Secretary Leon Panetta delivered these remarks en route to Afghanistan

Secretary Panetta. Okay, let me hit some issues and then just open it up to your questions. First of all, this is the first— (inaudible)—that I've been secretary of defense. And in some ways it's a little bit like this plane ride. It's big, it's complicated, it's filled with sophisticated technology, it's bumpy, but in the end it's the best in the world. And that's what I've learned about the Defense Department.

The priorities that I laid out to them are obviously, we have the finest military force in the world and I want to ensure that it's the best trained, best equipped, and that it is agile and efficient in meeting the threats not only today, but down the road. One of the things I'm hoping to do is to create a vision of what the Defense Department will look like in five or 10 years. I think that's important to do, particularly in light of the budget issues that I'll be confronting this year as well.

In addition I said my—you know, my goals are to defeat al Qaeda, that obviously we made an important start with that with getting rid of bin Laden. I was convinced in my prior capacity and I'm convinced in this capacity that we're within reach of strategically defeating al Qaeda and I'm hoping to be able to focus on that, working, obviously, with my prior agency as well.

I want to take these three conflicts we're engaged in right now and try to prevail in those conflicts. Obviously, to establish sufficient stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan so that al Qaeda and the militant allies don't find a safe haven there. And in Libya, I do intend to bring down the regime of Qadhafi. That seems to me to be extremely important to our ability to try to get the best result we can in Libya as well.

In addition, obviously, nuclear proliferation—continue to work to ensure that we don't have nuclear proliferation, particularly with Iran and North Korea, and at the same time obviously develop a strong nuclear deterrent for this country as well.

In addition, I think it's important that the cyber threats that we're facing—to really strengthen our cyber capabilities. I really do view this as an area that—in which we're going to confront increasing threats in the future and I think we have to be prepared to deal with that, so that will be an area that I'll be focusing on.

And then I also want to, obviously, strengthen our strategic partnerships, our security partnerships. There have been—some of those will require some reforms, but I don't think the United States can face the threats that we're facing across the world and not try to strengthen those partnerships—those very important partnerships that we have, such as NATO and others.

And lastly, I want to, obviously, do everything I can to work to support our troops and their families. I've—one of the purposes of this trip is to go over there and talk to the men and women who are out there on the front line, but one of the things I've already had to do is to sign condolence letters to the families and it makes me that much more aware of the great responsibility we have to support these men and women and to do everything we can to support their families.

I do not believe—I do not believe that you have to choose between fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense. I think we can achieve savings and be able to have a strong defense force at the same time. But one thing I am concerned about is that if negotiators settle and just pick a number and throw it at the Defense Department without really looking at policy, without looking at what makes sense, the danger is, as Bob Gates pointed out time and time again and I agree with him, is I don't want to hollow out the force. And so it's really important that we are going to get a savings number, but it should be tied to good policy not only because that makes the best sense for defense, but also because it's enforceable. If it's tied to good policy, it can be enforced. If it's tied to bad policy, then it could be a real problem in terms of being able to achieve that.

Q. Mr. Secretary, on Afghanistan, knowing from your previous job that you are obviously very familiar with all of the dimensions of the conflict, as you become secretary of defense did you think about all the problems like the reliability of the Afghan government, the competence of the Afghan forces, and other things. What aspect of this troubles you the most—(inaudible)?

Secretary Panetta. I think the key to success in Afghanistan is the ability to successfully transition to the Afghans. That means that they have to develop a capable military, a capable police force, capable local militias that are going to be able to maintain stability. That's the key and that's the area that we've got to focus on.

I feel very good about, you know, what the United States has been able to accomplish in the last few years. I think that in many ways the military and CIA and others have done what the president asked us to do. We've been able to disrupt, dismantle al Qaeda. We've been able to in many ways return Afghanistan to itself instead of having the Taliban run that country. But to ensure that, you know, we can make a successful transition, particularly in 2014, I think the main job is going to be to not only continue to go after the Taliban and the leadership, but to also develop a strong military force—an Afghanistan military that can take that responsibility.

We are—from everything I've seen, we have made good progress on that, but I think there's a lot more work to do in terms of being able to transition responsibility to them. That's the key.

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you go into some detail about the leadership in al Qaeda that you've identified and how many people are we talking about— (inaudible)—came out of the bin Laden raid?

Secretary Panetta. Let me—I'm not going to list all the names that we have, you know, but we're talking about, at this stage of the game, I would say somewhere around 10 to 20 key leaders that between Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, AQIM in North Africa—those are—you know, if we can go after them I think we really can strategically defeat al Qaeda.

We were at the point as a result of the operations that we conducted at the CIA as well as, you know, the other work that's been done—I think we had undermined their ability to conduct 9/11 type attacks. I think we had them on the run. I think now is the moment—now is the moment, following what happened with bin Laden, to put maximum pressure on them because I do believe that if we continue this effort that we can really cripple al Qaeda as a threat to this country.

Q. On this with al Qaeda we've been hearing for a long time that there are so few of them left in Afghanistan the real problem of the Taliban, especially the Haqqani branch. On the same kind of question, how much of the leadership does the U.S. see as targeted in sight in fighting that fight against Taliban and Haqqani? It's the same dynamic that once you get the leadership you're confident that's going to be the big significant strategic victory you're talking about?

Secretary Panetta. Yeah, I think—I mean, I—the interesting thing that we found with bin Laden is that for a long time the sense was that he was an inspirational leader, but he wasn't the guy who was managing operations. And what we found out when we went into that compound is that in fact he was someone that was operating on an operational basis. And we've been able to, obviously, target that capability.

More of these team leaders like Awlaki, Zawahiri, and others that we can go after—the more we undermine those who have an operational capability to work with the Haqqanis, to work with TTP, to work with the other militant groups that threaten our forces and that threaten this country.

Q. Mr. Secretary, as far as Yemen and Somalia, do you have any particular—is it a very chaotic situation now and one that might lead somebody to suggest that al Qaeda could replicate its—could become more of a threat from there than it has been in the past. And as we—as progress is made in Pakistan, et cetera, the threat could shift there.

I guess my question is, as secretary of defense do you anticipate shifting more resources of your new department into that theater to take on this growing threat?

Secretary Panetta. There is no question that, you know, when you—when you look at what constitutes the biggest threat in terms of attacks on the United States right now, more of that comes from Yemen and people like Awlaki than from other areas. And for that reason we are very concerned about the al Qaeda threat out of Yemen. And as you know, there are a number of operations that are being conducted not only by the Defense Department, but by my former agency to try to focus on going after those targets. That—I would say that's one of our top priorities right now is to go after those threats.

Secretary Leon Panetta delivered these remarks at Camp Eggers, Afghanistan

Secretary Panetta. All right. I had a very productive meeting with President Karzai, and appreciate his hospitality hosting me and others for dinner, in which we had some very interesting conversation about the situation here in Afghanistan and some of the concerns that he had.

I've had a—I've enjoyed a positive relationship with him in my prior capacity as CIA director, and I indicated to him and he agreed that we would continue to maintain that relationship in my new capacity as the secretary of defense, that was it was important that we—that we work closely together to establish a real partnership between the United States and Afghanistan in the effort to establish stability here in Afghanistan.

I assured him that the U.S. is committed to the long-term security of the Afghan people and that our goal here is to ensure that Afghanistan is stable in the future and can secure, defend and govern itself so that it can never again become a safe haven for al Qaeda or its militant allies. He and I agreed on the importance of the transition to a shared goal of an Afghanistan that would in fact become an independent—a strong, independent country in charge of its own affairs and in charge of its own security.

I think, standing back, that we are moving in the right direction here in Afghanistan thanks to the strategy that has been put in place by our military forces, thanks to the resources that have been provide by the president. I do think that we have made significant gains with regards to our goals of dismantling al Qaeda and really providing the Afghans with the opportunity to establish their own independence free of Taliban influence. That's really a key point.

Together the Afghan and coalition forces I think have made some substantial gains here, particularly in the south and the southwest where our surge forces have focused on the effort to go after the Taliban and establish security. Because of that success I think obviously we are in a position where we can begin that process of drawing down our forces. I think we've got the momentum on our side. President Karzai is supportive of the president's proposal, and I think we were both confident that we can get this done in a way that not only protects the security of Afghanistan, but ensures that the Taliban will not return to this country.

I think the key here is that both of us recognize that we have to have an enduring partnership not only today, but for a long time in the future, and that we have to have a long-term commitment that we are going to continue to work together to make sure that Afghanistan is a strong, independent nation for the future.

The bottom line is I felt very good about the conversation we had. We had a one-on-one and then we had a continuing conversation at dinner with the others, and I felt very good about the discussion we had. We certainly both seem to be on the same wavelength with regards to what needs to happen in order to put this country on the right track.

Q. Did you talk about the night raids with President Karzai? (Inaudible)— had heated conversations with the president about this. Do you—(Inaudible)— agreement, any discussions?

Secretary Panetta. We did not. We did talk about the strategic partnership, and he made clear that he wanted to ensure that both sides agreed with regards to what that strategic partnership would look like for the future. And he said, look, we need to have a close relationship for the security of this country, and I am willing to work with you in establishing that partnership through the agreement.

In talking about the long-term commitment, he also made clear that it was important that we work together on that longer-term commitment to ensure that once we get past 2014 we will make very sure that we will continue every effort to ensure that the Taliban does not return to power.

Q. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that the president brought up some concerns that he had. Was one of those concerns the rising number of civilian casualties?

Secretary Panetta. He did not raise that. But one of the things that I mentioned to him is that I thought it was extremely important that when there were concerns that we try to resolve those concerns in private and not publicly. And I said that we've always had a relationship of trust and that I've always had—I made clear that if we had differences that I would deal with him privately, not publicly, and he gave me his word that he would do the same thing with me.

Q. Mr. Secretary, what kind of leeway are you looking for in the strategic partnership agreement for the U.S. to continue to conduct operations in the long term within Afghanistan against militants that you see as a threat to the United States? What specifically are you looking for in that regard?

Secretary Panetta. Well, obviously, we are—we have a strategy that we've put in place. We are going to have—once we do the initial drawdown in December, we'll still have 90,000 troops that will be there for a year, to the end of next summer, and then beyond that we'll have 70,000 troops that will be continuing this strategy and operation through 2014.

And my goal is to make sure that we can continue the effort to establish greater security in this country so that we can transition to the Afghans. One of the things we did discuss was the quality of the armed forces in Afghanistan. And the minister of defense was there, along with the general who was also there. And they were commenting on the improved quality of the army and their capability. What they're looking for is to improve their officer corps to improve their enlisted, some of the sergeants and that level of leadership within their military.

But bottom line was that they have an increasing confidence in their military to do the job. Interestingly enough, at dinner Karzai raised the issue of how did the United States maintain a military that was professional and apolitical throughout its history, and I said that began with George Washington making very clear that that's the way we ought to operate, and I said, it would be well if you do the same thing as president of this country. That would establish at least a clear invitation that that's the kind of military you have to have.

But the key here again is to try to make sure that we proceed with military operations that improve the security so that we can make the transition in 2014 to the Afghan military.

Q. One thing—(unintelligible)—about the 70,000—

Q. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that having a new U.S. leadership team in place gives an opportunity to improve the relationship with President Karzai. If President Karzai remains in power, he said an awful lot of inflammatory things recently about U.S. role here. There's a lot of persistent concerns about corruption in his administration and the legitimacy of his election. Why are you confident that he can be a long-term, reliable partner for the United States?

Secretary Panetta. He is the elected president of Afghanistan. And I think we have a responsibility to deal with him as the leader of this country. We deal with a lot of leaders throughout the world who have problems and have difficulties and have issues that we don't necessarily agree with, but nevertheless we have to deal with them. And I think that's the situation here. We have to respect him as president of this country. We've got to deal with him. There are difficulties. There are differences. But I think the indication of a strong partnership is the fact that we can work our way through those difficulties.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Just to clarify, when you mentioned 70,000—

Secretary Panetta. Yes.

Q.—you see 70,000 staying in place until the end of 2014, or do you imagine drawdown continuing after December of 2012 until the end of 2014? I think that's what—(Inaudible).

Q. That's not my question then.

Secretary Panetta. We're going to have 70,000 there through 2014, and obviously as we get to 2014 we'll develop a plan as to how we reduce that force at that time. But I think for at least the next few years we're going to have a pretty significant force in place to try to deal with the challenges we face.

Q. On the ANSF, did you offer President Karzai any assurances that the U.S., given its budget difficulties, would be willing to support the size of the ANSF that's now projected so that Afghanistan can achieve the kind of self-stability and military that it needs?

Secretary Panetta. Well, I think there are concerns about the ability to sustain that. But I think he understands that in building this military that Afghanistan is going to have a responsibility to be able to sustain it in the future if they're going to have a strong military. Obviously, we are providing significant support now and training and developing that force, and we will do that at least for the near future. But I think part of the transition is going to be not only to transition to the military to accept the responsibility of providing security, but it's also going to be the transition for the Afghan government to be able to maintain that.

Q. Now, Mr. Secretary, how would you respond to critics on the Hill and elsewhere who think that a faster withdrawal is necessary—that they had expected that even after December of next year there will still be gradual withdrawals from 2014. I think this is going to come as quite a surprise to all of them that we're going to keep this full force until 2014.

Secretary Panetta. Well, I think part of the Lisbon agreement with all of our allies that are operating here, the basic thrust of the Lisbon agreement was to ensure that we would work towards a transition in 2014, and I think that's what everybody understands to be the case. And I think Congress understands that that's the purpose here is to make sure we have an effective transition of power to the Afghans. We've taken them very successfully halfway up the hill. We now have to transition to the Afghans to be able to take their country the rest of the way.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks with Minister Shri S. M. Krishna in New Delhi, India

Minister Krishna. Your Excellency Secretary of State of the United States of America Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to welcome you, Madam Secretary, back to India on the second anniversary of your first visit as Secretary of State. You have been a steadfast friend of India, unwavering in your commitment India-U.S. strategic partnership and you have been a champion of causes that have touched the lives of millions, especially weak and the vulnerable around the world.

Two years ago, almost to this very day in Delhi, we announced the Strategic Dialogue. The Strategic Dialogue is the bedrock on which we are building a global strategic partnership that would be one of the defining relationships of the 21^st century. This is the vision of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and President Obama.

I thank you for bringing a very impressive delegation. I would also like to thank my colleagues and some of the top officials in the government for joining us in this dialogue. Their presence reflects the depth of our engagement and the diversity of our cooperation.

Ladies and gentlemen, Secretary Clinton, I met for two and a half hours and then continued our discussions over lunch. We reviewed our bilateral relations, we discussed our vision and ambitions for the relationship, and we discussed a broad range of regional and global developments. We expressed satisfaction at the momentum in our relationship and our own progress in our cooperation. We welcomed the maturity and mutual confidence in our relationship. We have expanded our political consultations, touching on all major issues and regions of the world. Our intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation has deepened. Our nonproliferation partnership has grown. We are working towards expanding bilateral economic ties.

There are extraordinary examples of our cooperation to harness the power of science, technology, and innovation to address challenges in the realm of health care, education, environment, clean energy, and agriculture. Our two governments have instituted a number of innovative programs for advancing of the cooperation in clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency. We are pleased with our progress in this area.

We are creating opportunities for our youth and empowering our people. And now we are extending the benefits of our cooperation to other countries in areas like food security. We reiterated our commitment to taking forward civil nuclear energy cooperation on the basis of full implementation of mutual commitments. We were reassured that United States reaffirmed its commitment for full civil nuclear cooperation. I expressed appreciation for our ongoing engagement and the support of United States for India's full membership of the four export control regimes and our expectation of progress in tandem on the four regimes.

We discussed the United Nations Security Council reforms and India's permanent membership of reformed UN Security Council. We stressed the importance of defense cooperation in our strategic partnership and expressed satisfaction at the progress we are making in defense cooperation, including in defense trade and collaborations through our various bilateral defense mechanisms.

While we lauded the growth in trade and investment flows in both directions, we also acknowledged that there was enormous potential for further expansion, and we have agreed to resume negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty. I also took the opportunity to convey to Secretary Clinton the concerns of our IT companies in sending their professionals to execute projects and conduct business in the United States. I highlighted the Indian IT companies are contributing to the U.S. economy through investments, employment and supporting U.S. competitiveness. I also requested Secretary Clinton to consider a totalization agreement with India. I thanked Secretary Clinton for her assurance that she will work with the concerned U.S. agencies to seek an early and satisfactory solution for the students affected by the closure of Tri-Valley University.

I expressed our sincere appreciation for the solidarity and support extended by President Obama and Secretary Clinton and the people of the United States after the recent Mumbai terrorist attack. We had good discussions on terrorism in our region, both during the dialogue and in other meetings on the margin. We resolved to intensify our cooperation to fight terrorism. Both sides remain committed to comprehensive sharing of information on the Mumbai terror attack of 2008.

We have also increased our engagement in the important area of cyber security. We agreed with the Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation between the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and the U.S. CER Team.

We discussed the challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan and our efforts to assist them. We agreed to remain in close touch as the transition phase gets underway in Afghanistan. We also discussed our efforts for reconstruction, development, and capacity building in Afghanistan. We acknowledged that regional trade, transit and commercial activities in South and Central Asia would benefit Afghanistan and support regional stability and prosperity. We understand the importance of elimination of terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan for regional stability and security and for Pakistan's future.

We discussed our shared interest in peaceful and stable Asia, Pacific and the Indian Ocean region, and the evolution of an open, balanced, inclusive architecture in the nation. We will continue to work together and with other countries towards this goal through various mechanisms such as our bilateral dialogue, the regional forums, and our trilateral dialogue with Japan. Secretary Clinton and I will continue this engagement in the ARF meeting later this week.

India has vital interests and strong relationships in the Gulf, West Asia, and North Africa. Last week, India and the U.S. launched our West Asia dialogue. Today, Secretary Clinton and I expressed the hope for the fulfillment of the aspirations of the people of the region for an early restoration of peace and stability. Secretary Clinton briefed me on the Libya Contact Group meeting in Turkey last week, and we agreed to remain in touch as the situation evolves in the region.

This was truly a productive and comprehensive meeting consistent with our strategic partnership and the extraordinary breadth of our engagement. Today, we were able to highlight not only the tangible and meaningful progress that we are continually making, but also identified goals and set priorities for the futures. We are in the midst of our monsoon season, a time of renewal and rejuvenation. So today, Secretary Clinton and I reaffirmed and renewed our commitment to build a strong global strategic partnership and (inaudible) our cooperation with a new momentum.

Madam Secretary, I wish you a good visit to Chennai. I think you will be the first Secretary of State to visit Chennai (inaudible) that's going to be a very important visit, and all the best for you in the coming days. Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Minister Krishna. And thank you and to all the members of the Indian Government who joined with us today in this very productive meeting. The minister has provided a comprehensive overview of our discussion in the areas of economic partnership, clean energy, climate change, science and technology, and so much else. I also want to mention the emphasis we placed on counterterrorism and homeland security. That is obviously an issue that is first and foremost on all of our minds after the bombings in Mumbai last week. And again, let me convey on behalf of the United States our deep sympathy and our outrage to the people and Government of India, and pledge our support to you in your fight, which is also our fight, against terrorism and violent extremism.

Today, I want to just emphasize three of the issues we discussed, because I can only echo what the minister said about the depth and breadth of our conversation. He, at the end, referenced the monsoon season, and I have to say it felt like we were in a monsoon with all of the many issues and reports that were being made by our officials outlining the extraordinary progress that has occurred. And there will be a joint statement released which will detail, in probably more specifics than one can grasp, everything that the Strategic Dialogue Partnership has already accomplished.

But let me just quickly reference trade and investment, because we think as much progress as we've made, both the United States and India can take further steps to reduce barriers, open our markets, and encourage new business partnerships to create jobs and opportunity for millions of our people while strengthening both of our nations’ economic competitiveness.

Secondly on security cooperation, we are deepening and expanding our efforts and making great strides together on behalf of counterterrorism, but also with respect to maritime security, we believe strengthening our military-to-military ties, including through the sale of defense technologies, will assist the Indian and American militaries to work together in a constructive way on everything from patrolling the seas, combating piracy, providing relief to the victims of natural disasters.

And finally with regard to our civil nuclear agreement, this represents a major investment by both of our countries in this critical bilateral relationship. We need to resolve those issues that still remain so we can reap the rewards of the extraordinary work that both of our governments have done.

Now, these opportunities, along with the others that the minister referenced, are within our reach because of the intensive work that we have undertaken in the last two and a half years built on the years before going back into the’90s. We are building habits of cooperation and bonds of trust, and we are standing on a firm foundation. And we believe that we can do even more work to ensure that this important dialogue leads to concrete and coordinated steps that will produce measurable progress for the well-being and betterment of the Indian and American people.

As President Obama has said, we believe this relationship will be a defining partnership of the 21^st century, and we wholeheartedly support the rise of India as a regional and global leader. I will be in Chennai tomorrow and I will speak at greater length on our view of India's role in the region and the world. We believe that this incredibly important partnership between us is strengthening us and equipping us better to meet the challenges ahead.

So again, Minister, thank you for your leadership and the hard work of your colleagues. And I want to thank my colleagues in government as well. But the real winners of our enhanced partnership and our strategic dialogue will be the people of our two countries, and that's what we hope to see in the years to come that will better the lives of men, women, and children who so richly deserve and merit that kind of future.

Q. Thank you. Madam Secretary, India and Pakistan—the talks between them seem stuck in a stop-start mode with one of the many problems being the fact that after the Mumbai attack, Pakistan is still stalling on prosecution. To your mind, is Pakistan doing everything it can to combat terrorism? Are you exerting pressure on them?

Secretary Clinton. Well, William, first let me say that we are encouraged by the dialogue occurring between India and Pakistan. I was briefed on the recent developments today by the foreign secretary and also discussed it with both the national security advisor and the minister. And we think this is the most promising approach to encourage both sides to build more confidence between them and work to implement the kinds of steps that will demonstrate the improved atmosphere that is so necessary for us to deal with the underlying problem of terrorism.

From the United States perspective, we do see Pakistan as a key ally in the fight against terrorism. We have made the point repeatedly to our Pakistani colleagues that terrorists threaten both of us. Terrorists have actually killed more Pakistanis in bombings of mosques and markets, in attacks on police stations and government buildings, than Americans. And so we recognize that Pakistan must act on its own behalf first and foremost to protect its own territory and sovereignty and to protect the lives of the people of Pakistan.

And we have made it clear that we want a long-term relationship with Pakistan based on common interests, including a mutual recognition that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists anywhere. And when we know the location of terrorists whose intentions are clear, we need to work together in order to prevent those terrorists from taking innocent lives and threatening institutions of the state.

And during my visit to Pakistan, including my most recent one, we have made it clear to the Pakistani Government that confronting violent extremism of all sorts is in its interest. We do not believe that there are any terrorists who should be given safe haven or a free pass by any government, because left unchecked, the consequences of that kind of terrorist activity and intimidation can become very difficult to manage and control. So both in the interests of Pakistan's own future, in the interest of an improved relationship between Pakistan and India, and in the interest of regional stability, we are working with and will continue to work with the Government of Pakistan to try to tackle this mutual threat.

Q. My question to the Secretary of State: Madam Secretary, about three years ago, India got a clean waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. At last months’ NSG meeting, (inaudible) raised apprehension that India might again be subjected to (inaudible) when it comes to transfer of sensitive technology like the ENR. Can you, Madam Secretary, today set the record straight on the NSG intentions? And (inaudible) the heart of this issue, can you also clarify whether U.S. will provide ENR technology to India? Thank you.

Secretary Clinton. Well, let me begin by saying that the United States remains fully committed to expanding civil nuclear cooperation with India. I was one of the two co-chairs of the India caucus when I served as a senator from New York, and I worked very hard to achieve the landmark legislation in our Congress that was then matched by similar legislation in yours. And we have made it also clear that we strongly support India's full membership in the four export control regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group, in a phased manner. The NSG, the Nuclear Supplier Group, clean waiver was an important joint accomplishment for both our governments, and we stand by it.

Nothing about the new enrichment and reprocessing transfer restrictions agreed to by the Nuclear Suppliers Group members should be construed as detracting from the unique impact and importance of the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement or our commitment to full civil nuclear cooperation. But I have to add that we are looking forward to India ratifying the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage during this year, before the end of this year. And we would encourage engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the liability regime that India adopts by law fully conforms with the international requirements under the convention.

So we stand by our agreement. Many of us worked very hard for that agreement. We are committed to it. But we do expect it to be enforceable and actionable in all regards.

Q. This is a question for Minister Krishna. Mr. Minister, what assurances did you receive from Secretary Clinton about President Obama's plans for Afghanistan? Are you persuaded that Washington will not allow a deal that will leave the Taliban in power? And more broadly, do you feel that President Obama's plan can work, or do you think that we should also be working on a Plan B? Thank you.

Minister Krishna. India has been closely following the happenings in Afghanistan. We have a special relationship with Afghanistan which is (inaudible) as it is transactional. Afghanistan though not our immediate neighbors, but we have fraternal relationship with Afghanistan.

We have impressed upon United States and other countries who have made their presence in Afghanistan that it is necessary for one to continue in Afghanistan depending upon the comfort level of the Government of Afghanistan and the president of Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai. And it is necessary for the United States to factor Afghanistan's ground realities as they see it so that they can appreciate that Afghanistan will be in a position to defend itself against the terrorists sponsored by Taliban.

So I think in the larger interest of the region, that it is necessary for United States to work very closely with President Karzai and the Government of Afghanistan and thereby create conditions where terrorists do not find—do not make any more advances in Afghanistan.

Q. Welcome, Excellencies. I'm (inaudible) from Star News, and my question is for the Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton. Ma'am, you just pledged support to India for its fight against terror, (inaudible) Mumbai (inaudible) that happened on 13th July. My question, ma'am, specifically is what kind of assistance would U.S. provide to India so that the perpetrators of this 13 July attack are brought to justice? And very specifically, as far as Mumbai attack is concerned, 26/11 attack, three years have passed, ma'am, and Pakistan hasn't been able to bring the perpetrators of that attack to justice as well, and there are concerns in India (inaudible). And would you (inaudible) our concerns in that one?

Secretary Clinton. Well, first let me say that there is a great deal of cooperation ongoing between our two governments with respect to counterterrorism, not only sharing of information but also very clear operational discussions and planning and investigation assistance and a list of other related matters that we think have a tremendously beneficial impact for both of us, because a lot of the terrorist networks that threaten you also threaten us. And so this is a mutually cooperative and essential operational relationship.

And in the aftermath of the attacks of 2008 in Mumbai, we made it very clear that there was an absolute international responsibility to cooperate to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have made that equally forcefully clear to Pakistan that it has a special obligation to do so transparently, fully, and urgently. And it is U.S. policy that we believe the perpetrators need to be brought to justice and have urged Pakistan to do so. Obviously, there is a limit to what both the United States and India can do, but we intend to continue to press as hard as possible. In the meantime, we're going to increase our cooperation, and I think that the fact that our Director of National Intelligence General Clapper is here today is testimony to the importance we place on this. And he's been having a series of very significant meetings looking at how we can do more to protect both of us from the scourge of terrorism.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in New Delhi, India

Secretary Clinton. Minister Krishna, members of the Indian Government, friends and colleagues:

It is a pleasure to be back in India.

I have been looking forward to this visit—not only for the chance to spend time in India, a nation for which I have a great deal of personal affection—but also to continue the important work we are doing together in this Strategic Dialogue.

Before I go further, however, I want to express our sympathy and outrage over the terrorist attack in Mumbai last week. The United States condemns this attack in the strongest possible terms. We send our deepest condolences to the families of the victims. And we pledge our support the Indian government however we can in protecting its cities and citizens from future harm. We are allies in the fight against violent extremist networks. And homeland security is a high priority and a source of increasing partnership.

That's why we signed the Counterterrorism Cooperative Initiative to increase our cooperation on the investigation of crimes, law enforcement, border management and cyber security. And in May, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano came to New Delhi to launch with you the first-ever U.S.-India Homeland Security Dialogue, to bring order and urgency to our shared efforts. The events in Mumbai have driven home how important it is that we get results.

And that's true across every aspect of our engagement. The United States joined India in this Strategic Dialogue because we believe—as President Obama has said—that the relationship between India and the United States will be a defining partnership in the 21st century. The stakes are high. So it is critical that this dialogue lead to concrete and coordinated steps that each of our governments take to produce real results that make a difference in our people's lives. Because that's ultimately what this is all about—joining forces to protect our citizens and help every man, woman, and child live up to their God-given potential.

Today, we will review what we have achieved together across a range of issues. On some, like education, energy, and science and technology, we have recently begun new projects or are about to do so. On others—in particular, trade and investment, security cooperation, and our civil nuclear agreement—we have made progress and, if we redouble our efforts, we are poised to go even further.

Let me briefly discuss these three issues.

With regard to trade and investment, the ties between our countries are strong and growing stronger. The United States is proud to be one of India's largest trading partners and direct investors, and we welcome India's investment in the United States, which is rapidly on the rise. This is a good news story—but we would be remiss if we didn't strive to make it even better. Each of our countries can do more to reduce barriers, open our markets, and find new opportunities for economic partnership. Taking these steps is in our mutual interest. We can improve millions of lives and increase both of our nations’ economic competitiveness.

On the matter of security cooperation: again, we have made progress. But we can do more to strengthen the security of our nations and this region as a whole. I've already mentioned our cooperation on counterterrorism. Maritime security is also a major concern, as we seek to protect sea lanes, combat piracy, and defend freedom of navigation. We applaud India's leadership on fighting piracy in the Indian Ocean, including your decision last week to chair the 2012 plenary of the piracy contact group. And on another issue— defense technologies—the United States expects to continue developing and selling the world's most competitive products. We view these sales as important on their own terms, but also as a means to facilitate the work that the Indian and American militaries can do together—whether patrolling the seas or providing relief to the victims of natural disasters.

And third, our civil nuclear agreement has been a joint investment by our countries, not just in the field of nuclear energy but also in our relationship. But to reap the benefits of that investment and to see returns on the political capital that has been spent on both sides, we need to resolve remaining issues so we can reap the rewards of a robust civil nuclear energy partnership. I look forward to the day when the computers of a school in Gujarat are powered by a reactor designed in America.

I have singled out these three issues— trade and investment; security cooperation; and the completion of our civil nuclear agreement—because each is so consequential for our prosperity and security. And on each, our countries have already come so far. But on both sides, we need to do more to translate momentum from this Dialogue into consistent and effective cooperation at every level of our governments, every day of the year.

Let us not forget the broader regional and global context. There was a time when India's role as a leading nation was discussed as something that would happen at some point in the distant future. But that is no longer the case. India is a global leader. And the United States wholeheartedly supports this development and sees great benefits in our growing partnership. That's why we support initiatives like the trilateral forum we are establishing with India and Japan; why we've stood in favor of a stronger role for India in forums like the G-20; and why we look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

I'll speak at greater length about our view on India's role in the region and world tomorrow in Chennai. My point today is this: India's rise is directly connected to what we are working to achieve through this Dialogue. The cooperation we are forging here should build habits of cooperation and bonds of trust as we strive to make both of our countries stronger, more prosperous, and better equipped to address the challenges we face.

So let's make the most of our time together in New Delhi to review our progress to date, recognize the gains we have made—and then become even more determined to turn the aspirations of this Dialogue into real results for our people and our nations.

Thank you.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks in Chennai, India

Introductory Remarks Omitted

Secretary Clinton. President Obama made a state visit to India last year. I have been here twice in the last two years. And why, one might ask? Why are we coming to India so often and welcoming Indian officials to Washington as well? It's because we understand that much of the history of the 21^st century will be written in Asia, and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by decisions not only of the Indian Government in New Delhi, but of governments across India, and perhaps, most importantly, by the 1.3 billion people who live in this country.

And we have a great commitment to our government-to-government relations, but we have an even greater commitment to our people-to-people ones. And we view them as absolutely central to the partnership and friendship between our countries. As President Obama told the Indian parliament last year, the relationship between India and the United States will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21^st century. How will we define it? How will we work together to inject content into it? What will we do to build trust and confidence and do more that will bring us together?

Well, speaking for the United States, I can tell you that we are, in fact, betting on India's future. We are betting that the opening of India's markets to the world will produce a more prosperous India and a more prosperous South Asia. It will also spill over into Central Asia and beyond into the Asia Pacific region. We are betting that advances in science and technology of all kinds will both enrich Indian lives and advance human knowledge everywhere. And we are betting that India's vibrant, pluralistic democracy will produce measurable results and improvements for your citizens and will inspire others to follow a similar path of openness and tolerance.

Now, we are making this bet not out of some blind faith, but because we have watched the progress of India with great admiration. You have maintained that democratic foundation while focusing on improving lives, particularly on the poorest among you in a way that the United States both recognizes and admires. Yet I know very well it will take time to realize this potential. And I also know, because I hear it from friends and colleagues and I see it from time to time in the Indian press, which is so exciting to read—I never know what I'm going to find when I turn the page of one of your newspapers, and I'm always both delighted and surprised.

But I find that there are those who raise questions about the direction of the relationship between us, and I understand that. It is true that we are different countries with different histories and backgrounds. And we will, from time to time, disagree as any two nations or, frankly, any two friends inevitably will do. But we believe that our differences are far outweighed by our deep and abiding bonds. Our nations are built on the same bedrock beliefs about democracy, pluralism, opportunity, and innovation. We share common interests like stopping terrorism and spurring balanced and broad-based economic growth that goes deeply into our societies.

And that is why our two governments have established a Strategic Dialogue which we announced when I first came as Secretary of State back in 2009 and when Prime Minister Singh visited later that year, and which, of course, we now have held two important sessions of, one in Washington and then this week in New Delhi. I met with a broad array of Indian officials, and I am very pleased to report to you that our work together is producing real results. We have already established a new clean energy research and development center that will be putting out the requests for proposals so we know what it is we can work on together to advance our common goal of clean energy and combat climate change.

We have worked together for the important task of preventing cyber attacks on our respective infrastructures. We are talking about a new bilateral investment treaty that will build on the 20 percent increase in trade we've seen just this last year. And we have watched as trade is increasingly flowing in both directions. We have new initiatives linking students and businesses and communities, and one of my personal favorites is the Passport to India, a program designed to bring more American students to study in India to match the great numbers of Indian students that come to America to study, because we want to create those bonds between our young people and our future leaders. We also consulted on the work we will be doing in the months ahead, strengthening our joint fight against terrorism, boosting our economic ties, completing our civilian-nuclear partnership, and deepening our defense cooperation. We think this work is very much in the interests of both of our countries and both of our peoples.

But I came to Chennai today to discuss in more depth, publicly, two issues that we discussed in our official meetings in New Delhi. And it really—they both are about India's growing leadership role in the world, because today, India is taking its rightful place in the meeting rooms and conference halls where the world's most consequential questions are debated and decided. And President Obama recognized this when he said that the United States looks forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

So what does—for India and for the United States and for the world, what does this global leadership mean in practical terms? And what does it mean for the relationship between the two of us? Well, for starters, it means that we can work more productively together on today's most complex global challenges. For example, to advance democratic values, the world's oldest democracy and its largest can both support the democratic transitions taking place in the Middle East and North Africa.

India's election commission, widely viewed as the global gold standard for running elections—is already sharing best practices with counterparts in other countries, including Egypt and Iraq. To help rebalance the global economy after the recession of 2008 and to spur growth, India and the United States are working together through the G-20 which has become the premier forum for international economic cooperation. To promote clean energy and to seek climate change solutions, this partnership that we have launched will accelerate research and deployment of effective technology, but it will also enable us to work together to make the UN Conference on Climate Change coming up in Durban a success.

India was a very constructive partner to the United States and others at both the conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun, where we're not making enough progress, but we could put some milestones of progress and ongoing processes together to continue our efforts. To curb nuclear proliferation, we are working together with the international community to address shared concerns about provocative actions by countries like Iran. We have called for Iran to meet its international obligations at the IAEA. India has taken steps to ensure that products from your high-tech industry cannot be diverted to that nuclear weapons program. And we work with India, who is currently a nonpermanent member of the Security Council, to persuade Iran's leaders to change course. And to promote sustainable development, the United States is encouraging India to share broadly its expertise in dry field, drought-tolerant agriculture, and to apply other lessons about how to lift millions of people out of extreme poverty.

So in these and many other areas, from democracy to economics, climate change, nonproliferation, development, our interests align and our values converge. A great deal has already been written about our efforts to collaborate on these cross-cutting global challenges, but today, I want to focus on two aspects of our cooperation, where the choices we make in the immediate term will have profound impacts on our security and prosperity in the years ahead. First, our work together in the Asia Pacific, and second, our shared interests in South and Central Asia, because this is a moment when these regional concerns have profound global resonance. And as I discussed them in depth with officials in Delhi yesterday, I'd like to explore them further with you today.

And let me start with the Asia Pacific. There is no better place to discuss India's leadership in the region to its east than here in Chennai. In this port city, looking out at the Bay of Bengal and beyond to the nations of East and Southeast Asia, we are easily reminded of India's historic role in the wider region. For thousands of years, Indian traders have sailed those waters of Southeast Asia and beyond. Indian culture has left its mark. The temples of Angkor Wat bear the influence of Tamil architecture. The Hindu god Ganesh still stands guard against homes in Indonesia. And today, the stretch of sea from the Indian Ocean through to the Pacific contain the world's most vibrant trade and energy routes linking economies and driving growth.

As India takes on a larger role throughout the Asia Pacific, it does have increasing responsibilities, including the duty to speak out against violations of universal human rights.

The United States has always been a Pacific power because of our very great blessing of geography. And India straddling the waters from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean is, with us, a steward of these waterways. We are both deeply invested in shaping the future of the region that they connect. And there are big questions for us to consider. Will this region adopt basic rules of the road or rules of the sea to mobilize strategic and economic cooperation and manage disagreements? Will it build the regional architecture of institutions and arrangements to enforce international norms on security, trade, rule of law, human rights, and accountable governance? Through its Look East policy, India is poised to help lead toward the answers to these questions.

The United States believes that is a very good thing because we believe our vision for the future is very much similar. We both wish to expand economic ties. The United States is pushing forward on comprehensive trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and our free trade agreement with South Korea. We are also stepping up our commercial diplomacy and pursuing a robust economic agenda at APEC. India, for its part, has concluded or will soon conclude new bilateral economic partnerships with Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, and others. The more our countries trade and invest with each other and with other partners, the more central the Asia Pacific region becomes to global commerce and prosperity, and the more interest we both have in maintaining stability and security. As the stakes grow higher, we should use our shared commitment to make sure that we have maritime security and freedom of navigation. We need to combat piracy together. We have immediate tasks that we must get about determining.

These shared interests give India and the United States is a very strong incentive to make sure that the regional architecture for the Asia Pacific is up to answering the questions and delivering results. President Obama looks forward to joining Prime Minister Singh at the East Asia Summit later in the year this fall in Indonesia. We want to work with India and all of our friends and allies to build the East Asia Summit into the Asia Pacific's premier forum for dealing with political and security issues. We want to use it to help set our priorities and lay out a vision for other regional institutions. At this year's upcoming summit, the United States intends to collaborate with India and others to help advance an East Asia Summit agenda that draws on our two countries’ unique capacities. And high on this list should be maritime security, including developing multilateral mechanisms of cooperation. The East Asia Summit should also focus on disaster readiness, response, and relief, and nonproliferation, including working toward a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

Now, later this week, Foreign Minister Krishna and I will attend the ASEAN Regional Forum, and we will there be working in conjunction with ASEAN partners and others, and we will soon inaugurate a trilateral U.S.-India-Japan dialogue. America's treaty alliances with Japan has long been a cornerstone of security in East Asia, and as a fellow democracy with us and India, we believe enhanced cooperation will be beneficial. We are also committed to a strong, constructive relationship among India, the United States, and China. Now, we know this will not always be easy. There are important matters on which we all disagree, one with the other. But we do have significant areas of common interest. We could begin by focusing on violent extremism, which threatens people on all—in all of our countries. Ultimately, if we want to address, manage, or solve some of the most pressing issues of the 21^st century, India, China, and the United States will have to coordinate our efforts.

As India takes on a larger role throughout the Asia Pacific, it does have increasing responsibilities, including the duty to speak out against violations of universal human rights. For example, we recognize that India has important strategic interests in maintaining a peaceful border and strong economic ties with Burma. But the Burmese Government's treatment of its own people continues to be deplorable. So it was a signal moment when Foreign Secretary Rao met with Aung San Suu Kyi last month. And I hope New Delhi will continue to encourage the Burmese Government to engage in dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and also to release other political prisoners.

In all of these areas, India's leadership will help to shape positively the future of the Asia Pacific. That's why the United States supports India's Look East policy, and we encourage India not just to look east, but to engage East and act East as well, because after all, India, like the United States, where we look to the Atlantic and to the Pacific, India also looks both east and west. And its leadership in South and Central Asia is critically important. For example, India's diverse democratic system in which people of all faiths and backgrounds participate equally can serve as a model for Sri Lanka as it pursues political reconciliation. Here in Chennai, we can see how much a society can achieve when all citizens fully are participating in the political and economic life of their country. Every citizen of Sri Lanka deserves the same hope and opportunity for a better future.

India also has a great commitment to improving relations with Bangladesh, and that is important because regional solutions will be necessary on energy shortages, water-sharing, and the fight against terrorists. And in Nepal, as the latest deadline for concluding the peace process and promulgating a new constitution approaches, Indian support for that process is critical. And in the Maldives, India is providing important economic assistance and partnerships to improve ports and other infrastructure. Looking north, in Central Asian states like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, India has forged new partnerships on energy, agriculture, cyber security, and other areas, because India and the United States share an interest in helping the people of this entire region build strong democratic societies and market economies, and to resolve long-festering conflicts. And of course, the conflict in Afghanistan continues to be a major challenge for us both.

I want to be very clear. The United States is committed to Afghanistan and to the region. We will be there. Yes, we are beginning to withdraw combat troops and transfer responsibility for security to the Afghan people, a process that will be completed in 2014, but drawing down our troops is not the same as leaving or disengaging. We and the Afghans are making progress on a new strategic partnership declaration that will define our relationship after 2014. And through that partnership, we will continue to assist the Afghan army and police and the Afghan Government. And we will do everything we can to help the Afghan people rebuild after decades of war.

At the same time, we are pursuing an active diplomatic effort with all the countries in the region toward two goals: First, a responsible political solution in Afghanistan, and second, stronger economic ties through South and Central Asia so that goods, capital, and people can flow more easily across borders. Representatives from Afghanistan and all their neighbors will have the chance to discuss this vision at a summit hosted by Turkey this November, and they will discuss it again with the rest of the international community at the Bonn conference in December.

How do we get from where we are to where we and especially the Afghan people need to end up? In February, I gave a speech at the Asia Society in New York explaining our support for Afghan-led efforts to reach a political solution to end the insurgency and to chart a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful future. As we have said many times, there are unambiguous redlines for reconciliation with insurgents. India has pioneered some of this work over years of effort in bringing people into the political system and taking them out of the forest or out of insurgencies.

Number one, people must renounce violence. Number two, the Taliban must abandon their alliance with al-Qaida. And number three, anyone wishing to reconcile must agree to abide by the laws and constitution of Afghanistan. Now, these are necessary outcomes of any negotiation. And let me say a special word about the last point. Any potential for peace will be subverted if women and ethnic minorities are marginalized or silenced. What we have learned in the 20^th century that we must apply in the 21 century is that you cannot deny women and minorities, whether they be religious minorities or ethnic minorities or tribal or any other minority—you cannot deny your own people the chance to be full citizens in their own country.

And so when we look at what will happen in Afghanistan, the United States will not abandon our values or support a political process that undoes the progress that has been made in the past decade. Reconciliation, achieving it, and maintaining it, will depend on the participation of all of Afghanistan's neighbors, including both Pakistan and India. We all need to be working together. Whether we live in Kabul or Islamabad, New Delhi, or Washington, we have to be committed to a common vision of a stable, independent, Afghanistan rid of the insurgency and a region free from al-Qaida.

In Kabul earlier this year, Prime Minister Singh reaffirmed India's commitment to the Afghan-led reconciliation. And the Indian Government reinforced that commitment last month by supporting a United Nations Security Council resolution that cleared the way for lifting sanctions on insurgents who do reconcile. At the same time, India has rightly expressed concerns about outside interference in the reconciliation process, and we agree with those concerns and are consulting closely with India about that.

We will continue to encourage New Delhi's constructive role. For example, in advocating based on India's own experience that reconciliation, beginning at the very start of the process, must include representatives from a range of political parties and ethnic groups. We also believe Pakistan has an essential role and legitimate interest in this process, and those interests must be respected and addressed. We welcomed Pakistan's decision to participate in a joint peace commission with Afghanistan and in what we call the core group of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States to manage the withdrawal. Achieving lasting peace and security in the region will require a stable, democratic, prosperous Pakistan free from violent extremism. That's in everyone's interest, because Americans, Indians, Pakistanis, and Afghans have all suffered at the hands of violent extremists, and none of us should tolerate a safe haven for terrorists anywhere.

So we look to the Pakistani Government to press insurgents to join the reconciliation process, to prevent Pakistani territory from being used for attacks that destabilize Afghanistan or India and to deny al-Qaida the space to regroup and plan new violence. And beyond India and Pakistan, all of Afghanistan's other neighbors— Russia, Iran, China, the Central Asian states should recommit themselves to the goal of a stable and independent Afghanistan. That means they too must support reconciliation and respect Afghanistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is a pledge that all the countries of the region made nearly a decade ago when they signed the Declaration on Good Neighbourly Relations. The time has come to operationalize that agreement and to create mechanisms that ensure nations will live up to their commitments, and the United States will invest the considerable diplomatic effort needed to help build such support for those outcomes.

This diplomatic and political effort is the first element of our approach, but it will only succeed if it is paired with a strategy to increase economic ties that connect all the countries of the region. Because while many countries, including India, have given generous assistance to Afghanistan, no country, including my own, can afford to provide aid forever. We have to get an economy going. We have to have trade and investment coming. And the Afghan people themselves do not want receive aid forever. An Afghanistan firmly embedded in the economic life of a thriving South and Central Asia would be able to attract new sources of foreign investment and connect to markets abroad, including hundreds of millions of potential new customers in India. And increasing trade across the region would open up new sources of raw material, energy, and agricultural products, creating more jobs in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

But we have a long way to go before we could ever realize that in today's world, because today, an Indian entrepreneur in Chennai who wishes to ship her products to a customer in Kazakhstan has to send them either through China or Iran, thousands of miles out of the way. An Indian business must import cement from Southeast Asia instead of from the flourishing cement industry next door in Pakistan. A traveler going between India and Pakistan not only has a difficult time getting a visa; he also often has to be routed through airports a thousand miles away just to get across the border. Now, we have no illusion about how difficult it will be to overcome the longstanding distrust that holds back economic cooperation, but we also are absolutely convinced this is very much in India's interest, Pakistan's interest, Afghanistan's, and other nations as well.

Historically, the nations of South and Central Asia were connected to each other and the rest of the continent by a sprawling trading network called the Silk Road. Indian merchants used to trade spices, gems, and textiles, along with ideas and culture, everywhere from the Great Wall of China to the banks of the Bosphorus. Let's work together to create a new Silk Road. Not a single thoroughfare like its namesake, but an international web and network of economic and transit connections. That means building more rail lines, highways, energy infrastructure, like the proposed pipeline to run from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan into India. It means upgrading the facilities at border crossings, such as India and Pakistan are now doing at Waga. And it certainly means removing the bureaucratic barriers and other impediments to the free flow of goods and people. It means casting aside the outdated trade policies that we all still are living with and adopting new rules for the 21^st century.

I was very encouraged by the reports of the resumption of discussions between India and Pakistan, the meeting between Prime Ministers Singh and Gillani at Mohali, and the forward-looking roadmap produced by the Indian and Pakistani commerce secretaries in April are very important steps. The upcoming meeting of Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers is another chance to make tangible progress. And I was pleased to see Afghanistan and Pakistan commit to implement fully their transit trade agreement. This is an agreement that Afghanistan and Pakistan started negotiating together in 1961. All these years later, they have finally signed it. And we want to see trade begin to move across that border, and then we want to see that trade expanded into Central Asia and India—two-way trade, multiple paths for trade.

Because someday, that entrepreneur here in Chennai should be able to put her products on a track—on a truck or a train that travels unimpeded, quickly, and cheaply through Pakistan, through Afghanistan, to the doorstep of her customer in Kazakhstan. A Pakistani businessman should be able to open a branch in Bangalore. An Afghan farmer should be able to sell pomegranates in Islamabad before he drives on to New Delhi. Or as Prime Minister Singh put it so beautifully, “I dream of a day, while retaining our respective identities, one can have breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore, and dinner in Kabul. That is how my forefathers lived. That is how I want our grandchildren to live.”

I couldn't agree more, and neither could you. Now it is just as important as applauding to support the work that must be done to realize that dream. When I look at the potential of the people in this region, I am absolutely convinced you can out-compete, outgrow, out-prosper anybody in the world. But that's why the barriers must come down. When Indian Americans used to come to the United States, their hard work and their success was such a symbol of what was possible. Today, there's migration back from the United States to India, because the opportunity society has arrived here. Pakistani Americans, Afghan Americans, they still come to the United States seeking opportunity. They too deserve an opportunity society. And in order to that, we have to move beyond the past into a present filled with possibility and then to make a future that delivers.

In what I've discussed today, India's growing role in the Asia Pacific and in South and Central Asia, I do so because I think this is the only way forward. Yes, it is ambitious agenda, but we can afford to be ambitious, because when we in the United States and particularly in the Obama Administration look at India, we see, as President Obama said, a nation that is not simply emerging, but has emerged, and a nation with whom we share so many bonds, and one that will be a leader globally in shaping the future we will all inherit.

Now of course, both of our nations being democracies are dealing with challenges that have to be met and require immediate attention. But great nations can do more than one thing at a time. In fact, we can do many things at once by enlisting the powerful participation of our own people—Indian and American businesses, Indian and American academics, Indian and American entrepreneurs, inventors, students. In a democracy, we are all helping to shape our future. That is what sets us apart from other systems and other nations. I mean, it does look a little messier from time to time, but it is the most sustainable way human beings have found to organize themselves, and that's what we must do.

For both America and India, the threats, the perils, the problems are discussed endlessly. Turn on the television, pick up the paper, go on the internet. But I see a much brighter picture because I think there isn't anything we cannot do, and I believe in India's future. This is not, therefore, a time when any of us can afford to look inward at the expense of looking outward. This is a time to seize the opportunities of the 21^st century, and it is a time to lead. So I come to Chennai as an admirer of what India has accomplished, someone who, in just the course of the last 18 years, has seen the changes firsthand. There are great forces at work, but there is nothing preordained or inevitable about the future of your country or mine.

Generations before us fought to give us a democracy, fought to build our institutions, fought to overcome the inherent problems of pluralism and diversity, fought to make good the values that we know are essential to the systems that we have built. And now, it is our turn, and it is particularly the turn of the young people who are here today. For each of us to make our contribution, for each of us to work in every way we can not only for our own personal betterment—although that comes in an open society like yours and mine—but to work for the common good, to work for our nation, and to work for a world that is worthy of our dreams. So let us commit to do so. Thank you all very much.

Secretary Leon Panetta delivered these remarks at US Strategic Command in Nebraska

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered these remarks with Secretary Panetta at the National Defense University in Washington, DC

Q. Tom Nicholson, International College—Industrial College of the Armed Forces. We've mentioned a lot about Iraq and Afghanistan, and it comes to mind our allies and partners in Pakistan are also critical in what's going on with our efforts there and as a strategic partner going forward. What are your thoughts on how we continue to enhance that relationship, especially given the difficulties we've had recently?

Secretary Clinton. Well, let me start by saying we consider our relationship with Pakistan to be of paramount importance. We think it is very much in America's interests. We think it is in the long-term interest of Pakistan for us to work through what are very difficult problems in that relationship. And this is not anything new. We've had a challenging relationship with Pakistan going back decades.

And we've been—we've kind of been deeply involved with Pakistan, as we were during the ‘80s with the support for the Mujaheddin, the old Charlie Wilson's war issue. And if you remember the end of Charlie Wilson's War, the Soviet Union is defeated and Charlie Wilson and others are saying, well, now let's build schools, let's work in Afghanistan, let's support Pakistan. And our political decision was we're exhausted, we're done, we accomplished our mission, which was to break the back of the Soviet Union; we're out of there.

So I think the Pakistanis have a viewpoint that has to be shown some respect: Are you going to be with us or not, because you keep in, you go out? And it is—

Q. Well, are they partner or adversary?

Secretary Clinton. Well, they are partners, but they don't always see the world the way we see the world, and they don't always cooperate with us on what we think—and I'll be very blunt about this— is in their interests. I mean, it's not like we are coming to Pakistan and encouraging them to do things that will be bad for Pakistan, but they often don't follow what our logic is as we make those cases to them. So it takes a lot of dialogue.

Q. Secretary Panetta, let's talk about Pakistan for a minute. I mean, there was a story that the Pakistanis, our adversary—our allies here, handed over parts of the helicopter that went down in bin Ladin's compound or gave access to it to the Chinese. Is that true and is that what an ally does?

Secretary Panetta. As the Secretary has said, it's a—this is a very complicated relationship with Pakistan.

Q. Is that a yes?

Secretary Panetta. I've got to protect my old hat. I—

Q. It's not a no, though.

Secretary Panetta. Well, I'm not going to comment because it does relate to classified intelligence. But—

Q. But are you concerned about this?

Secretary Panetta.—clearly we're –

Q. Are you concerned?

Secretary Panetta. We're concerned with the relationships that Pakistan has. What makes this complicated is that they have relationships with the Haqqanis, and the Haqqani tribes are going across the border and attacking our forces in Afghanistan, and it's pretty clear that there's a relationship there. There's a relationship with LET, and this is a group that goes into India and threatens attacks there and has conducted attacks there. In addition to that, they don't provide visas. They—in the relationship there are bumps and grinds to try to work it through.

And yet there is no choice but to maintain a relationship with Pakistan. Why? Because we're fighting a war there. Because we are fighting al-Qaida there and they do give us some cooperation in that effort, because they do represent an important force in that region, because they do happen to be a nuclear power that has nuclear weapons and we have to be concerned about what happens with those nuclear weapons.

So for all of those reasons, we have got to maintain a relationship with Pakistan. And it's going to be—it is not—as I said, it is complicated. It's going to be ups and downs. I mean, the Secretary and I have spent countless hours going to Pakistan, talking with their leaders, trying to get their cooperation.

Q. Take us into—let me ask the two of you to take us into a conversation that you might have together in the privacy of several hundred people and cameras. This war that you talk about is largely conducted with drones. Those drones are deeply resented and complicate your efforts on the diplomatic front. How do you balance that? Isn't your best asset your worst nightmare?

Secretary Clinton. No, no. Let me take you back to conversations that are not maybe so current but I think relevant. Shortly after I became Secretary of State, we were quite concerned to see the Pakistani Taliban basically taking advantage of what had been an effort by the government in Pakistan to try to create some kind of peace agreement with the Pakistani Taliban and to, in effect, say to them, look, you stay in Swat, which is one of the territories, you stay there and don't bother us, we won't bother you. And I was very blunt, both publicly and privately, with my Pakistani interlocutors in saying you can't make deals with terrorists. I mean, the very people that you think you can either predict or control are, at the end of the day, neither predictable nor controllable.

And I was very pleased when the Pakistanis moved in to Swat and cleaned out a lot of what had become a kind of Pakistani Taliban stronghold. And then they began to take some troops off of their border with India to put more resources into the fight against the Pakistani Taliban.

Now, as Leon says, we have some other targets that we discuss with them—the Haqqanis, for example—and yet it's been a relatively short period of time, two and a half years, when they have begun to reorient themselves militarily against what is, in our view, an internal threat to them. We were saying this because we think it will undermine the control that the Pakistani Government is able to exercise.

So we have conversations like this all the time, Frank, and I do think that there are certain attitudes or beliefs that the Pakistanis have which are rooted in their own experience, just like we have our own set of such convictions. But I also think that there is a debate going on inside Pakistan about the best way to deal with what is an increasing internal threat.

Secretary Panetta. Let me just add to that. I mean, the reason we're there is we're protecting our national security. We're defending our country. The fact was al-Qaida, which attacked this country on 9/11, the leadership of al-Qaida was there. And so we are going after those who continue to plan to attack this country. They're terrorists. And the operations that we've conducted there have been very effective at undermining al-Qaida and their ability to plan those kinds of attacks.

Q. What's left of them?

Secretary Panetta. But let me make this point. Those terrorists that are there are also a threat to Pakistani national security as well. They attack Pakistanis. They go in to Karachi, they go in to Islamabad, and conduct attacks there that kill Pakistanis. So it is in their interest— it's in their interest—to go after these terrorists as well. They can't just pick and choose among terrorists.

Q. What's left of the al-Qaida network?

Secretary Panetta. The al-Qaida network has seriously been weakened. We know that. But they're still there and we still have to keep the pressure on. Those that are suggesting somehow that this is a good time to pull back are wrong. This is a good time to keep putting the pressure on to make sure that we really do undermine their ability to conduct any kind of attacks on this country.

Q. Will they ever be defeated, or was Donald Rumsfeld right and this is just the long war?

Secretary Panetta. You know, we can go after the key leadership of al-Qaida that I think has largely led this effort, and we have seriously weakened them. We certainly took out bin Ladin, which I think seriously weakened their leadership as well, and I think there are additional leaders that we can go after. And by weakening their leadership, we will undermine al-Qaida's ability to ultimately put together that universal jihad that they've always tried to put together in order to conduct attacks on this country.

So the answer to your question is that we have made serious inroads in weakening al-Qaida. There's more to be done. There are these nodes now in Yemen, in Somalia, and other areas that we have to continue to go after. But I think we are on the path to being—seriously weakening al-Qaida as a threat to this country.

Q. Let's talk about Iraq for a few minutes and then we'll take a question on that topic from the audience. We've seen a terrible string of attacks over the last 24 hours that have claimed, at last count, nearly 90 lives, hundreds injured, leading to grave concerns about the ability of the Iraqi Government to look after its own security. What is happening in that country now? What do you read from this wave of violence?

Secretary Clinton. Well, what I see happening is that there continues to be a terrorist capacity inside Iraq. I don't know as—at the time I left my office, no one had claimed credit, but we believe that it could very well be al-Qaida in Iraq trying to assert itself.

Q. The Sunni extremists.

Secretary Clinton. The Sunni extremists. At the same time, we know that there are Shia extremists who have been also conducting attacks, not quite to the extent of what we saw yesterday, but attacks that have killed Americans and killed Iraqis.

Now, I'm of two minds about this, Frank. I mean, I deplore the loss of life and the ability of these terrorists to continue to operate inside Iraq. I also know that until recently, the trajectory of violence had been going in the right direction, namely down. And we saw that and we were feeling that it was headed in the right direction.

The Iraqis themselves have more capacity than they did have, but they've got to exercise it. And we spend a lot of time pushing our friends in the Iraqi Government to make decisions, like naming a defense minister and an interior minister, so that they can be better organized to deal with what are the ongoing threats. And certainly we're in discussions with them now because they do want to be sure that they have sufficient intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance capacity, ISR. They want to be sure that they can defend themselves both internally and externally, and that's a conversation that our ambassador and our commander are having in Baghdad.

Q. Has it been worth it, and should we stay?

Secretary Panetta. Well, the bottom line is that we are going to maintain a long-term relationship with Iraq to ensure that they remain stable.

Q. Militarily? This is a discussion they're having internally themselves.

Secretary Panetta. I think we'll—that's a discussion that we'll have with them as to what kind of assistance we'll continue to provide. But the bottom line is, whether it's diplomatic, whether it's military, we've got a long-term relationship with Iraq. We've invested –

Q. So if asked to stay—

Secretary Panetta. We've invested a lot of lives there.

Q. If asked to stay militarily, we'd stay?

Secretary Panetta. We've invested a lot of blood in that country, and regardless of whether you agree or disagree as to how we got into it, the bottom line is that we now have, through a lot of sacrifice, established a relatively stable democracy that's trying to work together to lead that country. And it happens to be a country that is in a very important region of the world at a time when there's a lot of other turmoil going on. And it is very important for us to make sure that we get this right.

Secretary Clinton. But Frank, I just want to just append to what Leon said. The President made a commitment that we would be withdrawing our forces from Iraq and that he would follow the timetable that was set in the Bush Administration, which is for our troops to be out at the end of this year.

Q. Right.

Secretary Clinton. So that is—that's a period. That's the end of that commitment. There is, however, a discussion that the Iraqis are having internally and beginning to have with us about what we would do following that. So I don't want there to be any confusion about that. I mean, our combat mission in Iraq ends at the end of this year. Our support and training mission, if there is to be such a one, is what the subject of this discussion would be.

Q. But don't these attacks demonstrate that the security situation is still precarious, that if the Iraqi Government were to ask for an ongoing American military presence, it might well be more than mere training, that there is combat that is still taking place?

Secretary Clinton. Well, but we don't believe that the Iraqis have that on their list of asks. I mean—

Q. Do you agree?

Secretary Panetta. Well, I think what they want to do is to, obviously, be able to confront counterterrorism within their own country. And we've given them help; we've given them training; we've given them assistance in that effort. And obviously, that's something as a country they're going to have to confront. But their main goal right now is to get the kind of training that will allow them to improve their defense capability and—

Q. Keith Crane, the Rand Corporation. I've been—I was in CPA in 2003 and followed Iraq every since. I just want to ask you, don't you see it in the U.S. national security interest to actually have all the troops leave by the end of the year, I think, in terms of both the Middle East, Afghanistan, for the Iraqis themselves? I understand what the Secretary Clinton had said in terms of we are leaving, but even to have troops there training there afterwards, don't you think it'd send a really strong signal that we're not interested in bases and that we would—are going to leave if we do not have a training mission there as well?

Secretary Panetta. Well, I think—I mean, as the Secretary said and as the President's made clear, we are leaving by the end of the year. Our combat mission is over. The discussions now are what kind of assistance can we continue to provide with regards to training, with regards to other assistance that is provided. We do this with other countries. We've done it with other countries in that region. And I think this would be what I would call a normal relationship with Iraq if we could establish that kind of approach for the future.

Secretary Clinton. Well, that's why I wanted to be very clear that the combat mission is over and our troops are leaving and they are in the process of literally packing up, and that was what we agreed to. And I agree with you that that is very much in America's interest to keep that commitment. But what Leon is saying is also important. If a country comes to us within what we would view as a normal diplomatic relationship and says, “My troops need training. They're not yet what they need to be. I'm going to need continuing help on collecting intelligence, learning how to do it for counterterrorism purposes,” I think it would be irresponsible of us not to listen to what they're requesting.

And indeed, the Iraqis have not made a formal request, but we have reason to believe that they are certainly discussing it internally. We do that in Kuwait, we do that in Bahrain, we do that in Qatar, we do that in UAE, we do that in Saudi Arabia. So it would be a little bit, I think, unusual for us to say, “No. We will not respond to a responsible request.” What it is, we don't know yet, and that's the next stages.

Secretary Panetta. Look, Frank, just to—for the record, this is going to be a process of negotiation and there's going to be discussion. And I think what—the good thing is that the Iraqis indicated a willingness to have that discussion. We will have that discussion and try to deal with it. But as to what ultimately turns out, we'll have to leave to them.

Q. A couple other issues in the time remaining. Syria—is it time for the United States to clearly, emphatically, unequivocally state that President Asad has to go, should step down? There's been talk that that is going to be forthcoming from the Administration. It has not been yet. Is today the day?

Secretary Clinton. Well, Frank, I'm not a big believer in arbitrary deadlines when you're trying to manage difficult situations. And what we see happening in Syria is galvanizing international opinion against the Asad regime. And that is a far better landscape for us to be operating in than if it were just the United States, if it were just maybe a few European countries.

Just think of what's happened in the last two weeks. You've had the Arab League reverse position. You've had King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia make a very strong statement and the Gulf Coordinating Council also making a strong statement. You had Turkey desperately trying to use its influence, which is considerable within Syria, to convince the Asad regime to quit shelling its own people, withdraw its troops from the cities, return them to barracks, begin a process of real transition. And yesterday, the foreign minister made it clear that the Asad regime is not following through on that.

So I happen to think where we are is where we need to be, where it is a growing international chorus of condemnation. The United States has been instrumental in orchestrating that. And we are pushing for stronger sanctions that we hope will be joined by other countries that have far bigger stakes economically than we do.

Q. I get all of that. But you know that your critics are saying leading means being out in front, that you condemn from the White House the heinous acts of the Asad regime, but—

Secretary Clinton. Well, look, we have condemned it, and we will continue to condemn it.

Q. So tell him to leave.

Secretary Clinton. Well, I have to say I am a big believer in results over rhetoric, and I think what we're doing is putting together a very careful set of actions and statements that will make our views very clear, and to have other voices, particularly from the region, as part of that is essential for there to be any impact within Syria. I mean, it's not news that the United States is not a friend of Syria's. That is not news to anybody. But it is, I think, important that we send an ambassador back there. I'm very proud of what Ambassador Ford has done, representing the best values of our country. So I think we have done what we needed to do to establish the credibility and, frankly, the universality of the condemnation that may actually make a difference.

Q. Secretary Panetta, another place to go to, since the world is such a cheery place these days—Libya. So we find these very interesting developments where we hear of another defection, potentially, from the senior ranks of the Qadhafi government, and yet we also hear that the rebel forces may be having some very serious internal pressures, tensions, and disputes themselves. What is your read on the military campaign in Libya and whether Qadhafi is any closer to being driven out?

Secretary Panetta. Well, I talked with our commanders in the area just within the last few days. And the indication is that yes, there are these concerns about the opposition, but we've had concerns about the opposition for a period now. But the fact is the opposition is moving. They're moving in the west towards Tripoli, towards the coastline, and moving in that direction. The opposition in the east is moving to Brega and moving in the direction of Tripoli as well, that that pressure is having an impact, that the regime forces are weakened. Qadhafi's forces are weakened, and this latest defection is another example of how weak they've gotten.

So I think considering how difficult the situation has been, the fact is the combination of NATO forces there, the combination of what the opposition is doing, the sanctions, the international pressure, the work of the Arab League—all of that has been very helpful in moving this in the right direction. And I think the sense is that Qadhafi's days are numbered.

Q. Randy Crabtree, Defense Intelligence Agency and a student at Industrial College of the Armed Forces. My question is: Are the messages we're sending in Libya and Syria really sending a message that the U.S. isn't prepared to underwrite stability in the world anymore and that we just simply can't afford it?

Secretary Clinton. No. I don't think so. I'd see it somewhat differently. I think it's a message that the United States stands for our values, our interests, and our security, but that we have a very clear view that others need to be taking the same steps to enforce a universal set of values and interests. So I view this somewhat differently than I know some of the perhaps commentary has evidenced.

If you look at Libya, this is a case for strategic patience, and it's easy to get impatient. But I think when you realize that this started in March, there was no opposition, there were not institutions, there was nothing that—there was no address even for trying to figure out how to help people who were attempting to cast off this brutal dictatorship of 42-plus years. The distance they have travelled in this relatively short period of time, the fact that for the first time we have a NATO-Arab alliance taking action, you've got Arab countries who are running strike actions, you've got Arab countries who are supporting with advisors the opposition. This is exactly the kind of world that I want to see where it's not just the United States and everybody is standing on the sidelines while we bear the cost, while we bear the sacrifice, while our men and women lay down their lives for universal values, where we're finally beginning to say, “Look, we are by all measurements the strongest leader in the world, and we are leading. But part of leading is making sure that you get other people on the field.” And that's what I think we're doing.

And similarly, as I told Frank in Syria, it's not going to be any news if the United States says Asad needs to go. Okay. Fine. What's next? If Turkey says it, if King Abdullah says it, if other people say it, there is no way the Asad regime can ignore it. We don't have very much going on with Syria because of a long history of challenging problems with them. So I think this is smart power, and I talk a lot about smart power, where it's not just brute force, it's not just unilateralism, it's being smart enough to say, “You know what? We want a bunch of people singing out of the same hymn book, and we want them singing a song of universal freedom, human rights, democracy, everything that we have stood for and pioneered over 235 years.” That's what I'm looking for us to be able to achieve.

Q. Before we close today, I want to ask you about one other place, and I want to ask you specifically about the kind of coordinated assistance that your two gigantic departments have tried to bring.

Secretary Clinton. Well, he's gigantic.

Q. Well, some might look at your department and see gigantic, too. But what you see depends upon where you stand, right?

Secretary Clinton. That's right. We may be small, but there are those of us who love us.

Q. I'm talking about Somalia here—a gut-wrenching, horrible famine, images and suffering that's brought to American and global homes every night. And some might say this can and should be a model for how these departments respond—how much is humanitarian, how much is military, what the integration and coordination is. Would you talk about that for just a moment?

Secretary Panetta. Actually, that's a very good example of the kind of close coordination between the two departments in dealing with a real crisis in that area. I mean, the reality is that it's a very difficult situation in Somalia. You've got al-Shabaab, which is a real threat to that area. We've got literally thousands upon thousands who are starving right now as well. And so what we've been doing—and I'll just—I mean, on the military side—is we have been working very closely through AFRICOM with the State Department, with the diplomatic sources that are there, with the NGOs to try to make sure that we're providing whatever assistance we can provide to help in that region. And so—

Q. Logistical assistance and other such things.

Secretary Panetta. That's correct. And so we are working. We're doing that on a daily basis, and we've made clear that any additional assistance we're prepared to provide. So it's a very good team approach to dealing with a crisis in that part of the world.

Secretary Clinton. I would just add a few points. The United States was the principal funder of something called FEWS NET, the Famine Early Warning System Network. And when we began seeing signs of a potential famine, we began to pre-position food and material. That gave us the chance to be able to get our equipment and our food into these areas quickly. We're talking about 12 million people in the Horn of Africa, in an area twice the size of Texas. Ethiopia and Kenya have been responding very generously, given their own situation, and we've made progress.

I remember the last time Ethiopia had a famine. I remember those terrible pictures. That affected about 12 million people in Ethiopia. Now it's down to about five million, which is still an unacceptable number, but shows that we're trending in the right direction. So the United States has now spent about $580 million in helping these people who are starving and particularly trying to help women and children who are the most at risk.

At the same time, the United States has supported the African Union mission in Somalia, the so-called AMISOM. And we have been making progress in driving back al-Shabaab out of Mogadishu. Very brave troops from Uganda, Burundi, and other places are working with the Transitional Federal Government in Mogadishu. And as you know, al-Shabaab left Mogadishu. Unfortunately, they are still posing a very real threat and obstacle in south central Somalia to our getting food into that area. But we're making some progress. I say all that because as you look at just the Horn of Africa, you can see the complexity of what we're dealing with and to try to sort out what is the defense role, the diplomatic role, the development role, how do we work with the UN, how do we work with NGOs, how do we work with governments.

And what I have said, Frank, is that stability in Somalia is so much in the interest, first and foremost, in the Somali people's interest, but also in the region and beyond. And yet the United States is not going to put boots on the ground. We remember what happened with what started as a humanitarian mission that morphed into a military mission that was, unfortunately, the—resulting in the loss of American lives. But what we are going to do is empower Africans themselves, provide all kinds of support to them, and enable them to stand up for themselves. And this is the kind of multi-layered approach that we're taking in a lot of complex situations now.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered this statement in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. The United States strongly condemns the vicious and cowardly attack in Kabul on the British Council, an institution that is dedicated to improving the lives of Afghans. We offer our most heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed and injured.

Brutal attacks such as these will not lessen our resolve or our commitment to Afghanistan and the region. The United States will continue to support the Afghan people and to assist the Afghan government, security forces, and civil society as they rebuild after decades of war. We are committed to a common vision of a stable, independent Afghanistan rid of the insurgency and free from al-Qaida.

Secretary Hillary Clinton delivered this statement in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. The United States strongly condemns today's attack on scores of innocent Pakistanis in northwest Pakistan. The slaughter of worshipers as they gathered at a mosque for Ramadan's Friday prayers underscores the brutality of those who would target civilians during a time of celebration and reflection for Muslims throughout the world. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones affected by this deplorable violence.

Through their violent actions, terrorists continue to demonstrate blatant disregard for the efforts of the Pakistani people to build a more peaceful and prosperous country in which citizens are free to worship. The United States deeply respects Pakistan's sacrifices in the fight against extremism and we continue to stand with Pakistan against those who seek to undermine democracy and freedom.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta delivered their statements in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. Good afternoon, everyone. It is indeed a great pleasure for me to welcome back to the State Department National Security Advisor Spanta. I have had the great honor of working with him on behalf of our respective governments when he was a foreign minister, and I'm delighted that our collaboration on behalf of peace and security and prosperity and opportunity for the people of Afghanistan continues.

So welcome once again, sir.

Mr. Spanta. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I am delighted to be back in the—in your Department to thank you very much for hospitality and collaboration of your colleague on—and receiving us here. I'm so happy to come to Washington and have meeting and exchange with American friends. Thank you very much.

Secretary Clinton Thank you so much, sir. Thank you all very much.

Secretary Hillary Clinton this statement in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. The United States condemns in the strongest terms the assassination in Kabul of Professor Rabbani, the former President of Afghanistan and head of the High Peace Council. We extend our condolences to his family, and to all the people of Afghanistan, including those who were injured, and the families of those who lost their lives.

We will support the Afghan Government as they pursue the ones responsible for this cowardly attack and bring them to justice. And we will continue to increase pressure on al-Qaida and the Taliban. We have always known that there are those who will do all they can to undermine the cause of peace and reconciliation. We will see more violence before this is over. But the Afghan people will not be deterred from pursuing a more peaceful, democratic future for their country and we will continue to stand with them and support their efforts.

Secretary Hillary Clinton and Minister Elyor Ganiev delivered this statement in Washington, DC

Secretary Clinton. I'm delighted to welcome Foreign Minister Ganiev here to Washington. We are working well and closely together with Uzbekistan on a number of issues, and this gives us an opportunity to discuss matters of importance between our two nations, as well as regional issues as well.

Foreign Minister Ganiev. I am grateful for this opportunity to meet with you, Madam Secretary. We'll have an opportunity to discuss a number of issues that are related to the prospects of the relations between our two countries.

Secretary Clinton. Thank you, sir. Thanks very much. Thank you.