Transcript: Vice President Biden to Georgian Parliament (23 July)

Vice President Joe Biden, who is becoming an ad hoc Obama envy for trips to areas of US interest, has moved to Eastern Europe. Speaking to Georgia's officials almost a year after the Russian-Georgian war, he offered rhetorical reassurances of American support. He referred to American economic assistance --- "Georgia today is one of the highest per-capita recipients of U.S. aid in the entire world" --- and pledged that the US would not recognise the independence of the autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Georgia.

However, the speech also set limits on US backing of Georgia. Biden did not directly criticise Russia, and his words on NATO membership for Georgia were carefully framed to offer general support but no prospect of immediate action: "We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration....We will work to help you meet the standards of NATO membership."

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Thank you. (Applause.) Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the Parliament, distinguished leaders, friends all, I thank you for this great honor. I do consider it an honor to be given the floor in your Parliament.

I speak not only on behalf of myself as Vice President, but I speak for my President, President Obama, as well as my country. I come here on behalf of the United States with a simple, straightforward message: We, the United States, stand by you on your journey to a secure, free and democratic, and once again united, Georgia. (Applause.)

It’s a journey nearly a century in the making. In May of 1918, the National Council of Georgia -- this very body, under a different name -- declared independence, much as my own nation did 150 years before that. Three years later, you adopted a constitution, a brave declaration of your freedom and independence, even under the imminent threat of an attack.

One month later, the Bolshevik occupation was complete, and this parliament met for the last time until the end of the century. It was a journey halted before it began. But the journey renewed in 1989, as the cries for freedom rang throughout Georgia once again, only to be stopped one more time by the last grasp of a dying empire. Two years later, you declared your independence again, and a seed planted generations before became a rose about to bloom.

Georgia’s first post-Soviet experiment with democracy was tainted with civil strife, economic hardship, growing corruption, and a backward drift toward undemocratic rule. Then, just six years ago, the Rose Revolution sounded a clarion call for freedom and democracy that was literally heard around the world.

I still draw inspiration from that moment and the journey you have taken. I remember watching in awe as you stood straight and tall. So did millions of people around the world whose quest for freedom is not yet complete.

One year ago, as the Speaker referenced, I came to Georgia under very different circumstances. I was advised by many not to come. I was told that it wasn’t a particularly opportune moment. But I wanted to make clear why your independence was so important to my country and the world. Instead of standing in your parliament, I sat on the rooftop of a restaurant with President Saakashvili, as the sound of artillery fire and fighter aircraft punctuated the night.

On that rooftop, I pledged America’s support to Georgia in my status as the United States Senate. And I here today pledge it again, as Vice President of the United States of America. (Applause.) I pledge it not only on my behalf, but on behalf of President Barack Obama.

This visit, Tbilisi -- to Tbilisi, comes deliberately right after President Obama’s trip to Moscow, for as he was planning his trip -- (applause) -- as he was planning his trip, he instructed me to plan my trip to Tbilisi.

Ladies and gentlemen -- and I know that some are concerned, and I understand it, that our efforts to reset relations with Russia will come at the expense of Georgia. Let me be clear: They have not, they will not, and they cannot. (Applause.)

As I said in Munich in the first days after our administration was sworn in, and as President Obama, I might add, reasserted two weeks ago in Moscow, we stand by the principle that sovereign democracies have the right to make their own decisions, and choose their own partnerships and their own alliances. We stand against the 19th century notion of spheres of influence. It has no place in the 21st century. (Applause.)

We will not -- we will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. (Applause.) And we urge -- we urge the world not to recognize them as independent states. And we call upon Russia to honor its international commitments clearly specified in the [*sic] 12 ceasefire agreement, including withdrawal of all forces to their pre-conflict positions, and ultimately out of Georgia. (Applause.)

And we support the expansion of international monitors throughout Georgia to promote peace and stability. During my visit last year, I was moved by the plight of families displaced from their homes in South Ossetia. And I was struck by the effort to undermine your economy by targeting critical infrastructure deep within Georgia.

I promised that my country would provide meaningful assistance to Georgia to help you recover. And today, I am pleased to say that the United States has delivered on that commitment I made of $1 billion.

Ladies and gentlemen, since August, we have provided supplies and shelter to those displaced, budgetary support to help your government meet its fiscal responsibilities, reconstruction aid to help those who were able to return home, and funding for roads and energy security; and new resources to strengthen Georgia’s civil society, legal system and independent media.

All in all, Georgia today is one of the highest per-capita recipients of U.S. aid in the entire world. Even where I come from, a billion dollars for 5 million people is a lot of money. We are also working closely with Georgia to modernize your military, with a focus on training, planning and organization.

We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration. (Applause.) And, members of Parliament, we will work to help you meet the standards of NATO membership.

I am pleased that just last month, the U.S. and Georgia launched a Charter on Strategic Partnership. We set an ambitious agenda across four key areas: defense and security; economic trade, and energy cooperation; advancing democracy and the rule of law; and strengthening cultural ties between our countries.

Let me be clear about what our strategic partnership with Georgia is, and what it is not. The United States has no desire to create our own sphere of influence in this region or anywhere else in the world. Our goal is to help build a multi-partner world in which nations make common cause of common concerns.

These partnerships are not being built against anyone. They are being built to the benefit of everyone who seeks a more democratic, prosperous and secure world. (Applause.)

With Georgia, our partnership involves meeting security challenges -- we are grateful, truly grateful that Georgian soldiers will stand next to our brave Marines in Afghanistan. It includes a commitment to energy security, and we welcome Georgia’s role as a bridge for natural resources flowing from east to west, as it did a thousand years ago. (Applause.)

It carries with it -- this cooperation agreement -- a determination to build stronger bonds not only between our governments, but among our people through cultural exchanges, entrepreneurial collaboration, and civil society cooperation.

Our partnership rests on a foundation of shared democratic ideals. That’s what you are about. And we will continue to support your work to fulfill the democratic promise of six years ago.

As President Saakashvili told Parliament earlier this week -- and we expect that he will keep that commitment -- that there is much more to be done. Your Rose Revolution will only be complete when government is transparent, accountable, and fully participatory; when issues are debated inside this chamber, not only out on the streets; when you fully address key constitutional issues regarding the balance of power between the parliament and the executive branch, and leveling your electoral playing field; when the media is totally independent and professional, providing people the information to make informed decisions, and to hold their government accountable for the decisions it makes; when the courts are free from outside influence and the rule of law is firmly established, and when the transfer of power occurs through peaceful, constitutional, and democratic processes, not on the street.

Ladies and gentlemen -- I don’t mean to sound instructive -- never tell another person what their political interest is. But I can tell you from experience there is no specific checklist for democracy. But there are significant, concrete steps that need to be taken to deepen any democracy.

Success requires the involvement of everyone in this room, of those who were elected outside this room. It requires every Georgian citizen, regardless of their political affiliation or their ethnicity, to take part in their government.

And I especially today call upon the young people of Georgia, the next generation of Georgian leaders, to continue to contribute their ideas, their voices, and their energy to help create a peaceful, stable, democratic and economically prosperous Georgia. Only then -- only then will we see a Georgia that is the home to all its rightful citizens.

As difficult as this may be, I encourage you to keep the doors open to the Abkhaz and South Ossetians, so that they know they have other options besides the status quo. Instability or renewed conflict guarantees, in our view, a continuation of the unacceptable status quo, and it would discourage the foreign investment that is so essential to the economic growth and the economic progress you so badly need.

It is a sad certainty, but it is true there is no military option to reintegration, only peaceful and prosperous Georgia -- a peaceful and prosperous Georgia that has the prospect of restoring your territorial integrity by showing those in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a Georgia where they can be free and their communities can flourish; where they can enjoy autonomy within a federal system of government, where life can be so much better for them than it is now. Show them the real benefits of your nation’s motto: Strength is in unity.

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen of the Parliament -- divided, Georgia will not complete its journey. United, Georgia can achieve the dreams of your forebears and, maybe more importantly, the hopes of your children.

I’ll end with a phrase -- a verse from maybe Georgia’s most famous poet. When I was in the president’s office I asked, "Who is that portrait of?" And he then gave me the history lesson on, again, maybe your most famous poet, a poet who inspired the journey of freedom in 1921 -- and continues to provide his voice today. And I want to make sure I get this right. He wrote: "My heart burns with a holy flame that all my strength I may employ, to serve my people faithfully in sorrow and in joy. O let my people’s suffering be branded on my soul I ask, and let my heart, through good and ill, be equal to its task." (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, my President and I, my country, we pray that your hearts are equal to the task. I know they are, and so do you. And thank you so very much for not only inspiring your own people in completing this journey, but for the inspiration you’ve provided for tens of millions of people seeking what you now have within your grasp. And it is yours to guarantee.

We will stand with you. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Keeping Israel in Check: Washington Says No Warplanes to India

Israel may be India's second-largest arms supplier after Russia, but she is feeling a bit of pressure from Washington.  According to the Jerusalem Post, the Pentagon forced Israel Aerospace Industries to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish company, Saab, to compete in a multi-billion dollar tender, developing a new model of the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet and selling 120 to the Indian Air Force.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the two largest US defense contractors, are also competing for the Indian deal. Beyond the commerical consideration, however, Washington does not want to transfer Western technology, integrated in the new Gripens, to India.

American pressure is also a response to the alliance of interests between the Israeli and Russian militaries, symbolised by the despatch of  unmanned aerial vehicles to Moscow. And there is always the issue of leverage on Tel Aviv to offer more concessions in talks with Palestinian representatives.

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.

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.

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

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

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbOkMdmjJzs[/youtube]