Rice at the Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program

Remarks at the Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
April 10, 2007

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. I'm going to make very brief remarks because this is really a question-and-answer session not a speech.

I want to welcome you very much and I'm pleased to have a chance to talk with this second class of our Edward R. Murrow Program for Journalists. It's a wonderful program. It's a great product of partnership between a private entity and the U.S. Government and between our Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs and the Aspen Institute. And there are 12 leading universities that are also involved in this program. Some of those are represented here today.

We thought it only fitting to have a program that brings the world's journalists to America to discuss issues of foreign policy, issues of concern to the peoples of the world because there is no more important pillar of democracy than a free and active press. In fact, our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, called it the "fourth estate" and by that he meant that without a free and active press the people could not be certain that their views would be known to their leaders and that their leaders' views would be known to them. It is a great tradition that the press is a place for active debate, for active reporting, for investigative reporting, for in-depth reporting and for daily reporting. But it's also a great tradition and it's something that I would like to remember today that journalists are often those who are on the front lines of some of the most difficult conflicts in the world, very often giving their lives, paying the highest sacrifice to report the news. And in these days of conflict around the world there are always journalists who have given their lives and so I want to especially acknowledge that sacrifice.

But it's also true that in countries that are not yet free, where people do not yet enjoy the benefits of freedom, it is often journalists who make the sacrifice and endure the danger to try and report to the outside world so that those places can be free. And so journalists are not just reporters, if you will, of the great events. They are also very involved in making those events happen. There's no period in history in which journalists, in which the press has not played a role in bringing about change. And so I acknowledge that and I want to welcome you as members of that great institution -- journalism and the press. And now I'm very happy to take your questions. So who's going to start?

Secretary Rice takes questions from the Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program Participants in the Loy Henderson Auditorium. State Department photo by Michael Gross QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Thank you, Madame Secretary. I am from Cameroon. I represent the delegation from Sub-Saharan Africa, French-speaking Sub-Saharan Africa. What is the new U.S. strategy considering the crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Can you hear the English? What is the new American strategy to deal with the various crises in Sub-Saharan, Africa, such as poor governance, poverty, AIDS, Darfur and other armed conflicts? Thank you very much.

What is the new American strategy to deal with the various crises that we see in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as poor governance, AIDS, poverty as well as Darfur and other armed conflicts? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. It starts from the premise that Africa is not just to be seen as a place of problems but to be seen as a place of great opportunity and it is a place with which we expect to have partners in resolving the challenges that face the African continent.

Therefore, the President has had several pillars of a strong Africa policy. The first is that in terms of trade, we have been supportive of and have continued the African Growth and Opportunity Act because nothing improves the capability or the prospects for job growth like free trade. And the United States has made possible African goods to come into the American market on a preferential basis. This has tremendously improved job growth in Africa.

We have married that job -- the trade agenda with a tripling of official development assistance to Africa, whether through traditional development assistance, going to girls education or to health policy or to, in some cases, economic reform and job growth. We've also had the Millennium Challenge program, which is able to give rather large compacts, we call them, large agreements -- a country like Ghana, for instance, almost over $500 million compact, which rewards good governance, rewards countries that are engaged in fighting corruption and investing in their people. And we've made several of those grants to Africa and we have a number of other countries that are on threshold to receive those large compacts, so on the economic development side we've been doing a great deal.

On the question of disease, of course, it is the President who has had a $15 billion program for AIDS relief, bringing treatment now to hundreds of thousands of Africans where only tens of thousands of Africans were receiving treatment before, as well as care for orphans and for prevention of AIDS. The President also just announced, as a public-private partnership, a $1.4 billion malaria initiative to try and eradicate malaria, 50 percent of the malaria cases on the continent.

These programs that are for assistance and -- for economic assistance, for trade, and for health, the compassion agenda, also have to take place in a context in which the United States is devoted to helping to solve conflicts. And while we are all very focused on Darfur and we need, as an international community, to do more on Darfur, the Government of Khartoum needs to understand that it should accept and fulfill the obligations that it undertook at Addis to get a robust peacekeeping force in to be able to protect the citizens of Darfur.

I myself visited a Darfur camp, a refugee camp not too long ago. These people deserve better. They deserve to have a prospect of going home, which is why we've been active in working on a peace arrangement there. The rebels need to join in this peace arrangement. We also need to recognize that Darfur -- as bad as that situation is, we have made progress by having a North-South agreement that ended decades of civil war where millions of people were killed and that was because of the President's active engagement and that of Secretary Powell and John Danforth, who was our Special Representative for Sudan.

We've ended other conflicts; Liberia. What a promising future Liberia now has under the excellent leadership of Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, amazing possibilities there because the United States, with our African colleagues, insisted on Charles Taylor leaving and being brought to justice. And then it's maybe not remembered that the Marines actually secured the airport and the seaport to give a possibility for an end to that civil war, then a transitional government, and then the election of this fine president. And I was just at a conference in which we have pledged significant funding to Liberia, including debt relief, that the United States will lead. We were also active in ending the conflict in the DROC.

So we've been very engaged in ending conflicts in Africa and we will be very engaged in trying to end the conflict in Darfur, but I don't want people to lose sight of how much this Administration has partnered with good leaders in Africa to try to improve the prospects for a more prosperous and healthy life for the African people as well -- people of the African continent as well.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) Thank you and good morning. On behalf of the Latin American region, the Spanish-speaking region, it's very nice to meet you. My question is, how do you feel about this increase in the anti-American feeling that we see in Latin America as evidenced by the increase of leftist governments in countries like Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Brazil? Given the situation, what is your opinion as far as the role played by Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, and how will the United States address this situation in Latin America? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, the United States has a positive agenda for Latin America and it's not in response to anybody's negative agenda toward the United States. The President was just in Latin America and what was the message that he took? The message that he took was that the United States can work and will work with governments wherever they come from on the political spectrum as long as they respect democratic elections and democratic values, as long as they respect their neighbors, and as long as they're willing to govern in a way that invests in their people and is open to trade and economic development.

So we have an outstanding relationship with Brazil, with President Lula. And as a matter of fact, I think it's -- I can't think of another case in which an American president and the president of Brazil, the president, really, of almost anywhere has met as often as these presidents have to forge a real partnership that we now have, for instance, on biodiesel, which is going to be important to energy independence for the countries of the region, where we're going to cooperate in places like Haiti and Central America, where we're cooperating on projects for development in Africa, malaria in Principe and Sao Tome.

These are -- this is an excellent relationship with Brazil and President Lula comes from the left of the political spectrum. We have an outstanding relationship with President Vazquez in Uruguay; the President was in Uruguay, very good relationship there; good relationship in Chile. So it's not an issue of somehow, anti-Americanism being expressed in governments left of center coming to power. I assume governments left of center have come to power because they present an agenda for their people, a future for their people that has gotten them elected. And under those circumstances, we are more than willing and able and capable of working with those governments.

Now what we've been saying also -- what the President also said when he was in Latin America is that we recognize that just having democracy is not enough. It's a precondition for good governance. But once you have a democratic government, that government has to be able to deliver. And therefore, the United States, which has doubled development assistance to Latin America during this presidency, is going to work on health, work on job creation, work on education. We have very active programs on all of those.

When we were in Guatemala, we went up to the Guatemalan highlands where indigenous people are engaged in -- were engaged in subsistence farming and now, have created these small businesses that do vertically integrated agricultural processing. So they grow the crop, they package the crop, and they ship it directly into the American market made easier, by the way, by the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which the President got through the Congress.

We have free trade agreements with Chile, free trade agreements that will go to the Congress with Peru and with Colombia. We have a very active and positive agenda in Latin America and that's what we're going to talk about. And if others wish to talk about negative aspects of the United States for their own political purposes, let them. We have an extremely positive relationship with many of the countries, most of the countries of Latin America.

And I want to just tell you something. You know, I was really struck when I was in Guatemala with the President. And it is true that what you saw in the news was 20 protesters. You did not see the square in the town in Guatemala where people came out in the hundreds with their homemade signs to greet the President, where they came out of their houses to greet the President.

That's a response -- as journalists, let me say it's a responsibility of yours to give a complete picture and not just to follow a storyline that says that there are protests. Of course there are protests. These are democratic societies. They can have protests. But they, by no means, represented the warmth of the reception that the President enjoyed throughout Latin America. And so when you report, I hope you'll report evenly.

QUESTION: I'm from Afghanistan representing South Asian countries. As you're aware, anti-U.S. sentiments are on rise in Central and South Asian countries, whether they're Muslims or non-Muslim countries. Are you expressing concerns over this issue and what are your plan to improve the U.S. picture in these countries? Because it's -- it has been directly affecting U.S. interests and also, our interests rooted in democracy.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. First of all, I think Afghanistan is a remarkable story. When I came to Washington in 2001, Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, a brutal regime, that refused any rights for women including women going to school, that executed people in a stadium that had been given to them by the international community. This was a very brutal regime and that regime's been overthrown and it has been replaced by a democratic government that Afghans went and voted for in huge numbers and by a democratic parliament. And yes, it's difficult in a place like Afghanistan that's had 25 years of civil war to get to full stability. The Taliban, of course, tries to strike back.

But if you look at Afghanistan, a place to which -- in which only eight percent of the population had access to healthcare five years ago and now 80 percent has access to healthcare that's a remarkable story. So I recognize that it's hard to make the journey from tyranny to democracy, it's hard particularly in a country that is poor. Where Afghanistan once had a vibrant economy, it's now been made poor by years of civil war, but roads are being built and people are -- the economy is coming alive again. This will be a success story. NATO is fighting to defend the people of Afghanistan. It's only large engagement, interestingly as an alliance, has now -- has been in Afghanistan after all of those years of containing Soviet power, NATO is actually fighting really for the first time in Afghanistan.

Now, as to how people view America in South Central Asia, I have found, at least in Afghanistan, that there's gratefulness for what America did in overthrowing the Taliban. But sometimes there's disappointment that we haven& rsquo;t been able to deliver more quickly on things like services. I sometimes think there's a belief that the United States can pull a rabbit out of the hat and we can undo the 25 years of deprivation. We can't. It takes time. But the Afghan people need to know, and I think President Karzai does, that the Afghan people are going to have an American friend for a very, very long time. And as this -- challenges are met, America will be there to help.

As to the rest of South Central Asia, we have very good relations with India, probably the strongest relationship at any time between America and India. Good relations with Pakistan at the same time and in Central Asia as well. But to the degree that people are disappointed in American policy or don't like American policy, I sometimes think it's because we've had to do some very difficult things. Somebody had to stand up and say that terrorists cannot be negotiated with. They have to be defeated. And that has meant that we've had to sometimes engage in policies that are not always very popular. But I think that when we look back over the long run we will see that the dedication of the United States to democracy, to the building of democracy, as hard as that is, even in a place like Iraq where it is very, very hard, is preferable to assuming that there was stability when people were simply kept oppressed by tyrannical rulers.

I know that there are times when people say this is never going to turn out well. But I have an advantage as a student of international history to know that when you're at the beginning of a big historical transition, which we are -- we're at the beginning of a big transition -- it's very, very hard. But if you lay the right groundwork there will come a time when people will look back and say that it was just inevitable that it turned out for the good. But if you refuse to lay the right foundation it will never turn out for the good.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) a representative for Reuters in Tunisia and I speak on behalf of the Arab delegation. Secretary Rice, the United States spends billions of dollars to improve its image in the Arab world and the Middle East. However, what we feel is that the tension is increasing in Palestine and Lebanon and Iraq and Somalia. What is the solution in your opinion and how can you overcome this to achieve and spread what you call a democracy? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, when we spend money to improve our image let me tell you how we spend most of it. Yes, we do have our public affairs officers go out and explain our policies. That's what they're supposed to do. And yes, we do have conferences like this where we can bring people to the United States. But you know a significant amount of what we spend is actually just to get people into a position where they can get to know America. Not get to know America's government, not to get to know this administration, but get to know America, so exchange programs for students to come to the United States and for our students to go to the region, language programs so that Americans learn to speak other languages, efforts to bring on short-term opportunities visitors from the rest of the world. Because we have a very firm belief, which is that when people come here and they study and they see American families not just in Washington, D.C., or California where I now live, but in Iowa or in Alabama or in Minnesota, they see what America is really about.

And what is America? America is an enormously diverse place -- and country -- where whether you are African American or Mexican American or Korean American or Egyptian American, as Dina's parents were, you come to the United States and you're American. And you're American whether you are Christian, whether you are Jewish, whether you are a Muslim or whether you are nothing at all. And we think that is a really good message for the world because our strength in our diversity, our willingness to live in one body and our ability not just to tolerate each other but to actually use that diversity to our strength is, frankly, something that is a good model for the rest of the world. I'm not talking about those who say America wants to impose democracy, all right. I don't actually believe you have to impose democracy. I think you have to impose tyranny.

If you ask people would you like to have a say in who will govern you, would you like to have a say in how your children are educated -- boys and girls -- would you like to be free from the knock of the secret police at night? Most people will say yes, no matter how uneducated they are. No matter how "unsophisticated" they are, they will say yes. And so I don't think this is about imposing democracy. But if there is something about America that I wish people understood better and that I wish people would model, it is the fact that we are so many different kinds of people from so many different backgrounds with so many different religious beliefs and so many different political beliefs and we still live in the same body and we manage not to think that difference is a license to kill. That is something that I wish the rest of the world would model.

Now, the United States didn't get there suddenly. When the Founding Fathers said, "we the people," they didn't mean me. My ancestors in the first American Constitution were three-fifths of a man. So I'm not saying that it's easy. I'm not saying America has any reason to be arrogant about what we have achieved, but I am saying that it is a remarkable thing that someone whose ancestors were three-fifths of a man in the first Constitution of this country is now the Secretary of State. And I'm not even the first black Secretary of State; that was Colin Powell. So when you look at America and you don't like its policies, fine; and you think that there are -- that we've caused difficulties by our policies, fine; but when you look at America, remember and ask of your own countries, "Can any country say that the Secretary of State or the Foreign Minister or the Defense Minister is actually not of the majority? Can anyone look at a delegation in your countries and say, "Do they all look alike?" Or is there real diversity in them? And then think about America's journey to diversity and tolerance and what we've achieved. It's really a wonderful story and it's why when we spend money we want people to come here and get to know who we are, what this country is, and our people to go to other places.

I think that the answers to conflict in the Middle East -- and no one is more devoted to trying to resolve them -- I think it starts with more open societies, with more pluralistic societies, with more democratic societies, where people have to contest political views in the open, not behind masks that they can say we are part of the resistance. I think it's a good thing when people have to contest their views in politics.

I am very devoted to the creation of a Palestinian state so that Palestine, a democratic Palestine, and Israel can live side by side in peace. I think to get there we need to get the parties talking, which they've begun to talk. But ultimately, it's going to come because there are two states that recognize that they're going to have to share the land, and that they recognize that when they share that land there is going to have to be a renunciation of violence and a respect for each other and the willingness to, I think, get to the very basic goal of, I believe, most Palestinians and most Israelis, which is that their children will not be suicide bombers but that they will be university people and they will be people who are having a better life. And I think we can get there. This government is absolutely -- this President is absolutely committed to trying to get there.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Hi, Secretary Rice. I am from Mauritania. I represent the French-speaking North African group. My question is about the military strategy of the United States in Africa, and more specifically in North Africa.

What is the status of the African Command project? Is the United States -- will merely sign agreements to monitor African territories borders or will there actually be the installation of military bases in Africa? Because I have been told that there may be some of these bases that could be established, if they would be established that there would be an inter joint command between the Department of State and the Department of Defense. And I recall to my colleagues, not to you, that it's not necessarily a honeymoon; it's not always a wonderful relations between DOD and Secretary -- and State.

SECRETARY RICE: The point to make is that we have had a command -- a combatant command around the world for every place except Africa. The -- a dedicated command. So we have a European Command. We have a Central Command; that's the Middle East. We have a South Command, a Southern Command that is Latin America. We have not had a command dedicated to Africa. In fact, we even now have a command dedicated to North America to -- after 9/11, but we don't have one for Africa.

So why do this for Africa? Because increasingly in the -- both the war on terror and in dealing with the conflicts that the first speaker asked about, we are cooperating very intensely with local governments and local armed forces in training, equipping, intelligence sharing, the work that we do in both counterterrorism and in conflict management. For instance, right now we are assisting the African mission in Sudan, and but we're doing it from our European Command. We are trying to -- we will assist the African forces, the Ugandan forces there in Somalia but other forces as they flow into Somalia. Right now we have to do that from European Command. When we did the Liberia work with a very fine Nigerian general, General Okonkwo, we did that from European Command.

So it only makes sense as more -- we cooperate more and work more with African militaries and African leaders to have an African command. Now, it is true that there will be a State Department deputy in that command because we believe that much of the work these days is not just war and peace, it's more of a continuum in which you want to be able to work on the politics, you want to be able to work on the economic side. And that is the Department of State's responsibility, and so bringing together the State Department with somebody in African command will allow us to have better and smoother cooperation.

But what you're really seeing, I described at the beginning the President's very active policy in Africa of partnership with Africans to resolve Africa's problems. Now you're seeing the institutions begin to develop to make that possible over the long run. Africa Command is one. I appointed -- the President appointed and I swore in the first American ambassador to the African Union. So we are now institutionalizing in the way that we have in Europe, where we've had ambassadors to the European Union and to NATO of course, where in Latin America we have an ambassador to the OAS and a commander for SOUTHCOM. Now in Africa we will have a combatant -- a subcombatant commander for Africa and an ambassador to the AU because we're doing so much cooperative work with the countries of Africa.

As to bases, we're not looking to put bases around the world. We're actually closing down bases in a lot of places. What we end up doing is we end up having some facilities where we can train together, where we can go in and out of, but it's really more to provide a platform for cooperation as we resolve Africa's problems together.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) Hello. I'm from Singapore. I'm from the National Daily. (Inaudible) '08 is when the Beijing Olympics are going to be mounted. Also, the Taiwan election and the U.S. election will be --

Hello? Can you hear me now? Is it okay now? I don't know why. I'm going into English. Okay. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Is this better? Is this better? Is this better? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Is this better? Is this better? Sorry. Is this better?

SECRETARY RICE: We'll send someone out.

PARTICIPANT: It's just that channel.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay, you don't need it there.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay, all right. That I can do. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Okay. I'm coming from Turkey and I would like to ask a question. In the name of democracy, how can the United States play an active role against the polarization (inaudible).

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well, I'm a firm believer that if you proceed from a set of principles, you're going to do better. And the first principle is that people essentially, I believe, want the same things in life. They do want to be able to have a say in who's going to govern them. I mean, I just -- I think it is extremely patronizing somehow to say there are some people who want to be free and others who don't care about that.

Secondly, I think that they want education for their children. They want their children to have a better life than they had. Third, they want to be able to improve their standard of living by having a meaningful job and having a way of making a living and providing for their families. Those are the basics; so democracy, prosperity and a future for their children.

Now what gets in the way sometimes? Sometimes, what gets in the way is history, old disputes that really should be put aside. And it's very often leaders and maybe a few activists who keep those disputes going and really get in the way, I think, of what people really want. And so I think from both the top down, that is, saying to leaders and saying to activists, you know, "It's time to put that behind you. You have got to find a way to go to gray. You're not going to get your maximalist position and they're not going to get their maximalist position. You're going to have to meet someplace in the middle and you're going to have to recognize that history does not allow you to have a grievance forever against someone."

Then I think you work also from the bottom up. I've seen how important it is for students to be exchanged even if there are differences among governments, for athletes to be exchanged, for musicians to be exchanged, for journalists to exchange, to try to highlight the humanity of those people with whom you have a difference. And I think we have to work from both sides. I have been -- very often, people say, "You know, the problem with the United States is you don't know your history. You don't have a history."

And I say, "Yeah, that's right and good for us," because it doesn't somehow get in the way. If you know your history not at all, that's bad, but if you know your history too well, that's not good either. And I do think that recognizing that times change, people want to move on, is something that leaders owe their people.

Did we find somebody to help with Chinese? Good, thank you.

QUESTION: (Via interpreter.) Madame Secretary, thank you for taking my question. I'm from the national Chinese daily in Singapore. We understand that Beijing Olympic Games will be held in the year '08 and that year happens to be the year in which Presidential elections will be held in the United States as well as in Taiwan. Some people think that the Taiwan authorities will push for the (inaudible) independence in Taiwan and that, of course, will bring a lot of uncertainties.

Now what actions will the United States take to stabilize the situation in -- across the strait? And will there be a decrease in arms sales to Taiwan? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well, the (inaudible) has to be just very upright anchor in this situation between Taiwan and the PRC. We proceed from a One China policy. We do have a One China policy. That policy, we do not expect anyone to try and unilaterally change. We expect that China will not try to change that circumstance and we expect that Taiwan will not try, through a unilateral declaration or a unilateral movement toward independence, to change that policy. We expect both sides to respect the policy.

We have obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act to help Taiwan defend itself and we will carry out those obligations through the military cooperation that we have with Taiwan. But I do not believe that (inaudible) anyone to have conflict from the Taiwan Straits. What we've done is that in addition to stating our policies very clearly, we have made clear that we do support cross-straits dialogue, cross-straits interaction. There actually is a lot of trade and economic development across the straits and I think that that is also a buffer against conflict. It's my very strong view that this should not and will not change as a result of '08 because it's been a standing policy of the United States for many, many years.

Okay, my last question.

QUESTION: Hello, I'm (inaudible) from Georgia and I represent here a group of journalists from former Soviet states. Some of Russia's neighbors are complaining about what they call it (inaudible) building and mounting pressure on them by Russia. What do you think about it and what is the U.S. position in this regard, where it stands?

And also in this context, what do you think about the role Russia is playing in respect of separatist conflicts in this region? Do you think it is positive role? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well, let me say first that we are going to maintain good and strong and growing relations with states that are now independent states and have a right to their own foreign policy orientation and direction. We have, therefore, very good relations with Georgia and we're going to maintain those very good relations with Georgia. Georgia is an independent state. It can choose its foreign policy direction.

We have been major supporters of good relations with Georgia and Russia because they live next to each other. They should have good relations. Now I think that we've -- our relationship with Russia is essentially a good relationship. We don't agree about everything. We're both very big countries, complicated relations, but we cooperate very well on a whole host of issues.

When it comes to the states that were once a part of the Soviet Union, we have tried to make very clear to Russia that we want them to have good relations with those states, but as independent states, normal political relations with those states; that the days when these states were part of the Soviet Union are gone, they're not coming back. Therefore, the relations ought to be based on trade and economic development and people-to-people contact and cooperation. And we've been strongly supportive of efforts to do that.

We have also been very clear that we expect Russia to have influence with its neighbors -- you always have influence with your neighbors -- but that it ought to take the character of respect for the independence of those states and in the case of Georgia, respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia, which means doing nothing to suggest that the separatist movements in South Ossetia or in Abkhazia have any claim to independence.

And so that is the strategy that we pursue with Russia. It has its ups and downs, but we believe very strongly that a network of strong democratic, independent states that are growing and prospering and therefore, stable are going to be beneficial to Russia, not harmful to Russia. And that is the point that we make all the time. And by the way, the President had a wonderful time in Georgia, a wonderful trip in Georgia, and we even got him -- or you, the Georgians, got him to dance when he was in Georgia, so it was quite a great trip.

Thank you very much and good luck on the rest of your program.

(Applause.)

2007/271

Released on April 10, 2007

ENDS

© Scoop Media