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.

Iran: Tehran's Immediate Response to the G8 Summit

After the warning of the G8 Summit to Tehran, Iran response came quickly. On Saturday, Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, said that they had not received "a new message" and would propose a package "containing Iran's stances on political, security and international issues." Mottaki said: "We have not received any new message from the G8. But based on the news we have received, they had different views on different issues which did not lead to a unanimous agreement in some areas."

Mottaki is correct, in the sense that, except from a September deadline for negotiations, there were nothing new in the G8 declaration. However, despite Mottaki's declaration, "The package can be a good basis for talks with the West," there was nothing new in Iran's response, either. According to Al-Jazeera, it will not be beyond a new version of a May 2008 list of discussion points stating "the creation of an international consortium" to enrich uranium on its own soil as a way of defusing the tense standoff over its nuclear programme.

Britain's Foreign Office and the White House have avoided giving immediate responses so far. Instead, the "5+1" (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany) await Tehran's next step.

Iran: How Strong is the G8 Statement on the Nuclear Programme?

The Latest from Iran (10 July): What Next?

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

After ""L’Aquila Statement on Non-Proliferation Declaration"": it's a long name for the G8's balancing act on the Iranian nuclear programme. This is a diplomatic document seeking common ground through careful language: "We reiterate our unanimous commitment to working for a comprehensive, peaceful and diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and strongly support ongoing efforts to resolve it through negotiations."

The Statement continued:

We urge Iran to use the present window of opportunity for engagement with the international community in a spirit of mutual respect and to respond positively to the offers advanced, in order to find a negotiated solution which will address Iran’s interest as well as the international community concerns. While recognizing once again that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear program under the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty], we stress that Iran has the responsibility, as reiterated by UNSC Resolutions, to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear activities, allowing for the establishment of a fruitful and wide-ranging cooperation with the G8 and other countries.

The proliferation risks posed by Iran’s nuclear program continue to be a matter of serious concern. We urge Iran to comply with the relevant UNSC [United Nations Security Council] Resolutions and to fully cooperate with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] by providing the Agency such access and information that it requests to resolve the issues raised in the IAEA Director General’s Reports.

President Obama offered a suitably-worded interpretation to wag a finger at Tehran:

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.

Others in the Obama Administration were willing to be even starker in their portrayal of the threat. A day before the release of the Statement, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, spoke to the Center for Strategic and International Studies:

I believe Iran is very focused on developing this capability, and I think when they get it, or should they get it, it will be very destabilizing.

The very same day, along with Mullen's self-confident speech, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated that Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be a destabilizing factor in the region and said that the United States would call for "even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behavior of the regime."

However, on Wednesday, a more careful message came from the French President Nicholas Sarkozy. On one hand, he warned Tel Aviv not to attack Tehran as this would be an "absolute catastrophe". On the other hand, he reassured, "Israel should know that it is not alone and look at all this calm. If I have fought so hard in the name of France to get people talking about Iran it's also a message to the Israelis that they are not alone," and delivered a deadline to Tehran: "If no progress is made, leaders will reach new decisions at a G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh in late September."

So it's not the statement of the G-8 Summit that poses the questions over future relations with Iran. Those are in the post-summit positions now being considered in Washington and Paris, not to mention Moscow and Beijing.

Video and Transcript: Obama Speech at New Economic School in Russia (7 July)

Video: The Obama-Medvedev “Reset” Press Conference (6 July)

As well as meeting Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Obama is making some high-profile speeches in Moscow. This is his latest, delivered at the New Economic School, an institution founded a year after the break-up of the Soviet Union:

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

OBAMA: Good morning. It is an honor for me to join you at the New Economic School. Michelle and I are so pleased to be in Moscow, and as someone who was born in Hawaii, I’m glad to be here in July instead of January.

I know that NES is a young school, but I speak to you today with deep respect for Russia’s timeless heritage. Russian writers have helped us understand the complexity of the human experience, and recognize eternal truths. Your painters, composers, and dancers have introduced us to new forms of beauty. Your scientists have cured disease, sought new frontiers of progress, and helped take us to space.

These contributions are not contained by Russia’s borders, as vast as they are. Indeed, Russia’s heritage has touched every corner of the world, and speaks to the humanity that we share. That includes my own country, which has been blessed with Russian immigrants, enriched by Russian culture, and enhanced by Russian cooperation. And as a resident of Washington, I continue to benefit from the contributions of Russians – specifically, from Alexander Ovechkin.

Here at NES, you have inherited this great cultural legacy, but your focus on economics is no less fundamental to the future of humanity. As Pushkin said, “Inspiration is needed in geometry just as much as poetry.” And today, I want particularly to speak to those of you preparing to graduate. You are poised to be leaders in academia and industry; in finance and government. Before you move forward, however, it is worth reflecting upon what has already taken place during your young lives.

Like President Medvedev and me, you are not old enough to have witnessed the darkest hours of the Cold War, when hydrogen bombs were tested in the atmosphere, children drilled in fallout shelters, and we reached the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But you are the last generation born when the world was divided. At that time, the American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero sum game.

Then, within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: this change did not come from any one nation alone. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.

With the end of the Cold War, there were extraordinary expectations – for peace and prosperity; for new arrangements among nations, and new opportunities for individuals. Like all periods of great change, it was a time of ambitious plans and endless possibilities. But, of course, things don’t always work out exactly as planned. Back in 1993, shortly after this school opened, one NES student summed up the difficulty of change when he told a reporter, and I quote: “The real world is not so rational as on paper.”

Over two tumultuous decades, that truth has been borne out around the world. Great wealth has been created, but it has not eliminated vast pockets of crushing poverty. More people have gone to the ballot box, but too many governments still fail to protect the rights of their people. Ideological struggles have diminished, but they have given way to conflicts over tribe, ethnicity and religion. A human being with a computer can hold the same amount of information stored in the Russian State Library, but that technology can be used to do great harm.

In a new Russia, the disappearance of old political and economic restrictions after the end of the Soviet Union brought both opportunity and hardship. A few prospered, but many more did not. There were tough times. But the Russian people showed strength and made sacrifices, and you achieved hard-earned progress through a growing economy and greater confidence. And despite painful times, many in Eastern Europe and Russia are better off today than twenty years ago.

We see that progress here at NES – a school founded with Western support that is now distinctly Russian; a place of learning and inquiry where the test of an idea is not whether it is American or Russian, but whether it will work. Above all, we see that progress in you – young people with a young century to shape as you see fit.

Your lifetime coincides with this era of transition. But think about the fundamental questions asked when this school was founded. What kind of future is Russia going to have? What kind of future are Russia and America going to have together? What world order will replace the Cold War? Those questions still do not have clear answers, and so now they must be answered by you – by your generation in Russia, America, and around the world. You get to decide. And while I cannot answer these questions for you, I can speak plainly about the future that America seeks.

To begin with, let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia.

This belief is rooted in our respect for the Russian people, and a shared history between our nations that goes beyond competition. Indeed, despite our past rivalry, our people were allies in the greatest struggle of the last century. Recently, I noted this in Normandy – for just as men from Boston and Birmingham risked all they had to storm those beaches and scale those cliffs, Soviet soldiers from places like Kazan and Kiev endured unimaginable hardship to repel an invasion, and turn the tide in the east. As President Kennedy said, “no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War.”

As we honor this past, we also recognize the future benefit that will come from a strong and vibrant Russia. Think of the issues that will define your lives – security from nuclear weapons and extremism; access to markets and opportunity; health and the environment; an international system that protects sovereignty and human rights, while promoting stability and prosperity. These challenges demand global partnership, and that partnership will be stronger if Russia occupies its rightful place as a great power.

Yet unfortunately, there is sometimes a sense that old assumptions must prevail – a conception of power that is rooted in the past rather than the future. There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another.

Both assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over. As I said in Cairo, given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game – progress must be shared.

That is why I have called for a “reset” in relations between the United States and Russia. This must be more than a fresh start between the Kremlin and the White House – though that is important. It must be a sustained effort among the American and Russian people to identify mutual interests, and to expand dialogue and cooperation that can pave the way to progress.

It won’t be easy. It is difficult to forge a lasting partnership between former adversaries, and to change habits that have been ingrained in our governments for decades. But I believe that on the fundamental issues that will shape this century, Americans and Russians share common interests that form a basis for cooperation. It is not for me to define Russia’s national interests, but I can tell you about America’s, and I believe that you will see that we share common ground.

First, America has an interest in reversing the spread of nuclear weapons and preventing their use.

In the last century, generations of Americans and Russians inherited the power to destroy nations, and the understanding that using that power would bring about their own destruction. In 2009, our inheritance is different. You and I don’t have to ask whether American and Russian leaders will respect a balance of terror – we understand the horrific consequences of any war between our countries. But we do have to ask whether extremists who have killed innocent civilians in New York and Moscow will show that same restraint. We have to ask whether ten or twenty or fifty nuclear-armed nations will protect their arsenals and refrain from using them.

This is the core of the nuclear challenge in the 21st century. The notion that prestige comes from holding these weapons, or that we can protect ourselves by picking and choosing which nations can have them, is illusory. In the short period since the end of the Cold War, we have already seen India, Pakistan and North Korea conduct nuclear tests. Without a fundamental change, do any of us truly believe that the next two decades will not bring about the further spread of nuclear weapons?

That is why America is committed to stopping nuclear proliferation, and ultimately seeking a world without nuclear weapons. That is consistent with our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is our responsibility as the world’s two leading nuclear powers. And while I know this goal won’t be met soon, pursuing it provides the legal and moral foundation to prevent the proliferation and eventual use of nuclear weapons.

We are already taking important steps to build this foundation. Yesterday, President Medvedev and I made progress on negotiating a new Treaty that will substantially reduce our warheads and delivery systems. We renewed our commitment to clean, safe and peaceful nuclear energy, which must be a right for all nations that live up to their responsibilities under the NPT. And we agreed to increase cooperation on nuclear security, which is essential to achieving the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear material within four years.

As we keep our own commitments, we must hold other nations accountable for theirs. Neither America nor Russia would benefit from a nuclear arms race in East Asia or the Middle East. That is why we should be united in opposing North Korea’s efforts to become a nuclear power, and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And I’m pleased that President Medvedev and I agreed upon a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st Century, including from Iran and North Korea..

This is not about singling out individual nations – it is about the responsibilities of all nations. If we fail to stand together, then the NPT and the Security Council will lose credibility, and international law will give way to the law of the jungle. That benefits no one. As I said in Prague, rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.

The successful enforcement of these rules will remove causes of disagreement. I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defense in Europe. My Administration is reviewing these plans to enhance the security of America, Europe and the world. I have made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran, and has nothing to do with Russia. In fact, I want us to work together on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest.

In addition to securing the world’s most dangerous weapons, a second area where America has a critical national interest is in isolating and defeating violent extremists.

For years, al Qaeda and its affiliates have defiled a great religion of peace and justice, and ruthlessly murdered men, women and children of all nationalities and faiths. Indeed, above all, they have murdered Muslims. These extremists have killed in Amman and Bali; Islamabad and Kabul; and they have the blood of Americans and Russians on their hands. They are plotting to kill more of our people, and they benefit from safe-havens that allow them to train and operate – particularly along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That is why America has a clear goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We seek no bases, nor do we want to control these nations. Instead, we want to work with international partners to help Afghans and Pakistanis advance their own security and prosperity. That is why I’m pleased that Russia has agreed to allow the United States to supply our coalition forces through your territory. Neither America nor Russia has an interest in an Afghanistan or Pakistan governed by the Taliban. It is time to work together on behalf of a different future – a future in which we leave behind the great game of the past and the conflict of the present; a future in which all of us contribute to the security of Central Asia.

Beyond Afghanistan, America is committed to promoting the opportunity that will isolate extremists. We are helping the Iraqi people build a better future, and leaving Iraq to Iraqis. We are pursuing the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living in peace and security. And we are partnering with Muslim communities around the world to advance education, health and economic development. In each of these endeavors, I believe that the Russian people share our goals, and will benefit from success.

In addition to these security concerns, the third area that I will discuss is America’s interest in global prosperity.

We meet in the midst of the worst global recession in a generation. I believe that the market is the greatest force for creating and distributing wealth that the world has known. But wherever the market is allowed to run rampant –through excessive risk-taking, a lack of regulation, or corruption – then all are endangered, whether we live on the Mississippi or the Volga.

In America, we are taking unprecedented steps to jumpstart our economy and reform our system of regulation. But just as no nation can wall itself off from the consequences of a global crisis, no one nation can serve as the sole engine of global growth.

You see, during your lives, something fundamental has changed. And while this crisis has shown us the risk that comes with change, that risk is overwhelmed by opportunity. Think of what’s possible today that was unthinkable two decades ago. A young woman with an Internet connection in Bangalore, India can compete with anyone, anywhere. An entrepreneur with a start-up in Beijing can take his business global. An NES professor in Moscow can collaborate with colleagues at Harvard. That’s good for all of us – because when prosperity is created in India, that’s a new market for our goods; when new ideas take hold in China, that pushes our businesses to innovate; when new connections are forged among people, all of us are enriched.

There is extraordinary potential for increased cooperation between Americans and Russians. We can pursue trade that is free and fair and integrated with the wider world. We can boost investment that creates jobs in both our countries. We can forge partnerships on energy that tap not only traditional resources, but the new sources of energy that will drive growth and combat climate change. All of that, Americans and Russians can do together.

Government can promote this cooperation, but individuals must advance it. Because the greatest resource of any nation in the 21st century is its people, and the countries which tap that resource are the countries that will succeed. That success depends upon economies that function within the rule of law. As President Medvedev has rightly said, a mature and effective legal system is a condition for sustained economic development. People everywhere should have the right to do business or get an education without paying a bribe. That is not an American idea or a Russian idea – that’s how people and countries will succeed in the 21st century.

This brings me to the fourth issue that I will discuss – America’s interest in democratic governments that protect the rights of their people.

By no means is America perfect. But it is our commitment to certain universal values which allows us to correct our imperfections, and to grow stronger over time. Freedom of speech and assembly has allowed women, minorities, and workers to protest for full and equal rights. The rule of law and equal administration of justice has busted monopolies, shut down political machines, and ended abuses of power. Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course and hold our leaders accountable. If our democracy did not advance those rights, I – as a person of African ancestry – wouldn’t be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a President.

Around the world, America supports these values because they are moral, and also because they work. The arc of history shows us that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not. Governments that represent the will of their people are far less likely to descend into failed states, to terrorize their citizens, or to wage war on others. Governments that promote the rule of law, subject their actions to oversight, and allow for independent institutions are more dependable trading partners. And in our own history, democracies have been America’s most enduring allies, including those we once waged war with in Europe and Asia – nations that today live with great security and prosperity.

Now let me be clear: America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country. Even as we meet here today, America supports the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies. We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.

That leads me to the final area that I will discuss, which is America’s interest in an international system that advances cooperation while respecting the sovereignty of all nations.

State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy. That is why this principle must apply to all nations – including Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For any country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the Alliance’s mission. And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

More broadly, we need to foster cooperation and respect among all nations and peoples. As President of the United States, I will work tirelessly to protect America’s security and to advance our interests. But no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century on its own, nor dictate its terms to the world. That is why America seeks an international system that lets nations pursue their interests peacefully, especially when those interests diverge; a system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed; a system where we hold ourselves to the same standards that we apply to other nations, with clear rights and responsibilities for all.

The days when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin could shape the world in one meeting are over. The world is more complex today. Billions of people have found their voice, and seek their own measure of prosperity and self-determination. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed markets grow, wealth spread, and technology used to build – not destroy. We have seen old hatreds pass, illusions of difference lift, and human destiny in the hands of more human beings. Now, we must see that the period of transition which you have lived through ushers in a new era in which nations live in peace, and people realize their aspirations for dignity, security, and a better life for their children. That is America’s interest, and I believe that it is Russia’s as well.

I know that this future can seem distant. Change is hard. In the words of that NES student back in 1993, the real world is not so rational as on paper. But think of the change that has unfolded with the passing of time. One hundred years ago, a Czar ruled in Russia, and Europe was a place of Empire. When I was born, segregation was still law in America and my father’s Kenya was still a colony. When you were born, a school like this would have been impossible, and the Internet was known to only a privileged few.

You get to decide what comes next. You get to choose where change will take us. Because the future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground – the future belongs to young people with the education and imagination to create. That is the source of power in this century. And given all that has happened in your two decades on Earth, just imagine what you can create in the years to come.

Every country charts its own course. Russia has cut its way through time like a mighty river through a canyon, leaving an indelible mark on human history as it goes. As you move this story forward, look to the future that can be built if we refuse to be burdened by the old obstacles and old suspicions; look to the future that can be built if we partner on behalf of the aspirations we hold in common. Together, we can build a world where people are protected, prosperity is enlarged, and our power truly serves progress. Thank you.

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.