Rice With Australian FM Alexander Downer

Remarks With Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at the Ronald Reagan Library

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Simi Valley, California
May 23, 2007

(2:00 p.m. EST)

SECRETARY RICE: Mrs. Reagan has been a wonderful supporter and friend. Thank you for that, Mrs. Reagan. But she and the man that she called Ronnie shared a truly special relationship, and we here in America are gaining a fuller portrait of that affection. President Reagan's diaries have just been released and published, and in them he had this to say about his wife: "Of all the ways God has blessed me, giving her to me is the greatest and beyond anything I can ever hope to deserve."

It is a touching tribute to the depth of their bond and further proof of the spirit and the heart of the woman who was cherished by a President and loved by a nation. America thanks you, Mrs. Reagan, for your contributions to the country and I thank you for your friendship. (Applause.)

President Reagan was a fierce defender of democracy, a true champion of liberty for people all across the globe. Next month marks the 20th anniversary of that unforgettable day at the Brandenburg when he spoke those words now etched in the world's memory: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall."

I remember that day and the words that rang so true when President Reagan said, and I quote, "There stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: freedom leads to prosperity; freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace; freedom is the victor." His dream of freedom seemed impossible on that day in 1987. Twenty years later, it seems that it must have been inevitable.

Today, President Reagan's vision has fully grown: The Cold War has ended, the Berlin wall has come down, and throughout Eastern Europe democracy has taken hold. Millions of people today have rights that they never dreamed possible.

Another conviction that guided President Reagan was his belief in the importance of America's allies, allies with whom we share common values like tolerance and human rights, allies with whom we could stand together to promote freedom and democracy, and allies with whom we could rally to freedom's defense when necessary.

Australia is and always has been one such ally. Ours is an alliance not of governments but of peoples, one that reflects the deep bond of enduring ideals and shared history, colonial origins, democratic development, and shared political and cultural values. Most importantly, ours is an alliance that remains strong and unbending regardless of domestic political concerns in Washington or Canberra. Yes, we've had our differences, as any allies will, but we raise them freely and we address them openly as friends and we are stronger for it.

Foreign Minister Downer and I have just finished a very useful meeting in which we discussed not just the state of our alliance but how we are putting that alliance to work in the service of great purposes. Today, Australia and the United States are working together to open a path for the advance of hope and freedom worldwide. We're fighting extreme poverty. We're advancing good governance and the rule of law, economic opportunity and social justice. We are providing stability in a changing Asia. And of course, in the face of a vicious terrorist enemy, we are standing together in the defense of freedom.

In times of trouble, when freedom and democracy are threatened, Australians have always been among the first to make the hard decisions to accept the hard duties and to fight bravely until the fighting is done. Australia and the United States have fought side by side in every major military engagement since World War I and today we are adapting our alliance to the challenges of the 21st century.

For those of you who do not recall, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard was in Washington on the day of the September 11th attacks. Prime Minister Howard returned to his country and he mobilized Australia and Australians for a new global fight, and from that day on Australia and the United States have been together every step of the way. Our troops were first on the ground in the international coalition to defend freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we remain in that fight still. Right now, more than 1,500 Australian soldiers are on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan helping to wage the war on terror. For that, Mr. Foreign Minister, and for the fact that you are increasing your presence in Afghanistan, we thank you. It is a symbol of our rich and long held friendship. I want to thank you and your country and the brave Australian men and women in uniform for their service, for your dedication and for your commitment.

We are in challenging times throughout the globe. Uncertainties abound and it probably seems on many days that success is out of our reach. But as a student of international politics, I can tell you that when you look back on history many events that seemed impossible at the time, in retrospect now seem quite inevitable. Think back to the Brandenburg speech of Ronald Reagan. Did anyone every really believe that that wall would come down? And indeed, it did.

Recently, I spent some time reading the biographies of our founding fathers. By all rights, the United States of America, facing the greatest imperial power of the time, should simply never have come into being. This past summer, I read a wonderful book about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. This country should never have survived our violent division to come back united and free.

And I stand before you as a woman who was born in Birmingham, Alabama. And who would have thought in September 1963 when my little classmate Denise McNair was killed in the bombing of that church that I would stand before you as Secretary of State? (Applause.)

And then I always think about the last time that I was in government and I was fortunate enough to be the White House Soviet specialist at the end of the Cold War. It doesn't get much better than that. And I had a chance to be there for the liberation of Eastern Europe and for the unification of Germany and for the beginnings of a peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union. But I recognize that I was just harvesting good decisions that were taken in 1946 and 1947 and 1948, decisions taken by people like Truman and Acheson and Nitze and Kennan, those who believed that freedom would triumph.

And what a difficult thing it must have been to believe that freedom would triumph, because in 1946 the communists were not just on the move in Eastern Europe, there were concerns that Western Europe too might fall to communism when the French communists won 46 percent of the vote and the Italian communists 48 percent of the vote. And in 1947 the reconstruction in Europe was still failing, with two million starving Europeans. And in 1947, civil war broke out in Greece and civil conflict in Turkey. And in 1948, Berlin -- the Berlin crisis permanently divided Germany and Czechoslovakia fell to a communist coup. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule, the Chinese communists won. And in 1950, the Korean War broke out.

Who would have thought that in 1989 and 1990 and 1991, freedom would triumph throughout Europe? And who would have thought that I would have accompanied President Bush in 2006 to a NATO summit on the territory of Latvia?

So things do change in international politics. If you stay free and true to your values, if you stay strong, if you recognize that threats must be confronted, good things do happen. But they happen not just because of the strength of the United States, but because of the strength of our friends and our allies with us. And it's in that regard that I am so pleased to honor and to welcome my great friend, Alexander Downer, of Australia to the United States. (Applause.)

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: Well can I just thank Secretary Rice for her kind remarks and say what a great honor it is to be in this room with Nancy Reagan, the widow of that great President of the United States; Fred Ryan, the chairman of the Reagan Presidential Library; and ladies and gentlemen.

I visited this library before. I came here a little over a year ago and I planted an Australian gum tree here as a tribute from the Australian people to the memory of President Reagan. This library is an essential stop in California for anyone with a sense of history and in particular for anyone seeking to understand the American dream. This library honors a man who could justly say at the end of his presidency, that he had appealed to the American people's best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. Nobody could ask for a finer judgment on a political career.

President Reagan once defined statesmanship in 1985 halfway through his term in the presidency. He declared then that setting out a vision was not sufficient. Statesmanship also required courage, persistence and patience. I suspect that President Reagan put courage first because he thought, as Winston Churchill did, that courage is the quality which guarantees all the others.

President Reagan like Churchill faced the pre-eminent moral challenge of his generation. And the thing about President Reagan is he prevailed against it. Through his courage he brought about the liberation of hundreds of millions of people and ended the totalitarian evil that had threatened the security of the rest of the world. This was together with the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the greatest victory for freedom of the last century.

We, Australians, understand what it means to have the courage to stand by your friends. We call this value "mateship". Australia and the United States, we stand as mates by each other. To illustrate this point, I’m today giving the library a bound copy of the debates in our parliament that followed the shocking terrorist attacks of the 11th of September 2001. These debates culminated in the adoption of an historic resolution that confirmed the Prime Minister of Australia's decision taken on American soil immediately after September 11th that invoked our defense alliance with the United States in effect to declare war on the terrorists that had attacked our friend and our ally. We did this because Australia's alliance with the United States is the bedrock of our foreign policy; our strategic choices in our security. But more importantly, we did it because it was the right thing to do.

Active, sustained, intense engagement by the United States in the Asia Pacific is indispensable for the security and growth of our region. We believe that purposeful, determined, committed American leadership is equally indispensable to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. For us in Australia, these judgments are clear. There is a moral clarity about them. We fundamentally believe that the United States is a force for good in the world. (Applause.)

Our alliance is built on strong historical foundations, but we don’t take it for granted and this is an important point. If we did, no more than a bare minimum, the United States and Australia would probably always be friends. But to achieve and maintain the level of trust, cooperation and warmth that now characterizes the relationship requires a special degree of sincerity and effort. It involves standing by your ally not only when it is convenient but also when it is inconvenient.

As I'm sure it comes through from President Reagan's diaries, which I know were released just yesterday, President Reagan knew that history was something that is made by people. We are not -- we cannot be simply pushed along by events. Now I, too, believe that. Australia and the United States as free, open societies owe it to ourselves and to each other to work closely together to face the many difficult international challenges that confront us. And I know that we can and that we will do that. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Madame Secretary, Mr. Minister, thank you for those wonderful remarks. We now have a chance for a few questions from the press. Could we begin with Justin Pritchard from the Associated Press?

QUESTION: Good morning. One of the challenges is in the Middle East. Secretary Rice, I'm wondering if you're worried that the explosion of violence in an already fragile Lebanon threatens not only the government there, but also the broader stability in the region.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well first of all, let me say that we are completely supportive of the government of Prime Minister Siniora as they try to deal with the extremists who would indeed try to bring instability and chaos to Lebanon. The government has responded, its security forces have responded, as it is right to do. The -- what is going on in Lebanon is a reminder that these young democracies around the world are under threat from extremist forces that hate the fact that they're democracies and that hate the fact of freedom.

And when you think or when anyone says, well, the only target of the extremists is the west or whatever, just remember that the people who are suffering most at the hands of extremists are innocent Palestinians, innocent Lebanese, innocent Iraqis, innocent Afghans who find themselves under constant assault. So it is a very concerning situation in Lebanon. We are prepared and are trying to help the Lebanese Government. But the Lebanese Government has stood strong in the face of this threat and we are quite certain that with the resolve that they're showing, that they are going to be able to handle the situation.

I should just say that Lebanon of course is consistently under pressure from foreign forces from foreign influences, particularly Syria and Iran, which would also try and add to that instability. The Syrians were expelled in effect from Lebanon after a Security Council resolution and after the people of Lebanon said, "Enough." But they continue to try and influence the events there and we are working immediately on request of the Lebanese Government to have the Security Council bring forth a tribunal that can try the perpetrators of the attack on former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri that took place a couple of years ago. So there is a lot of focus and attention on Lebanon. But I would say to the people of Lebanon that the free world and the responsible states stand with them and their government is acting with strength.

MODERATOR: Let's take the next question from The Australian, Geoff Elliott.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Downer, Secretary Rice, just on Iran and the Gaza talks that the U.S. is going to hold next week in Baghdad, as I understand it, between Washington and Iran, Mr. Downer, I'm just wondering what role, if any, Australia might play in preparing groundwork for those talks. Even though Australia takes a different approach on Iran, we have diplomatic relations with Tehran, I'm wondering if we've had any role at all there in preparatory work. What are you hoping that might be achieved? Is there any time when you'd envisage Australia breaking off diplomatic relations with Tehran, given their nuclear ambitions? And Secretary Rice, what are you hoping from Tehran next week?

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: Well first of all, as far as Australia's relations with Iran are concerned, we do have diplomatic relations with them and we do have frequent contact with them in all sorts of ways, including contact from time to time between me and the Iranian Foreign Minister.

On Iraq, I've made the point to the Iranians that they need to think about the long term -- their long term strategic interests in Iraq. From Iran's point of view, I would have thought what it wanted was a stable neighbor. It wouldn't of course want to see and they make it clear the Iranians that they don't want to see the collapse of the present government in Iraq. They, I think, need to understand that the present government in Iraq needs to be sustained through a process of reconciliation between the Shia and the Sunni. And it's in Iran's interest that that reconciliation works just to the same extent that it's in the interest of the -- obviously the Iraqi people, but the broader international community.

And we've made these points to the Iranians on many occasions. And it's been of course a matter of great concern to us that Iran has -- and there's no secret about this -- they have provided lethal equipment to some of the Shia and militia groups and I believe they are continuing to do that. And in the end, encouraging that sort of behavior, encouraging insurgent activities, I've explained to the Iranians is not going to be in their long-term best interest. So we have an advantage from our perspective in being able day by day to communicate with the Iranians, and we do on all sorts of things. And we've made our position very clear about their nuclear program. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the consequences for the whole Middle East will be horrific. Other countries in the region will feel that they have a right to develop those sorts of weapons system themselves. It could be a major step towards the further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

So we join with the international community in trying to discourage Iran from continuing down the path that it's following. So as far as the actual talks next week are concerned, I'll leave that to Secretary Rice. But I had the Iraqi Foreign Minister in Australia this week and he's talked a lot -- with a lot of enthusiasm about how he thinks these talks can develop. I think a lot of us, though, who have direct diplomatic relations with Iran, but of course a very intimate relationship with the United States, are able to make it pretty clear to the Iranians that continuing with their current strategy, both their current nuclear strategy and their strategy in Iraq, is in the long term not going to be in the best interest of the ordinary people of Iran.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, and we have had the really very strong support of Australia in Iraq, obviously, but also through the IAEA Board of Governors from the very beginning, concerning the Iranian nuclear program. And because Australia has diplomatic relations, it has been able to deliver those messages directly. I think that from our point of view, these talks really emerge out of the context of the neighbors conference that was held in Sharm el-Sheikh. The neighbors of Iraq undertook certain obligations there and among those obligations were that they would try and contribute to the stability of Iraq, not its instability. And the Iranians say on frequent occasions that they want a stable Iraq, it's in their interest, but they're not acting in that way. They are supporting groups that are violent and are causing deaths of innocents. They are, I believe, a source of the technology that is leading to the very -- the highly explosive IEDs that are leading to the deaths of so many American coalition soldiers. And so if Iran* does see its interest in a stable Iraq, I would hope that they would line their policies to help bring that about. No one denies that Iran is a neighbor and that it should have good neighborly relations with Iraq. We would hope for that.

But this -- these talks are centered on Iraq, on Iraq only, and on helping to bring stability in Iraq. As to the nuclear program, that's on a different track. It is on a track that we pursue with three European countries: Germany, Britain, and France, and with Russia and China. The party's six have put forward a very favorable proposal for Iran if it will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities and seek a truly civil nuclear program that doesn't have proliferation risk. And I find it very hard to understand why the Iranians are not attracted to a way back into international -- the international system rather than continuing to deepen their isolation, but if they continue down the path that they're in, that's exactly what they're going to do. They're going to deepen their isolation and we always have a Security Council track at our disposal, should the negotiating track fail.

We already have two Security Council resolutions and they are strong. 1737 and 1747 are very strong Chapter 7 resolutions and I think Iran is beginning to understand that there are -- people will worry about dealing with Iran, both reputationally and in terms of investment, if they remain a part of that not very attractive club of countries that are under Chapter 7 in the UN.

MODERATOR: Thank you. How about for our next question, from here in Los Angeles, KCBS, Amy Johnson.

QUESTION: Secretary Rice, this has been an exciting week here at the library with the release of the Reagan diaries and a lot of people have been able to see an in-depth look at President Reagan's terms in office. How do you think President Bush will be compared and remembered in comparison to President Reagan when he completes his second term?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, history will have to judge that. I can tell you that I know that President Bush will have to be remembered for the fact that in the war on terror, he has understood that every day, we get up and we make choices about whether or not we're going to try to defend our values and whether we're going to try to defend freedom and whether we're going to defend the kind of world that we wish to live in, because at the same time that we're making that choice, the terrorists have made their choice on any given day.

They want to destroy that foundation. And you can read it, you can look at them, you can read what they say, you can see how they act. And President Bush has been and has mobilized this country and with good allies, great allies like Australia, mobilized this country for that fight. Now I know that years out from the attack, it's perhaps starting to -- we're starting to forget the circumstances that led to that attack when we weren't able to adequately share intelligence information, when we weren't adequately able to surveil terrorists, when we were not able to get the kind of information that we needed to be able to prevent an attack.

But I can tell you that I get up every day and I recognize that the -- we are still in danger because the terrorists only have to be right once. We have to be right 100 percent of the time and that's an unfair fight. And that's why you have to take the fight on the offense and that's why you have to try and address the circumstances that produced al-Qaida in the Middle East, whether it is their -- what was their immediate base in Afghanistan or to try and address the freedom gap in places like Iraq where now, with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people struggling, to be sure, and difficult, to be sure -- more difficult than I would have thought, to be sure, but where they're struggling to try and find a way to resolve their differences by politics, not by violence, and where extremists, whether they threaten in Iraq or Afghanistan or Lebanon, are trying to unravel that dream.

And I think that -- what I would hope that we will all be remembered for is having understood that struggle, having engaged that struggle, and having recognized that it's the struggle of a generation. The remarkable thing to me about Ronald Reagan is that he recognized very, very early in his career that the struggle against communism was a generational struggle. But when he had a chance to act, he acted in a way that hastened the decline of communism, didn't take it as a given, didn't believe that it was something that needed to be or could be accommodated, and in having that kind of strength of moral leadership, allowed people across the globe to rally in the cause of the defense of freedom. You're never wrong when you're defending freedom. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: A question from Australia's Nine Network, Robert Penford (ph).

QUESTION: Yes, a question for Mr. Downer. We've heard that the U.S. and Australia and Japan are now working together to develop a global missile defense shield. And so is it realistic now to expect to see missiles in place guarding Australian cities in the future? And who do you perceive out there as the enemy?

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: I don't think that's likely anytime in the foreseeable future. I don't think that we're likely to have missile defense systems established in Australia as such. But we do support the concept of missile defense and we do work with our friends and allies on that issue. We've never made any secret of that. I know some people say it's one thing for countries to have missiles, but we think it's a bad thing to have missile defense. I think for as long as others have missiles, you're perfectly entitled to defend yourself. It's always seemed to me to be common sense.

Thinking of Ronald Reagan, I remember the so-called "Star Wars" issue only too well. I might have just been a bit more than a student at that time, but it seemed to me that the argument against it was an argument that, well, maybe it won't work. Well, if it doesn't work, it's not going to do any harm. I suppose if it does work, it's going to stop missiles raining down on our friends and our allies and it seemed to me that would be a good thing in the event of the worst possible circumstances arising.

But for as long as people have missiles, there will be a sense that it -- look, it's common sense to have some kind of a missile defense system. So we support it as a concept. We are not likely to deploy such a system in Australia in the unmentionable future, but I suppose way off, it's -- who knows what strategic circumstances there could be. But they are not the strategic circumstances where we think we would need that ourselves at this stage, but that others, including the United States, see a need for it as entirely understandable and we're happy to work with them.

You've got countries like North Korea developing long-range missiles, the Taepo Dong-2 missile system, where you've got other countries doing research and developing ballistic missile systems. I say, well, sometimes they object to missile defense; well, there's no need for missile defense if nobody has missiles that could be threatening.

I just want to add to what Secretary Rice said about President Bush, because you don't get many foreign ministers commenting on these things either. I don't mind people knowing what I think of President Bush. I've had a lot to do with him over all of the years he's been the President of the United States. He's been a good friend to us, President Bush. He's been a good friend to Australia. And his diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region has been very effective and we appreciate that. And we appreciate the way he has successfully handled relations with China and with Japan and with India, major powers in our region, and it's important to us that he and obviously, the Secretary of State, handle those relations well.

And you know, when I think about the war on terror and the decisions he's had to make, these have been tough decisions and the final judgments about his presidency in relation to some of those decisions will be made years and years off into the future. But one of things that strikes me about President Bush is that he is a person of enormous courage and I think the great presidents of American history, the ones who I truly admire and Ronald Reagan, as I've explained to Mrs. Reagan, has been one of my great heroes, but there have been others who haven't always been very popular.

I think of Harry Truman. He was -- I think his approval ratings dropped into the low 20s by the time he finished his presidency and nobody thought he'd get reelected either. And the Korean War was incredibly unpopular. But he took decisions for the medium and the long term, which actually, I have to say, I think were enormously important. I remember when Ronald Reagan first became the President. I lived in Europe at that time and people in Europe, they were horrified that this warmonger was going to become the President of the United States. They couldn't believe it when he talked about the Soviet Union being an evil empire. I thought, "That's right, isn't it? Isn't it an evil empire?" That was what I thought. But that seemed to be a rather unpopular view at the time. But when you think of Ronald Reagan now, you know, he's a man who won the Cold War. That's kind of a good tribute. (Applause.)

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: And will people say of President George W. Bush that he ran away when the terrorists struck? I don't think they'll say that about him either. I don't think they'll say that about him. They'll say that he confronted them, that he showed a lot of courage in doing that. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Thank you. Shall we take some questions from the audience? If you have a question you would like to ask, please raise your hand and they'll bring a microphone to you. The gentleman in the -- straight in the middle there?

QUESTION: My name is Thomas --

MODERATOR: He's got a microphone.

QUESTION: My name is Thomas Martinez (ph) and I'd like this question addressed to Madame Secretary. With the recent change in leadership in France, can we expect a favorable change to the United States with their policies? And also, with the expected change in England now, can we expect a continued favorable response to our common goals?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. Yes, there are lots of leadership changes going on in Europe. I think the thing to remember, first and foremost, is that these relationships, U.S.-France, U.S.-Great Britain, Germany are enduring relationships. They're relationships that are based on values.

And so there is just a base there, that is there no matter who occupies the position of leadership. I have often said, and I said when I was in France at one point, our relations with France are -- have always been better in practice than they are in theory. If you look at the areas in which we've been able to cooperate -- the gentleman asked the question about Lebanon -- we've had extremely strong cooperation on Lebanon with France and I would expect that many of these enduring elements will continue.

But I've met now-President Sarkozy. He is a remarkable man. I think that he does very much admire the United States. I look forward to working with him and he has -- I had a chance to watch a little bit of his debate and what is very clear is his desire to push his country forward. And a strong and vibrant France, like a strong and vibrant Europe, is good for the United States.

And in Great Britain, of course, Prime Minister Blair has been the strongest of friends and he's been there in the -- all of the difficult decisions with the President, as has been Prime Minister Howard. I've also met Gordon Brown and he is also someone, I think, who admires and respects the United States. We've still got work to do with Prime Minister Blair because we're working almost daily on the issues of Iraq, the issues of the Middle East.

But the very good thing is that you are able to continue these relationships even when there are leadership changes; but the leaders who went through these crucible times, like Prime Minister Blair, like Prime Minister Howard with the President, they are special. And so I look forward to working with whatever leadership is there with our great allies. But we did go through times that test and prove friendship.

MODERATOR: Thank you. A question on the right side, Gil Glaser (ph).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the whole nation is nervous about the Islamist fanaticism. Have you thought about the fact that the problem with them is they have no jobs? They're not industrialized. You know, idle hands are the devil's tools. Are we considering that?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, you are -- you make a very good point. I think that some of the leadership -- most of the leadership of the extremists can't really claim poverty. They are people themselves of means. When you look at the biographies of the suicide hijackers, it's hard to believe that these were not people who were instead software engineers. I mean, there's something that is very disconcerting about the fact that some of these people are middle class or greater in the leadership. They do -- however, they did come out of a context in which there was a freedom gap in the Middle East that did not give a healthy channel for political activity and so political extremism became the outcome.

But you're right in that many of the people on whom they prey, the young people that they tell if you are -- go out and you will be a suicide bomber or you go out and you will kill innocent people, those are people for whom there is very often hopelessness and poverty and the kind of people who see no other way out and are seeking some kind of glorification.

And there, I think that the combination of democratization of these places and the growth of prosperity for people should help us to give people a different kind of future. You know, it can't be that a mother, whether an Iraqi mother or a Palestinian mother or an Afghan mother, somehow wants her child to grow up to be a suicide bomber and to take his own life and that of another innocent person. That just doesn't accord with what we know human beings want and desire.

And so something has gone terribly wrong and these extremist leaders are appealing then to hopelessness and helplessness and we have to address the root causes as well, which is why the President has been so insistent on a democracy agenda, so insistent on support for education, so insistent on support for development.

Perhaps one of the things that’s not well understand about President Bush -- and thank you, Alexander, for the fine words about him -- but I think one of the things that's not understood, for instance, is that this Administration has nearly tripled development assistance, official development assistance around the world and we've nearly quadrupled it in Africa. We've doubled it in Latin America. The President's policies on AIDS relief -- the American people have given dramatically to the President's Emergency Fund for AIDS, $15 billion for AIDS relief, malaria relief. We have education programs around the world.

Women's empowerment and girls education has been one of the cores of what we've been doing in places like Afghanistan. Those are all, too, a part of the very important effort to give people hope.

And when you look at a place like Afghanistan, where the extremists ruled and the way of the Taliban and where girls were neither allowed to read nor go to school, you recognize that however hard life is for Afghans -- and it's hard now -- the prospect that your girls can now go to school and that they can be educated is going to change the face of that country forever.

And so you are right, sir, it is broader than just the fight against the extremists. You have to bring the leadership to justice. You have to put them out of commission. But the people on whom they prey, you can -- something needs to be done about the circumstances in which they find themselves.

MODERATOR: Mr. Downer.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: Thank you. Can I just add something to that because I think this is a perspective that you wouldn't have thought of. I might be wrong. You might have done, but I don't think so.

We live next door in Australia to the world's largest Islamic population -- Indonesia. There are 200 million people who are Muslims in Indonesia. And what other characteristics does Indonesia have? Well, I'll tell you what Indonesia is, it's a democracy. Indonesia is the world's third largest democracy. If you don't like the government in Indonesia, you don't like the president -- who's called President Yudhoyono -- if you don't like him, you can join one of the opposition political parties or you can set up your own political party and campaign against him and go out onto the streets and write letters to the editor and go on talk radio and abuse the president. This is a -- I think this might even happen in this country from time to time. (Laughter.) And God forbid that it should happen in our own. (Applause.)

Indonesia is a new democracy, you know. One of the truly great successes of the world in recent years, an unheralded success, is the advent of democracy in the world's largest Islamic country, the world's largest Muslim country in Indonesia. And one of the consequences of this, in my view, is that you have seen -- which you have seen -- a decline in support for extremism in Indonesia. Over the last two or three years, there has been a significant decline according to opinion polling in support for Islamic extremism in Indonesia.

Now, I think this sort of plays into what Secretary Rice has just been saying. I think that this illustrates the point that where there is no scope for opposition at all, opposition sometimes finds itself in the form of extremism. Where there is scope for opposition and dissent, then people will move toward more moderate elements as the leaders of or amongst the leaders of dissent and disagreement with the government.

So Indonesia is a very important example of not only Islam embracing democracy, but in doing so where you have seen a decline in support for extremism and it's a very encouraging development. And you know, when you think of extremism, you think of the Middle East and a variety of different issues, of course, are involved there, some of which are deeply historic. But you can easily forget that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world and I think India has the second largest, and those countries are both democracies.

MODERATOR: I think we have time for one more question. Is there up on the upper balcony a question someone would like to ask? The lady on the right side here.

QUESTION: I'm so glad you brought up India and the moderate groups that are there. But I have heard that those moderate groups have declined U.S. association, that they don't want our support. And I'm curious why you think that is -- to either of you.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, actually, I think when you look at a place like India you can see that we have better relations with India now -- the United States -- than really at any time in really in India's history and in the history of our relationship with India. And it's because it's based on a sense of partnership, a sense that India is an emerging great multiethnic democracy and that means that it's going to play its own role in the world.

One of the things that we sometimes forget is that even if we have very good relations with countries, they won't always agree with us. And in the case of India, this is a country that in many ways, as the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement at the time of the Cold War, defined itself in juxtaposition to the policies of the United States. And we've overcome a lot of that.

But it isn't going to overcome the fact that there will be differences and there will be differences among parts of the population. But I can tell you that when you go -- that the number of Indian students studying in the United States, and now increasingly Americans who want to study in India, the number of contacts between Indian business and American business -- I come, as you know, from right up the road from Silicon Valley. There is something like the Silicon Valley in India as well where people are engaged in the most -- the highest of high-tech development.

And so it is becoming increasingly a relationship that's not just government-to-government, that is also people-to-people, and we want to encourage that. There needs to be more contact between Indians and -- the citizens of India and America. I will tell you that one of the great bridges is that we have a wonderful, extraordinarily vibrant Indian American culture and population in the United States that provides some of those links. But I've found the people of India very friendly when I go there. I've taught lots of students from India in my role as professor at Stanford. And I think you're going to see, as this great democracy emerges, deals more and more with its poverty, that you're going to see better and better ties between America and India.

One of the most remarkable things that we did during the recent presidential trip to India was we went out to some agricultural areas where Indians are working on new technologies in agriculture. The United States, through USAID and American assistance, was very fundamental in what was called the Green Revolution in India in the '60s, making India self-sufficient in agriculture. And we're continuing that now by working with India on drought-resistant crops and the like.

So it's -- you tend to think only about the government-to-government piece, you tend to think only about the very important civil nuclear deal that we have concluded with India and hope to finalize very soon, but this is a very broad and deep relationship and I think it's only going to become more so over time.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: I think the transformation in India over the last, I would say, 15 years has actually been quite -- 20 years maybe -- has been quite dramatic. You've got to think about the history of modern India a bit. I mean, here is a country which was colonized by the British for a couple hundred years or so and in 1947 gained its independence. So an Indian perspective of the West was seen through, if you like, the coloring of colonialism, which is something they didn't particularly appreciate. And so as time went on, you know, in the late '40s, from '47 through the '50s, although India was one of the cofounders of the Non-Aligned Movement with Indonesia, India certainly had a tilt in its foreign policy towards the Soviet Union.

The great changes that have taken place have been the -- you know, we'll call them the Reagan changes: the end of the Cold War, the massive paradigm shift that took place at that time, the victory for liberal democracy and for the market-based economic system. And India, in any case, was a democracy but increasingly since 1990 has been embracing the market as well, the market-based system. So no Cold War paradigm anymore, embracing the market system, losing interest in the history of British colonialism in India. India has become, from our perspective in Australia, and we're an Indian Ocean country, a much better country to work with and a very good partner and that's strengthening all the time.

In the war against terrorism, I mentioned that India had the second largest Islamic Muslim population in the world. Of course, they're a minority in India. It's predominantly a Hindu country. But India has been a very good partner in the war against terrorism and India is a champion of democracy and increasingly a liberal market country. And I'm pleased to see the way the United States relations are warming with India and we look forward to seeing the United States successfully conclude its nuclear agreement with India sometime soon. That will be an important symbolic step forward, quite apart from the mechanics of it.

But this is an emerging country which has a settled political system. In 20 years time, India will be a richer country than it is today, a lot richer than it is today, but it will still be a liberal democracy, a parliamentary democracy, as it is. So I think you can be optimistic about India.

MODERATOR: Thank you Madame Secretary, Minister. (Applause.) May I just add that from the presentation we've seen today, it is very clear why the relations are so strong and so positive between our two countries and it's also very clear that the diplomatic responsibilities in both of our countries are in extremely capable hands. Thank you for joining us today. (Applause.)

2007/T8-1

Released on May 23, 2007

© Scoop Media