Video and Transcript: Hillary Clinton on "Meet the Press" (26 July)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DAVID GREGORY: Here she is, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David. It's great to be here with you.

MR. GREGORY: Glad to have you. And you're here for the full hour, so we have a lot to get to.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, with your preview into it, there's a lot to talk about in the world today.

MR. GREGORY: Absolutely. So let's get right to it and talk about some of the hot spots around the globe that you're dealing with. First up is North Korea, and got tense this week. Here was the big headline: "Clinton and North Korea Engage in Tense Exchange." It actually began on Monday during an interview that you gave to ABC. Let's watch a portion of that.

(Videotape, Monday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, what we've seen in this constant demand for attention. And maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention, don't give it to them. They don't deserve it. They are acting out, in a way, to send a message that is not a message we're interested in receiving.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, the North Korean reaction was rather personal, and The Washington Post wrote about it on Friday. We'll put that up on the screen. "The war of words between North Korea and the United States escalated with North Korea's Foreign Ministry lashing out at Secretary of State Clinton in unusually personal terms for `vulgar remarks' that it said demonstrated `she is by no means intelligent...We cannot but regard Mrs. Clinton as a funny lady...Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl.'" What were they thinking?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think what's important here is the clear message that we're sending to North Korea, and it's one that is now unanimous. The Security Council Resolution 1874 made official that North Korea must change their behavior and we have to get back to moving toward verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Now, as you know and as you've reported, they've engaged in a lot of provocative actions in the last months. But what we, China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and literally the unanimous international community have said is it's not going to work this time. We're imposing the most stringent sanctions we ever have. We have great cooperation from the world community. China and we are working closely together to enforce these sanctions. We still want North Korea to come back to the negotiating table, to be part of an international effort that will lead to denuclearization. But we're not going to reward them for doing what they said they would do in 2005 and 6. We're not going to reward them for half measures. They now know what we in the world community expect.

MR. GREGORY: But it's interesting; if the posture of this administration was more engagement, even negotiations with our adversaries, it struck me this week that this was a ratcheting up of the rhetoric against North Korea.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, we want to make clear to North Korea that their behavior is not going to be rewarded. In the past they believe that they have acted out, done things which really went against the norms of the international community and somehow then were rewarded. Those days are over. We believe that the six-party talk framework which had everybody included is the appropriate way to engage with North Korea.

MR. GREGORY: But they say--if I can just stop you, they say we're not playing in that group anymore.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, that's what they say. And I think they are very isolated now. I saw that when I was at the ASEAN meeting, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. I was in the same room with a representative from North Korea who launched a broadside attack on the United States, blaming us for literally everything that has ever gone wrong in North Korea going back decades. I listened; everyone else just didn't even look at him. I was struck by the body language. They don't have any friends left. And what we've seen even Burma saying that they're going to enforce the resolution of sanctions. And when the North Korean representative finished, I just very calmly said North Korea knows what it must do and what we are expecting from it. I talked with my counterparts from Russia, China, Japan, South Korea at length during the time I was in Thailand. We are all on the same page and we are all committed to the same goal.

MR. GREGORY: Can we say at this point--since it's so difficult to deal with North Korea, going back to President Clinton, who said that he would stop them from getting a nuclear bomb--after these missile tests, after the belief that they have seven or eight nuclear bombs, that an effort to keep them from going nuclear has failed?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages, and there are several important factors here that has led to the unanimity of the international community. It's not only that North Korea has, against the international norms, IAEA and other requirements, proceeded with this effort, but they also are a proliferator. We know that for a fact. So it's not only the threat they pose to their neighbors and eventually beyond, but the fact that they're trying to arm others. And then there is the reaction in the region. I mean, if you're sitting in South Korea and Japan, who are two of our strongest allies with whom we have very clear defense responsibilities, and you see North Korea proceeding, then you're going to be thinking, "Well, what do I need to do to protect myself?" So it is destabilizing for Northeast Asia, which is why I think you'll see a continuing pressure which we think will eventually result in some changes in their behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Is North Korea a threat to the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, at this time, you know, our military experts and others say that in real terms, what they could do to us, that's unlikely. We have missile defenses that we can deploy. But they are a threat to our friends and allies, particularly Japan and South Korea. So therefore, they trigger a response from us to protect our allies and to make clear to the North Koreans that they cannot behave in this way. And I want to just underscore that China has been extremely positive and productive in respect to North Korea. The big issue in previous times was well, how do we get China to really be working to change North Korean behavior? I will be starting, along with Secretary Geithner, an intensive two days with Chinese high-level representatives tomorrow and Tuesday. But on North Korea, we have been extremely gratified by their forward-leaning commitment to sanctions and the private messages that they have conveyed to the North Koreans.

MR. GREGORY: Finally on this, two U.S. captives, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists in captivity now; is there a feeling that some of the tough talk that you had with the North Koreans this week, this sort of exchange of insults, does it make their situation more dangerous?

SEC'Y CLINTON: We believe that this is on a separate track. This is an issue that should be resolved by the North Koreans granting amnesty and allowing these two young women to come home as quickly as possible.

MR. GREGORY: Are you making progress?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, we have--are certainly pursuing every lead we have. The messages that we've received from the young women both through our protecting power, the Swedish ambassador, and through the messages and phone calls they've had with their families are that they're being treated well, that they have been given the supplies that they need. But obviously, they want to resolve this, as we do, and we work on it literally every day.

MR. GREGORY: Let me turn to another hot spot, and that is Iran. A big headline this week, again, with your words: "Clinton's `Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions." The headlines goes on, "Suggests U.S. Will Have to Protect Allies From Nuclear-Armed Iran." You were in Bangkok on Wednesday, and this is what you said that got this started.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Did you mean to suggest that the U.S. is considering a nuclear umbrella that would say to nations in the Arab world that an attack on you, just like NATO or Japan is an attack on the United States, and the United States would retaliate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think it's clear that we're trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime. You know, the Iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that that a pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country along with our allies stand strongly against. We believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. The G-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect coming from Italy. So we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you're pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen. First, we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran--nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed, it is something that we view with great concern, and that's why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but let's be specific. Are you talking about a nuclear umbrella?

SEC'Y CLINTON: We, we are, we are not talking in specifics, David, because, you know, that would come later, if at all. You know, my view is you hope for the best, you plan for the worst. Our hope is--that's why we're engaged in the president's policy of engagement toward Iran--is that Iran will understand why it is in their interest to go along with the consensus of the international community, which very clearly says you have rights and responsibilities. You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil nuclear power. You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control. But there's a lot that we can do with Iran if Iran accepts what is the international consensus.

MR. GREGORY: One of the big challenges here is preventing Israel from acting first; if they feel there's an existential threat, would they strike out at Iran to take out a nuclear program. And there's been various positions taken within the administration about that. Vice President Biden just a couple of weeks ago said this on ABC: "We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they are existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country." Meantime, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said, "Well, I have been for some time concerned about any strike on Iran [by Israel]. I worry about it being very destabilizing, not just in and of itself, but the unintended consequences of a strike like that." Where do you fall on the spectrum of the administration views about the impact of a strike by Israel?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, let me say that I personally don't see the contradiction here. The vice president was stating a fact. Israel is a sovereign nation. Any sovereign nation facing what it considers to be an existential threat, as successive Israeli governments have characterized the possibility of Iran having a nuclear weapon would mean to them, is not going to listen to other nations, I mean, if they believe that they are acting in the furtherance of their survival. However, as Admiral Mullen said, you know, we continue to believe that very intensive diplomacy, bringing the international community together, making clear to the Iranians what the costs of their pursuit of nuclear weapons might be is the preferable route. So clearly, we have a, a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected. But we also believe that pursuing this path with Iran that we're on right now, that frankly we're bringing more and more people to see it our way--I thought the G-8 statement was quite remarkable in that sense--is the better approach for us to take. So we will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

MR. GREGORY: Defense Secretary Gates is on his way to Israel this week. Is the message to the Israelis, "You got to hang tight here"?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, also, General Jones will be there. We have a full panoply of a lot of our national security team that will be meeting with comparable Israeli officials. And our message is as it has been: The United States stand with you, the United States believes that Israel has a right to security. We believe, however, that this approach we're taking holds out the promise of realizing our common objective. And we want to brief the Israelis, we want to listen to the Israelis and we want to enlist the support of all of our allies and friends in moving forward on this policy.

MR. GREGORY: Is Iran an illegitimate regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, that's really for the people of Iran to decide. I have been moved by the, just the cries for freedom and, and the clear appeal to the Iranian government that this really significant country with a people that go back millennia that has such a great culture and history deserves better than what they're getting.

MR. GREGORY: But if the United States decides to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program, as has been the stated policy of the willingness to engage, are you not betraying this democratic movement trying to overthrow that regime?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't think so, David, because you can go back in history--and not, you know, very long back--where we have negotiated with many governments who we did not believe represented the will of their people. Look at all the negotiations that went on with the Soviet Union. Look at the breakthrough and subsequent negotiations with communist China. That's what you do in diplomacy. You don't get to choose the people; that's up to the internal dynamics within a society. But clearly, we would hope better for the Iranian people. We would hope that there is more openness, that peaceful demonstrations are respected, that press freedom is respected. Yet, we also know that whoever is in charge in Iran is going to be making decisions that will affect the security of the region and the world.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about another difficult area, and that's Russia, where there has been an attempt by the president to say, "We're going to reset this relationship." Vice President Biden, who was just traveling in the region, talked to the Wall Street Journal, and his comments raised some eyebrows. This is what he said: "The reality is the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable." Is he speaking for the president, and is the message essentiality that the U.S. now has the upper hand when it's dealing with Russia?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, and I don't think that's at all what the vice president meant. I mean, remember, the vice president was the first person in the administration, in an important speech which he gave in Munich, Germany, shortly after President Obama's inauguration, that we wanted to reset our relationship with Russia. And we know that that's not easily done. It takes time, it takes trust building. And we want what the president called for during his recent Moscow summit. We want a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.

Now, there is an enormous amount of work to be done between the United States and Russia. We're working on reducing our nuclear arsenal. We're going to work on reducing fissile material to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. We're working to combat the threat of violent extremism. Russia has been very helpful in our United Nations efforts vis-a-vis North Korea. The Russians joined the G-8 statement in Italy talking about the need for Iran to come to the table either in a multilateral forum like the P-5 Plus One that we're part of, or bilaterally with us. And so there is an enormous amount of hard work being done. And we view Russia as a great power. Now, every country faces challenges. You know, we have our challenges, Russia has their challenges. And there are certain issues that Russia has to deal with on its own. And we want to make clear that, as we reset our relationship, we are very clearly not saying that Russia can have a 21st century sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. That is, you know, an, an attitude and a policy we reject.

We also are making it very clear that any nation in Eastern Europe that used to be part of the Soviet Union has a right now, as a free, sovereign and independent nation, to choose whatever alliance they wish to join. So if Ukraine and Georgia someday are eligible for and desire to join NATO, that should be up to them.

So I, I think that, you know, what we're seeing here is the beginning of the resetting of that relationship, which I have been deeply involved in. I will be co-chairing a presidential commission along with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. We'll be following up on what our two presidents said in Moscow. And the Russians know that, you know, we have continuing questions about some of their policies, and they have continuing questions about some of ours.

MR. GREGORY: Before we get to a break I want to get to another hot spot, and that, of course, is Afghanistan. And the headline coming out this week: "U.S. Deaths Hit A Record High In Afghanistan: The Toll of 31 So Far in July Makes For the Deadliest Month of the War." Is--with--given that the president is surging up forces, 17,000 additional troops going to Afghanistan, is this a war of necessity for this president, or has it become his war of choice?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think the president has been very firm in stating that the policy that was followed in Afghanistan was not working. He said it throughout the campaign, he made that clear upon becoming president. And we know that the threat to the United States and, in fact, those who plotted and carried out the horrific attack on 9/11 against our country have not yet been brought to justice, killed or captured. So the president's goal is to dismantle and destroy and eventually defeat al-Qaeda.

MR. GREGORY: And yet, if I can just stop you, the real focus now is fighting the Taliban, which is an insurgent movement. And Thomas Friedman wrote this on Wednesday, I'd like you to respond to it: "American has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby. The troop surge that President Obama ordered [in Afghanistan] early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed--if ever. We came [to Afghanistan] to destroy al-Qaeda, now we're in a long war with the Taliban. Is that really a good use of American power?"

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, we had an intensive strategic review upon taking office. And we not only brought the entire United States government together, but we reached out to friends and allies, people with stakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And as you know, the result of that strategic review was to conclude that al-Qaeda is supported by and uses its extremist allies like elements within the Taliban and other violent extremist groups in the region as well as worldwide to extend its reach, to be proxies for a lot of its attacks on Jakarta, Indonesia, and elsewhere. So that in order to really go after al-Qaeda, to uproot it and destroy it, we had to take on those who were giving the al-Qaeda leadership safe haven.

Now, as you know, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is permeable. There are movements back and forth across it. I think our new strategy, which has been endorsed by a very large number of nations, some of whom don't agree with us on a lot of other things, is aimed at achieving our primary goal. And we also learned from Iraq, which were hard lessons, that in order to have our military intervention be effective, when they go in and try to clear areas of the extremists, we have to follow in to build up the capacity of the local community to defend itself and to be able to realize the benefits of those changes. This is a new strategy. It's just beginning. I think the president believed that it was not only the right strategy but, facing what he faced, to withdraw our presence or to keep it on the low level limited effectiveness that had been demonstrated, would have sent a message to al-Qaeda and their allies that the United States was willing to leave the field to them. And in addition, importantly, we've seen the Pakistani government and military really step up, which had not happened to the extent it has now. So the Taliban, which is as, I believe strongly, part of a kind of terrorist syndicate with al-Qaeda at the center...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...is now under tremendous pressure, and I think that's in America's national interest.

Now, I have to add, nobody is more saddened than the president and I by the loss of life of our young men and women, and no one is more impatient than we are to see the results of this sacrifice bear fruit. We have the most extraordinary military in the world. They have leadership now we think is totally on point in terms of what we are attempting to accomplish. And, and I think that we'll see benefits come from that.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to leave it there for a moment. We're going to take a short break here and we'll have much more with Secretary of State Clinton, including a question that keeps popping up around the world.

(Videotape)

Unidentified Woman #1: Will we ever get to see you as president of the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Wow, that's not...

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: All coming up on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: More of our conversation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after this brief commercial break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: And we're back with the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

How is your elbow?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, it's getting better. It's about 80 percent of the way back. You know, there are certain moves that I can make, but there are others that are, are still kind of painful. But I'm doing my physical therapy. That's what everybody told me I had to do. And...

MR. GREGORY: Because hand shaking is a little hard.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yes. I try to...

MR. GREGORY: Which is hard for a diplomat.

SEC'Y CLINTON: It is. I tried to do the hand shaking when I was in India and Thailand, and my arm was really sore at the end. So I'm either putting out my left hand or--I love the Thais.

MR. GREGORY: Yes.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, I was going around like this to everybody. (Bows)

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: That, that helped me out a lot.

MR. GREGORY: It's doing that in Germany that's confusing. That's just a little hard.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yeah. Well, probably it has to be culturally appropriate.

MR. GREGORY: Let's take a step back and look at the larger vision for the president's foreign policy. This is what the president said during his inaugural address, which was something of a mission statement. Let's watch.

(Videotape, January 20, 2009)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And yet isn't the problem, six months in, that there may be a willingness to change the tone, there may be more engagement, but nobody's unclenching their fist yet?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, David, that's not the way I read it at all. I think six months in, look at what we've done. We have begun to fulfill our obligation to withdraw from Iraq, so that now when I meet with Prime Minister Maliki and 10 members of his government and about 12 of ours we're talking about educational exchanges, we're talking about agriculture. We have a very clear policy on nonproliferation, which the president has stated, and we're back in the business of trying to move the world in a, in a very careful but consistent way toward lowering the threat of nuclear weapons. We've already talked about bringing the world together, which we have, around a joint response to North Korea and increasingly to Iran. We are sending a message to governments and peoples alike, as the president did in his very important Cairo speech, as he just did in Ghana, that we want government and particularly democracies that deliver for people. I mean, I could go on and on.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: We are really back.

MR. GREGORY: But is...

SEC'Y CLINTON: And that was my message when I went to Asia: The United States is back and we're ready to lead.

MR. GREGORY: But what did you mean by that?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, what I meant was that in, in many parts of the world the priorities that were pursued the last eight years did not seem to include them. So just going, for example, to Asia--as I did on my first trip, as I just did--was viewed as a very positive statement of participation. We're building on some of the good work that's been done in a bipartisan way with India starting with my husband and, in fact, in this case continuing with President Bush with India. So we have now announced the most comprehensive engagement we've ever had with that country.

MR. GREGORY: But, but if, if you look at it, the Bush administration policy in Asia and now the Obama administration policy in Asia is not that different. You, you, too, are distracted by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I, I--no, I--see, I disagree...

MR. GREGORY: So, so I don't see what's really changed.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I disagree with that. I mean, part of what we have done is to organize ourselves so that we can concentrate on many important issues at the same time. I know that, for example, people have raised questions about why I pushed so hard to have special envoys appointed. It's because I think it would be diplomatic malpractice not to have people of stature and experience handling some of our most difficult problems on a day-to-day basis. I'm the chief diplomat; I'm responsible at the end for advising the president, for executing the policy that we agree upon. But it is to our advantage to have George Mitchell in the Middle East today, to have Richard Holbrook in Afghanistan.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: To have retired General Scott Gration coming back from probably his sixth or seventh trip to Sudan, having Todd Stern leading our efforts on climate change. I could not possibly have given the attention that we need, in the in-depth way that is required, to all of this. And I think the feeling on the part of much of the world was that the prior administration, for understandable reasons, focused so much on some of the specific issues like Iraq, etc., that really grabbed it and required a lot of attention, that much of the rest of the world felt, you know, that they were kind of second tier. When I went to the ASEAN meeting, it hadn't been for sometime that we'd had a secretary of state pay continuing attention. We announced a, an exciting new relationship with the lower Mekong countries--Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand. We are working everywhere we can to make clear that, you know, the United States cannot solve all the problems of the world alone, but the world cannot solve them without the United States.

MR. GREGORY: But you raised the--your role in the administration. Here was a recent headline that got a lot of attention, not surprisingly, in the Los Angeles Times: "Clinton Seems Overshadowed by Her Boss, Some Analysts Say." You responded with a pretty sharp retort, saying, "I broke my elbow, not my larynx."

SEC'Y CLINTON: That's right.

MR. GREGORY: But seriously, has, at times, this been a struggle?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Not at all; I mean, maybe because I understand the functioning of the United States government. The president is the president, and the president is responsible for setting policy. Now, we have a great relationship. I see him usually several times a week, at least once one-on-one, and I'm ready to offer my advice. We have an, an incredibly candid and open exchange. In fact, the whole team does. And I really welcome that.

MR. GREGORY: But this is kind of interesting, I mean, the whole team of rivals idea. Do you have a close working relationship? Are you the voice on foreign policy, the adviser in his ear on foreign policy?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I, I am the chief adviser on foreign policy, but the president makes the decisions. You know, I have a picture of former Secretary of State Seward in my office. He was a New York senator who went on to serve President Lincoln, which is part of what created this concept of team of rivals. He became one of Lincoln's closest and strongest advisers. Why? Because he understood, as I do, that the election is over. The president has to lead our country both internationally and domestically. I saw this when my husband was president. At the end of the day, it is the president who has to set and articulate policy. I'm privileged to be in a position where I am the chief adviser, I'm the chief diplomat, I'm the chief executor of the policy that the president pursues. But I know very well that a team that works together is going to do a better job for America. And one thing I would add is, you know, I've read a lot of diplomatic history, and I know that very often there become sort of warring camps, you know. It's the Defense Department vs. the State Department, or the National Security Council vs. the State Department. And in fact, we've had administrations where there was just open warfare.

MR. GREGORY: Hm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You don't see any of that in this administration. And in fact, I've had some of my predecessors say with, you know, some amount of surprise, this administration has no light between it.

MR. GREGORY: Well, and to that point, what has President Obama proved to you as president that you didn't believe about him as a candidate?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I always had a very high respect for him as a colleague. We served in the Senate together. Now, during a campaign you're going to magnify differences. You're trying to convince people to vote for you and, and vote against the other candidate. So I always had a very healthy respect for his intelligence, for his world view, for his understanding of the complexity that we face in the 21st century. Now having worked with him for six months, what I see is his decisiveness, his discipline, his approach to difficult problems. We have a really good process in the NSC that intensely examines problems, brings people to the table, goes outside the usual circle; tries to tee up decisions for what's called the Principle's Committee, which I and the vice president and the secretaries of Defense and our CIA and our DNI and everybody sit around a table in the Situation Room, we take the work that comes from the Deputies Committee that's gone through this very rigorous process and we hash it out. And we do not always agree, and we take positions.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And at the end, though, we reach a consensus. Either we are at a point where we feel that we know the best thing to suggest to the president, or we suggest a minority and a majority point of view. And then we meet with the president, and the president hears us out. Oftentimes he'll put somebody on the spot and he'll say, "Well, David, what do you really think?"

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Or he'll go and say, "I didn't hear from you yet." And at the end of the day, the president makes the decision. And I've been very impressed by that.

MR. GREGORY: But you--but during the--during the campaign you questioned both his experience and his toughness. Are those issues that you don't feel as strongly anymore?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, I don't feel them at all. I mean, I think that, you know, those were appropriate issues to raise in the campaign. I, I have no problem with having raised those, because he hadn't yet been on the national scene. But look, I'm here to say, as somebody who spent an enormous amount of time and effort running against him, I think his performance in office has been incredible.

MR. GREGORY: You are secretary of state. You are not--I should say, your portfolio does not include domestic matters, domestic political debates. And yet health care is obviously a huge debate right now in this country and for this administration. And this is what you said when you ended your run for the presidency June 7th, 2008. Let's watch.

(Videotape, June 7, 2008)

SEC'Y CLINTON: We all want a healthcare system that is universal, high quality and affordable, so that parents don't have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance. This isn't just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: You've always been passionate about this. You're not involved in the current debate. But why is it so hard, do you think?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, it's hard because the system that we've seen grow up almost organically since World War II is so dysfunctional. And unfortunately, the incentives are often not in the right places to reward doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals for their outcomes, to really drive quality. And I applaud the president for taking it on right off the bat. You know, there are many problems we're dealing with in our country, and certainly he could have said, "OK, fine, we'll get to that when we get to it." But he's waded right into it. And I am somewhat encouraged by what I see happening in the Congress. You know, I've been there. I know how hard this is.

MR. GREGORY: Is it different than '93?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, it is. It's different in several ways. It's different because I think everybody's now convinced there's a problem. Back in '93 we had to keep making the case over and over again. Well, now we know costs will continue to rise. For everybody who has insurance, there is no safe haven, their costs will go up. We lose insurance for 14,000 people a day. We know that our system, left unchecked, is going to bankrupt not just families and businesses, but our country. So it is a central concern of President Obama and our administration.

MR. GREGORY: And yet you wrote in your memoir, "Living History," something that was very interesting. You wrote this; "Ultimately, we could never convince the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance that they wouldn't have to give up benefits and medical choices to help the minority of Americans without coverage. Nor could we persuade them that reform would protect them from losing insurance and would make their medical care more affordable in the future." And that's exactly the issue the President Obama is dealing with now. Do you think he's doing a better job getting over that hurdle?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I think he's making a very strong case. And what's important here is that people are always for change in general, and then they begin to worry about the particulars. As our process moves forward--we have legislation in both Houses. We've had the committee I use to serve on, the Health, Education, Labor and Pension, so-called HELP Committee, pass out a comprehensive bill. We're seeing action in the House. Then people will begin to see the particulars and the legislative process will begin to try to, you know, smooth out the rough edges and create the reassurances that people need. But what is so promising for me is that when I wrote that about our experience in the early '90s, there were still a lot of routes that people thought we could go down; "Well, we'll try managed care. We'll get more HMOs. We'll be able to control costs for the people who have insurance." I'm talking now...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...not about those who are uninsured, which I think is both a moral and an economic imperative, but the people without it--with it and who are wondering, "What's this going to mean for me?" I think people now realize, you know, "I could be uninsured." The, the chances that businesses will continue to pay for insurance over the next five, 10, 15 years are diminishing. I think, if I remember correctly, in '93 and '94, 61 percent of small businesses provided some kind of health insurance for their employees. It's down to 38 percent. So now everybody's worrying. And I think that gives the president a very strong case to make.

MR. GREGORY: Has he sought out your counsel on this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: You know, we talk about everything. You know, I have a rule that I don't ever talk about what I talk about with presidents, whether it's my husband...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...when he was president, or now with President Obama. But, you know...

MR. GREGORY: But even domestic issues, you'll offer some thoughts.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I, I'm available to the president to talk about anything. Now, obviously, we have a pretty big, you know, portfolio...

MR. GREGORY: Right. Portfolio, yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...that we have to deal with on the international stage.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Bottom, bottom line, do you think health care will pass this time?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I do. I think that the time has come. I think this president is committed to it. I think the leadership in Congress understands we have to do something. And I, I think we'll get, we'll get it done.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about another big issue in the news this week, because Henry Louis Gates is also a friend of yours, in addition to being a friend of this president's. Professor Gates arrested, of course--you see the picture there--in his Cambridge home. The president talked about it at a press conference and then showed up unannounced in the, in the briefing room to address it further. What role do you think he plays or should play in sensitive matters like this?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think the president did an excellent job in addressing it on Friday when he went to the press room. And, and I think his point is very clear. He said, "Look, maybe I should have chosen different words." But he's going to have a beer with Professor Gates and Sergeant Crowley, and I think that's, you know, leadership by example. And I really commend him for that.

MR. GREGORY: But, you know, it's interesting, because issues of race obviously played out in the course of the campaign. And I wonder, do you think the president has a, a special responsibility and plays a special role in terms of race relations for the country?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, if something constructive can come out of this latest incident, it will be that people around the country are, are talking about the continuing challenges we face. You know, obviously the fact that the president exemplifies the progress that has been made over generations, the sacrifices of so many who came before, is a powerful statement in and of itself. His experience added to that, I think, is important for the country to, to see and to digest. But the president has said many times, he's the president of all the people in the United States. He's the president who, you know, wants to, you know, bring people together to solve problems and to make progress together.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we're going to take another short break here and continue in our remaining minutes with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: And we're back, our remaining moments with the secretary of state.

I want to ask you about something that you deal with all over the world, and that's the topic of women in leadership. Here was a moment from Delhi University in India during your trip when you were asked a question.

(Videotape, Monday)

Unidentified Woman #2: Madam, today and even day before yesterday in one of your speeches you hinted that the progress of women and the growth of women is directly linked with the progress and growth of any and every country. India has had a woman prime minister as early as in the third decade of its post-independence era, while America has been deprived--if I, if I can say so--of the same privilege.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You can say so to me.

Woman #2: And, and on...

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: What's it going to take for a woman to be president?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, it'll take the right woman who can make the case and win the votes and get elected. And I am certainly hoping that happens in my lifetime. But what was so interesting about that exchange, David, is that I have now, as you said in the beginning, traveled more than 100,000 miles. I've been in, I think, 30 countries. I've done a lot of town halls, because, you know, I believe it's not just diplomacy between government officials, it's diplomacy between people. So I've gone out of my way to do town halls, to do events that have significance to the countries in which I'm visiting. I cannot tell you how many times I've been asked about women in leadership, women in elected office, the role of women in development. This is a subject that is on the minds of people literally around the world.

MR. GREGORY: You say the right woman. You know, supporters of yours I've talked to over time say, "You know what, we're so disappointed, because if she couldn't do it, who can?" I mean, all the establishment support, all the money, married to a former president, all of these things that you had established, and yet you couldn't do it. It's very daunting to a lot of people.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, look, I'm not going to pretend that running for president as a woman is not daunting. It is daunting. And it is, you know, probably a path that doesn't appeal to a lot of women even in elective office, because it is so difficult. But I am convinced--and I don't know if she's in elective office right now or if she's preparing to run for office--but there is a woman who I am hoping will be able to achieve that. Now, obviously, that's up to individual women...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...who have to make this decision for themselves.

MR. GREGORY: This was Governor Sarah Palin, who is stepping down as governor of Alaska, and what she said when she was named to the ticket with John McCain last year.

(Videotape, August 29, 2008)

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Now, you probably don't agree with her politically, but do you believe that Governor Palin represents a woman's chance to become president?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I'm not--I'm out of politics. That's one of the things about being secretary of state. And I would wish her well in her private life as she leaves the office.

MR. GREGORY: Does she have what it takes?

SEC'Y CLINTON: That's up to the voters to determine. It's up to the voters to determine with respect to anyone.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I mean, putting together a presidential campaign is an extremely complicated enterprise. So I'm just going to leave it at that, and I will be an interested observer. I do want to see a woman elected president. I hope it's a Democratic woman who represents the kind of...

MR. GREGORY: So no endorsement for Governor Palin at this stage?

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...of, kind of approach that I happen to favor.

MR. GREGORY: OK. The question, again, that comes up around the world is what you experienced during an interview on Wednesday in Thailand. Let's roll that.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

Woman #1: Will we ever get to see you as president of the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Wow. That's not anything I'm at all thinking about. I've got a very demanding and exciting job right now, and I'm not somebody who looks ahead. You know, I don't know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever, ever be part of my life.

Woman #1: So it's wait and see.

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, no, no, no. I...

Unidentified Man: Never say never.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I am saying no...

Woman #1: For now.

SEC'Y CLINTON: ...because I have a very committed attitude toward the job that I'm doing now.

Woman #1: Now.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And so that's not anything that is at all on my radar screen.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: So, you know, I guess we don't have to worry about a free press in Thailand. Right? They kept coming at you.

SEC'Y CLINTON: That was a great--it was a great show. It's one of the things that I've been doing around the world, these interview shows.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

SEC'Y CLINTON: But the answer is no. I don't know how many more...

MR. GREGORY: Right. But you didn't, but you didn't say never.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, you know, I say no, never, you know, not at all. I don't know what, what else to say.

MR. GREGORY: Are you saying you wouldn't entertain another run?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen, that I have any interest in it happening. You know, as I said, I, I am so focused on what I'm doing. And, you know, I think that the interest in sort of the political dynamics is, you know, obviously fascinating, not just here, but around the world. But, you know, the more common question that I'm asked which I don't think gets enough attention, because it's so important in these emerging democracies, is how could I have run against President Obama all those months, and as hard as I did, and now work with him and work for him?

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEC'Y CLINTON: And a lot of countries can't believe that two former competitors could now have made common cause on behalf of our country. Now, I think that's the story. And that, to me, is a message that we're trying to send to the rest of the world that this is the way a democracy works.

MR. GREGORY: Do you still think about the campaign?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Not really. I sometimes, you know, see people who worked so hard for me and who are very committed to electing a woman president someday, and obviously, you know, that provokes emotions in me. But no, I've moved on. I think it's important to move on. I, I'm not somebody--I tell countries all the time, don't get mired in the past. So I'm going to set an example and not do it either.

MR. GREGORY: Any regrets?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No, none at all. I gave it all I had.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, I want you to react to the ambition of a young woman. This is a young Hillary Rodham writing in sixth grade about ambition.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: "When I grow up, I want to have had the best education I could have possible obtained. If I obtain this, I will probably be able to get a very good job. I want to be either a teacher or a nuclear physics scientist." Now, I have to ask you, has this whole thing--being the senator from New York, running for the presidency--is this all about setting yourself up to be a nuclear physic scientist?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, unfortunately, David, I learned early on that that was not in the cards for me. So, you know, I had to settle for being in public life, which has been a great reward in and of itself.

MR. GREGORY: Is this the story--how the story is playing out is what you expected?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I have to say, you know, I was looking at that. I don't--I think I wrote that in sixth grade. I think it's just a lesson to everybody, you don't know where life may lead you and what your opportunities could be. I did believe, and my mother and father impressed on me the need to get a good education, and I think my family's support and values and the education that I received set me up to be able to take advantage of a lot of these extraordinary opportunities I've been given. I mean, I'm sitting here as a very lucky person, someone who's had a chance to serve the country that I've loved my entire life, that I believe is an exemplar of what is best in human affairs, that I care deeply about our future. So how lucky can you be? I got to serve in the White House when my husband was president, working on issues I care about. I got to represent the greatest state in the country for eight years. And now I get to work with a new president who is so determined to make a better future. I have no complaints at all.

MR. GREGORY: We're going to leave it there. Secretary Clinton, thank you.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: Good luck in your important work.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you, David.

Transcript: Hillary Clinton Remarks on North Korea (23 July)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attending the summit of Southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, used her press conference to focus on relations with North Korea. In general, her tough talk was mainly to hold the line. There is no prospect of a resumption of talks on Pyongyang's nuclear programme --- North Korea representatives to the summit offered a colourful insulting of Clinton as "a funny woman" (funny peculiar, I think, not funny ha-ha). So the overriding message, beyond Clinton's display to a US audience of her assertive diplomacy, was the call to other countries to support sanctions against North Korea.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. Let me start by saying we’ve had a series of very productive sessions here in Phuket, and I’ve had the opportunity for the first time to engage with the nations of ASEAN and our regional partners on issues of common concern, to sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, and to lay the groundwork for even stronger partnerships as we move forward.

I’ve also had the opportunity to meet one on one with a number of my counterparts. Earlier, I met with Foreign Minister Qureshi of Pakistan, and we talked about the encouraging signs in Pakistan’s fight against violent extremists, including the return of significant numbers of refugees to Buner and Swat. There are still great challenges ahead facing Pakistan, including the ongoing threat of violent extremism and continuing economic difficulty. But I assured the foreign minister that the United States stands ready to help the Pakistani Government and people. And I also advised him that I support the steps Pakistan and India have taken to find a more productive way forward.

I want to take this opportunity to discuss the situation in North Korea and our efforts here in the ASEAN Regional Forum to promote security in Northeast Asia. Yesterday, I held consultations with our allies and partners in the Six-Party process, and this morning, there was a very good discussion with the ASEAN nations and regional partners. I was gratified by how many countries from throughout the region spoke up and expressed directly to the North Korean delegation their concerns over the provocative behavior we have seen these past few months.

Unfortunately, the North Korean delegation offered only an insistent refusal to recognize that North Korea has been on the wrong course. In their presentation today, they evinced no willingness to pursue the path of denuclearization. And that was troubling not only to the United States, but to the region and the international community. So the question is, where do we go from here?

I think it’s important to stress that the international community’s response to North Korea’s actions has been unequivocal and nearly unanimous, leading to a new consensus around a common set of principles. The United States and its allies and partners cannot accept a North Korea that tries to maintain nuclear weapons to launch ballistic missiles or to proliferate nuclear materials. And we are committed to the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. Now this convergence of views reflected, as you will see later today in statements by ASEAN, and as you saw just a few weeks ago with the G-8 statement and others, produced two important Security Council actions – a presidential statement and a unanimous binding resolution.

Now these are more than expressions of condemnation. Resolution 1874, combined with the designations authorized by the UN Sanctions Committee, provides a powerful tool to curb North Korea’s unacceptable activities, and to put pressure on individuals and entities connected to the regime’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and other WMD-related programs. We believe that this resolution can be effective because it is unprecedented in scope, substance, and approach.

First, it differs from past efforts in that it is based on a global consensus, bringing to bear the combined weight of the international community, not just one nation or a small handful of nations. Second, it targets a spectrum of individuals, organizations, and institutions, not just one or two. Third, it fits into the broader framework of our approach to North Korea. It is accompanied by a message, as I reiterated this morning, that we are prepared to work with the North Koreans if they are willing to act on their previous commitments.

In short, our approach isolates North Korea, imposes meaningful pressure to force changes in its behavior, and provides an alterative path that would serve everyone’s interests. Our joint efforts to take Resolution 1874 from paper to practice are now underway. I asked Ambassador Philip Goldberg to lead an interagency team charged with implementing the sanctions, and he’s already traveled to the region to consolidate and coordinate our efforts. Russian and Chinese representatives have visited Washington to work together on these issues.

And in addition to this week’s meetings, I’ve spoken repeatedly with my counterparts in China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea about our common way forward. I intend to send Ambassador Goldberg back to the region in the near future to continue our common efforts to enforce the sanctions. And next Monday and Tuesday, as part of our strategic and economic dialogue with China, I will be holding intensive discussions with State Councilor Dai Bingguo on North Korea and the broader questions of peace and security in Asia.

In implementing 1874, we are asking our partners to help dissuade all nations from facilitating, directly or indirectly, North Korea’s attempts to enhance and proliferate its nuclear and missile technologies. We were gratified by Burma’s statement and those of many other countries announcing an intention to implement the resolution. Burma’s statement is significant because in the past, North Korea has provided Burma with materials now barred by Resolution 1874.

The bottom line is this: If North Korea intends to engage in international commerce, its vessels must conform to the terms of 1874 or find no port. Our goal in enforcing these sanctions and others imposed earlier is not to create suffering or to destabilize North Korea. Our quarrel is not with the North Korean people. In fact, it was the North Korean leadership that rejected humanitarian aid from the United States and forced us to suspend our food aid program.

So let me be clear: As we work to end the regime’s nuclear program, we remain committed to the well-being, dignity, and human rights of the people of North Korea. We will continue to work closely with other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to address human rights violations and abuses perpetuated by the regime. We will maintain our support of NGOs working to improve human rights in North Korea. And we will keep funding Korean language radio broadcasting for the same purposes, and we will soon announce a special envoy for North Korean human rights.

As we enforce sanctions, we are open to talks with North Korea, but we are not interested in half measures. We do not intend to reward the North just for returning to the table. We will not give them anything new for actions they have already agreed to take. And we have no appetite for pursuing protracted negotiations that will only lead us right back to where we have already been.

We and our partners have a more ambitious agenda for any future talks. Such talks must lead to irreversible steps by North Korea to denuclearize. This, in turn, would lead us and our partners to reciprocate in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Full normalization of relationships, a permanent peace regime, and significant energy and economic assistance are all possible in the context of full and verifiable denuclearization.

In the meantime, we will undertake the necessary defensive measures to protect our interests and our allies. North Korea’s ongoing threatening behavior does not inspire trust, nor does it permit us to sit idly by. Our partners in the region understand that a nuclear North Korea has far-reaching consequences for the security future of Northeast Asia. North Korea’s continued pursuit of its nuclear ambitions is sure to elevate tensions on the Korean Peninsula and could provoke an arms race in the region. This would serve no nation’s interests – not ours, not Japan’s, South Korea’s, China, nor Russia’s and nor, might I add, North Korea’s.

Our success in putting this resolution into action will also have implications beyond North Korea. It will demonstrate to other countries with nuclear ambitions, such as Iran’s, that we can and will impose costly penalties for those who violate international agreements and undermine global security. And it will give us a blueprint for how to manage any similar challenges that might arise in the future.

So our policy is clear. North Korea knows what it has to do: return to denuclearization talks and fulfill its commitments under the 2005 joint statement to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and return at an early date to the nonproliferation treaty and to IAEA safeguards. The path is open, and it is up to North Korea to take it.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Thanks. Madame Secretary, the North Korean representatives today spoke just behind us over there and said that the Six-Party Talks were dead; there is no way they’re coming back, and that whatever we have to offer them in terms of incentives is nothing new to them, and they won’t accept it.

The foreign ministry at the same time issued a statement with actual attacks and insults personally aimed at you. I wonder whether you think that perhaps the time has come to replace the Six-Party framework with perhaps a broader framework. You just suggested that there’s a broad consensus today here about what to do with North Korea. And since China has been reluctant to put it – amend the resolution so far, what would you want them to do when you meet with them on Monday and Tuesday in Washington?

Oh, and one more: Aren’t you exhausted?

SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Aren’t you?

QUESTION: I am. That’s why I’m asking.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that China has been very vigorous in working with us in support of full implementation of 1874. Just as we have, they created an interagency task force which is working with our own people. There has already been a meeting in Beijing, and I said, there will be a follow-on meeting in Washington.

The Chinese have been very supportive in our efforts to deliver a strong message to North Korea and to other nations that they expect, as we do, that the international community will enforce 1874. They played a very helpful role in the matter of the North Korean ship that was on its way to Burma.

In addition, today, the Six-Party members who were present, with the exception of North Korea, reiterated their commitment to this process and made it very clear that there is no place to go for North Korea. They have no friends left that will protect them from the international community’s efforts to move toward denuclearization. So I think it’s fair to say that not only were Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea very strong in making the points which they did this morning, but those points were echoed by so many of the ASEAN members and other regional partners.

So the message is coming out loudly and clearly to North Korea. And I don’t think we’ve seen at all the way this will eventually develop. I think we’re just still at the beginning of determining how they’re going to respond.

QUESTION: What framework (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: The framework is the Six-Party Talks.

MR. KELLY: Next question (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, what evidence do you have of Burma’s cooperation in enforcing the UN Security Council resolution? How did your talks with Burmese officials go last night? And most importantly, how do you reconcile your appreciation and gratitude that they are promising to enforce that with your two days of public, strong comments about concerns of military and even nuclear cooperation between Burma and North Korea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve expressed that very clearly and forcefully, but I do think there is a positive direction that we’ve seen with Burma, both in the already existing cooperation they showed with respect to the North Korean ship, in their statements to us and others that they intend to do their part to enforce 1874. Now, obviously, we have to see that unfold, but that’s never happened before, and we’re very encouraged by that. At the same time, we know that there has been cooperation between North Korea and Burma in the past, and we are going to be vigilant to make sure that it doesn’t occur in the future.

I was not part of any talks. Others in our Administration were, and we made it very clear, both privately and publicly, that there are expectations on our part that Aung Sun Suu Kyi be released unconditionally, that there begin a process of release of political prisoners, that the election scheduled for next year be open and fair and transparent and credible. And that view was echoed by many people in the room. It was not just a U.S. view. It was very widely and, I must say, heart – it was really expressed from the heart by so many people.

So we hope that there is going to be recognition on the part of the Burmese leadership that they have more to gain by joining the international community and by effectively taking care of their people and putting Burma on the path to democracy. We don’t expect to see a change overnight, but we’re – it’s better to have those positive statements than the negative ones. So we think that gives us at least something to work with.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right. And I spoke to foreign ministers in the area, asking their help in speaking to their Burmese counterpart. And they did so, and whether or not it was a proximate cause, shortly after, the ship turned around.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from (inaudible) in Asia. I just wanted to clarify, when you said U.S. will take any defensive measurements, what exactly that mean? Is it going to be like U.S. ready to start a war with North Korea at any time? And how ASEAN, especially in Myanmar, is going to pick on that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. But I wanted to make very clear that the United States does not seek any kind of offensive action against North Korea. We have said that over and over again. The North Koreans said in a meeting today that they’ve been subjected to nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula aimed at them. That hasn’t happened for decades. So I think they are living in a historical time period that doesn’t reflect today’s realities.

We are very open to a positive relation with North Korea on the condition that they denuclearize. But if they refuse to do so, as they have in the last months, and refuse to follow the obligations they themselves signed up to in 2005 and -06, then our allies in South Korea and Japan and other countries in the region begin to worry about what North Korea’s intentions are. And we want to make clear that the United States will continue to work for the defense of allies like Japan and South Korea. And that’s unfortunately our obligation, one that we will be serious in fulfilling. But it’s not directed in any offensive manner against North Korea.

We also wish to avoid an arms race in Northeast Asia. If the North Koreans are going to continue to test nuclear weapons and their missiles, then other countries are going to start saying, well, we don’t know what they’re going to do, we’d better start taking care of ourselves and doing that and to have that capacity.

We think that would be a terrible mistake. So we’re trying to make clear that we will protect and defend our allies, but we still hope that there is an opportunity to work with North Korea toward denuclearization.

MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

UPDATED Video, Transcript, and Q&A: Hillary Clinton Speech at Council on Foreign Relations (15 July)

The Clinton Speech: An Immediate Reaction

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CLINTON: Shortly before I started at the State Department, a former Secretary of State called me with this advice: Don’t try to do too much. And it seemed like a wise admonition, if only it were possible. But the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. All of these challenges affect America’s security and prosperity, and they all threaten global stability and progress.

But they are not reason to despair about the future. The same forces that compound our problems – economic interdependence, open borders, and the speedy movement of information, capital, goods, services and people – are also part of the solution. And with more states facing common challenges, we have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart of America’s mission in the world today.

Now, some see the rise of other nations and our economic troubles here at home as signs that American power has waned. Others simply don’t trust us to lead; they view America as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its will at the expense of their interests and our principles. But they are wrong.

The question is not whether our nation can or should lead, but how it will lead in the 21st century. Rigid ideologies and old formulas don’t apply. We need a new mindset about how America will use its power to safeguard our nation, expand shared prosperity, and help more people in more places live up to their God-given potential.

President Obama has led us to think outside the usual boundaries. He has launched a new era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect. Going forward, capitalizing on America’s unique strengths, we must advance those interests through partnership, and promote universal values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people. In this way, we can forge the global consensus required to defeat the threats, manage the dangers, and seize the opportunities of the 21st century. America will always be a world leader as long as we remain true to our ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. So we will exercise American leadership to build partnerships and solve problems that no nation can solve on its own, and we will pursue policies to mobilize more partners and deliver results.

First, though, let me say that while the ideas that shape our foreign policy are critically important, this, for me, is not simply an intellectual exercise. For over 16 years, I’ve had the chance, the privilege, really, to represent our country overseas as First Lady, as a senator, and now as Secretary of State. I’ve seen the bellies of starving children, girls sold into human trafficking, men dying of treatable diseases, women denied the right to own property or vote, and young people without schooling or jobs gripped by a sense of futility about their futures.

I’ve also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest of odds. And for almost 36 years, I have worked as an advocate for children, women and families here at home. I’ve traveled across our country listening to everyday concerns of our citizens. I’ve met parents struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their children’s college tuitions, and afford healthcare.

And all that I have done and seen has convinced me that our foreign policy must produce results for people – the laid-off auto worker in Detroit whose future will depend on global economic recovery; the farmer or small business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can drive political instability and economic stagnation; the families whose loved ones are risking their lives for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere; children in every land who deserve a brighter future. These are the people – hundreds of millions of them here in America and billions around the world – whose lives and experiences, hopes and dreams, must inform the decisions we take and the actions that follow. And these are the people who inspire me and my colleagues and the work that we try to do every day.

In approaching our foreign policy priorities, we have to deal with the urgent, the important, and the long-term all at once. But even as we are forced to multi-task – a very gender-related term (laughter) – we must have priorities, which President Obama has outlined in speeches from Prague to Cairo, from Moscow to Accra. We want to reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat. We want to isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world. We want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs. We want to combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future. We want to support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for their people. And we intend to stand up for human rights everywhere.

Liberty, democracy, justice and opportunity underlie our priorities. Some accuse us of using these ideals to justify actions that contradict their very meaning. Others say we are too often condescending and imperialistic, seeking only to expand our power at the expense of others. And yes, these perceptions have fed anti-Americanism, but they do not reflect who we are. No doubt we lost some ground in recent years, but the damage is temporary. It’s kind of like my elbow – it’s getting better every day. (Laughter.)

Whether in Latin America or Lebanon, Iran or Liberia, those who are inspired by democracy, who understand that democracy is about more than just elections – that it must also protect minority rights and press freedom, develop strong, competent and independent judiciaries, legislatures and executive agencies, and commit for democracy to deliver results – these are the people who will find that Americans are their friends, not adversaries. As President Obama made clear last week in Ghana, this Administration will stand for accountable and transparent governance, and support those who work to build democratic institutions wherever they live.

Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19th century concert of powers, or a 20th century balance of power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism.

Today, we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world: First, no nation can meet the world’s challenges alone. The issues are too complex. Too many players are competing for influence, from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels; from NGOs to al-Qaida; from state-controlled media to individuals using Twitter.

Second, most nations worry about the same global threats, from non-proliferation to fighting disease to counter-terrorism, but also face very real obstacles – for reasons of history, geography, ideology, and inertia. They face these obstacles and they stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action.

So these two facts demand a different global architecture – one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division.

So we will exercise American leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts at places like the Council call “collective action problems” and what I call obstacles to cooperation. For just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America.

And here’s how we’ll do it: We’ll work through existing institutions and reform them. But we’ll go further. We’ll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. We’ll go beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and individuals to contribute to solutions.

We believe this approach will advance our interests by uniting diverse partners around common concerns. It will make it more difficult for others to abdicate their responsibilities or abuse their power, but will offer a place at the table to any nation, group, or citizen willing to shoulder a fair share of the burden. In short, we will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.

Now, we know this approach is not a panacea. We will remain clear-eyed about our purpose. Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values and interests. And some will actively seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships can become power coalitions to constrain or deter those negative actions.

And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people vigorously and when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise to all Americans.

Building the architecture of global cooperation requires us to devise the right policies and use the right tools. I speak often of smart power because it is so central to our thinking and our decision-making. It means the intelligent use of all means at our disposal, including our ability to convene and connect. It means our economic and military strength; our capacity for entrepreneurship and innovation; and the ability and credibility of our new President and his team. It also means the application of old-fashioned common sense in policymaking. It’s a blend of principle and pragmatism.

Smart power translates into specific policy approaches in five areas. First, we intend to update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners; second, we will pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us; third, we will elevate development as a core pillar of American power; fourth, we will integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas; and fifth, we will leverage key sources of American power, including our economic strength and the power of our example.

Our first approach is to build these stronger mechanisms of cooperation with our historic allies, with emerging powers, and with multilateral institutions, and to pursue that cooperation in, as I said, a pragmatic and principled way. We don’t see those as in opposition, but as complementary.

We have started by reinvigorating our bedrock alliances, which did fray in recent years. In Europe, that means improved bilateral relationships, a more productive partnership with the European Union, and a revitalized NATO. I believe NATO is the greatest alliance in history. But it was built for the Cold War. The new NATO is a democratic community of nearly a billion people stretching from the Baltics in the East to Alaska in the West. We’re working to update its strategic concept so that it is as effective in this century as it was in the last.

At the same time, we are working with our key treaty allies Japan and Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines and other partners to strengthen our bilateral relationships as well as trans-Pacific institutions. We are both a trans-Atlantic and a trans-Pacific nation.

We will also put special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers – China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa – to be full partners in tackling the global agenda. I want to underscore the importance of this task, and my personal commitment to it. These states are vital to achieving solutions to the shared problems and advancing our priorities – nonproliferation, counterterrorism, economic growth, climate change, among others. With these states, we will stand firm on our principles even as we seek common ground.

This week, I will travel to India, where External Affairs Minister Krishna and I will lay out a broad-based agenda that calls for a whole-of-government approach to our bilateral relationship. Later this month, Secretary Geithner and I will jointly lead our new strategic and economic dialogue with China. It will cover not just economic issues, but the range of strategic challenges we face together. In the fall, I will travel to Russia to advance the bi-national presidential commission that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I will co-chair.

The fact of these and other meetings does not guarantee results, but they set in motion processes and relationships that will widen our avenues of cooperation and narrow the areas of disagreement without illusion. We know that progress will not likely come quickly, or without bumps in the road, but we are determined to begin and stay on this path.

Now our global and regional institutions were built for a world that has been transformed, so they too must be transformed and reformed. As the President said following the recent G-8 meeting in Italy, we are seeking institutions that “combine the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.” From the UN to the World Bank, from the IMF to the G-8 and the G-20, from the OAS and the Summit of the Americas to ASEAN and APEC – all of these and other institutions have a role to play, but their continued vitality and relevance depend on their legitimacy and representativeness, and the ability of their members to act swiftly and responsibly when problems arise.

We also will reach out beyond governments, because we believe partnerships with people play a critical role in our 21st century statecraft. President Obama’s Cairo speech is a powerful example of communicating directly with people from the bottom up. And we are following up with a comprehensive agenda of educational exchanges, outreach, and entrepreneurial ventures. In every country I visit, I look for opportunities to bolster civil society and engage with citizens, whether at a town hall in Baghdad – a first in that country; or appearing on local popular television shows that reach a wide and young audience; or meeting with democracy activists, war widows, or students.

I have appointed special envoys to focus on a number of specific challenges, including the first Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues and an ambassador to build new public-private partnerships and to engage Diaspora communities in the United States to increase opportunities in their native lands. And we are working at the State Department to ensure that our government is using the most innovative technologies not only to speak and listen across borders, not only to keep technologies up and going, but to widen opportunities especially for those who are too often left on the margins. We’re taking these steps because reaching out directly to people will encourage them to embrace cooperation with us, making our partnerships with their governments and with them stronger and more durable.

We’ve also begun to adopt a more flexible and pragmatic posture with our partners. We won’t agree on every issue. Standing firm on our principles shouldn’t prevent us from working together where we can. So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they’re either with us or against us. In today’s world, that’s global malpractice.

Our diplomacy regarding North Korea is a case in point. We have invested a significant amount of diplomatic resources to achieve Security Council consensus in response to North Korea’s provocative actions. I spoke numerous times to my counterparts in Japan, South Korea, Russia and China, drawing out their concerns, making our principles and redlines clear, and seeking a path forward. The short-term results were two unanimous Security Council resolutions with real teeth and consequences for North Korea, and then the follow-on active involvement of China, Russia, and India with us in persuading others to comply with the resolutions. The long-term result, we believe, will be a tougher joint effort toward the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Cultivating these partnerships and their full range takes time and patience. It also takes persistence. That doesn’t mean procrastinating on urgent issues. Nor is it a justification for delaying efforts that may take years to bear fruit. In one of my favorite observations, Max Weber said, “Politics is the long and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective.” Perspective dictates passion and patience. And of course, passion keeps us from not finding excuses to do nothing.

Now I’m well aware that time alone does not heal all wounds; consider the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That’s why we wasted no time in starting an intensive effort on day one to realize the rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security in two states, which is in America’s interests and the world’s. We’ve been working with the Israelis to deal with the issue of settlements, to ease the living conditions of Palestinians, and create circumstances that can lead to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. For the last few decades, American administrations have held consistent positions on the settlement issue. And while we expect action from Israel, we recognize that these decisions are politically challenging.

And we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.

And Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict.

Our second policy approach is to lead with diplomacy, even in the cases of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We believe that doing so advances our interests and puts us in a better position to lead with our other partners. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of naiveté or acquiescence to these countries’ repression of their own people. I believe that is wrong. As long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table. Negotiations can provide insight into regimes’ calculations and the possibility – even if it seems remote – that a regime will eventually alter its behavior in exchange for the benefits of acceptance into the international community. Libya is one such example. Exhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion fail.

With this in mind, I want to say a few words about Iran. We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign journalists and nationals, and expelling them, and cutting off access to technology. As we and our G-8 partners have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable.

We know very well what we inherited with Iran, because we deal with that inheritance every day. We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens.

Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

Our third policy approach, and a personal priority for me as Secretary, is to elevate and integrate development as a core pillar of American power. We advance our security, our prosperity, and our values by improving the material conditions of people’s lives around the world. These efforts also lay the groundwork for greater global cooperation, by building the capacity of new partners and tackling shared problems from the ground up.

A central purpose of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review that I announced last week is to explore how to effectively design, fund, and implement development and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy. Let’s face it. We have devoted a smaller percentage of our government budget to development than almost any other advanced country. And too little of what we have spent has contributed to genuine and lasting progress. Too much of the money has never reached its intended target, but stayed here in America to pay salaries or fund overhead in contracts. I am committed to more partnerships with NGOs, but I want more of our tax dollars to be used effectively and to deliver tangible results.

As we seek more agile, effective, and creative partnerships for development, we will focus on country-driven solutions, such as those we are launching with Haiti on recovery and sustainable development, and with African states on global hunger. These initiatives must not be designed to help countries scrape by – they are a tool to help countries stand on their own.

Our development agenda will also focus on women as drivers of economic growth and social stability. Women have long comprised the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, and underfed. They are also the bulk of the world’s poor. The global recession has had a disproportionate effect on women and girls, which in turn has repercussions for families, communities, and even regions. Until women around the world are accorded their rights – and afforded the opportunities of education, health care, and gainful employment – global progress and prosperity will have its own glass ceiling.

Our fourth approach is to ensure that our civilian and military efforts operate in a coordinated and complementary fashion where we are engaged in conflict. This is the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we are integrating our efforts with international partners.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country. Yet Americans often ask, why do we ask our young men and women to risk their lives in Afghanistan when al-Qaida’s leadership is in neighboring Pakistan? And that question deserves a good answer: We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al-Qaida and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In other words, to eliminate al-Qaida, we must also fight the Taliban.

Now, we understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support al-Qaida, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when in power. And today we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al-Qaida, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution.

To achieve our goals, President Obama is sending an additional 17,000 troops and 4,000 military trainers to Afghanistan. Equally important, we are sending hundreds of direct hire American civilians to lead a new effort to strengthen the Afghan Government, help rebuild the once-vibrant agricultural sector, create jobs, encourage the rule of law, expand opportunities for women, and train the Afghan police. No one should doubt our commitment to Afghanistan and its people. But it is the Afghan people themselves who will determine their own future.

As we proceed, we must not forget that success in Afghanistan also requires close cooperation from neighboring Pakistan, which I will visit this fall. Pakistan is itself under intense pressure from extremist groups. Trilateral cooperation among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States has built confidence and yielded progress on a number of policy fronts. Our national security, as well as the future of Afghanistan, depends on a stable, democratic, and economically viable Pakistan. And we applaud the new Pakistani determination to deal with the militants who threaten their democracy and our shared security.

In Iraq, we are bolstering our diplomacy and development programs while we implement a responsible withdrawal of our troops. Last month our combat troops successfully redeployed from towns and cities. Our principal focus is now shifting from security issues to civilian efforts that promote Iraqi capacity – supporting the work of the Iraqi ministries and aiding in their efforts to achieve national unity. And we are developing a long-term economic and political relationship with Iraq as outlined by the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. This Agreement forms the basis of our future cooperation with Iraq and the Iraqi people, and I look forward to discussing it and its implementation with Prime Minister Maliki when he comes to Washington next week.

Our fifth approach is to shore up traditional sources of our influence, including economic strength and the power of our example. We renewed our own values by prohibiting torture and beginning to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. And we have been straightforward about our own measure of responsibility for problems like drug trafficking in Mexico and global climate change. When I acknowledged the obvious about our role in Mexico’s current conflict with narco-traffickers, some were critical. But they’re missing the point. Our capacity to take responsibility, and our willingness to change, to do the right thing, are themselves hallmarks of our greatness as a nation and strategic assets that can help us forge coalitions in the service of our interests.

That is certainly true when it comes to key priorities like nonproliferation and climate change. President Obama is committed to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and a series of concrete steps to reduce the threat and spread of these weapons, including working with the Senate to ratify the follow-on START agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking on greater responsibility within the Non Proliferation Treaty Framework and convening the world’s leaders here in Washington next year for a nuclear summit. Now we must urge others to take practical steps to advance our shared nonproliferation agenda.

Our Administration is also committed to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a plan that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume and conserve energy, and in the process spark an explosion of new investment, and millions of jobs. Now we must urge every other nation to meet its obligations and seize the opportunities of a clean energy future.

We are restoring our economy at home to enhance our strength and capacity abroad, especially at this time of economic turmoil. Now, this is not a traditional priority for a Secretary of State, but I vigorously support American recovery and growth as a pillar of our global leadership. And I am committed to restoring a significant role for the State Department within a whole-of-government approach to international economic policy-making. We will work to ensure that our economic statecraft – trade and investment, debt forgiveness, loan guarantees, technical assistance, decent work practices – support our foreign policy objectives. When coupled with a sound development effort, our economic outreach can give us a better form of globalization, reducing the bitter opposition of recent years and lifting millions more out of poverty.

And finally, I am determined to ensure that the men and women of our Foreign and Civil Service have the resources they need to implement our priorities effectively and safely. That’s why I appointed for the first time a Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. It’s why we worked so hard to secure additional funding for State and USAID. It’s why we have put ourselves on a path to double foreign assistance over the next few years. And it’s why we are implementing a plan to dramatically increase the number of diplomats and development experts.

Just as we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into battle, we cannot send our civilian personnel into the field underequipped. If we don’t invest in diplomacy and development, we will end up paying a lot more for conflicts and their consequences. As Secretary Gates has said, diplomacy is an indispensable instrument of national security, as it has been since Franklin, Jefferson and Adams won foreign support for Washington’s army.

Now all of this adds up to a very ambitious agenda. But the world does not afford us the luxury of choosing or waiting. As I said at the outset, we must tackle the urgent, the important and the long-term all at once.

We are both witness to and makers of significant change. We cannot and should not be passive observers. We are determined to channel the currents of change toward a world free of violent extremism, nuclear weapons, global warming, poverty, and abuses of human rights, and above all, a world in which more people in more places can live up to their God-given potential.

The architecture of cooperation we seek to build will advance all these goals, using our power not to dominate or divide but to solve problems. It is the architecture of progress for America and all nations.

More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies, we have the right President, and we have the American people, diverse, committed, and open to the future.

Now all we have to do is deliver. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

MR. HAASS: Well, thank you for delivering a truly comprehensive talk that was broad and deep. So really, thank you for that, and for doing it here.

I’m going to go straight to our membership and let them ask some questions. I ask them only to wait for a microphone, and to keep their questions as brief as they can be, so we can get as many in as possible. And just let us know your name and your affiliation when we do call on you.

I see zillions of – this is the part of the meeting where I alienate 70 percent of our membership. I may let you call on people before –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, no, no. That’s your job, Richard. (Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: Odeh Aberdene.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in 1999, I saw you in Gaza with President Clinton altering the PLO charter. There was a great deal of hope. Do you think by 2010 – by the end of 2010, we will have a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians? And can you say something about Syria?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I well remember that occasion in Gaza and the hope that was generated. And I still carry that hope very much with me, both personally and on behalf of the position I now hold. And it’s one of the reasons why I urged the President to appoint a skilled negotiator as a special envoy, and George Mitchell gratefully accepted. And we have been working literally non-stop to set up the conditions for such negotiations.

But as I said in my speech, we don’t think it is just the responsibility of the Israelis, nor even just of the Palestinians. We expect the entire region, particularly the Arab states, to assist us by stepping up and making clear that they are truly going to support the two-state solution.

We intend to pursue our efforts as vigorously as we possibly can. I’m not going to make any predictions, but I can only tell you that our commitment is deep and durable. And I don’t get easily discouraged, and I don’t want anybody else to, because this is a very difficult undertaking, especially because of the ten years between where we were in Gaza in ’99 and where we are today in 2009. But I have actually been heartened by what I’ve seen in the last six months.

With respect to Syria, we have made it very clear to the Syrians, including with the offer to return an ambassador, that we do want an engagement, but we expect it to be reciprocal, and there are certain actions that we would like to see the Syrians take as we begin to explore this with them. I think Syria is a critical player in whatever we do in the Middle East. I’m hoping that the Syrian calculation of where they should be positionally with respect to their relationship with Iran and their support for extremist and terrorist activities will be changing so that we can pursue a two-way engagement that will benefit both us and the larger region.

MR. HAASS: You mentioned in your speech the potential role of the Palestinian Authority in that context. You did not mention specifically Hamas. Do you see any conceivable situation in which Hamas could play a role in the peace process?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, right now, we are firmly committed to the Quartet principles. And we have made it clear, both publicly and privately, through all kinds of pronouncements, that we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel and renounce violence and agree to abide by prior agreements. And we’ve been very pleased that the Quartet members – the EU, Russia, the UN – have stood very firm with us on that.

And in the efforts to try to work out a unity government between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the Palestinian Authority has also stood firmly because, of course, they are committed to a two-state solution, something that Hamas has not yet committed to. So at this stage, what we want to do is to get the negotiations going between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority.

And as I said with respect to the Taliban, those who are willing to lay down arms, renounce al-Qaida, be willing to participate in a society that is free and open, they are welcome. And I think that’s true for people in other organizations who may realize that rejectionism and resistance hasn’t really given them or their children the kind of future that they would hope for. And so I’m very committed to working to encourage as many people as possible to be part of the two-state solution, but there are certain entry requirements that have to be paid.

MR. HAASS: Trudy.

QUESTION: Trudy Rubin, the Philadelphia Inquirer.

SECRETARY CLINTON: How are you, Trudy?

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I wonder if you could elaborate a little on the Administration’s willingness to engage with Iran at this point?

First, could you tell us has there been any response from Ayatollah Khamenei or the Iranian Government to the letter that was sent in May? And if the Iranians should show interest in engagement, what if they stonewall? How long could this go on if there was absolutely no give? And finally, could you clarify, after Vice President’s Biden’s remarks, has there been any green, yellow, or red light given to Israel about an attack on Iran?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, those are three easy questions, Trudy. (Laughter.)

With respect to Iran, I’m going to stay within the boundaries of what I said in my speech. We are well aware that the situation after the election puts a different complexion on both the Iranian Government – we really don’t know what their intentions might be at this point in time. We’re very troubled by the repressive actions that they took in the aftermath of their elections, as well as what are most likely a certain amount of electoral irregularities.

But as I said, we have no path that has opened up right now. But we have made it clear that there is a choice for the Iranian Government to make. And we will wait to see how they decide, whether that choice is worth pursuing. If they were to choose to pursue it, we’ve made it very clear that this is not an open-ended engagement. This is not a door that stays open no matter what happens. And I think that until there is some decision on their part, we really won’t know what to expect.

With respect to the Vice President’s remarks, I think that the President and the White House clarified those the next day.

MR. HAASS: We’ve now had a two-part question and a three-part question. Can we please limit future questions to one part? (Laughter.)

Ambassador Schaffer?

QUESTION: Thank you, and it’s nice to see you, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

QUESTION: I last saw you in Colombo when you were First Lady.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I remember that.

QUESTION: You’re about to go to India, and I wanted to ask you about what you expect to get out of the trip. Presumably, a lot of it will be on the bilateral side. But I wanted to ask if you could focus a little bit on the foreign policy and global part of your agenda. Are there issues where you see a real prospect of working together with India? Are there others that are tougher? And what do you see as the entry point there?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Ambassador, we are delighted that our two countries will be engaging in a very broad, comprehensive dialogue. It’s the most wide-ranging that I think has ever been put on the table between India and the United States. It has six pillars to it, one of which, of course, is foreign policy, strategic challenges, along with other matters, like health and education and agriculture and the economy.

So I don’t want to prejudge, but it is clear that everything is on the table to discuss. We believe India has a tremendous opportunity and a growing responsibility, which they acknowledge, to play not just a regional role, but a global one as well. How they choose to define that, we will explore in depth during the course of our discussions. But obviously, there are a number of areas where we would welcome Indian leadership and involvement that are difficult.

There’s nothing easy about nonproliferation. Anybody who ever read Strobe Talbott’s book, Engaging India, knows that it’s a very difficult issue. But we want to look at new ways for global and regional regimes on weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear. We’re very interested in the role that India sees for itself in the immediate area. You mentioned Sri Lanka. What are the military and particularly naval implications of decisions that India is making going forward? The economic actions that India is taking – they weathered the beginning of the recession better than many places – what are they going to do keep generating growth, lifting people out of poverty? The Congress party made a number of important campaign promises to their poor, particularly the rural poor.

When I’m there, I will visit the first LEED certified building in India to talk about climate change and clean energy. We know that India and China have understandable questions about what role they should be expected to play in any kind of new global climate change regime. Our Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern will be with me. And it is our hope that we can, through dialogue, come up with some win-win approaches. And this LEED-certified building is a perfect example of what India would be capable of doing.

I will also be visiting an agricultural facility because India is really hoping to continue to expand agricultural productivity, but then they have to create an infrastructure so that the crops get to a market. We have to have farm-to-market roads. You have to have storage and refrigeration facilities. So I think that this is an extremely rich area. I’ve just touched the surface of it. So I’m excited. I’m very much looking forward to my meetings with the prime minister and certainly with Minister Krishna and others in India, and we’re going to do everything we can to broaden and deepen our engagement.

MR. HAASS: You mentioned Ambassador – Senator Mitchell and Todd Stern. I want to make sure that – are there any members of your staff who want to ask a question here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: They’d better not.

(Laughter.)

MR. HAASS: I don’t want to deny them – in case the morning staff meeting wasn’t sufficiently long. I wanted to – let’s – in the back, all the way – I see in the third to last row or so, but I can’t see that far who it is. I see one or two hands up there.

QUESTION: Jonathan Broder from Congressional Quarterly. Madame Secretary, there have been reports that in the discussions between George Mitchell and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, that a certain number of settlements – or houses in the settlements that have already begun, the construction has begun on them already, that there has – was some agreement to allow the construction on these houses to go forward. Can you confirm that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m certainly not going to step on the negotiations in any way. I think that any decisions that are made will be announced officially. And it’s only fair to the Israeli Government, as well as to our own, that we wait until decisions have been made.

MR. HAASS: Hattie Babbitt.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi, Hattie.

QUESTION: Hi. I wanted to ask you to talk a little bit more about the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. It’s – I understand from your speech on Saturday – modeled in – a little bit after the Defense QDR, but in many ways more complicated because of the numbers of departments and agencies that have a stake or are stakeholders in the process. And could you talk more about how you envision that happening?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, Hattie. I served on the Armed Services Committee for six years. And the Quadrennial Defense Review, it seemed to me, was a very important discipline and tool for the Defense Department. It forced the Defense Department to take a hard look at itself, put forward priorities and the means to achieve them. And I thought it was one of the many reasons why Defense had increasingly taken a paramount position in our foreign policy. So among the many steps we’re taking, I decided we would do the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, because I think it requires us to think hard about what it is we’re trying to achieve, to be as specific as possible, to match our mission with the resources we need, to justify what we believe we are doing and to demonstrate results.

Especially in a global economic downturn, I feel a real responsibility to be able to explain to people who are not currently employed or hanging on by their fingernails, why am I asking for more money for something called diplomacy and development? I’m not asking for the money to build tanks or airplanes. I’m asking to send people to represent the United States, to engage in important negotiations, to be early warning signals. I’m asking to send experts into the field who can work with other nations, achieve sustainable results for the investment we make, lift the standard of living, which we believe then helps to sow the seeds of stability and, hopefully, democracy. And we have to make that case.

So we have embarked upon this. I think it is extremely complicated. I have no illusions about that. It is also, as Hattie said, something where we have to coordinate with a number of other agencies. Defense does work that you could call diplomacy and development. Treasury and the multilateral financial institutions are certainly engaged, at least in development. You’ve got USDA. You’ve got the U.S. Trade Rep. You can go down the list. And we want to try to explain the whole-of-government approach. And so in addition to what we will be doing internally, we will be working with the White House to bring together all the other stakeholders in diplomacy and development.

Now, it won’t surprise you to learn that I am also deep into discussions both with the Pentagon and with the Congress about bringing back some of the authorities and some of the money that went with them that has been used by the military for diplomacy and development. And the migration of those authorities and those resources is one of the many reasons why the State Department and USAID have had a challenging – a more challenging time than usual in the last years.

So this is both a policy tool as well as an attempt to explain and justify what it is we believe we can accomplish. And I want it institutionalized. I think Howard Berman may put it into legislation, so it’s not just a one-shot deal, it’s not just because I’m Secretary of State, but it will require the same level of rigor and analysis every four years by State and USAID.

MR. HAASS: I’m going to do serious – all the way in the back there. I can’t see who it is. The gentleman – yes, sir.

QUESTION: This is Stephen Flanagan from CSIS.

MR. HAASS: Oh, Stephen.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I had a question about your – the question of the dividends that are being – receiving – the Administration is receiving from its recommitment to alliances and alliance relationships. Many of our NATO allies definitely welcomed the shift in strategy and the recommitment to alliance relationships generally that the Administration put forward, but frankly, the response at Strasbourg-Kehl was little bit tepid, both on the military and the civil side. Now, President Obama characterized that as a down payment and that there would be more forthcoming, but yet we also still hear some allies hiding behind the complaint that, well, we haven’t yet seen the full development of the civil side of the Administration’s strategy.

So I wanted to ask you: Where do you see – do you see the second and third payments coming from our allies? And also, if you could give us a brief sense of where you are. You mentioned the recommitment of additional personnel to Afghanistan, civil personnel on the U.S. side. What about some of our allies and other partners in the world?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I agree that it was a down payment. And I guess I was more impressed by what we got than perhaps some were, because I know how difficult it was to make the convincing case to allies who felt like they had been either shut out of the process or had a feeling that their contributions were not adequately appreciated. So we had a lot of catch-up work to do, and it was part of our overall strategic review. Richard Holbrooke is here, and he has put together an interagency team as well as an international team. We have intense ongoing discussions with our ISAF allies and with others who want to play a part in promoting the strategy that the President put forth.

Now, it’s challenging because of the global economic crisis that everybody faces. It’s also difficult, as it is in our own country, to understand – well, wait a minute, you’ve been there for nearly eight years and now you’re adding more troops and you’re asking for more funding and you’re going to send more civilians? So, I mean, we have to answer these questions in our own country. And you saw where Prime Minister Brown in Great Britain – they lost eight soldiers. And the government went out and began talking about why it was important to stand with the United States and others in Afghanistan, and got, from what I could glean, a more positive response than people anticipated. Because you have to be willing to try to assuage the fears and anxieties and paint a picture of where you’re going.

Now, on the civilian side, this has been one of the areas that Jack Lew, my Deputy for Resources and Management, working with Ambassador Holbrooke and his team and USAID and everybody involved – we’ve actually been heartened by the numbers of people who have volunteered to go. But we’ve limited the areas that the United States is going to focus on. For example, you heard me say agriculture. Seventy percent of the people of Afghanistan live in rural areas. Afghanistan used to be, in some descriptions, a garden of Central Asia and South Asia. And because of the Soviet invasion and the resistance to that and then the warlords, I mean, now it is so eroded and dry and – the whole agricultural base has to be reinvigorated. So we’re really focused on that. We’re not promising to be all things to all people. And in fact, we’re working with our allies so that they will focus on areas that we are not able to any longer.

So look, this is very complicated. And the whole idea is to be able to clear and hold, which is what our Marines are doing in the south right now, and to provide security for people and to begin to see life return to markets and other means of common activity, and then to go in and work with local people: on their police force, which we will be focusing on; on agriculture; and obviously, since I’m Secretary of State, on women and women’s roles and opportunities.

And I’m not here to say, we know exactly everything to do and every one of our allies is going to come through, but I am encouraged by those who feel the political pressure or the economic pressure to shift from military resources to civilian and development resources. And I think we’ve put together something which has a direct relationship to the strategy that we’re now following.

MR. HAASS: Professor Lieber.

QUESTION: Bob Lieber, Georgetown. After the easy questions, let me ask you one a tad more challenging. The previous presidents, from Jimmy Carter through Ronald Reagan through Bill Clinton, have sought to reach out to Iran and been rebuffed. Frankly, every president has had that experience. Iran, for 20 years, has been cheating on its obligations under various treaties. If Iran fails to respond positively to these initiatives, and if our friends and allies and others, including Russia and China, are unprepared to countenance really significant sanctions, what happens then? President Obama, either during the campaign or shortly after, said that the U.S. would not be willing to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. And therefore, I have to ask the question: If these other efforts don’t work, is the Administration prepared to live with a nuclear Iran or not?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as I said in my speech, as you rightly quoted the president, we have consistently stated that we do not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. We think it is a great threat to the region and beyond.

But as you might guess, I’m not going to negotiate with Iran sitting here. And in most negotiations I’ve ever been a part of, either as a lawyer or as a senator or in any other capacity, I think if you have a clear set of objectives and you begin the process, you have a better idea of what might or might not be possible. We have no illusions about this. I believe, though, that the absence of the United States for much of the last eight years in these negotiations was a mistake. I think we outsourced our policy to Iran and, frankly, it didn’t work very well. That’s how I see it. I want to be in the middle of it, to be able to make our own judgments, to figure out what we know and don’t know, and then to be in a stronger position with respect to other nations.

I think part of the attractiveness of engagement, direct engagement, is not only to make our own judgments, but also to demonstrate to others that we’ve done so, and to make clear what kind of reaction we’ve gotten, which I think lays the groundwork for concerted action. And certainly, in just the last six months in our efforts in talking with other partners, I’ve noticed a turn in attitude by some, a recognition that it’s not just the United States that should be concerned about what Iran is doing, but that there are implications for others who are much closer than we are to Iran.

So I think that, as I said in the speech, our policy is one that we believe makes the most sense for our interests, and we intend to pursue it but we obviously have exits along the way depending upon the consequences of the discussions.

MR. HAASS: We probably have time for about one last question. Stan Roth.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi, Stan.

QUESTION: Hi, good to see you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good to see you.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask you to expand on –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, here comes the microphone.

QUESTION: Stanley Roth with The Boeing Company. I wanted to ask you to expand on one of the points you made towards the end of your speech, the State Department’s whole-of-government approach to economic issues. Particularly as you work on the economic recovery of the U.S., the role for trade, beyond just the reference you made to free trade agreements, where would you like to see us end up on the trade side? But also, exports obviously are going to be part of the recovery plan. What role do you see for yourself and the State Department in terms of commercial advocacy? It’s sometimes tough, the environment faced by American business overseas.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, commercial advocacy is part of our list of responsibilities, as you know, and it’s one that I take very seriously. But I’d like to just take a step back and look at the broader picture of the State Department’s role in economic aspects of foreign policy.

From my perspective, trade is a foreign policy tool as well as an economic one. And we’re in the midst of looking hard at our trade policy, trying to determine how we can be more effective in making the case to the Congress and the American people about trade, but also making it clear to the rest of the world that we’re a trading nation and we want to be.

But we’re at a point where the economic implications of foreign policy are now very heavily seen as part of the intersection of nations. I mean, the G-20 is assuming greater and greater importance. I mean, you remember it started in 1998 as a result of the Asian financial crisis, and it has stayed as a player because it serves a very useful purpose. You have people at the table who, before, were not welcome or were not even thought of in the same breath as the United States or Great Britain or someone else.

So I think that the role of the economic agenda of the State Department needs to be strengthened. We work closely with Treasury. We work closely with the National Economic Council. But I’ll give you a quick example: David Lipton, who works with Larry Summers in the White House, just went to Pakistan for us to do an assessment of Pakistan’s capacity to meet the IMF requirements and what it needed and how it was doing. Well, was that an economic analysis? Was that a strategic, security, political – ? I would argue it’s all of that. So why would we say, oh, well, no, we’re not going to be part of the economic mix, when it’s critical as to how we’re dealing with other countries? Part of the reason that I worked to have our dialogue with China be inclusive and comprehensive is because strategic and economic concerns cannot be divorced.

So on all of these issues, the State Department has to play a role on the economic front. And we’re working very collegially with everybody. I mean, obviously, you have different perspectives, different jurisdiction. We know all of that. But there is a recognition inside this Administration that it’s an all-hands-on-deck, whole-of-government time. Everybody’s being required to get up and do your part and redefine what it is and expand it so that you can be the most effective player possible. So I think this is just part of our responsibility now.

QUESTION: So after six months, what has most struck you about this? Here you are; what’s surprised you the most?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m really impressed by the quality of the people I work with at both the State Department and USAID, just the level of passion and intense commitment, the willingness to work long and all hours; you know that from your own experience. The excitement of being part of the new Administration, which has meant so much to so many people around the world and has certainly caused people to rethink who we are as Americans and maybe give us a break, cut us some slack as we get organized and get going.

I still think it’s hard to justify not having our full government in place six months after we started. That’s something that we’ve got to do something about, I think. (Applause.) I mean, we are trying to get our political leaders in place to work with our very dedicated Foreign Service and Civil Service employees, but we’re still not there yet. And I had no idea when I was in the Senate asking a million questions of every nominee – (laughter) – how really shortsighted that was. (Laughter.)

It’s amazing; the other thing I didn’t realize is that when all else failed, if there was a problem that had a foreign policy implication, write a letter when you’re in the Congress – Ellen Tauscher, who is our new Under Secretary for Arms Control and Nonproliferation – so I probably, in my eight years, wrote hundreds of letters, and now I have to read them. (Laughter.) And it just depends upon which side of the table you’re sitting.

But it’s been a real privilege and an honor, and I think we’re making a difference, and obviously, we’re going to work as hard as we can to translate that into the results that the American people deserve.

MR. HAASS: Everybody here wishes you a successful and safe trip, as you know, to India and Thailand, and it’s been a privilege and an honor, to quote your words back at you, for us to have you here today. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Richard. Thank you. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Transcript: Obama Press Conference After G8 Summit (10 July)

President Barack Obama, at his press conference after the end of the G8 Summit in L'Aquila, Italy, focused on the environment, global economy, and international security. As for Iran, he reiterated the deep concern of the international community over the extreme violence against demonstrations and stated that the door for negotiation is open to Tehran until September, when the G20 Summit will be held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the US.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please, everybody have a seat. I apologize for being a little bit late. Good afternoon.

We have just concluded the final session of what has been a highly productive summit here in L'Aquila. And before I discuss what we've achieved these past three days, I'd like to take a moment to express my thanks to Prime Minister Berlusconi, his staff, the people of Italy for their extraordinary hospitality and hard work in setting up this summit. And particularly I want to thank the people of L'Aquila for welcoming us to your home at this difficult time. We've seen how you've come together and taken care of each other, and we've been moved by your courage and your resilience and your kindness.

I'm confident that L'Aquila will be rebuilt, its splendor will be restored, and its people will serve as an example for all of us in how people can rise up from tragedy and begin anew. And we will keep this place and its people in our prayers and our thoughts in the months and years ahead.

We've come to L'Aquila for a very simple reason: because the challenges of our time threaten the peace and prosperity of every single nation, and no one nation can meet these challenges alone. The threat of climate change can't be contained by borders on a map, and the theft of loose nuclear materials could lead to the extermination of any city on Earth. Reckless actions by a few have fueled a recession that spans the globe, and rising food prices means that 100 million of our fellow citizens are expected to fall into desperate poverty.

So right now, at this defining moment, we face a choice. We can either shape our future or let events shape it for us. We can let the stale debates and old disagreements of the past divide us, or we can recognize our shared interests and shared aspirations and work together to create a safer and cleaner and more prosperous world for future generations.

I believe it's clear from our progress these past few days that path that we must choose.

This gathering has included not just leaders of the G8, but leaders from more than 25 nations, as well as representatives from major international organizations such as the U.N., IMF, WTO, and others. And after weeks of preparation and three days of candid and spirited discussions, we've agreed to take significant measures to address some of the most pressing threats facing our environment, our global economy, and our international security.

Let me outline what I believe have been the most significant items that emerged from L'Aquila. First, there was widespread consensus that we must all continue our work to restore economic growth and reform our national and international financial regulatory systems. I'm pleased that the United States has taken the lead on this reform at home, with a sweeping overhaul of our regulatory system -- a transformation on a scale that we have not seen since the aftermath of the Great Depression.

But while our markets are improving, and we appear to have averted global collapse, we know that too many people are still struggling. So we agree that full recovery is still a ways off; that it would be premature to begin winding down our stimulus plans; and that we must sustain our support for those plans to lay the foundation for a strong and lasting recovery. We also agreed that it's equally important that we return to fiscal sustainability in the midterm after the recovery is completed.

Second, we agreed to historic measures that will help stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and move us closer to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Prague, I laid out a comprehensive strategy to advance global security by pursuing that goal. In Moscow, President Medvedev and I agreed to substantially reduce our warheads and delivery systems in a treaty that will be completed later this year.

And this week, the leaders of the G8 nations embraced the strategy I outlined in Prague, which includes measures to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty; to encourage nations to meet their arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation commitments; and to secure nuclear weapons and vulnerable nuclear materials so they don't fall into the hands of terrorists.

I also invited leaders from the broader group of nations here to attend a Global Nuclear Summit that I will host in Washington in March of next year, where we will discuss steps we can take to secure loose nuclear materials; combat smuggling; and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism.

Now, we face a real-time challenge on nuclear proliferation in Iran. And at this summit, the G8 nations came together to issue a strong statement calling on Iran to fulfill its responsibilities to the international community without further delay. We remain seriously concerned about the appalling events surrounding the presidential election. And we're deeply troubled by the proliferation risks Iran's nuclear program poses to the world.

We've offered Iran a path towards assuming its rightful place in the world. But with that right comes responsibilities. We hope Iran will make the choice to fulfill them, and we will take stock of Iran's progress when we see each other this September at the G20 meeting.

Third, we took groundbreaking steps forward to address the threat of climate change in our time. The G8 nations agreed that by 2050, we'll reduce our emissions by 80 percent and that we'll work with all nations to cut global emissions in half. And 17 of the world's leading economies -- both developed and developing nations alike -- made unprecedented commitments to reduce their emissions and made significant progress on finance, adaptation, and technology issues.

In the United States, we've already passed legislation in the House of Representatives that puts us on track to meeting this 80 percent goal. And we made historic clean energy investments in our stimulus, as well as setting aside -- setting new fuel-efficiency standards to increase mileage and decrease pollution. Because we believe that the nation that can build a 21st century clean energy economy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy.

We did not reach agreement on every issue and we still have much work ahead on climate change, but these achievements are highly meaningful and they'll generate significant momentum as we head into the talks at Copenhagen and beyond.

Finally, we have committed to investing $20 billion in food security -- agricultural development programs to help fight world hunger. This is in addition to the emergency humanitarian aid that we provide. And I should just note that going into the meeting we had agreed to $15 billion; we exceeded that mark and obtained an additional $5 billion of hard commitments. We do not view this assistance as an end in itself. We believe that the purpose of aid must be to create the conditions where it's no longer needed -- to help people become self-sufficient, provide for their families, and lift their standards of living. And that's why I proposed a new approach to this issue -- one endorsed by all the leaders here -- a coordinated effort to support comprehensive plans created by the countries themselves, with help from multilateral institutions like the World Bank when appropriate, along with significant and sustained financial commitments from our nations.

I also want to speak briefly about additional one-on-one meetings I had with leaders here outside of the G8 context. These meetings were tremendously valuable and productive. We spoke about how we can forge a strong, coordinated, and effective response to nuclear proliferation threats from Iran and North Korea. We also discussed challenges we faced in managing our economies, steps we can take together in combating climate change, and other important matters. And I believe we laid a solid foundation on these issues.

Ultimately, this summit and the work we've done here reflects a recognition that the defining problems of our time will not be solved without collective action. No one corner of the globe can wall itself off from the challenges of the 21st century or the needs and aspirations of fellow nations. The only way forward is through shared and persistent effort to combat threats to our peace, our prosperity and our common humanity wherever they may exist.

None of this will be easy. As we worked this week to find common ground, we have not solved all our problems. And we've not agreed on every point. But we've shown that it is possible to move forward and make real and unprecedented progress together. And I'm confident we'll continue to do so in the months and years ahead.

So with that, let me take a few questions. I've got a list that I'm working off of, and I'm going to start with Peter Baker.

Peter.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, your mic didn't -- it's not working.

Q Hello? Yes, that's better. Thank you, sir.

Mr. President, we were told that you made your appeal for the food security money during the meetings personal by citing your family experience in Kenya, your cousin and so forth. I wonder if you could relate to us a little bit of what you said then, and talk about what -- your family experience, how that influences your policies and approach.

THE PRESIDENT: What you heard is true, and I started with this fairly telling point that when my father traveled to the United States from Kenya to study, at that time the per capita income and Gross Domestic Product of Kenya was higher than South Korea's. Today obviously South Korea is a highly developed and relatively wealthy country, and Kenya is still struggling with deep poverty in much of the country. And the question I asked in the meeting was, why is that? There had been some talk about the legacies of colonialism and other policies by wealthier nations, and without in any way diminishing that history, the point I made was that the South Korean government, working with the private sector and civil society, was able to create a set of institutions that provided transparency and accountability and efficiency that allowed for extraordinary economic progress, and that there was no reason why African countries could not do the same. And yet, in many African countries, if you want to start a business or get a job you still have to pay a bribe; that there remains too much -- there remains a lack of transparency.

And the point that I was trying to underscore is, is that as we think about this issue of food security, which is of tremendous importance -- I mean, we've got 100 million people who dropped into further dire poverty as a consequence of this recession; we estimate that a billion people are hungry around the globe. And so wealthier nations have a moral obligation as well as a national security interest in providing assistance. And we've got to meet those responsibilities.

The flip side is, is that countries in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the world that are suffering from extreme poverty have an obligation to use the assistance that's available in a way that is transparent, accountable, and that builds on rule of law and other institutional reforms that will allow long-term improvement.

There is no reason why Africa cannot be self-sufficient when it comes to food. It has sufficient arable land. What's lacking is the right seeds, the right irrigation, but also the kinds of institutional mechanisms that ensure that a farmer is going to be able to grow crops, get them to market, get a fair price. And so all these things have to be part of a comprehensive plan, and that's what I was trying to underscore during the meeting today.

Q And your own family, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: What's that?

Q Your own family?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the point I was making is -- my father traveled to the United States a mere 50 years ago and yet now I have family members who live in villages -- they themselves are not going hungry, but live in villages where hunger is real. And so this is something that I understand in very personal terms, and if you talk to people on the ground in Africa, certainly in Kenya, they will say that part of the issue here is the institutions aren't working for ordinary people. And so governance is a vital concern that has to be addressed.

Now keep in mind -- I want to be very careful -- Africa is a continent, not a country, and so you can't extrapolate from the experience of one country. And there are a lot of good things happening. Part of the reason that we're traveling to Ghana is because you've got there a functioning democracy, a President who's serious about reducing corruption, and you've seen significant economic growth.

So I don't want to overly generalize it, but I do want to make the broader point that a government that is stable, that is not engaging in tribal conflicts, that can give people confidence and security that their work will be rewarded, that is investing in its people and their skills and talents, those countries can succeed, regardless of their history.

All right, Michael Fletcher, The Washington Post.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you've pushed for an agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles between Russia and the U.S., part of your rationale has been that you want to have the moral authority to then turn to North Korea and Iran to get them to suspend their programs. Why will they listen to what the U.S. and Russia have to say? What would it matter to them what we do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't think it matters so much necessarily that they will listen to the United States or Russia individually. But it gives us the capacity, as the two nuclear superpowers, to make appeals to the broader world community in a consistent way about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the need to reduce that danger and hopefully at some point in time eliminate it.

So there are countries that have decided not to pursue nuclear weapons. Brazil, South Africa, Libya have all made a decision not to pursue nuclear weapons. Now, part of the concept behind the Non-Proliferation Treaty was countries could develop peaceful nuclear energy, they would not pursue nuclear weapons if they were signatories to the treaty, and in turn the United States and Russia would also significantly reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

And so part of the goal here is to show that the U.S. and Russia are going to be fulfilling their commitments so that other countries feel that this is an international effort and it's not something simply being imposed by the United States or Russia or members of the nuclear club. And I am confident that we can rebuild a non-proliferation framework that works for all countries. And I think it's important for us to establish a set of international norms that can be verified, that can be enforced. And when we are speaking to Iran or North Korea it's not a matter of singling them out, but rather it's a set of international norms of behavior that we're expecting everybody to abide by.

Paolo Valentino.

Q President, it seems that yesterday morning you had a very spirited and lively discussion within -- with the G8-plus-5-plus-1, ignited by President Lula objection to the format, to the adequacy of the G8 as a forum. And, well, I would like -- what was your argument in this discussion and whether or not you have the feeling that the days of the G8 are over? And a very -- a second question, but very light, after six months wheeling and dealing with these international forums -- G20, NATO, and G8 -- do you find it more complicated or less complicated to deal with that than with the American Congress? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- on the second question it's not even close. I mean, Congress is always tougher. But in terms of the issue of the Gasoline and what's the appropriate international structure and framework, I have to tell you in the discussions I listened more than I spoke, although what I said privately was the same thing that I've said publicly, which is that there is no doubt that we have to update and refresh and renew the international institutions that were set up in a different time and place. Some -- the United Nations -- date back to post-World War II. Others, like the G8, are 30 years old.

And so there's no sense that those institutions can adequately capture the enormous changes that have taken place during those intervening decades. What, exactly, is the right format is a question that I think will be debated.

One point I did make in the meeting is that what I've noticed is everybody wants the smallest possible group, smallest possible organization, that includes them. So if they're the 21st-largest nation in the world, then they want the G21, and think it's highly unfair if they've been cut out.

What's also true is that part of the challenge here is revitalizing the United Nations, because a lot of energy is going into these various summits and these organizations in part because there's a sense that when it comes to big, tough problems the U.N. General Assembly is not always working as effectively and rapidly as it needs to. So I'm a strong supporter of the U.N. -- and I said so in this meeting -- but it has to be reformed and revitalized, and this is something that I've said to the Secretary General.

One thing I think is absolutely true is, is that for us to think we can somehow deal with some of these global challenges in the absence of major powers -- like China, India, and Brazil -- seems to me wrongheaded. So they are going to have to be included in these conversations. To have entire continents like Africa or Latin America not adequately represented in these major international forums and decision-making bodies is not going to work.

So I think we're in a transition period. We're trying to find the right shape that combines the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness. And my expectation is, is that over the next several years you'll see an evolution and we'll be able to find the right combination.

The one thing I will be looking forward to is fewer summit meetings, because, as you said, I've only been in office six months now and there have been a lot of these. And I think that there's a possibility of streamlining them and making them more effective. The United States obviously is a absolutely committed partner to concerted international action, but we need to I think make sure that they're as productive as possible.

Hans Nichols.

Q Hans had other obligations, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I notice you're not Hans. (Laughter.)

Q Right. Roger Runningen -- we swapped. Anyway, thank you very much for the question.

I'd like to return to domestic issues, Mr. President -- health care. The momentum seems to have slowed a bit. The Senate Finance Committee is still wrestling with the cost issue. The Blue Dog Democrats, members of your own party, yesterday said they had strong reservations about what's developing so far. I was just wondering, when are you going to be jumping in really full force with this? Do you have any sweeteners planned? What is your push before the August recess?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we jumped in with both feet. Our team is working with members of Congress every day on this issue, and it is my highest legislative priority over the next month.

So I think it's important just to recognize we are closer to achieving serious health care reform that cuts costs, provides coverage to American families, allows them to keep their doctors and plans that are working for them.

We're closer to that significant reform than at any time in recent history. That doesn't make it easy. It's hard. And we are having a whole series of constant negotiations. This is not simply a Democratic versus Republican issue. This is a House versus Senate issue; this is different committees that have different priorities.

My job is to make sure that I've set some clear parameters in terms of what I want to achieve. We have to bend the cost curve on health care, and there are some very specific ways of doing that -- game changers that incentivize quality as opposed to quantity, that emphasize prevention.

There are a whole host of things that I've put on the table that I want to see included. I've said that it's got to be budget neutral, it's got to be deficit neutral, and so whatever bill is produced has to be paid for, and that creates some difficulties because people would like to get the good stuff without paying for it.

And so there are going to be some tough negotiations in the days and weeks to come, but I'm confident that we're going to get it done. And I think that, appropriately, all of you as reporters are reporting on the game. What I'm trying to keep focused on are the people out in states all across the country that are getting hammered by rising premiums. They're losing their jobs and suddenly losing their health care. They are going into debt. Some are going into bankruptcy -- small businesses and large businesses that are feeling enormous pressure. And I'm also looking at the federal budget.

There's been a lot of talk about the deficit and the debt and, from my Republican colleagues, you know, why isn't Obama doing something about this, ignoring the fact that we got into the worst recession since the Great Depression with a $1.3 billion deficit. Fair enough. This is occurring my watch.

What cannot be denied is that the only way to get a handle on our medium- and long-term budget deficits is if we corral and contain health care costs. Nobody denies this. And so my hope is, is that everybody who is talking about deficit reduction gets serious about reducing the cost of health care and puts some serious proposals on the table. And I think it's going to get done.

It is going to be hard, though, because as I said I think in one of the town hall meetings that I had, as dissatisfied as Americans may be with the health care system, as concerned as they are about the prospects that they may lose their job or their premiums may keep on rising, they're also afraid of the unknown. And we have a long history in America of scaring people that they're going to lose their doctor, they're going to lose their health care plans, they're going to be stuck with some bureaucratic government system that's not responsive to their needs. And overcoming that fear -- fear that is often actively promoted by special interests who profit from the existing system -- is a challenge. And so my biggest job, even as my staff is working on the day-to-day negotiations with the House and Senate staffs, my biggest job is to explain to the American people why this is so important and give them confidence that we can do better than we're doing right now.

Q Is it pretty much a do-or-die by the August recess?

THE PRESIDENT: I never believe anything is do-or-die. But I really want to get it done by the August recess.

Christi Parsons -- hometown girl. Is Christi around? Christi is not here? I'm disappointed. Do we have any members of the foreign press here? Yes, I'll use Christi's spot for -- just so that you guys have a chance to ask a question.

Q Thank you very much --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, I can't hear you -- can somebody make sure the mic is working?

Q On this trip you have been talking about state sovereignty as a cornerstone of international order. How do you reconcile that with the concept of responsibility to protect, which used to be the cornerstone for lots of victims?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, how do I reconcile that with responsibility to protect, which used to be what?

Q The cornerstone of hope for lots of people in post-war conflict.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if I understand your question correctly, on the one hand we think that respecting the sovereignties of nation states is important. We don't want stronger nations bullying weaker nations. On the other hand, where you have nations that are oppressing their people, isn't there an international responsibility to intervene? It is one of the most difficult questions in international affairs. And I don't think that there is a clean formula. What I would say is, is that in general it's important for the sovereignty of nations to be respected and to resolve conflicts between nations through diplomacy and through international organizations in trying to set up international norms that countries want to meet.

There are going to be exceptional circumstances in which I think the need for international intervention becomes a moral imperative, the most obvious example being in a situation like Rwanda where genocide has occurred.

Gordon Brown during the last session told a incredibly powerful story, and I may not be getting all the details perfectly right, but he said he had gone to Rwanda, went to some sort of museum or exhibition that commemorated the -- or marked the tragedy in Rwanda, and there was a photograph of a 12-year-old boy, and it gave his name, and that he loved soccer, and he wanted to be a doctor, and provided his biography. And the last line on this exhibit said that right before he and his mother was killed, he turned to his mother and he said, "Don't worry, the United Nations is going to come save us."

And that voice has to be heard in international relations. The threshold at which international intervention is appropriate I think has to be very high. There has to be a strong international outrage at what's taking place.

It's not always going to be a neat decision, and there are going to be objections to just about any decision, because there are some in the international community who believe that state sovereignty is sacrosanct and you never intervene under any circumstances in somebody's internal affairs.

I think rather than focus on hypotheticals, what my administration wants to do is to build up international norms, put pressure -- economic, diplomatic, et cetera -- on nations that are not acting in accordance with universal values towards their citizens, but not hypothesize on particular circumstances, take each case as it comes.

Richard Wolf.

Q I guess I have to follow on that, Mr. President. Is Iran in that category? And are you disappointed that while you came up with a statement of condemnation from the G8, you did not come up with any kind of extra sanctions having to do with their crackdown on protestors?

THE PRESIDENT: I have to say, I read, Peter, your article and maybe some others. This notion that we were trying to get sanctions or that this was a forum in which we could get sanctions is not accurate.

What we wanted was exactly what we got, which is a statement of unity and strong condemnation about the appalling treatment of peaceful protestors post-election in Iran, as well as some behavior that just violates basic international norms: storming of embassies, arresting embassy personnel, restrictions on journalists. And so I think that the real story here was consensus in that statement, including Russia, which doesn't make statements like that lightly.

Now, there is -- the other story there was the agreement that we will reevaluate Iran's posture towards negotiating the cessation of a nuclear weapons policy. We'll evaluate that at the G20 meeting in September. And I think what that does is it provides a time frame. The international community has said, here's a door you can walk through that allows you to lessen tensions and more fully join the international community. If Iran chooses not to walk through that door, then you have on record the G8, to begin with, but I think potentially a lot of other countries that are going to say we need to take further steps. And that's been always our premise, is that we provide that door, but we also say we're not going to just wait indefinitely and allow for the development of a nuclear weapon, the breach of international treaties, and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse situation and unable to act.

So my hope is, is that the Iranian leadership will look at the statement coming out of the G8 and recognize that world opinion is clear.

All right, thank you very much, everybody. Arrivederci.

Transcript: Vice President Biden on Iraq, Iran, Economy on "This Week" (5 July)

Iran: Did Joe Biden Just “Green Light” an Israeli Air Strike?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

The video of the interview is available via the "This Week" website:

HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?

BIDEN: Securing victory. Look, the president and I laid out a plan in the campaign which was twofold. One, withdraw our troops from Iraq in a rational timetable consistent with what the Iraqis want. And the same time, leave behind a stable and secure country.

And one of the reasons I'm here, George, is to push the last end of that, which is the need for political settlement on some important issues between Arabs and Kurds and among the confessional groups. And I think we're well on our way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, your predecessor doesn't seem convinced.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, wrote this week that under Obama, Bush's commitment to winning in Iraq has all been vanished. The vice president warned against a premature withdrawal.

He said: "I would not want to see the U.S. waste all of the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point."

BIDEN: You know, it's kind of ironic. It's their timetable we are implementing. Cheney and Bush agreed with the Iraqis before we were elected that we'd have combat troops out of the cities by June 30th.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So he's wrong to be worried?

BIDEN: Well, I mean, it's -- I mean, for this he can't have it both ways. He negotiated that timetable. We have met the commitment the timetable the last administration negotiated with Iraqis. And we're totally confident that is the right thing to do.

So I find it kind of ironic that he's criticizing his own agreement that he negotiated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're also facing a little bit of criticism from the Iraqis. You know yesterday you stood up there with Prime Minister Maliki and talked about your commitment to solve these political problems, yet his spokesman came out after the meeting and said: "This is purely an Iraqi issue, we don't want the Americans to get involved."

What do you say to that?

BIDEN: Well, that's that not what -- that's not what the prime minister said. The prime minister said that we may need you to get involved.

What we offered the prime minister, as well as the speaker, as well as the two vice presidents, was that to the extent -- let me give you an example. The United Nations has started a process to deal with what they called the "disputed internal borders." And that is the debate between the Kurds and the Arabs as to where the line is.

Kirkuk is probably the biggest flashpoint. And we were asked that we would -- would we be helpful to the United Nations in doing this? I was further asked that would I communicate to the Kurdish leadership, who I have a close relationship with, that their passing a constitution through their parliament in Kurdistan was not helpful to the process that was under way.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what's going on here? Maliki says one thing and his spokesman says another.

BIDEN: Well, look, I think that it's very important that Prime Minister Maliki and all of the Iraqi leaders are able to in fact communicate, which is true, to the people of Iraq, that they're now a sovereign nation.

They take directions from no one. That they are able to handle their own internal affairs. And the fact -- my guess is, if the spokesman said that -- which surprises me, if the spokesman said that, I'd imagine they're worried about an upcoming election, making it look like the United States is going to continue to try to direct things here.

We are not. That is not why I'm here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We're not going to direct things, but what if the Iraqi people -- they've been dealing with these political disputes for an awful long time, what if they can't solve them, the violence flares up again?

BIDEN: Well, that's going to be a tragic outcome for the Iraqi people. We made a commitment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But are we going to put our lives on the line again?

BIDEN: No. We made a commitment to withdraw our troops from the cities by the 30th, to withdraw our combat brigades from Iraq by next summer -- the end of next summer, and withdraw all troops according to the SOFA, that agreement we negotiated with them, by the end of 2011. That is our intention.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But no matter what, 2011, American troops all gone?

BIDEN: That is the intention. We believe the Iraqis will be fully capable of maintaining their own security. And we believe that with the time frame, with their upcoming election -- you know they're having an election in January, I know you know that, they'll form a new government early -- in late winter as a consequence of that election.

And it is our expectation that that election will come off peacefully and that their democracy is gradually maturing, so.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to Iran. We're three weeks out from their election.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any doubt it was stolen?

BIDEN: Well, look, what I don't want to do is play into the hands of the supreme leader and Ahmadinejad like they're blaming the British now. You know, there -- that the reason why there was unrest is outside influence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They're saying they have confessions from reformers saying that.

BIDEN: Well, you know, they say a lot of things. That's simply not true. The -- I think the dust hasn't settled yet in terms of?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Still, three weeks ago.

BIDEN: Well, no, now here's what I think. I mean, I think it's clear that the consequences of the way the election was conducted and the way that the election was declared -- who was declared the winner and how, is going to have a rippling effect.

What that effect will be, I don't know. I think we have to wait to see how this settles out and -- before we can make a judgment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there's no doubt now that they responded violently to the election.

BIDEN: Oh, there is no doubt about that. There is none. The whole world saw it. And it is -- we have to acknowledge as a free and sovereign nation that we abhor the violence that took place. We think it was inappropriate, the way in which they treated those protesters.

And so there is no question, we and the rest of the world looked at them and said, my lord, this is not the way to conduct?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But how do you respond to critics who say the United States should have come out forcefully right away, right away and said, this is wrong, stop it, and they say that would have made a difference?

BIDEN: Well, I don't -- I think the president was absolutely pitch-perfect. I think what the president did is exactly the right way. I think the president did not allow us to be used to as the scapegoat, us to be used as?

STEPHANOPOULOS: There were some reports that you were arguing for a more forceful response earlier.

BIDEN: Well, I think the president did it exactly right. I think he was correct.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And going forward, what next? What should the strategy be right now?

BIDEN: Well, look, the Iranian government has a choice. They either choose greater isolation, and from the whole world, or they decide to take a rightful place in the -- in civilized, big, great nations. They can -- that's the path they have to choose.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Haven't they already shown evidence in the last week of what their choice is?

BIDEN: Well, they have in terms of the way they conducted their election, but they haven't in terms of whether -- the real key issues to now, are they going to continue the nuclear program? Are they going to be braced by what happened? Is this going to alter their behavior internally or externally?

Look, responses that they saw on the street in any country have consequences. It's hard to predict what those consequences will be.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what are the consequences for the U.S. relationship? I mean, the president had said he wants to meet with the Iranians over the nuclear program through the P-5. But how does he engage with the Iranians now without breaking faith with those reformers?

BIDEN: Well, the way you do it is if they choose to meet with the P5, under the conditions the P5 was laid out, it means they begin to change course. And it means that the protesters probably had some impact on the behavior of an administration that they don't like at all. And it believes and I believe that means there's consequences to that.

Now, if they in fact decide to shut out the rest of the world, clamp down, further isolation, I think that takes them down a very different path.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to those who say that it's the United States now that should hit the pause button, there should be a cause correction, and we shouldn't rush to sit down...

BIDEN: Well, we're not. We're not rushing to sit down.

As I said to you, we have to wait to see how this sort of settles out. And there's already an offer laid out there by the permanent five plus one to say we're prepared to sit down and negotiate with you relative to your nuclear program. And so the ball's in their court.

STEPHANOPOULOS: When I saw President Ahmadinejad back in April, his response to that was that we need to see more from the United States first.

Is it fair to say now that there will be absolutely no more concessions to the Iranians in advance of those discussions?

BIDEN: It's fair to say the position the president has laid out will not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there will be engagement -- if the Iranians want to...

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: If the Iranians seek to engage, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, the clock is ticking...

BIDEN: If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?

BIDEN: The offer's on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Meanwhile, North Korea...

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... seven missile launches in the last 24 hours, 11 this week. Anything the United States can do about it?

BIDEN: The question is, is there anything that we should do about it?

Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you don't want to give the attention?

BIDEN: And -- no, I don't want to give the attention, because, look, I think our policy has been absolutely correct so far. We have succeeded in uniting the most important and critical countries to North Korea on a common path of further isolating North Korea. They're going to be faced with a pretty difficult choice, it seems to me.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not a task that includes very forceful enforcement of the sanctions. The Russians and the Chinese blocked any boarding of the ships, didn't they?

BIDEN: No, no. Well, what they did was, if you noticed, the ship had to turn around and come back. Why? Because no port would allow them into their port.

There was no place they could go with certitude that they would not be, in fact, at that point, boarded and searched. And so I would argue that it, in fact, worked.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is our policy now though basically waiting for the Kim Jong-il regime to collapse?

BIDEN: Our policy is to continue to put united pressure from the very countries that North Korea was able to look to before with impunity. They could take almost any action and got no reaction, no negative reaction.

That's changed. And it is -- there is a significant turning of the pressure. And there are going to be some very difficult decisions that that regime's going to have make.

There's a real debate going on right now, George, about succession in North Korea.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Reports that he's tapped his youngest son.

BIDEN: That is the report.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?

BIDEN: Well, if I had to bet, that would be my guess. But I don't think anyone knows for certain.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The clock is also ticking on Afghanistan. Key members of Congress made it pretty clear during the war supplemental debate that they're going to give until early next year to see progress in Afghanistan or they're going to cut off the funding, move to cut off the funding.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, I think the right approach is one we have chosen, the Obama/Biden administration.

We did a thorough review of what our objectives and policies were and should be in Afghanistan.

BIDEN: We set in motion a policy which is now only beginning to unfold. All the troops we agreed to increase are not even all in place at this point. And we also believe, as General Jones accurately said, that, ultimately, the success or failure in Iraq will not rest not on a military outcome, but on a both economic and political outcome internally, getting better governance in place and economic development in that country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But do Americans have a right to expect that if we don't see continued progress in the next six to nine months, six to 12 months, then we should think about cutting back and pulling out?

BIDEN: Look, I think the Americans have a right to expect success. And I think the success is measured by how we defined it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: At any cost?

BIDEN: No. Success. And if they conclude that, whatever the policy that's being undertaken by any administration as not succeeding, they have a right to say, look, cease and desist. But I don't think that's where we're going, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: There were some reports this week that the president has already made the judgment sending General Jones over to Afghanistan with a clear message -- no more troops. This is it, this is all you can get.

And Bob Woodward wrote about it. He talked about the general meeting with various military figures in Afghanistan, and this is what he said -- this is what he reports that General Jones said: "If there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment. Everyone in the room caught phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military now sort of means, what the (blank)."

Are you concerned that this is sending some kind of a chilling message?

BIDEN: No, not at all. Look, here's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't want to hear the advice?

BIDEN: Look, no, no. We got the advice.

We spent five months with the entire national security team, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser down in that tank, down in that Situation Room, laboriously banging out the plans. The military came in with explicit requests. The president gave them what they asked for. It hasn't even been implemented yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were on the other side, it was reported, that you didn't want an expansion of troops.

BIDEN: No, no. I did want an expansion of troops. There was a slight difference about how to layer them, how to proceed.

The president -- we all ended up in -- you know, this was an open discussion. And the thing I like about the president, he seeks everyone's opinion.

Well, we reached a consensus opinion, and the consensus opinion of the national security team, of which I'm a part, was to do exactly what's under way.

The point is -- I suspect the point that Jim Jones is making is, hey, it hasn't even been implemented yet. Troops are still on the way. Slow up, guys.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But to be clear, you're saying if the military believes there should be more troops, they shouldn't be afraid to give that advice. They should give that advice?

BIDEN: They should not be afraid to give whatever advice from the field or from the Pentagon to the president and the secretary of defense that they think they need.

STEPHANOPOULOS: While we've been here, some pretty grim job numbers back at home -- 9.5 percent unemployment in June, the worst numbers in 26 years.

How do you explain that? Because when the president and you all were selling the stimulus package, you predicted at the beginning that, to get this package in place, unemployment will peak at about 8 percent. So, either you misread the economy, or the stimulus package is too slow and to small.

BIDEN: The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there.

Everyone thought at that stage -- everyone -- the bulk of...

STEPHANOPOULOS: CBO [Congressional Budget Office] would say a little bit higher.

BIDEN: A little bit, but they're all in the same range. No one was talking about that we would be moving towards -- we're worried about 10.5 percent, it will be 9.5 percent at this point.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But we're looking at 10 now, aren't we?

BIDEN: No. Well, look, we're much too high. We're at 9 -- what, 9.5 right now?

STEPHANOPOULOS: 9.5.

BIDEN: And so the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. Now, that doesn't -- I'm not -- it's now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we're in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we're in.

We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but a lot of people were saying that you needed to do something bigger and bolder then, including the economist Paul Krugman. He's saying -- right now he's saying the same thing again -- don't wait. You need a second stimulus, you need it now.

BIDEN: Look, what we have to do now is we have to properly, adequately, transparently and effectively spend out the $787 billion.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's your job. You're in charge of that now.

BIDEN: That is my job, and I think we're doing it well. If you noticed, George, I mean, there were other predictions. This was going to be wasteful and all these terrible projects were going to be out there, and we're wasting money. Well, that dog hasn't barked yet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, Senator Coburn has identified some.

BIDEN: Yes -- no, he hasn't, but he did, he identified one hundred ? forty-eight of which we had already killed. And so -- and the rest I dispute. So the bottom line though is, I think anybody would say this has been pretty well managed so far.

The question is, how do you now -- do we -- what we have to do, George, is we have to, as this rolls out, put more pace on the ball. The second hundred days you're going to see a lot more jobs created.

And the reason you are is now all of these contracts for the over several thousand highway projects that have approved.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're also seeing states across the country cutting back on their programs. Many of the people on unemployment?

BIDEN: Sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ? today are going to run out of unemployment in September. That means for a lot of those people, if there is not a second stimulus, they're going to be out in the cold.

BIDEN: Well, look, we have increased the amount of money unemployed -- those on unemployment rolls have gotten, 12 million are getting more money because of the stimulus package.

We've increased the number of people eligible by 2 million people. We've given a tax cut to 95 percent of the people who get a pay stub. They have somewhere -- $60 bucks a month out there that's going into the economy.

There is a lot going on, George. And I think it's premature to make the judgment?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no second stimulus?

BIDEN: No, I didn't say that. I think it's premature to make that judgment. This was set up to spend out over 18 months. There are going to be major programs that are going to take effect in September, $7.5 billion for broadband, new money for high-speed rail, the implementation of the grid -- the new electric grid.

And so this is just starting, the pace of the ball is now going to increase.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're in charge of the stimulus. You're the president's envoy here in Iraq. You're supposed to settle this dispute between the director of national intelligence and the CIA over who is going to appoint the station chiefs. By the way, have you solved that one yet?

BIDEN: I think we've solved that one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have?

BIDEN: Well, let me put it this way. I think we're well on the way to that being solved.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Who won?

BIDEN: They both won.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So they're going to share the responsibility to appoint to station chiefs?

BIDEN: Not done yet. Let me comment on that next week to you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. Well, let me get to the broader point then. You've fixed -- you say you've fixed a problem that will?

BIDEN: Well they fixed the problem.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ? to find out that they fixed the problem -- look to find out the details on all of that. But you've got all of these discrete projects now. And when you came in you talked a lot about how you didn't want to get bogged down in individual projects because you wanted to be, you know, the president's primary adviser.

Are you're worried you're going to far in the other direction?

BIDEN: No. Because all of these projects have end dates on them. You know, they all have sell-by dates, because -- and that's I think that -- I hope I've brought some real expertise to this job, available to the president.

The things he has asked me to do. I hope I'm relatively good at. And -- but all of them have specific objectives.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Sarah Palin.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were the last person to run against her.

(LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Were you surprised by her decision to step down?

BIDEN: Well, look, you and I know -- and I shouldn't say that because that implicates you in my answer, so. But those who have been deeply involved in politics know at the end of the day it is really and truly a personal deal.

And personal family decisions have real impact on people's decisions. I love reading these history books and biographies of people, the reason they made the choice to run or not run was because the state of the economy.

It maybe had a lot to do with what the state of their life was, and the state of their family, et cetera. So I'm not going to second guess her.

STEPHANOPOULOS: She cast herself as the victim of political blood sport in that press conference. Is that how you see it?

BIDEN: No. I respect her decision. I don't -- I don't know what prompted her decision to not only not run again and also to step down as a consequence of the decision not to run in 2010. And I take her at her word that had a personal ingredient in it. And you have to respect that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Vice President, thank you very much.

BIDEN: Thank you.