of the largest assistance packages for a country of its size that one can remember. So if they did anything, they managed to increase international support for Georgia, not decrease it. Third, they are sitting in Abkhazia and South Ossetia with responsibility for two populations that are difficult at the very least. And finally, they recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia with the resounding support of Nicaragua and Hamas. Now, if that had happened to the Bush Administration, you would have all been writing headlines about the enormous failure of our diplomacy. So I could add to that the problems that this brought for the already weakening Russian economy given lowering oil prices and the effects of the global financial crisis.

And I think, by the way, it set everybody to questioning what is Russia, who is Russia, did Medvedev have any—was there any substance to Medvedev's claims of wanting to reach out to the world in a different way and so forth and so on. So this turned out badly. And I hope that given that it turned out badly, that it will be a deterrent to Russia for trying anything like that ever again. Because the Soviet Union could invade Czechoslovakia, occupy its capital, overthrow its government, and not care very much, frankly, what the world thought. Well, it turns out that that's not Russia, which leads me to the point that this is not actually a new Cold War.

Russia does not have, as the Soviet Union did, pretensions to an alternative way to organize human history. This is not an ideological conflict. And so while we have difficulties with Russia, particularly around its periphery, we have managed to continue to cooperate with the Russians on the Middle East, on North Korea, on Iran, on the global financial crisis, et cetera, et cetera. So it's not—the key for us was to come out of this crisis in Georgia with Georgian democracy intact, with the Georgian economy intact, with Georgian territorial integrity intact. And it's not intact, but it's also not recognized by anybody—the secessionists are not recognized by anybody—and to make clear to Russia that this kind of behavior was, in the 21st century, not just unacceptable, but not very fruitful. And I think we achieved all of those goals.

Q. So even though they haven't fulfilled their commitments, the time has come to resume the NATO-Russia—

Secretary Rice. Well, I said we should look at fulfilling the commitments. I didn't say—I said in principle, we do not have—we don't have a problem with it. We have resumed at lower levels. But I think you'd want to be very careful, for instance, about doing things that look military-to-military, because the Russian military is still sitting in the secessionist states.

Just to Bucharest really quickly—or Brussels. The Bucharest declaration has a very clear line: These states will become members of NATO. Now it also says we would review MAP in December. It's our view that the question of MAP—we don't need to review the question of MAP. We can pursue the fulfillment of Bucharest through the commissions and other—it will be a long time. I don't think any Georgian or Ukrainian would tell you that they're anywhere near ready for membership.

So this is all about preparation to fulfill Bucharest, and frankly, I don't see why we're—why there's any tension around this at all.

Mr. McCormack. All right. Now we have to—

Q. Just to be certain that I understand what you said about—

Mr. McCormack. All right. We have to—we really have to—the Secretary has to—

Secretary Rice. Yeah, I just said—I just said—

Q. Cooperation—I mean, are you saying that—what you're really saying is that the Europeans need to be more cautious in terms of—

Secretary Rice. No, I didn't say that.

Q. Well, are you saying—

Secretary Rice. Sue, did I say that?

Q. No, I'm trying to—

Secretary Rice. When did I say that? I said that in principle, I have no problems with NATO-Russia Council activities. I said we should be very attentive to what the Russians are doing, and are they living up to their obligations. And I said that there are certain sorts of activities like military-to-military contacts that seem to me to be problematic when the Russian military is sitting in Georgian territory, or in the separatist states.

But I don't want to try to make a general rule here, because frankly, I think that we've denied Russia—the United States and Europe together—and I want to very much emphasize that—the United States and Russia—the United States and Europe together denied Russia any strategic gain from its invasion of Georgia in August. I have to go. Thanks.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in New Delhi, India

Secretary Rice. Good afternoon. I wish to start by just underscoring what President Bush has said a couple of days ago, and that is that the United States of America wants to express its deepest condolences to the people of India and particularly to the people of Mumbai. The United States stands in solidarity with India in meeting this challenge and this testing and terrible time.

I think perhaps we have some sense of what this is like, the sense of vulnerability, the questions that arise, and the desire to make every step to try and make sure that it does not happen again. I know, too, that this is a time when cooperation of all parties who have any information is really required. This is a different situation. It is a situation in which the attacks were clearly targeted to send a message about India, about its integration into the world. Foreigners were targeted, indeed, America lost citizens as well.

And so we have to act with urgency, we have to act with resolve. I have said that Pakistan needs to act with resolve and urgency and cooperate fully and transparently. That message has been delivered and will be delivered to Pakistan. But it is a time when cooperation between all peoples who suffer these terrorist attacks really is required and is necessary. I will shortly speak with a number of members of the Indian leadership. I am looking forward to those conversations to review whatever we can do in terms of cooperation, in terms of shared experience about how one deals with this kind of attack and what you can do going forward. And so again, I am here principally to express the solidarity of the United States and to offer whatever help we can to the Indian people and to the Indian leadership and to the people of Mumbai. And with that, I'm pleased to take a couple of questions.

Q. Good afternoon. (inaudible) from CNN-IBN. A couple of quick questions. You talk about willing to support the Indian Government in any way that they need your support. Could you qualify if there are any concrete proposals that you bring with you for that cooperation? Second question, you said that (inaudible) a message, it was— these attacks were meant to send a message. Do you see an al-Qaida hand in these attacks?

Secretary Rice. Well, whether there is a direct al-Qaida hand or not, this is clearly the kind of terrorism in which al-Qaida participates. It's a sense that you want to not just terrorize in a general sense, but you try and send a strong message that people are not safe, that businesses are not safe, that economic centers are not safe. We experienced that in New York. We are not going to jump to any conclusions about who is responsible for this, although the United States is prepared and is already actively engaged in information sharing, in forensic help, to try and make those links. Because what is important now is, of course, to go to the source and to know what happened, to follow every lead, wherever it may lead, and to bring those to justice who did this. But it is also important in counterterrorism work to use what you find to prevent further attacks, because it is really a kind of unfair fight for particularly democratic states. The terrorists only have to be right once; you have to be right 100 percent of the time. That's a very, very daunting task.

And we've learned a lot over the last seven years since September 11th about the importance of activities that prevent. Because you can't be in a situation in which you act as if, in law enforcement, they commit the act and then they're punished. The long pole in the tent here is prevention, and so any work that I hope to do with the Indian officials is to talk about what we can contribute in terms of knowing how to use information, how to use leads toward prevention. That now has to be number one. Yes, these people have to be brought to justice for the terrible things that they did, but number one needs to be to try to prevent another attack. Because I can tell you that some seven and a half years after 9/11, we know that there are people who are still plotting and planning every day to try to bring up another successful attack.

Q. Madame Secretary, the Indians have handed over another list of 20 fugitives that they would like Pakistan to deal with or to turn over. What do you think Pakistan's response should be at this time in order to ease tensions between the two countries?

Secretary Rice. Well, first of all, the Pakistani Government has said unequivocally that it intends to cooperate. And President Zardari has told me that he will follow the leads wherever they go, and I think that is a very important commitment on the part of Pakistan.

I think we should—I should refrain from speculation about what the Pakistani Government might do in response to specific requests because I—what has to happen here is that there has to be a real sense of transparency, a real sense of action, a real sense of urgency, because these are terrorists who are extremists who really have the same intention and the same goal, and that is to terrorize and send messages to states around the world, including—by the way, extremists have done great damage in Pakistan. And so Pakistan and India and the United States—and I spent a good deal of time with my British counterpart when I was in London and with their people—we all have a great interest in getting to the bottom of this and we have a great interest in bringing people to justice and we have a great interest in prevention.

And so that would be my message. I don't want to get into the specifics of what Pakistan may or may not do. But I'm going to take, as a firm commitment, Pakistan's stated commitment to get to the bottom of this and to know that these are enemies of Pakistan, as well as they're enemies of India.

Q. Nidhi Razdan from NDTV. Secretary Rice, I have a couple of questions. One is that—what would your message to the Prime Minister be this evening? And secondly, does the United States know about the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai attack in the sense that— you know, India believes it's the Lashkar e-Tayyiba which now goes by a different name in Pakistan. It's leader, Hafiz Saeed, has been very public anti-India speeches calling for jihad against India.

Would you be sending a message to the Pakistani Government to at least arrest him, hand him over?

Secretary Rice. Well, I have already sent a message to the Pakistani Government, and the Pakistani Government has received that message favorably, which is that wherever this leads these people have to be brought to justice. And they—we need, or the government will need, to make certain that they're doing everything that they can to garner information so that you can prevent further attacks.

I will tell you that the last—over the last seven years, the experience of bringing people to justice, the experience of learning about the way that operations are carried out, learning about money flows—I read this morning something about trying to trace money flows. Let me tell you, don't underestimate, in any case, the importance of getting to the bottom of funding for terrorism. It has been one of the most important tools that the United States has used in helping to trace people, plots, and money.

Secondly, I will say to the Prime Minister, again, that the United States is prepared to work on the intelligence information that we have. Obviously, I'm not going to go into details on that. One of the things that we all have to be very careful about is in empowering terrorists by allowing them to know what we know. I know that very often, and I respect the role not just of the press but of those who, in democratic states, want to know. But there is an important wall that must be there so that terrorists don't know what you know. They are very active and quick at reacting when they have leads. And so I will spend some time on that.

And then finally, as I said, I'm prepared to share with the Prime Minister any ideas that we may have, given our experience, of how to move forward toward a strategy of prevention. But this is a time for everybody to cooperate and to do so transparently, and this is especially a time for Pakistan to do so.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice and Minister Pranab Mukherjee delivered these remarks in New Delhi, India

Minister Mukherjee. Good evening, friends in the media, Her Excellency Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who is Secretary of State. This evening, I have just concluded discussions with Her Excellency Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who is Secretary of State. She has especially come to express the solidarity of the United States of America with India in the wake of the heinous attacks by terrorists who struck in several locations in Mumbai last week. We deeply appreciate this visit, Madame Secretary, and I welcome you.

I informed Dr. Rice that there is no doubt that the terrorist attack in Mumbai was perpetrated by individuals who came from Pakistan and whose controllers are in Pakistan. This is an assessment that is widely shared by the international community. I briefed Dr. Rice on the discussions we have had with the Government of Pakistan following the Mumbai terrorist attack and our expectations of cooperation from them to ensure that the terrorists and organizations who participated these attacks are arrested and brought to justice. We expect all friendly governments in the international community to ensure that this happens.

I have also conveyed to Secretary Rice the feeling of anger and deep outrage in India for (inaudible) terrorist attacks in Mumbai which were preceded by similar terrorist attacks in other major cities of India earlier this year in Jaipur, Bandu, Ahmedabad, Delhi, and now in Mumbai. Almost 350 innocent lives have been lost in these attacks and more than 733 people injured (inaudible)—these six incidents. Government of India (inaudible) needs to act defensively to protect India's territory and integrity, and the right of our citizens to a peaceful life with all the means at our disposal. We look forward to the international community's cooperation in our longstanding struggle against terrorism.

I would now like to invite Secretary Rice to make (inaudible). Thank you.

Secretary Rice. Thank you very much, and thank you, Minister. I had not expected to return to India as Secretary of State following my visit here just a couple of months ago, but I come because the President of the United States, the American people want India to know that the United States stands in solidarity with the people of India. I come with condolences for those who have lost their lives, those who have been maimed, for their families, for the people of Mumbai, for the ordeal through which they've just been, and for the people of India.

I think that Americans, perhaps as well as any understand what—the feelings that run so deep at a time like this, having experienced the attacks of September 11th. We certainly understand too that there is a strong demand for bringing the perpetrators of such a crime to justice, and a deep desire to prevent any further attacks from taking place.

And Minister, I came also to pledge the cooperation of the United States in both those tasks. We are going to work very closely with you in any way that we can to try and get to the bottom of what happened, and then to help you to act on that, but also recognizing that in matters of terrorism, it is not just a matter of the punishment of the crime that has taken place. It is also a matter of preventing these terrorists who continue to plot and plan from perpetrating further crimes and further attacks.

I know too how difficult it is to take information and to make it into knowledge and then to be able to act on it. And I have said that the United States also has a good deal of experience in the counterterrorism fight and how one has to organize differently for that counterterrorism fight. I know, Minister, and have spoken with the Home Minister, that you are looking at reforms here in India as well. And I applaud, for instance, the Prime Minister's emphasis on terrorist financing and other ways to track these killers.

I also want to note that the United States believes strongly that having lost our own citizens in this attack, this is a matter of concern not just because of our relationship with India, but because American lives were also lost. So it's a matter of deep concern. And in that regard, we have made very clear that we expect all responsible nations to participate and cooperate in bringing these perpetrators to justice, and that Pakistan has a special responsibility to do so, and to do so transparently, fully, urgently. And that is a message that we have delivered. I have noted that President Zardari has pledged the cooperation of the Pakistani Government. It is a new civilian government. And we fully expect that those pledges of cooperation are going to be carried out and carried out fully.

And so, Minister, I know that this is a very difficult time for the people of India, for the people of Mumbai. But I hope that it is a time also when you can feel the sense of solidarity and support that is there in the international community from your friends. I was just in Great Britain. I know that the British are helping too. And I hope that you know more than anything that you are not alone in this fight. There are many of us who experience—who've experienced this terror, and we stand united in our determination to defeat. Thank you.

Q. Good evening, (inaudible), CNN (inaudible). I have a question to each of the ministers.

To Minister Mukherjee first. Sir, your government has made it very clear, as— in fact, one Pakistan—of the clause in the bilateral relationship, if Pakistan does not deliver on your demands. Now today, we've heard President Zardari actually rule out the (inaudible) of 20 or 21 most wanted Indians and Pakistanis. How do you respond to that? Do you actually take action after this matter?

And to Ms. Rice, do you see the statement from the President as evidence of cooperation? And there are two parts to this question. My second question would be you say there have been steps to offer solidarity to the Indian Government. Would your government be willing to support any (inaudible) military strikes into Pakistan (inaudible)?

Minister Mukherjee. So far, Government of India is concerned, more action will be taken by the government—will depend on the response which we have from the Pakistan authorities. We have given (inaudible) and expecting the response. After obtaining the response (inaudible), the government will consider it necessary to protect its territorial integrity, sovereignty and security of the—of its civilians, government (inaudible). Thank you.

Secretary Rice. The response of the Pakistani Government should be one of cooperation and that—and that is what we expect, and we have been sending that message. In all responses, whether they are responses of governments around the world or the response of the Indian Government, the goal should be to make certain that the investigation gets to the bottom of what happened, that the perpetrators are brought to justice, and that there is enough information and a depth of understanding so that an effort can be made to prevent further attacks.

The hard thing about terrorism is that it's not (inaudible) law enforcement—it's not a matter of waiting until a crime is committed and then you punish the perpetrators. The long pole in the tent, the effort, has to be to prevent. And that is what we are going to help India, and others are going to help India, and we believe Pakistan has an essential role to play in this to make certain that these terrorists cannot continue to operate and operate in this fashion.

Any response needs to be judged by its effectiveness in prevention, and also by not creating other unintended consequences or difficulties, that we are going to work very closely over this time. And as I said, we're focused with India on both bringing the perpetrators to justice and on preventing further attacks. And I just want to underscore again, Americans were killed in this attack as well, so it's especially concerning the United States.

Q. Anne Gearan, AP, a question to each of you. Madame Secretary, can you be more specific when you say that this attack was different and you're asking for a different kind of response from India and Pakistan, what specifically about it tells you that it's distinct from previous terror attacks? And do you see the hand of al-Qaida anywhere in it?

And to Mr. Minister, I understand that just today a—some explosives were found in a train station in Mumbai that apparently had been there for a week. What confidence can the Indian people have that you've found all that there is to find and that they are safe?

Secretary Rice. Anne, I did not mean to suggest that there haven't been other attacks. There have been. My point was concerning the sophistication of this attack, the way in which it was carried out, the targets that were obviously simultaneously attacked. And that, in itself, I think is somewhat different than attacks that have been seen in the past. But the response has to be the same, which is that the perpetrators have to be caught, they have to be brought to justice and they— and there has to be a maximal effort on preventing further attacks.

As to al-Qaida, let me be very clear. I— we are not saying that al-Qaida is the perpetrator here, and I want that to be very much understood. There are elements of this, the sophistication of it, which remind us that these extremists—and there are no good terrorists, they're all extremists and they all have to be dealt with—that they are perhaps learning from each other. They move in the same circles. But clearly, the sophistication of the attack was really what I was addressing.

Q. The closest (inaudible)?

Minister Mukherjee. In fact, we had a full (inaudible) city, and rapidly, there is a (inaudible). But essentially, the (inaudible) measure of the series of attacks which India received just this year—I mentioned in my statement that (inaudible) when the attacks have taken place, and I believe that that is right. (Inaudible) of the attacks are (inaudible) important to reach centers like (inaudible) national capital Delhi, and national capital Mumbai. Capital—if not capital, but very important place from (inaudible) science, technology, (inaudible). Therefore, (inaudible) is trying to (inaudible) at the development of scientific and economic ability of the country. And we have just lost forever our (inaudible). Thank you.

Q. Munish, (inaudible) news service. Especially addressed to Madame Secretary of State, what (inaudible). Pakistan—Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has made non-state actors for various activities with the region. And we (inaudible) of these elements that usually are patronized by sections of the Pakistani establishment and could be responsible for the (inaudible). Now in certain situation, what—how should India and the United States cooperate (inaudible) with Pakistan? And also, they decide presence of governments, so that government's view linking Pakistan-based elements (inaudible)? Thank you.

Secretary Rice. Well, I'm not going to speculate on what might be found when investigations are complete. I do know that the Pakistani Government, under President Zardari, has pledged its complete cooperation, and that it needs to be transparent in that cooperation. The fact is that non-state actors sometimes operate within the confines of a state, on the territory of a state. And when that is the case, then there has to be very direct and tough action against them.

And so that is really the issue here. I think we need to let the facts lead where they may. The investigation is still underway. It can be done with as much forensic help as is needed from international parties. I know that Britain has expressed a desire to help. We have expressed a desire to help. But what we really need to do is to let the leads go where they may without premature speculation of how this might have actually taken place. But non-state actors—that's still a matter of responsibility if, in fact, it somehow relates to your territory.

Q. Sylvie Lanteaume, Agence France Press. Madame Secretary, how are you going to improve the intelligence sharing between India and Pakistan? Do you have any special step in mind or regional mechanism?

And Mr. Minister, what would you think about such a mechanism with the U.S. as a partner?

Secretary Rice. Well, I think the key here, Sylvie, is to worry less about what mechanisms there may be and more about just getting the job done. I think that there is a lot of information that various parties have concerning what happened on this attack. The—as the forensics go forward to look at what happened in the actual attack on the scene and as people are interviewed, more information will become available. And I don't think we need to worry so much about a specific mechanism. I do think we need to make certain that there is proper coordination, and this can be done through regular channels of the various parties. So I do think the United States and others have a lot to add.

Let me just make a point. Everybody needs help. The United States has needed help in intelligence sharing, in cooperation. This isn't a matter that any country handles on its own. The very nature of this terrorist threat is that it crosses borders. The very nature of this terrorist threat is that it locates different elements in different parts of the world. And so when we talk about cooperation, we are talking about something that is inherent in the nature of dealing with a terrorist threat that is global, not confined to a particular area. And so there isn't really anything new in that sense. India and the United States have been cooperating. We have been cooperating with Great Britain when there have been threats that—against Britain or against the United States or against neighbors of the world. It sometimes requires cooperation with India. So we have developed contacts for doing this, but we're going to do it in a more intensive and urgent manner, because again, I want to emphasize that, yes, it is extremely important to bring these people to justice, but it is really important that we remember that when you're dealing with terrorists, your goal is to also have prevention very much in mind.

Minister Mukherjee. We have a mechanism in which we share intelligence with USA and also with other countries. The importance of sharing this mechanism is more now if terrorism is to be stopped collectively by the international community. It is not confined to one country. Terrorism has no limit, either political or otherwise. They are the biggest menace to the world peace and tranquility in the post-Cold War era. They are (inaudible) by the entire international community. And for that, intelligence sharing is an important (inaudible). Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks en route to Pakistan

Secretary Rice. All right, we don't have a great deal of time, so I'll mostly take your questions. But let me just say that I'm now going to go to Pakistan to discuss the response. And it's—really has to be an international response to the events in Mumbai. The Pakistani Government has made clear its intention to cooperate, because Pakistan also is at war with these extremists. That's a point that President Zardari has made many times, that extremists have wreaked havoc in Pakistan. And so the global threat of extremism and terrorism has to be met by all states, taking a very tough and hard line. And so that's what I'm going to go and discuss.

But also, I want to have a chance to discuss the continuing efforts the United States is making to help this civilian government deal with the many problems that it has, including economic problems. We were pleased to see the conclusion of the agreement with the IMF, and look forward to helping Pakistan to capitalize on that agreement with the IMF to get more support from the international community over the next several months. So that's the agenda.

Anne.

Q. Do you think that the Zardari government is actually capable of doing what you're asking it to do or would it really have to be the function of the army and the intelligence services to actually go after people on Pakistani soil?

Secretary Rice. Well, it's clearly going to have to be the government as a whole. And the civilian leadership has the basis of legitimacy, which is that it's an elected government for the first time, elected civilian government for the first time in Pakistan in more than a decade. And I think that gives it considerable legitimacy.

In all of the conversations we've had with all of the institutional actors in Pakistan, they've emphasized the unity of the Pakistani Government, and I think that's the basis on which we should act.

Q. Are you carrying any messages from the Indian Government in trying to get the Pakistanis to do more and to cooperate more fully and transparently, as you said? And also, are you going to bring up the issue of the 20 fugitives? This list seems to be important, very important to the Indians in terms of offering a sign that they are doing more.

Secretary Rice. Well, I think Pakistan has to determine its own response here. It just needs to be a robust response, and it needs to be one that is effective in both helping the international community. The United States, which lost citizens in this attack, the UK, which lost citizens in this attack and, of course, India, to respond to this situation so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice. But I've also been emphasizing the importance of prevention here of further attacks. And so the Pakistanis are sophisticated. They are—they have been dealing with terrorism themselves for some time. And so I'm going there to talk about a Pakistani response not to carry messages, per se.

Q. You had breakfast this morning with Admiral Mullen. Did you get the sense that the Pakistani Government and the Pakistani Army are going to help the way you want?

Secretary Rice. Well, I did have a discussion with Admiral Mullen, who had had extensive discussions in Pakistan. And he really, I think, got a sense of the commitment of the Pakistani Government to the public messages that they've been issuing, understanding that this is an important time for the international community. It's an important time for Pakistan.

I want to emphasize again, President Zardari and the Prime Minister and the entire Pakistani Government has been emphasizing their need to deal with extremism. And so this is not a matter of the international community somehow in juxtaposition or against the Pakistani Government, this is an international response to terrorism that is hurting everyone. And so I think Admiral Mullen got a very strong sense that that was the view of the Pakistani Government.

Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks at Chaklala AFB in Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Secretary Rice. Good afternoon. I just completed a series of meetings with members of the Pakistani Government and just concluding a meeting with President Zardari. We've had extensive discussions about how to continue our cooperation against our joint concerns and our joint enemies in the war on terror. The extremists who continue to strike in various parts of the world, of course, have struck here in Pakistan. This is also Pakistan's security concern. And in all of my meetings, I have found a Pakistani Government that is focused on the threat and that understands its responsibilities to respond to terrorism and extremism wherever it's found.

We talked at some length about the attack on Mumbai and about the importance of Pakistan taking its responsibility to deal with those who may use Pakistani territory even if they are non-state actors. And I found a Pakistani leadership that is very focused and, I think, very committed to—for its own reasons, because Pakistan has been a victim in the war—a victim of these terrorist elements—very committed to acting. And Pakistan is going to investigate the circumstances, investigate what may have happened, to support in any way the effort in—the attacks in Mumbai, because the Pakistani Government, I was told and I fully believe, is very committed to this war on terror. It does not in any way want to be associated with terrorist elements, and is indeed fighting to root them out wherever they find them. And therefore, I found these conversations quite satisfactory.

So I'm prepared to take a question from each side. Yes.

Q. Yes, (inaudible) for NBC and (inaudible) TV. (Inaudible) Pakistan and India relationship have really been (inaudible). And there were reports that—first of all, how do you see military tension between India and Pakistan? And if there is a real tension, Pakistan said that it will move its troops from western borders to its eastern borders.

Secretary Rice. Yeah. I didn't—let me be very clear. I have heard nothing but reasonable discussion and responsible discussion in both India and Pakistan about the problem here about the attack in Mumbai. Obviously, the Indian Government is concerned and determined to find the perpetrators, bring them to justice, determined to try to prevent the next attack.

I found Pakistan—that—a Pakistani leadership that understands the importance of doing that, particularly in rooting out terrorists and rounding up whoever perpetrated this attack from wherever it was perpetrated, whatever its sources, wherever the leads go, because everybody wants to prevent further attacks as well. And so this was not talk about military action. It was talk about how to deal with this particular problem, which is the terrorism that has occurred and how to prevent it in the future.

Q. Madame Secretary, do you feel that the Indians—(inaudible) tension— that they have a right to strike the elements inside Pakistan? Who do you think are responsible for the actions that have happened in Bombay?

Secretary Rice. Well, I have, I think, made myself clear that the issue is how to respond in a way that is effective. And the most effective way to respond is through international cooperation that includes India and anyone else who can help like the United States, Great Britain, and includes Pakistan. Because obviously, these terrorists work in a way that does not always respect borders, usually doesn't respect borders, and it is extremely important to act when something like this happens. But whatever is done, the response has to be effective, both in bringing people to justice and in preventing a further attack. And it doesn't help to do something that might have—that might worsen the problem or have unintended consequences, and I've made that clear on both stops. But there does need to be action and there needs to be action urgently and transparently. And that has been a message that has been well received here in Pakistan because this is Pakistan's fight as well.

Q. I just wanted to know if India shared some evidence about (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. Look, I—let me just speak to this. I think it is—there is a lot of information about what happened here, a lot of information. And so this isn't an issue of sharing evidence. There is a lot of information. And there is a—there are many mechanisms through which to share that information. And that information needs to be used now to get the perpetrators and to prevent them from doing this again.

Q. Madame Secretary, after your talks here today and in India, how confident are you that the two governments can work together productively? You said you heard more or less what you wanted to hear from each of them, but how about the two of them talking to one another?

Secretary Rice. Well, I hope that they will keep the lines of communication open. It's a difficult time. But I do want to just note that we're starting—when this incident happened, relations between India and Pakistan had improved considerably. And so that's a good thing. It's good that you're starting from a base in which relations were improving, rather than when— rather than relations in a bad state. But obviously, what is going to need to be done here is that the cooperation, the efforts to move forward are going to have to result in bringing the perpetrators to justice and in preventing further attacks. But the good basis that is here between India and Pakistan is a result of efforts that have been made particularly since the new Pakistani Government came into power. I think it's going to help in this entire transition.

Q. Secretary Rice, given those difficulties, how high-profile a role is the U.S. Government prepared to play in this investigation? Is this going to be at the level of just simply forensic technicians or is the U.S. Government going to be engaged at a higher role?

Secretary Rice. Look, the United States is prepared to help in whatever way we can. The—there is considerable capacity on the side of India. There's considerable capacity on the side of Pakistan. It is our intention to augment that in any way that we—that is helpful. I know I had conversations in Britain. They have the same attitude. And so we will be helpful in any way that we can. But obviously, the best thing is that these two countries do what they can through their own capacity to fully investigate and to bring people to justice who perpetrated that. And what I heard was a commitment that that is going to be the course that's taken.

But I want to just repeat again what I've said. This was a terrible attack. It was a sophisticated attack at a level of sophistication that we haven't seen here on the subcontinent before. That means that there is urgency to getting to the bottom of it, there is urgency to bringing the perpetrators to justice, and there is urgency to using the information to disrupt and prevent further attacks.

And we need to stay focused; everyone needs to stay focused on those priorities. The United States is, of course, focused on those priorities because Americans were also killed in this attack, so it's of special concern to us. But it just reminds us that this is a global struggle and it reminds us that all responsible states have to play their role in making certain that the terrorists can't get away with this kind of attack. Thank you very much.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by CNN in Washington, DC

Q. You're just back from the region, India, Pakistan. How concerned are you that these nuclear rivals, that there could be a misconception out there, a miscalculation, and this tension between the two of them, which is real right now, could escalate?

Secretary Rice. Well, we have a lot going for us that we didn't have in 2001-2002. The relationship between the countries is better. Our relationships with each of them is better. But in fact, the key here is that this investigation needs to go forward. It needs to be transparent. Pakistan needs to act. India and Pakistan are—need to cooperate. And I do believe that if that is done, we can both—they can bring the perpetrators to justice, but they can also prevent a follow-on attack, which has to be of concern.

Q. The Washington Post wrote this yesterday: “In New Delhi, a high-level source in the Indian Government, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said India has 'clear and incontrovertible proof that an Islamist militant group based in Pakistan, Lashkar e-Tayyiba, planned the attacks and that the group's leaders were trained and supported by Pakistan's powerful InterServices Intelligence Agency, or ISI.'”

Is that true?

Secretary Rice. Well, I think there's no doubt that Pakistani territory was used by probably non-state actors. I don't think that there is compelling evidence of involvement of Pakistani officials. But I do think that Pakistan has a responsibility to act, and it doesn't matter that they're non-state actors. There were problems with this from Pakistani territory. There are historic problems from Pakistani territory in this regard. And Americans were killed in this. And I did emphasize to the Pakistani Government that the United States, of course, has a special interest since Americans were also killed.

Q. You used the word “probably.” And you're a diplomat—

Secretary Rice. Well, I just—I think that the evidence is that the terrorists did use territory in Pakistan—

Q. They trained in Pakistan. Did they have any cooperation—this group—do you, first of all, believe Lashkar e-Tayyiba was responsible for this assault?

Secretary Rice. Well, I don't want to go into too much detail here because, obviously, in counterterrorism no one wants to tip the hand of what has happened here and what may happen in the future. The important thing now is to get these perpetrators and to prevent follow-on attacks. And Pakistan's cooperation, Pakistan's action, is absolutely essential to doing that.

Q. What is the relationship, irrespective of this group, between Lashkar e-Tayyiba, this terrorist group based on Pakistan, and the Pakistani Government or the intelligence or military services?

Secretary Rice. Well, there have been historic ties. There's no doubt about that. But Pakistan is a different place now with a civilian government and an army leadership that is working in concert to try to bring an end to extremism within Pakistan. We have to remember that Pakistan itself has been suffering at the hands of extremism. So whatever the history here, and there is a history, the important thing is that Pakistan act against those who used Pakistani soil to perpetrate attacks. I don't—

Q. Are they doing enough—the Pakistani Government—to deal with these terrorists?

Secretary Rice. Well, they are certainly, I believe, committed to doing so. But we are awaiting action, and that action needs to take place soon.

Q. The New York Times today, in an article by David Sanger, writes this: “The review contains an array of options, including telling Pakistan's military that billions of dollars in American aid will depend on the military's being reconfigured to effectively fight militants. That proposal amounts to a tacit acknowledgement that roughly $10 billion in military aid provided to Pakistan as reimbursements for its efforts to root out militant groups has largely been wasted.” This is a review the Bush Administration is preparing for the incoming Obama Administration.

Secretary Rice. It is very clear that Pakistan's principal problem here is not India. The relationship is improving between Pakistan and India, but there are plenty of people who want to see that relationship blown up. And the Pakistanis and the Indians need to continue or to get back on a course of cooperation.

In that regard, the Pakistani army is restructuring and does need to be restructured for different tasks. But it's not easy, Wolf, to move from the kind of army that Pakistan has had to one that is principally counterterrorism and counterinsurgency.

Q. President Zardari of Pakistan, the newly elected president, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, does he have complete control over all elements of his military and security intelligence services?

Secretary Rice. Well, we treat the Pakistani Government as an integrated and unified government, and I heard nothing in Pakistan that suggested that there were divisions in this regard between the army and the government. This is an elected civilian government; it has a kind of legitimacy that a Pakistani government has not had since 1999. And I believe that it is in actually a stronger position because of that to act.

But we have been working with the Pakistanis on this for some time—this didn't start yesterday, it didn't start with the review—of helping the Pakistanis to think in a more counterinsurgency/counterterrorism way. But we in the United States have found that it's not easy to restructure your armed forces from forces that are principally aimed at fighting another state actor to forces that can deal with ungoverned regions, safe havens, and not to mention the kind of union of law enforcement and intelligence information that it takes in the war on terrorism.

Q. When you were here on Late Edition back on July 18th, we had this exchange, and I'm going to play it for you. Listen to this:

“Secretary Rice. It's very clear that more has to be done to stabilize that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. More has to be done.

Q. So they're not doing it?

Secretary Rice. More has to be done.”

All right. Since then, since July, have they stepped up to the plate—the Pakistani Government—to stabilize its border with Afghanistan?

Secretary Rice. Well, more is being done. I think everyone knows that there have been some really dramatic Pakistani fights—the army in parts of the region, Bajaur, for instance. And so yes, they are doing more. But boy, there is a lot more to be done. This is—

Q. What else do you want them to do?

Secretary Rice. Well, this is a very tough problem, and it requires a unity of intelligence and military capability and law enforcement capability that few countries have achieved. And Pakistan needs to do that. But getting back to the Mumbai situation, there are some concrete steps that Pakistan needs to take urgently, quite aside from a lot of restructuring that is going to have to be done. And I might just underscore that the Indians, too, were very focused on restructuring their own response to counterterrorism because one has a sense, as they said, of stove-piping of information, inability to share information, a—

Q. In other words, the left hand of the Indian Government might not know what the right hand is doing?

Secretary Rice. And we've certainly experienced that. And a focus on prevention has not really been at the core. And so one of the things that we said to the Indians is that we are prepared to share our experiences, our best practices since 9/11, when we have gone a long way to restructuring.

Q. What did they say?

Secretary Rice. They were grateful for that offer.

Q. Are they going to accept that?

Secretary Rice. I think they are going to accept that.

Q. And Pakistan—are you willing to do the same with them?

Secretary Rice. Well, we are sharing information and working with both Pakistan and India.

Q. Welcome back to Late Edition. Here's part two of my interview with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

It seems that Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan, is so frustrated about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan right now. He said this, and I'm going to read it to you, on November 27th:

“This war has gone on for seven years. The Afghans don't understand any more how come a little force like the Taliban can continue to exist, can continue to flourish, can continue to launch attacks, with 40 countries in Afghanistan. The international community didn't fight the Taliban properly. Give the Afghan people a timeline.”

He wants a timeline for withdrawal of the NATO and U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Secretary Rice. Well, I've talked to President Karzai, and I think what he wants to do is to get the job done. And I understand the frustrations. But of course, a lot has gone right in Afghanistan as well. His government has been able to deliver for the Afghan people in ways that a country as poor as Afghanistan is and that has been at civil war for 25 years, it's pretty remarkable some of the things that they've done in education and healthcare.

Q. But it's gotten worse, and it seems it's getting worse.

Secretary Rice. There's no doubt that the problem across the border, that region that is ungoverned that we were talking about, has allowed the Taliban to regroup in ways that they were not regrouped a couple of years ago. But there are several answers to that. Yes, the international community is prepared to do more. The United States is going to put more forces in. I believe you will see more contributions from our allies. But it's also important to build more Afghan forces rapidly, because ultimately the Afghan people have to be the spear of this fight. And frankly, there are things that can be done in terms of governance and fighting corruption and making sure that the Afghan people are protected in terms of counternarcotics.

Q. So he should step up to the plate, too?

Secretary Rice. And we've had that conversation—

Q. Hamid Karzai.

Secretary Rice. And I believe that President Karzai is devoted to doing exactly that.

Q. Can you tell the American public out there, the international community who are watching, that the U.S. is any closer today to finding bin Ladin?

Secretary Rice. Well, we're searching for him and do so every day. But this isn't a one-man organization. Al-Qaida's dangers come not just from Usama bin Ladin, as much as we all want to bring him to justice. And the United States has taken out an awful lot of their leadership, not to mention masterminds of the plots of September 11th, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It's a weaker organization today because of what we've done, but it's a different organization that poses other kinds of dangers. And so while the focus on bin Ladin is important, the numbers of field generals that have been taken out, the tracing of their money and making it more difficult, and the worldwide umbrella in terms of law enforcement and information and intelligence, has made it possible to deal with al-Qaida in ways that we could not before September 11th.

Q. Was al-Qaida involved in the Mumbai attacks?

Secretary Rice. Well, we don't have any evidence of a direct link there, but I do think that we all know that there are links between these organizations. They tend to travel in the same circles. And the sophistication of this attack is what everyone is focused on.

Q. So Lashkar e-Tayyiba, if, in fact, they were responsible, do they have direct links with al-Qaida?

Secretary Rice. Well, they tend to travel in the same circles, and we—again, I don't want to imply that there is any direct al-Qaida role here.

Q. Let's move on and talk about something else in the region, Iran and nuclear tensions, specifically with Israel right now. The Jerusalem Post reported on Thursday this:

“The IDF,” the Israel Defense Forces, “is drawing up options for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities that do not include coordination with the United States, the Jerusalem Post has learned. While its preference is to coordinate with the U.S., defense officials have said Israel is preparing a wide range of options for such an operation.”

Secretary Rice. Well, I can't comment on unknown sources. I don't know what those sources are. I do know that we've had lots of very important discussions, not just with Israel but with states in the region, about the potential threat from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The international community is focused on it because just that kind of talk lets you know how serious a matter this is.

The Iranians have to be stopped ultimately from gaining the kind of technology and putting that technology into use to build a nuclear weapons capability. And that's what we're all focused on.

Q. How much time is there?

Secretary Rice. I don't think it's worthwhile to try to judge the many different timelines that are out there about when they might achieve that capability. The important thing is that Iran is under a microscope on this issue. Iran is under sanctions on this issue. Many, many companies and banks and institutions are leaving Iran. Iran is becoming more isolated. And there is even a debate in Iran about whether their government's policies and the isolation that it has brought is worth it.

And so we have built extraordinary pressure on Iran that was not, frankly, there when the President came to office. When the President came to office, nobody really believed that the Iranians were trying to do this.

Q. And you have no doubt that their intent—the Iranians—is to build a nuclear bomb?

Secretary Rice. Well, I have no doubt that they could have a civil nuclear program tomorrow if they wished. We've told them, everyone has told them, that the kind of reactor that the Russians built for them at Bushehr, which is a civil nuclear reactor, with a fuel take-back to Russia, is available to them at any time. So if they want civil nuclear power, they've got an option. That leaves only the assumption that perhaps they're not looking for civil nuclear power, but rather for a nuclear weapons program.

Q. You've devoted an enormous amount of your energy to trying to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. A year ago, on November 27th, this is what President Bush said at his conference, his Middle East conference in Annapolis. Listen to this:

“We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing, and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008.”

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q. Well, it's almost the end of 2008.

Secretary Rice. Well, we certainly made every effort, and so did they.

Q. Is it a failure, then?

Secretary Rice. No, of course not. We said we would make every effort. But look at where we found this thing. We found the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in full force with a second intifada, with hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians dying, with suicide bombings at Israeli restaurants and a Passover massacre, with Israelis running large-scale operations in the West Bank and occupying Palestinian towns, Yasser Arafat stealing the people blind and refusing to make peace.

And now you have a decent Palestinian Government devoted to doing better for its people, at least in the West Bank, with Salam Fayyad and President Abbas. You have the first full-fledged negotiations between these two parties on the core issues, all the core issues, to end the conflict. You have international support for that, including Arab support. After all, the Saudis were at Annapolis under their own flag for the first time. And you have on the ground the training of Palestinian security forces, thanks to a number of generals, including General Jim Jones.

Q. Who's going to be Barack Obama's National Security Advisor.

Secretary Rice. Yes. And you have now decent Palestinian security forces deploying in places like Jenin and Hebron and Nablus. This is a fundamentally different situation than we found. And because of the strong support of President Bush for Israeli security concerns, Ariel Sharon, who was brought to power not to make peace but to defeat the intifada, said that Israel must divide the land. And for the first time, you have a broad acceptance in the international community that a two-state solution is the only solution.

Q. So you think that there's a potential there—

Secretary Rice. I absolutely do.

Q.—not necessarily on your watch, but under Hillary Clinton's watch, to—

Secretary Rice. The foundation is there. The foundation is there. Many of the pieces are in place. Obviously, the political circumstances in the region and in the countries has made it difficult. Israel is in an election campaign. But I don't think that there is any doubt that this is so much further along really than it's ever been.

Q. Have you sat down with Hillary Clinton yet, who's going to be your successor?

Secretary Rice. Well, I was leaving town the day after she was named—actually, the day that she was named. I talked with her, and we're going to sit down, and I'm really looking forward to it. I've known her a long time, and she is someone that I admire.

Q. Do you think she'll be a good Secretary of State?

Secretary Rice. I do.

Q. You have confidence in this new national security team that Barack Obama is putting together?

Secretary Rice. They're all people I know and they are all people of substance, and the most important thing is that they are all people who are going to have the fundamental interests and values of the United States at the core of what they do.

Q. I know you were watching when we reported that Barack Obama would become the 44th President of the United States. What went through your mind as you saw that dramatic, historic moment in the United States?

Secretary Rice. Well, I'll tell you, from a kid from Birmingham, Alabama, and segregated Birmingham, Alabama, it was quite a moment. It means this country has come an enormous distance. It means that the United States of America is what it claims to be, which is a place of opportunity for all.

I don't think, by the way, that we are still colorblind. It's remarkable that we have an African American President. We've had back-to-back African American Secretaries of State. We have African American heads of major corporations. But still, we see race. And that's fine, but increasingly we don't see race as all-defining of who one is and what one can be. As long as we pay attention to opportunity, to making educational opportunities available, which is really what got me to where I am and I think President-elect Obama would tell you the same thing—

Q. So if he asks you for some help—

Secretary Rice. I think we'll do—I think America will do all right.

Q. Well, you've been—but if he asks you for some help, would you be more than happy to help him?

Secretary Rice. Well, he's not going to need my help. He's got plenty of help. But of course; he's someone that I admire. He was on my committee, the Foreign Relations Committee. We've talked a number of times. He's going to do very well for the country. But eight years is a long time. The American people are wise in wanting change. Two terms is plenty. And I'm going to go back to California and on to other things.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by CBS News Radio in Washington, DC

Q. We were reading in the news that the woman who's likely to be your successor, Senator Hillary Clinton, visited here yesterday and also got together with you at some point. Can you tell us about that?

Secretary Rice. That's correct. Senator Clinton was here in the building. We started her transition briefings, and then we had a very nice dinner together last night at my home and went over a lot of things. I've known her for quite a long time, and really going back to when she first brought her freshman daughter to Stanford when I was Provost. And so we've long had a friendly relationship, and we had a really nice talk last night.

Q. How is she going to do as Secretary?

Secretary Rice. She'll be great. She is somebody of great intelligence. She's somebody who really loves this country, who speaks really forcefully and well for American interests and values. She'll be great.

Q. I get the sense that this transition from the Bush Administration to an Obama Administration is going smoothly. It's certainly very cordial. You went through this eight years ago when you and then-Governor Bush were coming in.

Secretary Rice. Right, yes.

Q. Do you sense that as well?

Secretary Rice. Oh, it's very smooth and it's quite cordial. And it is an important transition because it's the first time on the national security side in a long time that the United States has been involved in two wars, but also it's a post-9/11 transition. And there is so much that is different about the international security environment, but also about the way that we respond to it, that it's important to have the transition be smooth. And people are working very well together, there's a lot of respect, and that there's a real desire to see our new President succeed.

Q. Madame Secretary, before the transition actually takes place, there's news that you have to deal with, most especially about Pakistan. Can we ask you for an update on what's new in their follow-up to the events in Mumbai?

Secretary Rice. Well, certainly we focused very closely, very heavily, when I was in the region on the need for Pakistan to act. These non-state actors clearly used Pakistani territory, and Pakistan therefore had a responsibility to act. I also made clear that we understood that this was a civilian government in Pakistan, a new civilian government that wants to do the right thing. And in fact, I believe they've begun to do some of the right things.

We are still gathering reports. We're not yet able to confirm a lot of what we are reading about arrests and about action against the camps, but these are serious steps, and we are pleased at what appears to be a serious set of steps. And I want to emphasize, Pakistan is doing this in its own interest as well, because Pakistan has suffered greatly from terrorism. And of course, President Zardari lost his great wife, Benazir Bhutto, to the terrorists.

Q. Just to clarify, the U.S. has not confirmed some of these reports about arrests or going into camps?

Secretary Rice. Well, we have not yet confirmed them. We have been told about some of them. I do believe something very important is going on here, but I don't want to have to speak to the details at this point.

Q. Is there a chance that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were trying to change what Pakistan does on a military level? And this, of course, could affect, could weaken, what the U.S. and NATO are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan—stir up tension between Pakistan and India so Pakistani forces would move toward that frontier and not so much near Afghanistan.

Secretary Rice. Well, their first goal was probably to stir up trouble between Pakistan and India, largely because they have been—these terrorists are undoubtedly unnerved by the increasingly good relations between Pakistan and India, really going back before the civilian government but certainly since President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani came into power. In fact, the Pakistani Foreign Minister was actually in India for a strategic dialogue during—when this attack took place. And so clearly, those who want to disrupt good relations between India and Pakistan were at root.

It has the side benefit, of course, of making certain that Pakistan remains focused on the old conflict with India and Pakistan, which I believe can be resolved effectively between the parties, rather than on the real threat to Pakistan and Pakistan's neighbors, which is the terrorist threat.

Q. Do your analysts think that this terrorist strike was, in part, to take pressure off al-Qaida?

Secretary Rice. Well, I don't know. We know that bad people tend to travel in the same circles. Nobody is making a claim here that al-Qaida is responsible for these attacks or that perhaps they were even involved in them in any way, but ties between these kinds of groups are pretty common. And I don't know that it was to take pressure off al-Qaida, but clearly, if Pakistan cannot focus on what is the real threat to Pakistan, which is the terrorist threat, and remains focused on a state-to-state threat that is beginning to subside, then it benefits the terrorists. And I believe that the Pakistani Government understands that, the Pakistani military understands that. And this is a very important moment for Pakistan to respond, and that's why we're gratified that clearly some response has been made.

Q. Madame Secretary, moving a little more broadly, recently, you spoke to a group of interns here at the State Department, and you referred to the— in referring to the Soviet Union and its collapse, you said, quote, “Things change fast.” You took note that things change fast, and advised them to think about what things might change fast for them going forward.

What things changed fast for you here in the State Department or as Secretary of State? What did you have to deal with that you weren't necessarily thinking about in that way?

Secretary Rice. Right. Well, things do change very fast. And here at the Department, I've watched and become—been a part of extraordinary changes like the opening to Libya. I can tell you I never thought in my life I would be sitting in a room with Colonel Muammar Qadhafi talking about everything from U.S. policy in Africa to the Middle East. It's a pretty extraordinary shift.

Q. You visited him in September?

Secretary Rice. I visited him in September after—because we've now established diplomatic relations with Libya. That would have seemed quite far-fetched, maybe not by the time I came here in 2005, but certainly when we came here in 2001.

I also have had to work here in the Department, and the Department has worked hard, to change the view of what diplomats do. We are now in the field in places like Iraq and Kabul and even in places like Haiti or Liberia. We are in the field in ways that we're trying to help people improve their lives. It means that we've had to work much more closely with our military colleagues even in places like Iraq, in Anbar, or in Baghdad, integrated together into Provincial Reconstruction Teams. We have put new resources behind getting our diplomats out of European capitals, frankly, and into places like the various parts of India that are not the capital, in places outside the capital in Brazil, through sometimes even single diplomats out in these American Presence Posts just carrying American policy.

So I've watched the role of the diplomat change dramatically. I've watched as President Bush has put new resources—he requested 1,100 new Foreign Service officers and over 300 new USAID officers. We have a Civilian Response Corps which is going to bring Americans who have special skills to work, like the Reserve or the National Guard, to help Iraqis or Afghans or Liberians or Sudanese build decent governments. So probably the most surprising thing to me has been the changing role of this Department.

Q. Now, that sounds like a part—a big part of what President Bush has advocated, which is promoting democracy around the world, that that should help fight terrorism, that should help establish peace. But also, with that comes promoting America's image. How has that gone? Because there's a general perception that what some people, say Karen Hughes, who you know so well, an old friend of the President, tried to do didn't work.

Secretary Rice. Well, it's shortsighted to worry about changing some negative perceptions about the United States in a matter of a couple of years. It's just shortsighted. Sometimes people don't like our policies. In some places in the Middle East, our steadfast support for Israel is not popular. But if you marry that with the President's advocacy for a Palestinian state, people understand that the United States is really trying to bring peace. Sometimes, it's not popular to tell the truth about the roots of terrorism and what needs to be done to make certain that terrorists can't attack again.

But I'm always a little puzzled to find the two most populous countries in the world—China and India—even if you want to take the test of popularity, which by the way, I don't think is the issue, but even if you wanted to take the test of popularity, the United States is very well regarded. And so yes, there are some places where our policies are not popular, where the fact that we've had to do hard things and tell people that we're going to do hard things, that perhaps the United States is not popular.

But the United States should never seek popularity. It should seek respect. It should seek a reputation for standing for the right values. And sometimes—and by the way, it's often been the case, not just with the Bush Administration—that will lead people to criticize us.

Q. Let's go to other topics. And I—one almost can't understand how you don't start with Iraq and Afghanistan when talking to you about the last eight years. What's the state of the democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan? And do you think Iraq is able to hold its own now, or when will it be? And also, Afghanistan. Is President Karzai strong enough to hold?

Secretary Rice. Yeah. Well, Iraq has made enormous progress. It's still fragile, but the security situation has—the improved security situation has allowed politics to break out in Iraq in a major way. They're going to have provincial elections. I read every day about Sunnis organizing themselves now into political parties to make their voices known. That's very different from 2005 when they essentially boycotted the elections, or were forced to in some cases, because of the security situation.

It is a real remarkable change. It's probably the one I'm most hopeful about. You've taken a country through tremendous sacrifice, and I want to be clear, a sacrifice much greater than I thought would have been needed. But it's a country at the center of the Arab world that's always been, in geostrategic terms, the most important country in terms of a bulwark against Iran. The only problem was it was governed—or ruled—by a murderous dictator who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his neighbors, who had drawn us into war three times, who had millions of people killed in wars, who occupied Kuwait, and who was an implacable enemy of the United States. And now, that same geographic space is occupied by a, yes, fragile, but multiethnic, multiconfessional democracy that will not use weapons of mass destruction or seek them, that is making good headway with their neighbors, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister who hadn't been there in 30 years, and is now a friend of the United States. I think that's a tremendous change in the Middle East.

Afghanistan, it's tough because it's one of the world's poorest countries. The Taliban clearly found new life by being able to regroup in the FATA area, which is why the relationship between what is going on in Pakistan and Afghanistan is so important. But it is a decent government that is trying to provide benefits to its people. They're going to have elections. I think President Karzai has done a good job in a country that historically isn't very unified in giving Afghanistan a national center. And it's also true that the Afghan army is getting better. So there are things to work with there. NATO has made a major commitment. The United States is going to commit more forces. I think NATO will commit more forces. But it's tough going in Afghanistan.

Q. Let's talk about travel. A very big part of your job as, well, the head of U.S. diplomacy, I noticed just about last week you were playing piano for Queen Elizabeth in England.

Secretary Rice. Yes.

Q. So you're using all your talents, and I'm sure a lot of energy, in visiting so many countries. Does it give you satisfaction, or frankly, is it a pain, tiring, jetlag?

Secretary Rice. I actually think it's critical for this job. Yes, we have in these days videoconference and we have phones, but there's nothing like going. And I've been very pleased to be able to go and do cultural things as well as the hardcore diplomacy. But when I came in 2005, we had been through some difficult times, particularly with our allies. And I thought that it was important to go and be with our allies. I thought it was important in person to be there when we formed the P5+1 and to make it work, to meet with it many times.

Q. The group to confront Iran?

Secretary Rice. To confront Iran. It was important with the Gulf Cooperation Council, which are the Gulf states in the Arab world plus Egypt, plus Jordan, and now Iraq, to be able to go there in the six or seven times that we've met to work on the problems of the Middle East. So yes, sometimes it's a little tiring, but it's critical to this job.

Q. Speaking of travel, you mentioned you never thought you would go to Libya, and you did. Do you wish you had gone to Tehran or Pyongyang, or did you hope to? Or was it, again, off the charts?

Secretary Rice. Well, when you go to a place, you have to have a reason to go, and it has to be in accordance with policy. Sure, I'm a student of international politics. I'd love to see those places. And I would have loved to have seen them in this time. But it would have only made sense in the context of achieving something. And the time just wasn't right.

Q. Are you personally excited about Barack Obama becoming our next President and our first African American President? Is it meaning—

Secretary Rice. Sure. Sure, it's meaningful. It's meaningful to me personally; it's meaningful to the country. I'm a kid from Birmingham, Alabama, where, when I was—until we moved to Denver, Colorado when I was 12, I didn't have a white classmate the whole time that I went to school in Alabama. So sure, this is a huge move forward for our country.

Our country has been getting there step-by-step. You know, we've had back-to-back African American Secretaries of State. We have had heads of Fortune 500 companies who are black. The world's greatest golfer, not exactly a sport known for—African American dominance, is an African American. And so slowly but surely, this country has been overcoming race.

I want to make a point, though. We're still not race-blind. We shouldn't deceive ourselves that we've overcome everything about race. And the particular witch's brew that is race and poverty is still very, very hard. And unless we improve our ability to provide particularly a quality education for underprivileged kids, we're not going to really overcome, in a massive way, our past.

Q. May I take it that you actually preferred a victory for Senator Obama rather than John McCain?

Secretary Rice. I have constantly told people that I was Secretary of State and I was not going to get into a partisan debate and I would vote by—vote by ballot in a secret way, as all Americans do. But I just want to acknowledge that when the election took place and after the election took place, it was a special time for Americans.

Q. Can you talk about the limits of U.S. power—

Secretary Rice. Yeah.

Q.—and some of the other problems that we haven't talked about yet? Why can't the U.S. seem to do anything to stop the Russians from going into Georgia? Why can't we solve Darfur? Zimbabwe is a basket case after being— after feeding southern Africa. What are the limits? Why can't you jump in and do things that some people think you could—should be able to do?

Secretary Rice. That's a really important question, Charlie, because it does show that not only are there limits to American power; unfortunately, there are limits, it appears, to what the international community is willing to do. And if I have a real disappointment about this period, it is about—it's about Darfur and Zimbabwe and Burma, because these are tyrannical regimes. We're seeing horrible things now in Zimbabwe: cholera epidemic. I was talking to our people this morning; maybe 14,000 infected people. They fear many, many more.

This is something that—without real strong regional support from the Africans, who have to tell Robert Mugabe it's time to go. He's destroyed a country that was once a really shining star in Africa. But the international community's unwillingness to do these hard things sometimes, to insist, yes, that's a disappointment. And the United States can't do it alone. We've sanctioned the Zimbabweans as much as we possibly can. But we need the international community to help.

Q. Is it time, perhaps, for force to be used to take Mugabe?

Secretary Rice. Well, that's a very difficult matter. And enough diplomatic pressure and we brought Charles Taylor down in Liberia without—without using—without firing a shot. We did so with the President's very brave decision to have the Marines secure the ports and the airfields.

But Zimbabwe could be done through tough diplomacy. The diplomacy just hasn't been there on the part, frankly, of the region. Not all over the region; there are some Africans who have spoken up very forcefully, and the—Bishop Tutu has really spoken forcefully. But this could be done. It just needs to be done.

Q. When you leave this job, just briefly, if you would, Madame Secretary, what's your plan? Where are you going?

Secretary Rice. I'm going back west of the Mississippi where I belong. I'll go back to Stanford. I'm on leave from Stanford.

Q. Did they hold your job?

Secretary Rice. Well, George Shultz was on leave 12 years. I've only been on leave the eight.

Q. Right.

Secretary Rice. And so I'll go back. And I plan to do some writing. I want to write a book, obviously, about foreign policy. I want to write a book about my parents, who were educational evangelists. I want to do work on something I worked on a lot before I came, which is the problem of excellence in K-12 education.

You know, as Secretary of State, I've been privileged to represent this great country, and I know its strengths and I know its challenges. One of its strengths is a belief here and abroad that this is a really a place that you get ahead on merit. It doesn't matter where you came from; it matters where you're going. It's the log cabin myth: modest circumstances, great achievements.

But I worry that the weakness, particularly of our public schools, is going to make that less and less true for everybody. And if we ever lose that as our core, then we're going to lose our confidence. We're not going to lead. We're going to protect, we're going to turn inward. That would be very bad for the world. So as a former Secretary of State, I think I can advocate for education as a national security priority.

Q. Do you want to give us a peak into your memories and tell us which leaders you've enjoyed dealing with, which you really didn't look forward to—

Secretary Rice. Oh, I think I'd better wait to do that after I'm Secretary of State. I don't know who I'll need to call.

No, look, I've had a great experience. And it's been hard at times. For those of us who were in positions of authority on September 11th, every day since has been September 12th. And I would like to be able, if nothing else, to vivify for the American people the dramatic change that that event made. You know, it would be wrong to say that America had a kind of innocence before September 11th, but it wouldn't be wrong to say that we had a kind of complacency about what the great oceans protected us from, having not had an attack on our soil, really, since the 19th century on—on America proper. That changed a lot. It changed the way we view foreign policy. It changed the way we view failing states, that the greatest threats came from failed states, not from powerful nations. I hope to have a chance to vivify that and to talk about how we tried to deal with the threats, but also to capitalize on the opportunities.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks in Kandahar, Afghanistan

Secretary Gates. Thank you all for coming today—though I know from a little experience in the military and a lot of experience in government that some of you may have been “volunteered” for this additional duty. I hope you have not had to wait around too long.

When this visit was first planned a few weeks ago, it was supposed to be part of a farewell tour—my last chance as secretary of defense to give a final goodbye and thanks to our awesome men and women serving in the theater. Well, as you may have heard, there's been a slight change of plans. I now have a better appreciation of what it's like to be stop-lossed.

There were many important reasons to accept President-elect Obama's request to stay on as secretary of defense: the crucial next phase we are entering here in Afghanistan and also in Iraq; the tough choices the Pentagon needs to make about its budget and priorities; and many more.

But no reason was more compelling to me than the fact that if hundreds of thousands of young Americans are doing their duty—you doing your duty—without fail often under difficult and dangerous conditions—then I really had no choice but to follow suit, even if it means failing retirement from government service for the second, and hopefully final, time.

On the subject of leaders, I should tell you that I have with me today a figure familiar to some of you, Lieutenant General David Rodriguez, my senior military assistant. General Rod, as we call him, was the commander of Combined Joint Task Force-82 and RC East until April of this year. And as we take the critical next steps in Afghanistan, I am fortunate to have someone with his experience and expertise at my side. It tells you something about Dave's sense of duty, humility, and patience that he was willing to go from the glorious perch of commanding the 82nd Airborne Division to a job whose duties sometimes include note taker and meeting monitor.

Before opening the floor for questions, I wanted to make a few comments about why I am here and what I'd like to take away from our discussion.

First, I wanted to be able to look you in the eye and say thank you—on my own behalf, on behalf of our current and next commanders-in-chief, and on behalf of the American people. Each one of you could have done something easier, safer, and probably better paid, but you chose to step forward to wear this country's uniform. You chose to volunteer—and in some cases re-volunteer—knowing full well that a deployment to a combat theater was the most likely result.

Every one of you probably knows of someone lost in this war, whether from your unit or from a previous rotation. Each death hurts beyond measure. Carrying that sorrow, you have gone forward— not only for the sake of a just and good cause but for the sake of the people fighting to the left and to the right of you.

These past two years, I have come to work every day with the conviction that the first, second, and third priority of the secretary of defense—and the department he leads—is to do everything possible to get troops what they need to succeed and to protect themselves on the battlefield. That has been my conviction from day one.

And so, form virtually a standing start, over the last 18 months we have built and sent to the theater some 12,000 MRAPs. Several thousand more are on the way. On an urgent basis, we are sending all possible MRAPs to Afghanistan. And we are working equally urgently to select and build an allterrain MRAP vehicle designed specifically for Afghanistan. As many of you know, we are vastly expanding the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities you need. I promise you we will do whatever else it takes to give you the tools it takes to complete your mission and come home safely.

We are entering the holiday season. It's a particularly difficult time to be separated from your friends and families. Your people back home embody the sustaining power of love and loyalty. They endure— not joyfully, but willingly—bound together by their shared experience, by sacrifice, and by the pride they rightly feel in you. Your fellow Americans are proud of you, thinking of you, and praying for the success of your mission and for your safety.

The size and scope of that mission are going to see some changes in the coming months, though the details are still being worked out. And the final decisions will be made by the next President. But a consensus has emerged that more troops are needed to provide security and train Afghan security forces. I don't need to tell any of you that success in this campaign—in a country with ethnic fissures, grinding poverty, and daunting terrain— will not come easily or quickly. A former Afghan cabinet minister called Afghanistan “the theme park of problems.” General Petraeus has said this would be “the longest campaign of the long war.”

Nor will success come through military means alone. There will also need to be a substantial plus-up in areas such as infrastructure, reconstruction, economic development, and governance. Our civilian agencies, our NATO allies and partners, plus international organizations and NGOs, will all have to step up, do more, and coordinate better as we help the Afghan people defend themselves against violent extremists. For the Afghans, this is, after all, their country, their fight, and their future.

But I believe we can succeed, we must succeed, and we will succeed. The attack that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people on our soil was planned and organized in this country. And those who would perpetrate a similar, if not worse, atrocity, are plotting and operating on the border with Pakistan as we speak. I have total confidence that the men and women of the American military—with the Afghan people and our partners from around the world—will, over time, finish the job that was begun seven years ago. But even now our men and women in uniform come home to the honor and gratitude you so richly deserve.

One of the highlights of this job has been meeting with small groups of service men and women—from junior enlisted to company and field grade officers, from active duty to guard and reserves—without their chain of command present. Hearing their questions, concerns, and aspirations—unvarnished and uncensored—has been bracing. And it's been helpful.

Your suggestions have shaped my thinking on everything from day-to-day military operations to enhancing the quality of life for service members and their families.

This gathering is larger, but I hope it won't keep you from being direct and honest with your questions and concerns. And don't worry about the reporters here—they are good people.

So at this point, I would say thank you for your time and attention, I look forward to your questions, and then I'd like to shake hands with each of you, get an individual photograph, and give you a coin.

Secretary Robert Gates delivered these remarks in Kandahar, Afghanistan

Secretary Gates. Good afternoon. And thank you all for joining me. It's good to be back in Kandahar.

This trip was originally intended to be a farewell tour. Instead, because President-elect Obama has asked me to stay on as secretary of Defense, it is an opportunity first and foremost to thank in person the brave men and women stationed here and wish them well this holiday season.

It is also an opportunity to meet with General McKiernan and the RC South commanders to discuss where we are in Afghanistan and where we need to be going in the new year.

There is no doubt that the challenges facing Afghanistan are great, especially here in the south, where violence is fueled by extremists and a thriving drug trade, and good governance and business development are threatened by crime and corruption.

Despite this, I believe the alliance is up to the task of helping Afghanistan. We are all here, dozens of nations and hundreds of NGOs, to help the Afghan people and government in their struggle for peace and prosperity. This is, after all, their country, their fight and their future.

I would extend my condolences to those killed in yesterday's tragic accident. Much has been done to improve coordination with the Afghan government and its security forces, but clearly, more remains to be done. That will be a focus in the coming year as this mission expands significantly with more resources and troops from the international community.

Our purpose is to assist the proud Afghan people as they secure their own country and their own destiny. To that end, we will help them rapidly expand the size and capability of the Afghan security forces and support them in extending good governance and development to all of the country, especially the south.

This nation has seen too much war in these last decades. Only together can we defeat the enemies of Afghanistan and secure the lasting peace that the people of Afghanistan deserve.

Q. First of all, we would like to welcome you to Afghanistan.

It's a pleasure to have you here. My question—with the new elect government of Barack Obama, what are the intentions of the United States of America—intentions in terms of the foreign policy in Afghanistan?

Secretary Gates. The president-elect has been very explicit throughout the campaign and since the election that he believes that waging this fight in Afghanistan is a high priority and he would like to see more resources devoted to this fight, including more troops. So I think that you will see a continuing American commitment to defeating the enemies of the Afghan people during the administration of the president-elect.

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you—you've met with General McKiernan today. Can you say whether you gave him any specific commitments for troops and timelines?

And he mentioned to us a little earlier that he believes that there will be a sustained—a need for a sustained level of troops in Afghanistan for the next three or four years. What is your assessment of that?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, I'd be the last to disagree with the commander on the ground in terms of his assessment of the—of the need. I also happen to agree with him, that this is—this is a long fight. And I think we are in it until we are successful, along with the Afghan people.

What was the first part of your question?

Q. Any specific commitments that you made to him?

Secretary Gates. I didn't make any more commitments beyond what have already been made. We will have—again, the final decisions haven't come to me, but beyond January, we are hopeful that we will be able to send an additional two combat—brigade combat teams by late spring.

I think an important element of General McKiernan's request is the enablers, particularly combat aviation, to be helpful. And so we'll be working all of those requirements in Washington as well.

Q. In terms of civilian casualties lately, we've seen that notice that there was an air strike in Zabul. Apparently a few police officers were killed and local civilians were injured.

And also likewise in Pashmul lately, in Kandahar City, where there was a wedding party, an airstrike happened. Many local civilians were hurt.

What are the measures taken or there's always a claim that there'll be a constant change of tactics in terms of targeting enemy on war in terror and defeating the enemies of Afghanistan. And what are the new tactics that you have—you guys have actually proposed—(off mike)?

Secretary Gates. Well, first of all, whenever there are innocent civilian casualties, we are deeply regretful and apologetic about that. I don't think that any military in history has ever worked harder to avoid innocent casualties than the United States and our partners and allies here in Afghanistan.

General McKiernan has set out directives in terms of the kinds of operations that take place, to take extra measures to avoid innocent civilian casualties. We are looking at specific operations to—and willing to forego operations if it appears there is a greater risk of civilian casualties.

At the same time, we know that the Taliban and other violent extremists do not hesitate to put innocent civilians in harm's way. They mingle among them and hold them hostage until ISAF or others come after them. And this is all too often the circumstances in which there are innocent civilian casualties. But it is the Taliban that has put them at risk, not us.

That said, we will continue to work very hard to avoid these casualties. The accident that happened yesterday that I referred to, or just in the last couple of days, is under investigation. And as I indicated in my prepared remarks, we can— need to continue working on close coordination with the Afghan security forces.

Q. Mr. Secretary, given that it will be a long fight, is it realistic to expect that there will be some 50,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan over the next three or four years?

Secretary Gates. Well, as you all have heard me say before, I gave up predicting the future a long time ago. But I do believe that there will be a requirement for a sustained commitment here for some protracted period of time. How many years that is and how many troops that is, I think nobody knows at this point.

Q. Canadian Television. The current mission for the Canadian soldiers here is set to end in two years.

Do you think it would help if Canada were to remain beyond that?

Secretary Gates. Well, the countries that have partnered with the United States and Afghanistan, here in RC South, have made an extraordinary commitment. And proportionately none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians. They have been outstanding partners for us. And all I can tell you is, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is.

Q. The question is about the border policy at the moment. It's always been claimed by the international community and the coalition forces that insurgents do actually cross the border from Iran and Afghanistan.

Are there currently any measures taken into rather than defeating or fighting the enemies internally in all the provinces? Or are there measures being taken of there being leaderships of military, on the border areas, i.e., establishing checkpoints or regular patrols or more troops in that area? What are the measures being taken at the moment?

Secretary Gates. Well, there is some infiltration from Iran. But I think it pales by comparison with the eastern border and the Afghan-Pakistani border. As I say, we have evidence of some people coming across that border.

I think most of the focus right now is on establishing the border coordination points and working trilaterally with the Afghan government, the Pakistani government and the American government, in seeing how we can work together to cut down the infiltration coming in from Pakistan.

Q. On the whole, do you believe the insurgency here is strengthening, weakening or staying about the same?

Secretary Gates. Well, I would, I would take my cue from the Dutch commander here in RC South. His view is that the situation is not getting worse in RC South. It's just different. And they are facing different tactics and they are responding to these tactics.

I think that if I could put words in his mouth, I would say he believes that the Afghan security forces and their international partners are holding their own in RC South. But I think everybody would agree that holding your own isn't good enough.

Q. (Inaudible)—please. It's not a political question, Secretary. We're making a British program for our soldiers here in Afghanistan from Holland, and for their families. Could you say something to the camera for the Dutch soldiers and for the family at home, a greeting for Christmas?

Secretary Gates. Well, the Dutch soldiers have performed with great bravery and with considerable sacrifice here in RC South. They are a strong partner. We welcome having them here, and we wish them and their families the merriest of holidays.

President George W. Bush and President Hamid Karzai delivered these remarks in Kabul, Afghanistan

President Karzai. (Not translated.) Most welcome, Mr. President; most welcome.

President Bush. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Mr. President, it's good to be with a dear friend. You and I have spent a lot of time together and we have done a lot of work together, all aiming to give the people of Afghanistan a better life. I'm glad to be with you.

I hope you understand why it is important for me to get back to Washington— and that is because my wife expects me to be back in Washington. We have a holiday reception at the White House and so I'm going to have to hustle back—after all, I did sneak out of town under the dark of night. And now I'm going to go back home having visited this important country. So thanks for having me. And she sends her best. As you well know, that Laura's—one of her great passions is to stand with the courageous women in Afghanistan. And I can assure you, Mr. President, that after our time in Washington, we both look forward to continuing to stay in touch and to continuing to stay engaged with the people of Afghanistan. So Laura sends her deep respect and great affection for the people of Afghanistan.

You know, I was thinking when I—right before we landed, how much Afghanistan has changed since I have been the President. Sometimes it's hard when you're in the midst of a difficult situation, it's hard to get perspective. In 2001, the Taliban were brutally repressing the people of this country. I remember the images of women being stoned, or people being executed in the soccer stadium because of their beliefs. There was a group of killers that were hiding here and training here and plotting here to kill citizens in my country.

Right after the attacks I made it abundantly clear that we would bring people to justice for our own security; and made it abundantly clear that if a group of people harbored a terrorist, they were equally as guilty as a terrorist. And we gave the Taliban an opportunity to respond. They didn't. And American troops proudly liberated the people of Afghanistan. That's what life was like.

And we could have replaced one power person with another. That would have been, I guess, the easy route, and then just left it behind, say we've done our duty and we've upheld the doctrine—and said, okay, we're now going to take this group, replace them with this group—and just got out of the way. But that's not—that, one, didn't learn the lessons of the '80s and the '90s. And secondly, the interest is to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology. And it's not easy work. Afghanistan is a huge country. The road system is not nearly as well developed as a lot of other countries. You're just beginning to develop your resource base in a way that I hope benefits the people of Afghanistan—after all, it's their resources.

It's difficult because extremists refuse to accept the beauty of democracy. They've got a different vision, and so therefore they're willing to kill innocent people to achieve their objectives.

There has been a lot of progress since 2001—after all, girls are back in school. I happen to believe that's important. As a father of twin girls, I couldn't imagine living in a society where my little girls couldn't have a chance to realize their God-given potential.

And we gave the Taliban an opportunity to respond. They didn't. And American troops proudly liberated the people of Afghanistan.

You've got boys flying kites again in Afghanistan. You've got health clinics up all across the country. The President was telling me of a health clinic in the remote northeast region of Afghanistan—a place where it had been unimaginable.

The economy has more than doubled in size—it needs to double in size again, and then double in size again, no question. But it has doubled in size. Security forces are growing stronger. You've got good people in Afghanistan who are—you know, want to work to provide security so that a political process can grow behind it.

There's been good progress made, but there are a lot of tough challenges. One of the great, interesting things that I'll be watching—since I believe so strongly in democracy—are the upcoming elections. And I've talked to General McKiernan, he said—told me that—about the strategy, along with Ambassador Wood, about the strategy to help the Afghan folks, the military, and political leaders; get the elections up and running. It's going to make signing time for the people of Afghanistan—to go to the polls and be able to express their opinion. And I'm sure the press corps, the Afghanistan press corps is looking forward to covering the elections. It'll give you something to do in a very important part of your country's history.

I told the President that you can count on the United States—just like you've been able to count on this administration, you'll be able to count on the next administration, as well. It's in our interest that Afghanistan's democracy flourish. It's in America's interest that we forever deny safe haven to people who still want to kill our citizens.

So Mr. President, I come bringing the greetings of the country. It has been a privilege to work with you over these years. I have come to admire you, I appreciate your service, and I wish you and the people of Afghanistan all the very best.

Q. My question is for His Excellency, the President of the United States. First, if President-elect Obama brings any change in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan or any change in the strategy to (inaudible) Afghanistan or (inaudible). Being from the Republicans, will your party support his plannings?

And second, regarding he said he was in Pakistan and the terrorists in Pakistan, what's your message to Obama that how he should deal with Pakistani government regarding terrorists, about the diplomat—using diplomatic ways or using leverage?

President Bush. Thank you. First, I am of a different political party than President-elect Obama. But I want him to succeed. I want him to do well. And to this end we have worked hard to help—to help the transition.

Secondly, I think it is interesting that he has picked Secretary Gates, Secretary of Defense the last couple of years under my administration; he will be the Secretary of Defense under his administration. I think that should send a clear signal to the people of Afghanistan that the transition will be a smooth transition.

I expect you'll see more U.S. troops here as quickly as possible in parts of the country that are being challenged by the Taliban. I remember when President Karzai and President Musharraf and I had the famous dinner at the White House. You know, the discussions really are the same today as they were then—and that is that extremists and terrorists and people who use car bombs and suicide bombers to achieve political objectives are a threat to all of us. And that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy in helping the Pakistan government deal with those who bring great harm on their citizens—and bring harm on the citizens of Afghanistan.

So to answer your question, I think it's a—we need to have a collaborative strategy. We need to work together in a constructive way. And we are making progress along those lines. You know, I was with President Zardari in—I think it was in New York. And I had never met him before and I was reminding him that I'm a—you know, a person who says that we will defend our country and defend our people. The most important job for the President of the United States is defend our people from attack.

He said, you don't have to talk to me about extremists attacking people— extremists killed my wife. And so we're— there's a lot of consultations going on with the President—I think you're going to be meeting with President Zardari soon, and that's good and I appreciate that.

Q. Thank you, gentlemen. I have one question for the two of you. Canada has announced it's pulling out in 2011; South Korea is already gone. In that context are you concerned about the level of international support for the war here, and are the 20,000 additional U.S. troops enough to bring this conflict to a close?

President Bush. Well, first of all, as you know, I've always relied upon our military commanders to make the recommendations necessary to achieve the objectives we've set forth. We have added troops twice during my presidency—obviously in the initial move in and then we added troops to that. I've announced we're going to send in more troops. And then, of course, the Obama administration will be analyzing the situation and it sounds like that they intend to expedite sending more troops in.

And why do we do that? Because this is what our generals suggest we do, to answer your—it's just going to be a long struggle, first of all. This doesn't end tomorrow. Ideological struggles take time. As a civil society whose firm political institutions begin to develop, extremism begins to wither—it gets marginalized and then it withers away. So it's going to take time. I can't tell you the troop levels we'll be—all I know is our generals said, this is what we need now. And I listened to them and I'm confident President-elect Obama will listen to the commanders as well.

President Karzai. We're already very grateful to all those countries, nations who have come to help Afghanistan, and who have already helped Afghanistan. Canada is among the countries that's the frontrunner in assistance to Afghanistan. Their plans to withdraw their troops by 2011 or '12 is not in contradiction to the understanding that we have with them. They will continue to assist us in various other forms in Afghanistan.

What is important here is that while we are continuing to fight terrorism and to bring institutional strength and stability to Afghanistan, we're going to improve the economy and improve the governance and services to the republic by the government. We also work on enabling Afghanistan to eventually stand on its own feet. The Afghan people don't want to be a burden on the international community forever. And we are grateful already that the international community is helping us in blood, and their taxpayers' money.

We are grateful to Canada. We are grateful to all other countries, as partners for building Afghanistan for fighting terrorists who are the enemies of all of us. So we are happy in any form of assistance other countries give us and will be grateful for it.

One more question, Mr. President? You like to continue?

President Bush. I respectfully disagree with you. The Taliban was brutalizing the people of Afghanistan. And they're not in power. And I just cited the progress that is undeniable.

Now, is there more work to be done? You bet. I never said the Taliban was eliminated, I said they were removed from power. And I said girls are going back to school, and boys are flying kites and health clinics are opening, and the number of university students is dramatically expanding, and the number of schools around the country is growing, and there's a ring road built. Yes, there's no question there's a Taliban that wants to fight back. Why? Because they want to regain power. They can't stand the thought of a free society. And they're lethal. And they are tough. No question about it. No question about it.

So therefore, is the suggestion because they're tough that we just withdraw, that it's too hard work? Not as far as I'm concerned. I think it's necessary work. And it's in the interest of the United States that we not allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven again for al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is greatly weakened since 2001. As a matter of fact, they at one point declared the most central front in the war on terror in Iraq—where they're doing very poorly.

And they're not doing so well here, either. Now, they can hide in remote regions. They can hide, but we will stay on the hunt and we will keep the pressure on them, because it's in the people—the peaceful people of Afghanistan's interest, just like it's in the interest of this country.

And so is there still difficult days ahead? Absolutely. But are the conditions a lot better today in Afghanistan than they were in 2001? Unquestionably, undoubtedly, they're better.

Q. Thank you, Mr. President. If I could ask President Karzai first—we just came from Iraq, where they've signed an agreement outlining a security arrangement, and it includes a withdrawal of American forces within three years. I wonder if you envision a similar kind of arrangement where—would you like to see a scheduled withdrawal or a timetable of withdrawal for the foreign forces who are in Afghanistan.

President Karzai. Sir, Afghanistan is in a cooperative arrangement with the United States and the rest of the international community. The decision in Afghanistan is to continue our cooperation with the international community until we have defeated terrorism and extremism and the threat that emanates from them to us, to our neighbors, and to the rest of the—rest of the world. And Afghanistan will not allow the international community leave it before we are fully on our feet, before we are strong enough to defend our country, before we are powerful enough to have a good economy, and before we have taken from President Bush and the next administration billions and billions of more dollars—no way that they can let you go.

President George W. Bush delivered these remarks at Bagram AFB, Afghanistan

President Bush. Thank you all very much. Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for coming out to greet me—at kind of a strange hour. General, I appreciate your accommodating what I'm calling Rudolph One. After all, it is the holiday season. You might have heard, we made a little refueling stop in Baghdad earlier today. And now I'm proud to be back in Afghanistan. You might call it an early-morning wake-up call. Or in some of your cases, I might have cut your evening off. We won't go there.

In either case, I am proud to be with brave souls serving the United States of America.

And my dear wife sends her very best regards. So, on behalf of Laura, and everybody else back home, merry Christmas, and a happy holidays.

Congratulations on your tremendous accomplishments. And above all, thank you for volunteering to defend the United States of America.

You know, they often say, what are you going to miss? I'll miss the airplane, of course. But I'm mainly going to miss being the Commander-in-Chief of such an outstanding group of men and women.

I appreciate Sergeant Major Vince Camacho for his service. I want to thank Ambassador Bill Wood, the Commanding General of U.S. Forces Afghanistan General David McKiernan; Brigadier General Mike Holmes, Commanding General 45th Expeditionary Wing. Soldiers of the 101st Airborne—

I told the General that I had the honor of going to Fort Campbell the other day. I saw a lot of your comrades, and I saw a lot of your families. And they have a message for you: Air Assault!

I thank the airmen of the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. I kind of like your motto: Start right, finish strong. Yes, that sounds pretty good for a guy with 36 days left.

The soldiers of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division—the Big Red One. Soldiers of the 1st Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Task Force Warrior. I want to thank all the troops from our coalition partners.

I appreciate your countries for supporting this noble cause. I want to thank all the civilians, the diplomats, the embassy personnel who are critical to our success. I thank all the other brave Americans here today, including members of the United States Navy, the United States Marine Combat personnel, FBI agents—and last but not least—they may sound small, but they're plenty tough.

And last but not least, the 101st Army Band.

You probably played some high notes to keep the folks awake.

Afghanistan is a dramatically different country than it was eight years ago. When I took office in 2001, the Taliban was brutally repressing the Afghan people. Girls were denied access to school. People who did not submit to the regime's radical beliefs were beaten in the public, or executed in soccer stadiums. Al Qaeda had freedom rein to operate the country—in the country. And it was here in Afghanistan that the terrorists planned the attacks of September the 11th, 2001.

After that date, America gave the Taliban a choice: You can turn over the leaders of al Qaeda, or you can share in their fate. And when they refused, our just demands were enforced by the United States military. And thanks to you, the Taliban has gone from power, the al Qaeda training camps are closed, and 25 million Iraqis are free. And the American people, your loved ones, are more secure.

Removing the Taliban was a landmark achievement. But our work did not end there. See, we could have replaced one group of thugs with another strongman. But all that would have done is invited the same problems that brought us the al Qaeda safe havens and the attacks on America in the first place. Those were the mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s, and we were not going to repeat them again in the 21st century.

So America set an ambitious goal—to help Afghanistan's young democracy grow and thrive, and emerge as an alternative to the ideology of hate and extremism and terror. This is a difficult and long effort. It's not easy to do this. It would have been so much simpler to say we got rid of one bunch and here's another one. But that's not what we believe is right. We want to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. We want to do the hard work now so our children and our grandchildren can grow up in a peaceful world.

So we rallied good allies to our side, including every member of NATO. We've developed civilian experts in the form of civilian [sic] reconstruction teams. And together with the determined people of Afghanistan, we are making hopeful gains.

Thanks to you, girls are back in school across Afghanistan. Does that matter? I think it does. I think it does. Thanks to you, boys are playing soccer again, and flying kites, and learning to be Boy Scouts. Thanks to you, access to health care is up dramatically. Thanks to you, Afghanistan's economy has more than doubled in size. And thanks to you, the Afghan people are preparing to go to the polls next year for another round of free elections. Thanks to you, Afghanistan has a democratic government that is no longer an enemy of America; it is a friend of America.

The enemies of freedom in Afghanistan are determined, no question about it, and the fight has been tough—I don't need to tell you. This is a large country; it has a long way—it's a long way away from a modern economy with a viable infrastructure. It's hard to get around Afghanistan. Yet we have a strategic interest, and I believe a moral interest in a prosperous and peaceful democratic Afghanistan. And no matter how long it takes, we will help the people of Afghanistan succeed.

As a sign of our commitment, we've increased American troop levels in Afghanistan. Our NATO allies have done the same. And so have the Afghan people—Afghan army and police have grown. I call it a quiet surge. It's a surge that hadn't gotten much attention. But it has an unmistakable message: The Taliban has gone from power, and it's not coming back. Al Qaeda terrorists have lost their safe haven in Afghanistan, and they're not going to get it back. Afghanistan will be a successful society and a hopeful society and a free society. And Afghanistan will never again be a safe haven for terrorists to attack the United States of America.

In recent months, the violence has increased in some parts of Afghanistan. This is partly because we're going into new areas where the terrorists have never been challenged before. And if the enemy are fighting back, they don't like it when we show up. But ultimately, they will be no match for the Afghan people or her coalition partners. And they're certainly no match for the men and women of the United States military.

I am confident we will succeed in Afghanistan because our cause is just, our coalition and Afghan partners are determined; and I am confident because I believe freedom is a gift of an Almighty to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. Above all, I know the strength and character of you all. As I conclude this final trip, I have a message to you, and to all who serve our country: Thanks for making the noble choice to serve and protect your fellow Americans.

What you're doing in Afghanistan is important, it is courageous, and it is selfless. It's akin to what American troops did in places like Normandy and Iwo Jima and Korea. Your generation is every bit as great as any that has come before. And the work you do every day is shaping history for generations to come.

Because of you, America has a strong friend and partner in the fight against extremism in a pivotal part of the world. Because of you, people across the broader East—Middle East now have an example of a more hopeful path—a model of liberty that can prevail over tyranny and terror. Because of you, killers who wanted to take the lives of Americans back home have been brought to justice before they reached our shores. And because of you and all who work to protect our nation, America has done something many said was impossible: We have gone more than seven years without a terrorist attack on our homeland.

This time of year is especially a time when we thank the Almighty for our freedoms. And we think of those who laid down their lives to protect those freedoms. Back home their children are growing up without a mom or a dad. But all of our children are growing up with something else—the promise of a safer America, the promise of a better world, and the more likelihood for peace.

This is a lasting memorial—all who have sacrificed here in Afghanistan. And thanks to you, that memorial will be achieved, and the sacrifice of your comrades will not have been in vain. We think of the comrades who have been wounded. Our nation pledges that we will give them all the care and all the support they need to recover.

And finally, we think of your families back home. You've got a loved one wondering what you're doing, how you're doing—I want you to do me a favor: When you get back to wherever you're getting back to, call them, e-mail them, or write them. Tell them you love them, and tell them the Commander-in-Chief thanks them for their sacrifice, thanks them for loving you like they do, and thanks for— thank them for standing with you as you serve the noble cause of peace.

I am proud to be with you. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice delivered these remarks in New York, NY

Secretary Rice. (In progress) with representatives of the P5+1. Those representatives included David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary, and Javier Solana, the P5+1 negotiator. We met—there were also representatives there from France, Germany, Russia. We met—and from China. We met with colleagues from—let me get you the list: Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. All there expressed their concern about Iran's nuclear policies and its regional ambitions. All participants expressed support for the ongoing work of the UN Security Council, the P5+1, and the IAEA regarding the Iranian nuclear file. Noting the utility of the consultations, the states present agreed that they will want to continue their meetings on a regular basis. Thank you very much.

Q. (Inaudible) the very strong view of the states there.

Secretary Rice. There is, as you know, in the IAEA Board of Governors resolutions an aspiration that one day the Middle East will be nuclear-free.

Q. (Inaudible) that people of the region many decisions, is there a wide sort of agreement between (inaudible) Arabs of more (inaudible) needed, more intensified (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. I think there is concern that there will need to be a way to finally incentivize Iran to make a different choice concerning its nuclear ambitions. But this was not an effort to develop a common strategy. It was really the first large meeting. We had an informal consultation in Sharm el-Sheikh. But I think what really did come through here is that these are countries that have very deep interests in how this issue gets resolved, and they want to continue consultations with the P5+1 on how this is all going to come out.

Q. (Inaudible.) Would you agree that the (inaudible) has lowered the pressure on (inaudible)?

Secretary Rice. I'm not aware. This meeting was open to whomever wanted to be there. And I gave you a very long list of countries that were there. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Q. (Inaudible.)

Secretary Rice. No, Iran—no, Iran was not invited. Thank you very much.