Secretary Robert Gates and Minister Lee Sanghee delivered these remarks in Arlington, VA

Secretary Gates. Today, Minister Lee and I held the 40th Security Consultative Meeting. We had a productive discussion on a wide range of issues important to the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea.

Over a half century old, the alliance remains a vibrant reflection of the common values and aspirations of our peoples. It remains vital to the interests of both of our nations and will continue to be the foundation for an enduring, resolute and capable defense for the Republic of Korea.

Today, the United States reaffirmed its commitments to the Republic of Korea, including the extension of its nuclear umbrella. The North Korean nuclear and conventional threat continues to be the focal point of our deterrent and defense posture. We urge the swift resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue through the six-party talks process.

The alliance has an important role in security affairs, beyond the peninsula, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The alliance has an important—I thanked Minister Lee, rather, for his nation's contributions to the stability and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, and congratulated his troops for their successful mission in Iraq.

Our discussions also focused on the transformation and realignment of U.S. Forces Korea, the transition of wartime operational control and strengthening defense preparedness.

I congratulated Korea on its upgraded foreign military sales status, signed into law by President Bush earlier this week. This upgrade is an important symbol of the strengthening of our alliance. Thank you.

Minister Lee. Secretary Gates and I place significance that this year marks the 40th iteration of the SCM, and we had an honest and open discussion on various alliance issues and interests based on our common perception of the past, present and future of the ROK-U.S. Alliance.

Secretary Gates and I reaffirmed, over all else, that our alliance plays a vital role in maintaining peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and have agreed to cooperate closely in order to address effectively to any future changes as well as emerging needs and challenges in the security environments.

Korea and the United States will guarantee peace in the Korean peninsula and stability in the region through our unwavering, strong combined defense posture in the present as well as in the future.

We will continue to carry out the commitments by our two presidents, and the U.S. will continue to provide bridging capabilities until Korea acquires sufficient defense capabilities.

In particular, we will maintain the same deterrence capabilities before, during and after the transfer of wartime operational control, and we'll continue to adjust, through regular evaluations and inspections of the changes in the security situation and readiness status.

Between our two nations, there are still a number of issues scattered across our alliance landscape. Korea and the United States will resolve these based on mutual trust, in the spirit of the alliance.

I'm happy that the 40th SCM and the 30th MCM served as an important stepping stone in further strengthening the ROK-U.S. Alliance as it rises to become a future-oriented strategic alliance, and would like to thank the United States Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the courtesy and hospitality they have shown towards the Korean delegates over the duration of the meetings.

Q. The uncompleted version with Iraq, in particular the question of legal jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel—is there a reason for U.S. troops, their families, their commanders to be concerned that those accused of serious crimes could end up in Iraqi courts and in Iraqi jails?

And what sort of reaction have you gotten from—in your consultations with congressional leaders on this question?

Secretary Gates. First of all, I think that there is not a reason to be concerned. I would tell you that General Petraeus and then subsequently General Odierno have been deeply involved in the negotiation of the SOFA, working hand in glove with Ambassador Crocker.

And I can tell you that Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Petraeus; General Odierno and I are all satisfied that our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq are well- protected.

Finally, I would just say that the four leaders that I talked to from the Armed Services Committees, I think, were generally positive, but clearly are looking forward to seeing exact text.

Q. When would they get that?

Secretary Gates. The staffs of—repre-sentatives of each of them, as far as I know, were invited to the White House this morning and walked through the text.

Q. This is actually a two-part question.

The first question refers to—is for both the secretary and the minister. There has been more rumors of Kim Jong-Il's health and his health problems. And there may be a resulting crisis in North Korea because of this and there are some concerns regarding this.

And I'm wondering what kind of discussions there have been in terms of military responses to such rumors, such as perhaps the development of Conplan 5029 into an Oplan. If you could touch on those first, please, and I'll do the second part after this.

Minister Lee. I'd like to first touch on the issue of Kim Jong-Il's health and any crises in North Korea. First of all, I believe that we should probably not pay too much attention to KJI's health. I believe that he's probably enjoying all this new-found attention. And if we show him too much attention, then we might spoil him.

But it is true that Kim Jong-Il's health has significant implications in the security of the Korean Peninsula. And the intelligence communities from both Korea and the United States are monitoring this situation closely. Kim Jong-Il has not been seen in public for a while now, but we, both the Korean and the United States intelligence services, estimate that he still has control over his administration.

Crisis or instability situation in North Korea could stem from many different causes, so it will be very difficult to predict them at this point. The Korean and the American government will do its best to manage the North Korea situation in a stable manner. Therefore for issues that have significant implications on security, we will monitor them closely together and we will coordinate these responses together as well.

Secretary Gates. The only thing that I would add is that there have been various periods when there was concern about the possibility of instability in the North, including earlier times when there were serious famines.

And I would just echo Minister Lee's observation that our militaries stay in very close touch on this, work together and consider various alternatives.

Q. The second part of the question refers to—just to—(inaudible)—sir. This is regarding the language in the joint communique. And the—and in it, it says that appropriate military power will be provided for rapid response. And the question was, how does this level compare to the current levels for rapid response?

Secretary Gates. We have—one of the things that I did this morning was commit again to Minister Lee what President Bush committed during their summit meeting at Camp David, and that as—and that is that U.S. force levels in Korea will remain at the level at that time, which is 28,500.

Q. It seems like not a day goes by that I don't pick up a paper and read an account singing your praises and longing for you to serve in the next administration. How has this growing chorus of accolades affected your thinking at all? Has it changed your thinking at all about whether you might consider staying on?

Secretary Gates. Well, let me just say that I'm getting a lot more career advice and counseling than I might have anticipated. I think I'll leave it at that. I'm still planning on heading to Washington State.

Q. Sir, I hope you understand that Korean reporters often do not have the chance to ask the Secretary of Defense many questions, so my question will also be two part. The first question refers to defense cost-sharing. In the joint communique, there was language which referred to the improvements in the system, and I'd like to know exactly what kind of specifics you're looking into during the talks.

And the second part of the question refers to the long-range unmanned aerial vehicle, the Global Hawk. In the past, the Korean government has requested strongly for the sale of Global Hawk to its nation, and there have been rumors and reports that the United States government is considering a partial sale of the Global Hawks. And what is the government's stance on this? And have there been any discussions regarding this over the talks?

Secretary Gates. Well, first, the—there were no discussions relating to Global Hawk. We are sympathetic to the interest in this. There are some MTCR issues associated with it. But as I say, we are, we are very sympathetic to it.

In terms of cost-sharing, we, we had a very candid conversation about the cost-sharing, about the Land Partnership Plan and so on. These are issues that we are working through together. And, and frankly I'm confident that, that we will be successful.

Secretary Henry Paulson delivered these remarks in New York

Secretary Paulson. Good evening. Thank you, Carla, and thanks to all of you at the National Committee for the exceptional work that you do for U.S.-China relations. As we approach the 30-year anniversary of a turning point in U.S. and Chinese history, we also recall the strategic vision of the National Committee and its role in the historic 1971 ping-pong exchange that helped make resumption of normalized relations possible. Through visions such as yours, the American and Chinese people began to understand one another and to see the benefits indeed, the necessity of normalization.

I am pleased to accept this award in recognition of the work so many have done to forward the U.S. China relationship. This is critically important and I am grateful to see so many people here this evening who have led this effort, including my friend Duncan Niederauer. Congratulations to you, Duncan, for your well-deserved recognition as well.

My remarks will focus on the future of our economic relationship with China. We will soon have a new U.S. President who will face the continuing challenge and opportunity of responding to China's emergence as a global economic leader.

The world's financial markets are undergoing the most serious stresses in recent memory and this financial crisis has begun to negatively impact real economies here and around the world. China is feeling this stress as well, but fortunately its economy is expected to continue to be an important engine for global growth during this period. In the United States, recent collaborative actions by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Treasury clearly demonstrate that our government will do what is necessary to significantly strengthen our banks and financial institutions, enabling them to increase financing for the consumption and business investments that drive U.S. economic growth. Through a multitude of powerful actions we have and will demonstrate our commitment to unlocking our credit markets and minimizing the impact of the current instability on the rest of the U.S. economy.

Addressing the effects of financial market turmoil around the world requires the dramatic steps we are taking here in the United States, and it requires close international corroboration and cooperation. We have been in close contact with Chinese leaders, as well as with leaders of many other nations. And we welcome Premier Wen's statement that China will play a constructive and cooperative role in global efforts to deal with the current financial market turmoil. Throughout this turbulent time, I have stayed in close touch with Vice Premier Wang Qishan, who has now been appointed to lead China's newly established international financial crisis committee. Our conversations have been useful and constructive. It is clear that China accepts its responsibility as a major world economy that will work with the United States and other partners to ensure global economic stability.

Governments must continue to take individual and collective actions to provide much-needed liquidity, strengthen financial institutions through the provision of capital and the disposition of troubled assets, prevent markets abuse, and protect the savings of their citizens. We must also take care to ensure that our actions are closely coordinated and communicated so that the action of one country does not come at the expense of others or the stability of the system as a whole.

Ten days ago leaders from the world's 20 largest economies met in Washington and found ways to further enhance our collective efforts to lessen the effects of global market turmoil. Those meetings brought concrete actions that have supported world markets. I am heartened that the international community is working together for stability and to regain a footing of confidence. As confidence returns to the system, normal financial activities will resume. And we are all grateful for President Bush's leadership during this time. As the President said on Friday, “The American people can have confidence that this economy will recover. We're a country where all people have the freedom to realize their potential and chase their dreams.” As the President knows, Americans are a strong and optimistic people. Although we expect current challenges to continue for a number of months, we will overcome them as we have overcome every challenge our Nation has ever faced.

We will elect a new president two weeks from today, and our new President should start from the perspective that China will continue to play a key role in the world economy. As a matter of fact, today more than ever the world is looking to China to be a big contributor to global economic growth. While some see China as a threat that must be countered or contained, I believe that the only path to success with China is through engagement.

We must recognize that China's growth is an opportunity for U.S. companies and consumers, for our producers, exporters and investors. A stable, prosperous and peaceful China is in the best interest of the Chinese people, the American people and the rest of the world.

U.S.-China relations are more productive today than ever before, largely because we have engaged China as it is, not as we might wish or imagine it to be. We have acted to lessen misperceptions and miscommunication between our countries.

An important part of the engagement has been through the Strategic Economic Dialogue established in 2006 by President Bush and President Hu. We have worked from the understanding that robust and sustained economic growth is a social imperative for China and that Beijing views its international interactions primarily through an economic lens. We have worked with Beijing on economic issues that are of mutual interest, and we have found that we can produce tangible results in both economic and noneconomic areas. Our recent close and frequent communication and cooperation as we address the challenges in the financial markets is a tangible example of the power and utility of a Strategic Economic Dialogue based on mutual trust.

Over the past two years we have built a strong foundation for this dialogue by focusing on policy areas in which China's reform agenda and U.S. interests intersect. The SED has found new and constructive ways to address some of the most important matters in our economic relationship—including growth imbalances, energy security and environmental sustainability, trade and investment issues, product safety, and China's position in the world economy. Addressing these questions serves China's interests, and is also vital to the U.S. and global economic future.

One of the SED's major achievements is the Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework. This framework is a bilateral mechanism to create a new energy-efficient model for sustainable economic development and to address the factors that cause climate change. Greater breakthroughs can be expected in the years ahead, and this framework provides the next administration a critically important platform for U.S. economic engagement with China.

Trade and investment, once the glue of U.S.-Chinese relations now also represent a source of increased tension. Any dynamic economy that is constantly creating new, higher-value jobs faces factory closings and job losses that are real and painful. The benefits of free trade are often spread across an entire country, while the lost jobs are more immediately visible. But succumbing to the temptation to make trade and foreign investment a scapegoat only breeds support for isolationist policies that will make us worse off, sacrificing future job opportunities and higher standards of living.

American investors in China, and Chinese investors in America, question whether the other country is truly open to investment and provides adequate legal protections. To answer this question, we sent a powerful and clear signal at the June SED meeting by launching negotiations of a U.S.-China bilateral investment treaty. Through these negotiations, we seek to assure our people and the world that our two nations welcome investment and will treat each other's investors in a fair and transparent manner. And we will work even harder to resolve a critical issue for American companies working in China—- better enforcement of intellectual property laws, to help China on its path to become an innovation society, while accelerating the development and competitiveness of its economy.

In the area of product safety, we have made real progress but need to intensify our work together to enhance China's regulatory and legal infrastructure, to help them build quality into each stage of the manufacturing and distribution process.

In the financial sector, we have worked steadily to help China develop and open up its institutions. Some in China look at the recent failures in our financial markets and conclude that they should slow down their reforms. But there is a great opportunity for China to learn from our significant mistakes and move forward with reforms that have the potential to produce important gains for China and its people.

For example, a capital markets reform agenda will advance China's economic goals in four important ways. It will rebalance the sources of China's growth to ensure that it is more harmonious, more energy and environmentally efficient, and provides greater welfare for Chinese households. It will create effective macroeconomic policy tools to ensure stable, non-inflationary growth. It will support China's transition to a market-driven and innovation-based economy; and, finally, it will assist China in dealing with its demographic challenges.

The SED has also provided an excellent forum for discussing the value of the RMB; I am pleased that China has appreciated the RMB by over 20 percent since July of 2005.

The SED has shown that active economic engagement between the highest levels of U.S. and Chinese leadership can keep our relationship on an even keel even as we tackle our most challenging issues and manage short-term tensions.

Chinese leaders understand that if the SED is to be sustained, it must be more than talk; it must continue to yield specific, tangible results, what I call signposts along the path toward transformational reform. We look forward to further progress in the on-going discussions with Chinese officials and at our next SED meeting in Beijing in December.

The successes of the SED in the past two years have created a foundation of mutual understanding and trust and a platform for further progress. And perhaps most importantly the SED has established a new model for communication, enabling us to address urgent issues such as turmoil in our financial markets, energy security and climate change. I hope that the next U.S. president will expand on the SED to take U.S.-Chinese relations to the next level. Thank you.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Press Secretary Dana Perino, and Assistant to the President Daniel Price delivered these remarks en route to Andrews AFB

Secretary Rice. I just want to say a few words and then I'll take your questions. The President I think made the point that he had come to APEC every year of his presidency, even after September 11th, when he went to Shanghai. APEC is a very special organization and I actually think it has evolved and gotten stronger over the years. But what it really represents is an opportunity to unite the interests of countries on the Pacific Rim, and means for us the countries of Latin America and the countries of Asia, and they are the most vibrant and vital economies in the world; but they also are some of our strongest partners.

So APEC, because it goes along that Pacific Rim and brings Latin America and Asian interests together for us, it's been a very effective organization.

Dan Price will talk about the meetings and what was achieved. I think following on the G20 meeting it gave an extremely strong message about the need to avoid protectionism, very strong free trade message—these are largely countries that believe very strongly in free trade and open economies. I think it was also an opportunity to push forward—and Dan can talk about this—some of the efforts to institutionalize some of the APEC mechanisms, like the Secretariat and so forth. So it was a very good meeting.

But it also—I think you should think of it as highlighting two areas, two regions in which the President's policies have been extremely successful. If you look at Asia, the United States has better relations with China than ever, across the board—and it's not easy to manage a very complicated relationship with a country that is emerging in the way that China is. It's not that we don't have our differences, we do—on human rights; sometimes on economic matters, as well, issues of economic reform.

But whether it is the way that the President has kept at front and center the importance of the United States remaining open to the advantages of a growing Chinese economy, resisting protectionist pressures, using the strategic economic dialogue that Hank Paulson has to press toward an opening of the Chinese economy; or if you look at more traditional foreign policy issues like North Korea and the six-party talks, Taiwan—which you've had really one of the great secrets is the tremendous progress in Cross Strait relations between Taiwan and China—excellent relations, deepening relations with Japan, deepening relations with South Korea, with India—India is not here, but in that part of Asia as well; strong relations with Vietnam.

Asia has been a very important area for us and an area in which I think we leave the relationships in a much, much stronger position than we found them.

Similarly, in Latin America, where I think the President has broken through an age-old struggle about ideology in Latin America—this is not a question of whether countries come from the left or from the right, it's really an issue of countries that are governing wisely, democratically, that have open economies that are open to trade and that invest in their people. And so we have friends from the left, like Brazil and Chile and Uruguay; and friends from the right, like Colombia.

And the free trade agreements that have been signed with the countries of this region are the most advanced—not just in terms of the economics of them, but also in terms of labor rights and environmental policy. And so they are kind of models of free trade agreements going forward. And the President heard that in every meeting that he had here—the strength of these various relationships.

And so it was good to come to APEC one last time. But I think what it really— this is a multilateral organization, but what you really feel here is the very strong impact that the President has had and that his policies have had on our relationships in Asia and in Latin America.

So now I'll take some questions, if you'd like.

Q. Madam Secretary, when is the next six-party delegation talks?

Secretary Rice. December 8th, they're scheduled for in China. And we expect that there, there will be a push to finalize the verification protocol. It's very important that that verification protocol reflect the discussions that Chris Hill had with his North Korean counterparts when he was in Pyongyang, a set of assurances that were given. But it's also very important that it reflects the consensus of the six parties, which is of the other states of the six parties—Japan, South Korea, China, Russia—that this verification protocol is going to have to be robust enough to make certain that we're dealing with all of North Korea's nuclear programs.

Q. When you talk about institutionalizing it and the rest, Dennis Wilder used the phrase “we're going to put it on paper.” Is that really where we are? I mean, is it—

Secretary Rice. The verification protocol is already on paper. There were some clarifications and assurances that were part of the negotiating record that now need to be formalized in the six-party document.

Q. Are you confident that you'll be able to lock that down and leave not only the six-party framework in a good spot for President Obama, but specifically get a verification protocol that works?

Secretary Rice. Well, North Korea is not the most predictable country in the world, so I'm not going to try to predict. But we have very solid agreement among the six parties—among the five parties as to what needs to be done, and I think the North Koreans also know that in order to move forward.

But let me just note that we also, of course, have had substantial disablement going on of the North Korean reactor. And some elements of verification have already begun, like the exchange of documents.

Q. Madam Secretary, the President will meet with Prime Minister Olmert tomorrow. Looking at the Middle East and also North Korea and Iran—three, kind of, unsettled hot spots, is the President comfortable with where things stand right now and the situation that he is leaving to his successor?

Secretary Rice. Well, let's remember you always leave something to your successor. It's not as if foreign policy ends when one administration ends and another begins. But I think that in all of these areas there has been significant progress that can be built upon. We just talked about the six-party framework. This is very different than where we found the agreed framework, which was a U.S.-North Korea bilateral relationship that was being violated by the North Koreans; it was freezing, not reversing the program. So I think it's a much stronger place to leave that. And I do hope we can leave a strong verification protocol, as well.

Q. Is there any sense of disappointment at unfinished business?

Secretary Rice. Sheryl, the North Koreans took 30 years to get a nuclear weapons program; I think it might take more than a couple to unravel it. But I believe very firmly that we've left a good basis on which to do that.

If you look at Iran—again, I remember my first trip to Europe as Secretary in 2005, and what struck me was that somehow the United States was viewed as the problem. This was—the Europeans were all talking about Europe needing to mediate between Iran and the United States. You don't hear that any more. You hear a strong consensus that the Iranians need to stop their—to freeze their enrichment and reprocessing activities. You hear a strong consensus that they can have peaceful uses of nuclear—peaceful nuclear uses, but not anything that would lead to a weapons program. You have a strong consensus that's not just the six parties, but also four Security Council resolutions.

And so I don't know when it will—the time will come that an Iranian leadership will finally look around it and see its isolation and see what's happening to its economy and see that the Iranian people deserve better. But I do know that the international pressures are there and they've been built painstakingly over time.

Mr. Price. We just completed a very successful summit. This was President Bush's eighth APEC meeting. The priorities of the United States were very well reflected both in the discussions of the leaders, as well as in the resulting statements.

I'll get to those in a moment, but I did want to point out that at a certain point during the second leaders' retreat at the leaders' meeting this morning, President Yudhoyono made a point of thanking President Bush for being such a good friend of APEC, for his commitment to the region, for being a very good listener, a supporter and advocate of free trade. And this was greeted by a round of applause by all the leaders.

In terms of what was covered, as I indicated in a statement that was circulated yesterday, there was very, very strong support for and an endorsement of the work of the G20 leaders, both with respect to dealing with the financial crisis and getting the economies going. There was a resounding rejection of protectionism. The commitment to continue trade and investment liberalization in the region was palpable.

The strong sentiment to conclude a framework agreement, that is the modalities agreement, on Doha was very, very strong. In my experience in this job, the conviction to get it done was unprecedented. Indeed, a number of the leaders noted a certain amount of frustration, saying that in these Doha negotiations we always seem to be finding ourselves in a dynamic where we're catering to the lowest common denominator and trying to please the country in the room who wants to deal the least. Another leader—actually, a couple leaders suggested—we need to push forward on Doha, and if there are countries who don't want to join in, so be it.

I say these two points only to give you a sense of the degree of commitment of the leaders in the room to try and get this done.

On the topic of regional economic integration: There was universal support for continuing these efforts, both through the work of APEC on developing these so-called model measures, or model chapters of FTAs; but also leaders spoke about the need to harmonize and rationalize existing FTAs in the region to help deal with this kind of—some refer to it as this “noodle bowl” of bilateral and regional trade agreements.

There was a great deal of discussion and support for the transpacific partnership— the new FTA negotiations among Singapore, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei— that the United States announced that it would join in September, and that Australia and Peru announced yesterday that they would join. There was a great deal of interest in this agreement as one of the paths to realize a free trade area of the Asia Pacific.

On climate change, there was a good discussion about efforts underway both through the U.N. framework convention talks and through the major economies process. Indeed, the leaders welcomed expressly the positive contributions of the major economies process to addressing climate change. There was discussion of the need to foster cross-border energy trade and investment, and to continue the work to enhance energy efficiency.

A number of countries described what they were doing unilaterally to deal with efficiency and to pursue alternatives. A number of countries noted the efforts of the United States, Japan, UK and others in the clean technology fund, to help get existing technologies, clean technologies to the developing world.

President Bush emphasized his continued support for addressing climate change comprehensively—which, as he explained, in order to have an effective agreement you needed commitments of all major economies to either reduce greenhouse gas emissions or slow their growth; you needed to continue to invest in new technologies; and you needed to get existing technologies deployed in the developing world so that they could take a cleaner path towards economic development than was available when the industrialized nations were developing.

He also pointed out that as we focus on these issues—climate change, economic integration—we cannot lose focus on the need to help the most vulnerable, and to alleviate human suffering of those afflicted with AIDS, malaria, TB, hunger and neglected tropical diseases.

Next there was a very thorough discussion of disaster preparedness. Many countries in the region have been severely affected by natural disasters. And there was a great deal of discussion about the need to coordinate and enhance disaster preparedness at the regional level.

There was a good discussion of food and product safety. And there was also a very good discussion of food security, the need to foster climates conducive to increased research and development and investment in the agricultural sector; the need to boost production and the need to promote science-based regulations so as to encourage the adoption of advanced technologies, including biotechnologies.

There was also a discussion related to food, of the need to enhance the local capacity to deliver food, both through removing infrastructure bottlenecks and through adjusting our aid systems to enhance local purchase.

Finally, there was a good discussion of corruption and the declaration well reflects this, and I refer you to that. This was a very important issue to the United States because corruption truly is a serious threat to social and economic development in the region. And there was a renewed commitment of the leaders to address this and to criminalize corrupt conduct.

I think I'll stop there.

Q. Dan, I had two questions, please, on the economy. In its final declaration, APEC or APEC leaders said that the financial crisis be fixed in 18 months. Can we assume that President Bush supports that timetable and believes in that timetable?

Mr. Price. That particular sentence was added by the President of Peru, as the Chair. Certainly some in the region think that recovery may take 18 months. President Bush believes that the actions we are taking now will begin to produce results in the much nearer term, in the coming months. But again, coming back to the key point that with countries agreeing to pursue pro-growth policies, reject protectionism, ensure continued trade and investment liberalization, the President shares the confidence that we will be able to get through this crisis.

Q. And also, this is obviously a pro-trade organization—in the meetings did the leaders express concern about what might happen under an Obama administration? Was there a sense of apprehension, of maybe sealing up Doha and other deals now, before President Obama takes office? Any concern like that that you heard?

Ms. Perino. I'll say that from my perspective there was a general feeling of a concern of protectionism, and that's been true at the previous meetings. The next administration will have to make their own policies and make their own way, and they'll be here next week. But we're not waiting until next year to help them start transitioning, because a lot of leaders have already been in touch with them.

Trade was a big topic on the campaign. And you've heard from us what our policy position is. The leaders at APEC, which represents 21 countries, plus the G20 from last weekend—some of that is overlap—but they recognize that the best way to move forward and improve economies and ensure growth is through free trade.

So I think there was a general concern about protectionism. This goes back to the President's concern from I think the 2005 or 2006 State of the Union—I think 2006—when he talked about the concerns about countries that have a tendency to turn inward and throw up barriers. He did a lot of studying and reading up over the years in regards to what happened in 1929, when we in our country, we raised taxes and then we passed the Smoot-Hawley Act, which was anti-trade. And then what followed was a very rough decade of the Great Depression.

And I think that the more that we can do what Secretary Rice was just talking about—continue to educate our people, make sure that they're confident, that they can compete in the world—that we will be able to foster more free trade because it's good for our workers and it's certainly good for these countries. And what happens there affects us, too, and we've seen that in this global economic crisis, that we're all inter-connected and inter-related.

Q. You know, all this talk of protectionism, I mean, many of these nations are among the most protectionist in the world. You know, how do you square that circle, basically? You know, you've got a lot of people at this table that already have extremely protectionist policies in place, so it's fine for them to say, well, we're not going to make it worse. But they've already got much higher trade barriers, for instance, than the United States might have. And that could have an impact down the line, in terms of the political pressure that comes on the issues that don't have those kind of barriers.

Mr. Price. Let me respond to it in two ways. Certainly there are many countries in APEC whose economies are less open than our own. There's no question about that.

With respect to the commitment not to raise new trade and investment barriers for the next 12 months, that's significant because although they may have the right to do so under WTO rules, what they're saying is, we won't do that; we are not going to exacerbate this economic downturn by throwing up new barriers, number one.

Number two, they also said, we are committed both to the successful conclusion of a Doha Round—which is going to require a lowering of trade barriers and new market access for good, services and agricultural products. And they said they're committed to continuing down the road of regional economic integration, as well, which will have a similar result.

Q. I have a question on Doha. There was another extra push on Doha in the statement. But you have countries like India and Brazil, who are not present— they've been some of the biggest obstacles to completing a Doha Round. What would be a reason for any kind of optimism.

Mr. Price. India and Brazil, while not at APEC, were at the G20 meeting. And like the other leaders at the G20 meeting, they threw their strong support, one, to reject protectionism, and, two, to get a Doha modalities agreement done this year. That was determination expressed at the leaders' level that included India and Brazil. And although they were not here, they made their views clear at the G20 summit in Washington.

Q. So you're going to hold their feet to the fire, then?

Mr. Price. Leaders mean what they say and we will seek to ensure that all leaders do what they say.

Q. Just a practical question for those of us who don't follow Doha so close-ly—is there a set expiration date to the talks? Do they continue on after President Bush leaves office? Or what is the time frame?

Mr. Price. There is no set expiration date for the talks. We came very close in July, as you know. And countries feel that with a final push we stand a very good chance of concluding modalities this year. That will then leave some negotiation for next year's—not “some,” a significant amount of negotiation after modalities in terms of negotiating the precise tariff schedules, as well as making more concrete the services commitments.

Q. Do you feel that these two summits taken together—would you go so far as to say that these two summits have revived the Doha talks? Have they breathed new life into these talks?

Mr. Price. I would say that these two summits coming in such close succession with the significant players all represented at one summit or the other—it shows a renewed, if not newfound, commitment to completing a modalities agreement this year.

And if I could just offer a final observation, the United States came to APEC with an affirmative agenda—not simply to say goodbye, but with a strong, affirmative agenda. And that agenda we believe is realized and well reflected not only in the declarations, but in the statements of other leaders who signaled their broad support for that agenda.

Thank you.

Secretary Henry Paulson delivered these remarks in Beijing, China

Secretary Paulson. On behalf of the U.S. delegation, we are particularly pleased to be here with our distinguished Chinese counterparts in Beijing for two days of work on critical issues in the U.S.-China economic relationship. This will be the final SED meeting for me and my U.S. cabinet colleagues, and we are committed to a strong finish, to having perhaps our most productive and cooperative sessions to date. Thank you to Vice Premier Wang for his hospitality here today, and for the hard work he and his colleagues put into the SED and into building a stronger U.S.-China economic relationship that benefits both our peoples.

President Bush and President Hu formed the SED in late 2006, to foster direct engagement as the optimal way to build a mutually beneficial economic relationship. For more than two years the SED has brought together government leaders from the highest levels in both nations to prioritize and work on issues of the day, while also setting long-term objectives.

We have learned that engagement works, that engagement can help achieve meaningful, tangible results that would not have been possible otherwise.

Engagement has helped us manage the current financial market crisis. This crisis is a global event, and governments around the world have engaged directly and responded with actions to restore stability and address market developments. International cooperation and coordination have been robust, and we appreciate the responsible role China has played during the turmoil. We have welcomed China's active participation, along with other members of the G-20, in the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy, and in multilateral mechanisms for cooperation including the G-20, APEC, and the International Financial Institutions.

Engagement with China has helped both countries manage and address consumer and product safety issues. We have completed two Memoranda of Agreement, established three FDA offices in China, and developed a true culture of collaboration between our respective health ministries. Now we need to intensify our work further, to build quality into each stage of the manufacturing and distribution process, and engage stakeholders among the private sector, academia, and all levels of government.

During a period of trade tension, the SED has helped us manage difficult trade and investment issues. We have avoided harmful and counterproductive market-closing initiatives, and productive negotiations are underway on a new Bilateral Investment Treaty. Overall, we cooperate based on the common premise that countries benefit their citizens greatly when they open themselves to competition, reform their economies, and welcome foreign investment. Direct investment, such as manufacturing plants or service companies, is the ultimate vote of confidence in any economy.

We have developed a constructive and productive rhythm to our interactions. We have built trust, worked through misunderstandings and crises and, wherever possible, expanded common interests. We have built confidence that the United States and China can work together.

We have grappled with the most important and challenging issues, including the rule of law, transparency, innovation, rebalancing growth and intellectual property rights. Our discussions have been uniformly candid, meaningful, and respectful.

Our meetings this week will focus on the building blocks for an enduring U.S.—China economic partnership. We will continue to work on strategies for managing macroeconomic risks and promoting balanced growth, on open investment and trade policies, including strengthening product, food and drug safety; on our respective roles in international institutions and to strengthen cooperation in energy and the environment. And, for the first time during the SED, the U.S. and China will focus on how we can work together through international forums to strengthen the global economic system.

Mutual interest in jointly tackling energy and the environment issues has given rise to a hallmark SED achievement, the Ten Year Framework for Energy and Environment Cooperation, signed last June. This comprehensive framework promotes collaboration to advance technological innovation, adopt highly-efficient clean energy technology, and promote natural resource sustainability.

We expect to reach substantive agreements this week, establishing short, medium and long-term deliverables in five areas: electricity generation, transportation, clean water, clean air, and protecting wetlands and other natural areas.

I am grateful to my cabinet colleagues for their contributions to, and support of, the SED these past two-plus years. And we are all grateful for the vision of President Bush and President Hu; by creating a structure focused on mutual success, they laid the foundation for what we have achieved thus far. These first years of the Strategic Economic Dialogue have demonstrated that direct engagement achieves results. Just as importantly, it has improved the relationship between our two countries so that we can effectively manage complex issues, such as the recent global financial turmoil. We have stood many tests so far, and I believe we can withstand many more. Thank you.

Secretary Henry Paulson delivered these remarks in Beijing, China

Secretary Paulson. Good afternoon. Thank you to my counterpart, Vice Premier Wang Qishan, and our Chinese colleagues for their hospitality during these past days. And thank you to my Cabinet colleagues for your active participation in and continued commitment to the Strategic Economic Dialogue between the United States and China.

These last two days, we have made progress on a number of important fronts. Our discussions have been productive, characterized by the straightforward back-and-forth that is only possible among colleagues who have built a relationship of trust and confidence. Broad participation on both sides allowed us to engage on a wide range of critical issues, from trade and investment to transportation, from currency reform to energy security, and from product safety to environmental sustainability.

We had a robust discussion of the current global financial market turmoil and economic downturn, its implications for both our nations and our efforts to address it. We are both committed to strengthening the global economy. I reviewed our efforts in the United States to stabilize our financial markets and restore our economy, and I welcomed the recent measures China has taken to strengthen domestic demand and maintain economic growth. As in the past, we discussed the importance of domestic-led growth, and the importance of a market-determined currency in promoting balanced growth in China that will contribute to a healthy global economy. I welcome the steps announced by the Chinese to further open their financial markets, such as allowing foreign banks to trade bonds on the same terms as Chinese banks. Strong financial markets will enable healthy economic development across China.

Protectionist sentiments grow during periods of economic downturn. We recognized this, and reiterated our commitment to fight protectionism, because open trade and investment are in the best interest of our people. Both nations reiterated the importance of completing a successful Doha round and meaningful progress toward that goal by the end of this year. The Chinese economy, like the US economy, depends on global trade, and China is stepping up its efforts to promote global growth and stability. I am particularly pleased to support China's membership in the Financial Stability Forum, which is charged with facilitating action on many of the global stability commitments endorsed by the G20 last month. To support trade flows during this period of financial turmoil, the US and China announced today that our two Export-Import Banks will make available an additional $20 billion for trade finance, particularly for creditworthy importers in developing economies. This effort should support over $38 billion in annual financing for exports from the US and China, and will benefit the global economy. Finally, global trade depends on the confidence of consumers in the safety of the products they buy. Again during this meeting of the SED, the US and China deepened cooperation on product safety and food safety protocols.

We also made significant strides at this meeting in cooperation on energy and the environment. Following up on the establishment of the 10 Year Framework for Energy and Environment Cooperation, which we launched at our SED meeting this past June, we announced today action plans on each of the five goals, and established a sixth goal of energy efficiency. The Ten Year Framework is a signature accomplishment of the SED. Sustained, comprehensive, constructive cooperation between the United States and China, reaching out to all parts of society, offers the best way to harness the resources and creativity of our two nations to meet the enormous environmental challenges facing our planet.

I particularly welcome yesterday's announcement of seven EcoPartnerships that will take concrete steps to share learning and test new ideas in targeted parts of both our nations. By creating partnerships between local governments in our two countries, and between US and Chinese universities and non-profits, these EcoPartnerships deepen the ties between the people of our two nations. Strong ties, on many levels, will contribute to the strength and vitality of the U.S.-China relationship.

At this meeting, we have again shown that direct engagement is a pathway to success, that through engagement the United States and China can build a stronger relationship that benefits our citizens and the global economy. As I and my US colleagues take our leave, we all can be proud of what we have built in the SED. We have managed through times of tension, and through China's leadership transition earlier this year. The United States is now undergoing our own transition, and the U.S.-China economic relationship will continue to be vital to the health of our two economies and the global economy. Our countries will no doubt face future challenges, and through the foundation of mutual respect, trust and candor fostered by the SED, I have no doubt we will manage through those challenges as well. Thank you.