Remarks at the National Conference of Editorial Writers

(2:15 p.m. EDT)

SECRETARY RICE: It is a real pleasure to have you here.

Where is Sean? Is he around? I was going to thank him and his organization, but I guess he is off doing something else.

So thank you very much for joining me and I know this is something like your eighth visit here so you are -- you've been very busy. I think it is terrific to have a chance to talk with you about whatever is on your minds and I'm sure there's plenty on your minds, so I'm not going to make formal comments. I thought that we might just go around and have questions.

So who would like to start?

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Dr. Rice, one of the first things that we were talking about earlier, and I brought up Latin America quite a few times and I noticed that it's conspicuous by its absence on our agenda for this project. And I think it's come up in different topics, but that Latin America seems like it's being ignored, and considering the things that are happening, and you know, our good friend Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and the growing anti-Americanism in Latin America, connections with Iran, connections with terrorist groups, this seems to be a serious issue and it seems to -- and I'm down in Miami, I'm with the Miami Herald (inaudible) radio -- that it's not getting the attention it deserves. And at least that's the perception, if not the reality, and what can we do or what are we doing about it to change that impression or reality?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm a little surprised that it is not on your agenda because it has been an area of considerable preoccupation for us. I was just down there for the Chilean inauguration and saw some interesting folks while I was down there. And the President very early on said, you know, a good policy begins in the neighborhood, so let me just outline for you both how I see the challenges and the possibilities there.

First, we have to recognize that even though we know that this is an area that has its challenges, if you think back 20 years it is extraordinary what's been achieved in Latin America, where juntas are out of power, civil wars have been ended, incredibly fragile economies have been in some places stabilized, like in Chile and to a certain extent even in a place like Argentina where you had rotating presidencies when I first became National Security Advisor, and where the only non-democratic seat, the only seat that's empty at the OAS, is Cuba because you cannot be seated there if you're not a democracy.

And so I think if you look at it from the historical perspective, the region is in a much stronger position. The United States has had a policy there of supporting democratic processes and democratic governments, and one of the challenges for us is to get the message across that we don't care what side of the spectrum you come from, left or right; all that we care is that you govern democratically, that you care about free trade, that you have open economies and that you play by those rules. So we have outstanding relations with Chile. We have excellent relations with Brazil. We've had very good -- reasonably good relations with Argentina. And that's because we are not picking and choosing left or right. And I think somehow it gets misinterpreted or you hear very often, oh, there are all of these governments wining from the left; that's a problem for the United States. Well, no, that's not a problem for the United States. It really depends on whether people govern democratically.

It's one reason that we've gone out of our way, for instance, to establish good relations with Uruguay. We've gone out of our way to at least give the relationship with Bolivia a chance. We don't want people to see everything through the prism of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. We have our own positive agenda.

The other issue or the other difficulty that we've had in getting our message across is not only do we not care if the government is from left or right but that it governs democratically, we also understand that a lot of democratically elected governments in Latin America are having trouble delivering for their people and that our policies are not just free trade and economic growth, but also investment in people, in health and education. And we want people to understand that we know that growth and development, democracy and development, have to go together.

We've done very well in terms of the free trade agenda. The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – an area of the Americas has not moved forward, but we have an increasing number of free trade agreements around the region and a line of countries that are interested in pursuing free trade agreements with us.

And finally, the progress of places like Central America demonstrates what can happen when you marry free trade with support for democratic governments and with efforts to prevent the kind of interference in affairs that -- governmental affairs that we were able to help with, for instance, in a place like Nicaragua.

Now, I know that there are questions about our relationship with Venezuela. We don't have a desire to have a bad relationship with Venezuela. We have a historically good relationship with Venezuela. But there seems to be an effort by the Venezuelan government to make sure that we have bad relations and that's unfortunate. But when you do the kind of things that they did to our Ambassador, when you say the sorts of things that you do about the President of the United States, then it's hard to have good relations.

I would just note that we're not the only ones. Apparently, the Peruvian government is not too thrilled with the interference in their own electoral affairs.

So my message to you is we spend a lot of time on Latin America. We have a positive agenda for Latin America. And I hope that we can start to break through with that positive agenda.

Just as a closing point, we have doubled official development assistance to Latin America during this presidency. Doubled it -- and yet that really somehow does not come across.

QUESTION: Public diplomacy – the other part that's missing or needs to be reinforced.

SECRETARY RICE: And Karen may have told you that when we were there we called together some of our ambassadors and we said, you know, why are we having trouble getting our message across? And I think you'll see more from us on that side.

QUESTION: I'm Fred Fisk from the Post-Standard in Syracuse. This morning, Ambassador Bolton said he was heartened to hear that you said that Iran is a test of the Security Council because he's been saying it for months. And I guess my question is that we in the media have been reading, you know, at some distance about Ambassador Bolton and Secretary Rumsfeld and different approaches to foreign policy issues and it doesn't seem like everybody is quite on the same page at all times.

SECRETARY RICE: Gee, I think we're all on the same page.

QUESTION: I guess my question is whether -- is there --

SECRETARY RICE: The Secretary of Defense is the Secretary of Defense. He doesn't do foreign policy and I would expect him to be worried about issues like, you know, militarily how are we dealing with issues.

Give me one example of Secretary Rumsfeld and I not being on the same page. I mean, it just doesn't happen to be the case. For instance, I'll give you an example.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: People cited his speech on China and the fact that he emphasized the Chinese military buildup. Well, not only did I read the speech before he gave it, we talked about the speech before he gave it. And I think if you go and look at comments I've made, I've talked about the lack of transparency concerning Chinese military spending and the concern that we have about that.

So I just don't see it. And as to John Bolton, John Bolton, after all, works for the President and works for me, and John Bolton and I talk frequently about what he's doing at the UN, what message we want to send. I was the one who recommended John Bolton for that job initially because I thought that we needed somebody at the UN who had a long history of being concerned about UN reform, a long history of being concerned -- John had worked with me on several negotiations, including some work we did with the Russians on nuclear nonproliferation. I think he's a terrific negotiator. But I can assure you, John Bolton and I talk all the time and John Bolton is on message.

QUESTION: Well, I thought there might be some -- I mean, it could be an effective strategy to use different -- perhaps different approaches simultaneously.

SECRETARY RICE: Have you heard me on Iran? (Laughter.) I'm not terribly popular in Tehran. I don't think you would probably be able to make the case that John's been any tougher on Iran than I have.

QUESTION: John Bersia, Orlando Sentinel. To go back to Latin America for a minute, I just came from Orlando and they're in the middle of a massive immigration rally today, as many cities around the country are experiencing. Do you feel that there is a solution to the immigration question that is short term or is this going to be something we'll be talking about for quite a while to come?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it is an issue that the President has been particularly concerned about. You know, he's a border state -- former border state governor himself and has a lot of experience in this area. I mean, he's rather famous for a quote that family values don't stop at the Rio Grande. And he recognizes and has talked to me from the time that I first met him about the contribution that immigrants make to this society, including people who may have crossed illegally. But a recognition that even if there is a contribution there, we have to have laws and we have to have borders that are secure.

And so he's talked about a comprehensive policy on immigration, which is I think where we're trying to go. And there's a lot of debate about this in the Congress, but a policy that both recognizes our humanitarian needs -- the humanitarian -- the heart of the United States, that you don't want people to have to live in the shadows, and at the same time doesn't reward people for having broken our laws, is the kind of delicate place that you'd like to be in. And I think that's why the temporary worker program, which is not an amnesty but rather allows for a broadening of the ability of people to stay in the country who have useful work to do, work that Americans will not do, is probably the core of a comprehensive immigration policy.

I hope we can continue to have this debate in a way that is consistent with our values and consistent with our immigrant past. You know there are a few of us whose principal ancestors were not immigrants, but for almost everybody else immigration was the way to this country. And I think that the need for a comprehensive immigration policy that is not amnesty, that does not reward people, letting them get ahead of the line of people who came in legally, and that really secures our borders, has got to be the way to go about this. We at State are spending considerably more money on border security in trying to work with, for instance, the Mexican government to deal with the border program. And when I talk to governments around the world, I tell them your language, your rhetoric, should begin with America has a right to defend its laws and defend its borders, and then go on to what you'd like our immigration policies to be. Because I also come from California and I know how incredibly sensitive these issues are.

QUESTION: Given the bright beginning of U.S.-Russian relations at the beginning of this Administration, I think there's been some disappointment at the way things have gone both in terms of the state of democracy in Russia and in terms of America's relations with Russia outside of the country, and I'm thinking of Hamas and Iran and so on. Given your own rich background in that area, I wondered what you thought of it. What's the report card on that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I do still think that we have a relationship with Russia that is beneficial to both sides and that is workable on many issues. If I take something like Iran, the Russians are not tactically precisely where we are; however, they did vote ultimately for the Board of Governors resolution, they did vote for the presidential statement that took place. I think they recognize that Iran is not being responsive to the demands of the international community. You see it in their statements. And I know how hard they work on this issue.

I also know that they are right with us when they say that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And if you look at the way that they have structured their Bushehr civil nuclear cooperation, it is clearly to keep Iran from acquiring the fuel cycle. So I think we have more in common on this issue than we have in disagreement.

I think it's actually similar on Hamas, where they do not have the same position that we do that Hamas is a terrorist organization, but they are a party to the Quartet statement that set the conditions for Hamas' interaction with the international community and they've made clear that their $10 million in assistance is humanitarian assistance that they're going to funnel through Mahmoud Abbas. So again, I think we have more in common on this than we may have some tactical disagreements.

The problem really is that Russia is a country that's in the midst of a pretty major transition itself and we are seeing, I think now, the emergence of a Russian national interest that will sometimes be in agreement with us and sometimes not be.

What we ask of the Russians is really three things: The first is that they act responsibly on the big issues of the day like Iran and Middle East peace and so forth; secondly, that they recognize that we have legitimate interests and relationships with countries that are in their neighborhood even if those countries were once part of the Soviet Union. And I know it is sometimes difficult. You know, there are suspicions sometimes of our relations with, for instance, Ukraine. But of course, Ukraine is an independent country. That's not going to change and it's going to have good relations with the United States. We also want it to have good relations with Russia. But they are difficult and sensitive issues in this period of transition.

The third is that I think if there is an area where I think there's more disappointment than on the foreign policy side where I think these are sort of natural differences between states, and by the way we don't have identical policies on some of these issues even with some of our closest allies, but it's really on the internal dimension of Russian development. And there the jury is out about where Russia is going to end up. There have been some setbacks. The press is not very free, particularly the electronic media. The judiciary doesn't appear to be very independent, at least when you get to higher-profile cases. I was reading a statistic that Russian citizens win 80 percent of their court cases against the government. So there is something going on there that is different than in Soviet times. Third, probably the biggest problem is the concentration of power in the Kremlin. It's very hard to protect democratic process and practice if you don't have countervailing forces in a society. And there's no doubt that the presidency is incredibly strong at the expense of all of the other institutions, whether it's the press or the legislature or the judiciary or the press -- or the civil society.

And so that's something that we talk about. Now, the good news is we talk about it pretty candidly. We talk about it freely. We have good personal relations. I have good personal relations with Sergey Lavrov, with the Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov. The President has a good relationship with Putin. But that piece of it is troubling. And you asked about my own background. I think for somebody like me who has watched Russian history, in which the tendency has been to swing between chaos and authoritarianism and never to kind of find that middle place, that's what one would hope for for Russia, that it finds that middle place. And it's not the Soviet Union. There are a lot of positive trends, but there are also some negative trends that have set in.

And the final thing I would say is that I know people from time to time talk about not having Russia in the G-8 or maybe we should abandon the NATO-Russia Council. I don't see any outcome that is better for democratization in Russia if Russia is excluded from the very institutions in which democratic values are held dearest. It doesn't make sense to me. It gets you nothing.

And so it's hard, it's hard going, but with historical perspective, you remember that it is not the Soviet Union and there is a lot to work with there and the Russians are -- I think you're going to see that as there's a growing middle class and growing property rights that that will have an effect, too, on the relationship between the citizenry and the government.

QUESTION: You said that the United States expects other governments to rule, if possible, democratically in that open market. But if some countries or some regions don't want to accept American definition of democracy or economic model, as you see South America, for example, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, they want some -- that economic assistance should take into consideration social consequences of businesses.

Democracy you saw in Hamas elected in Iraq. They have Islamist government. And I believe that most of the Middle Eastern Muslim countries now, if there is election, Islamists will in power. So what do you do? Maybe America has not come to the end of history. Maybe communitarian societies will realize that this model doesn't work where the question of justice is more important than freedom. Now, do you like to preach your system that works here and say or like to have a foreign policy model based on empirical studies of societies the way they want to be? Maybe they will evolve like America, maybe they will not.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. They won't evolve like America. They'll be very different from America. But I think the definition of democracy is actually a quite common one. I don't think it's particularistic either to the United States or to the West. What I mean by democracy is that people have the right to say what they think, people have the right to choose those who will govern them, people have the right to have information through a free and independent press, they have the right to be free of the arbitrary rule of the state which means judiciary needs to be free, they have the right to educate their girls -- their boys and their girls, and I believe the right to freedom of conscience, in other words, religion.

Now, how those very basic values get expressed will clearly be in accordance with different traditions and different histories and different cultures. But when I hear people say there are different definitions of democracy, I simply reject the idea that there is a definition of democracy that does not enshrine those basic principles. If you can't say what you think, if you can't elect those who are going to govern you, it's not a democracy. So Cuba doesn't qualify. I'm sorry, it just doesn't qualify.

Now there are then certain international dimensions to the picture and let's take Hamas. The United States of America, in fact, the President of the United States, we were the most vocal in supporting elections in the Palestinian territories and saying they ought to take place on time. There were a whole lot of people who said, "But what if Hamas wins?" And we said you can't postpone elections because you're afraid of who might win. That was the United States. Hamas won.

What is being said to Hamas is not that their victory was illegitimate, by any means. In fact, we welcomed the elections. But that if they are going to govern, they have to accede to other international standards which say that you cannot have one foot in violence and one foot in politics. That's a standard that's upheld around the world. Afghan militias were disbanded if people were going to participate in politics. The IRA has had to give up its arms, or promise at least to give up its arms, in order for Sinn Fein to be a part of the peace process. That's a generalizable definition, generalizable concept.

Another piece of it is not only can you not have one foot in violence and one foot in politics, but if you're going to have a peace process, which is by the way the only way that the Palestinian people prosper, you have to recognize the existence of the other party. You cannot have a peace process with Israel if you don't recognize Israel's right to exist. It's just a practical matter. And so what Hamas is facing worldwide is not a rejection of its democratic election. It is facing the realities of governing as a state in an international system that also has rules.

Finally, as to the Islamists, I myself believe that what is going on in the Muslim world is actually very important and it's good. I know there are people who say you should put the institutions in place first, then hold elections. I would challenge anybody to find a case in which the -- in which democratic institutions arise in an authoritarian state. It doesn't happen.

This is one of those -- I'm an academic -- wonderful academic notions that somehow you can have all of these institutions underneath authoritarianism, then you remove the authoritarianism and all of these nice democratic institutions are in place. It's ludicrous. The habits of democracy are created and perfected by practicing them. That's how you get the habits of democracy.

So if, in fact, you're going to have a debate in the Muslim world or in the Middle East -- let me leave it to that -- in the Middle East, about the role of Islam in politics, let's have it in the open the way the Iraqis are having it. Let's have it in the open the way the Afghans are having it. Let's not have it where people with their faces covered and brandishing weapons in the streets are, in fact, practicing that by force of arms.

I think it's a very healthy thing that the Afghans with their constitution have to face the question of what does the enshrinement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean about the choice of religious belief. By the way, we should know, if anybody should know in the United States, that you create a constitution, but then it is through the practice of debate about it and court cases about it and challenges to it – (message given to Secretary) -- I have to go call my boss, if you'll excuse me. I'll try to come back. But if I don't, let me just -- this real quick point. If you're not going to have that debate, democracy is not going to take hold. We've had that debate from time to time in the United States. It's good. I'd rather have it in the open.

All right. Great. Sorry. (Applause.) Thank you very much.

###

2006/448

# # #