Obama's Interview with South African Broadcasting Corporation

QUESTION: Mr. President, you reached out yesterday to President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, pledging U.S. support after the twin bombings in Kampala. Can you share some of the details of that conversation with us?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I expressed, obviously most immediately, the condolences of the American people for this horrific crime that had been committed. And I told the President that the United States was going to be fully supportive of a thorough investigation of what had happened.

Al Shabaab has now taken credit, taken responsibility for this atrocity, and we are going to redouble our efforts, working with Uganda, working with the African Union, to make sure that organizations like this are not able to kill Africans with impunity.

And it was so tragic and ironic to see an explosion like this take place when people in Africa were celebrating and watching the World Cup take place in South Africa. On the one hand, you have a vision of an Africa on the move, an Africa that is unified, an Africa that is modernizing and creating opportunities; and on the other hand, you've got a vision of al Qaeda and Al Shabaab that is about destruction and death. And I think it presents a pretty clear contrast in terms of the future that most Africans want for themselves and their children. And we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to support those who want to build, as opposed to want to destroy.

Q: These attacks are very much about what is happening in Somalia today. How does that change, if at all, the game plan of the United States with regard to the Transitional Government that is in power there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, obviously Somalia has gone through a generation now of war, of conflict. The Transitional Government there is still getting its footing. But what we know is that if Al Shabaab takes more and more control within Somalia, that it is going to be exporting violence the way it just did in Uganda. And so we've got to have a multinational effort. This is not something that the United States should do alone, that Uganda or others should do alone, but rather the African Union, in its mission in Somalia, working with the Transitional Government to try to stabilize the situation and start putting that country on a pathway that provides opportunity for people, as opposed to creating a breeding ground for terrorism.

Q: Former U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania -- you might know him -- Charles Stith -- has just written a piece about radical Islam in Africa specifically, and I'd like to quote something from it. He says, "It became clear to me that the dirty little secret that no one wanted to discuss openly was political Islam's corrosive effect and adverse impact on development and stability on the African continent. It is inarguable that Islam is a factor in Africa."

In your view, are there strategies in place to deal with this?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think -- look, Islam is a great religion. It is one that has prospered side by side with other religions within Africa. And one of the great strengths of Africa is its diversity not only of faith, but of races and ethnicities. But what you have seen in terms of radical Islam is an approach that says that any efforts to modernize, any efforts to provide basic human rights, any efforts to democratize are somehow anti-Islam. And I think that is absolutely wrong. I think the vast majority of people of the Islamic faith reject that. I think the people of Africa reject it.

And what you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself. They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.

And that's why it's so important, even as we deal with organizations like Al Shabaab militarily, that, more importantly, we also are dealing with the development agenda and building on models of countries like South Africa that are trying to move in the right direction, that have successful entrepreneurs, that have democracy and have basic human freedoms -- that we highlight those as an example whereby Africans can seize their own destiny, and hopefully the United States can be an effective partner in that.

Q: So this is a link to poverty, that's what you're saying.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's not just link to poverty. I mean, I think there's an ideological component to it that also has to be rejected. There's -- obviously young people, if they don't have opportunity, are more vulnerable to these misguided ideologies, but we also have to directly confront the fact that issues like a anti-democratic, anti-free speech, anti-freedom of religion agenda, which is what an organization like Al Shabaab promotes, also often goes hand in hand with violence.

Q: Sudan. The International Criminal Court has added the charges of genocide to the arrest warrant of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. There's a view in Africa, certainly with the African Union, that the pursuit of President Bashir will be undermining or detrimental to the Doha peace process. What's your view?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my view is that the ICC has put forward an arrest warrant. We think that it is important for the government of Sudan to cooperate with the ICC. We think that it is also important that people are held accountable for the actions that took place in Darfur that resulted in, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of lives being lost.

And so there has to be accountability, there has to be transparency. Obviously we are active in trying to make sure that Sudan is stabilized; that humanitarian aid continues to go in there; that efforts with respect to a referendum and the possibility of Southern Sudan gaining independence under the agreement that was brokered, that that moves forward.

So it is a balance that has to be struck. We want to move forward in a constructive fashion in Sudan, but we also think that there has to be accountability, and so we are fully supportive of the ICC.

Q: Is peace not at risk if he were to present himself to the ICC?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that peace is at risk if there's no transparency and accountability of the actions that are taking place, whether it's in Sudan or anywhere else in the world.

Q: The World Cup, Mr. President, you mentioned that. To a certain extent, I imagine around the world, it was overshadowed by what happened in Uganda. But South Africa was basking in the glory of having successfully hosted this World Cup. But let's acknowledge the skeptics -- and there were quite a few of them and they were quite loud. I wonder if you were one of them.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wasn't. I, having visited South Africa and seen the extraordinary vitality of the people there, having gotten to know President Zuma and understanding the extraordinary pride that his administration expressed, which I think was a pride that was shared by all South Africans, I had confidence that this was going to be a success.

Obviously, it was just a terrific showcase, not just for South Africa, but for Africa as a whole, because what it lifted up was the fact that Africa -- all the stereotypes that it suffers under, all the false perspectives about Africa capacity, that when given an opportunity, Africa is a continent full of leaders, entrepreneurs, governments that can operate effectively. What we now have to do is build on that positive image that comes out of the World Cup.

And when I was in Ghana last year, I was very clear on what I think the agenda has to be -- Africa for Africans. That means that we can be partners with Africans, but ultimately, on whether it's issues of eliminating corruption, ensuring smooth transitions of democratic governments, making sure that businesses are able to thrive and prosper and that markets are working for the smallest farmer and not just the most well-connected person -- those are issues that Africans can work on together.

And in terms of my orientation working to help in Africa's development, we want to provide resources, but we want to partner with those who are interested in growing their own capacity over time and not having a long-term dependency on foreign aid.

Q: You also spoke in Ghana about the need to stop the blame game.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, look, I feel very strongly that -- you talk to the average person in Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria; they will acknowledge a tragic history in terms of colonialism and negative Western influences. But I think what they'll also acknowledge is their biggest problem right now is the policeman who's shaking them down, or the inability for them to be able to get a telephone in a timely fashion in their office, or having to pay a bribe. Those are the impediments to development right now. And those are things that Africans can solve if there is a determination and there's strong leadership.

And Nelson Mandela set us on a path in understanding the standards of leadership that are needed, and I think those standards can be met. And you're seeing countries around the continent who are starting to meet those high standards that are so necessary to ultimately help the people.

Q: I want to talk about President -- former President Nelson Mandela in a second, but before that, let's just touch on this bid, the U.S. bid for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022. How serious are Americans about soccer? My sense is that they're feeling fairly partial to it.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, listen, I think that you saw a quantum leap this year because of the excellence of the U.S. team. It's absolutely true that they call baseball the national pastime here in the United States; that basketball is obviously a homegrown invention; and we dominate American football. Those are all sports that developed here and that the United States is obsessed with.

Soccer is a late entry. But what you saw with the U.S. team was huge enthusiasm of the sort that I haven't seen about soccer before. And the younger generation is much more focused on soccer than the older generation. I mean, my daughters, they play soccer, they paid attention to who was doing what in the World Cup. And so I think what you're going to continue to see is a growing enthusiasm and I think people are very serious about the World Cup being hosted here in the United States.

Q: I want to touch on AIDS. Mr. President, there's been a great deal of appreciation and goodwill towards the United States for the Global Health Initiative, of which PEPFAR is the cornerstone. Some criticism, though, from AIDS groups in South Africa that there's a de facto decrease in funding, even though there's a 2.3 percent increase. How do you respond to that? It's based on inflation. Inflation in developing countries tends to be higher than it is in the United States. It's a 2.3 percent increase, and they're saying it's a de facto decrease.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have to say that we are seeing not a decrease, but an increase in PEPFAR, an increase in the Global Health Initiative. And I promise you when I'm fighting for that budget here in the United States, people don't see it as a decrease. They see it as an increase. They understand we're putting more money into it, and it's the right thing to do.

What we do want to make sure of is that as successful as PEPFAR has been, as important as it is for us to, for example, get antiviral drugs in there, that we're also helping to build up capacity -- consistent with what I said earlier.

So, for example, what are we doing in terms of creating public health systems and infrastructure in a place like South Africa so that the incidents of infection are reduced? We're not just treating the disease itself, but we're also doing a much better job in terms of general public health so that fewer people are getting infected in the first place.

I think that kind of reorientation you're going to start seeing in some areas. We'll continue to provide increases in antiviral drugs, continue to provide millions of rand, billions of U.S. dollars to basis assistance, but we also want to build capacity at the same time.

Q: Final question, Mr. President. Nelson Mandela will be 92 on Sunday. Your thoughts?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, he looked terrific, first of all.

Q: Didn't he?

THE PRESIDENT: And when I spoke to him on the phone after the tragic loss of his granddaughter, he sounded as clear and charming as he always has been.

And he continues to be a model of leadership not just for South Africa, but for the world. So we celebrate him here in the United States, as you do in South Africa. We wish him all the best. And we are constantly reminded that his legacy of seeing every person as important, and not making distinctions based on race or class but the degree to which they are people of character -- that's a good guidepost for how all of us should operate as leaders.

And so I wish him all the best. And South Africa continues, I think, to be blessed by not just a national treasure but a world treasure.

Q: Well, South Africans wish you best. Thank you very much. Very good to meet you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I enjoyed it.

Read more...

An interview With Elaine Fuchs

Discovering the Wonders of Skin Cells

Q. OVER THE YEARS, WHAT HAS BEEN THE DISCOVERY YOU ARE MOST PROUD OF?

A. We pioneered an unconventional approach to solving the genetic basis of human disease. In the past when geneticists were researching an inherited disease — cystic fibrosis, breast cancer —they would systematically study large families where it occurred and then search the DNA to find the defective gene. Eventually, they’d identify the culprit, let’s say BRCA1. But this didn’t tell them how encoded mutant proteins contributed to a person getting breast cancer.
In the early 1990s, in my lab, we took a reverse direction by studying what the proteins did and then figuring out what diseases they caused when defective. Our first breakthrough came while we were studying a rare inherited blistering skin disorder. Because it is rare, there were no large families to study. You couldn’t use the conventional methods to identify it.
What we did was to begin by studying keratins, the major proteins of the skin. When we engineered mice to express mutant keratins, we discovered that their skin blistered. Moreover, we were able to show how the mutation caused the blistering. So the next step was to compare the skin pathology of the mice to all the known blistering skin diseases in humans. We teamed with dermatologists to study skin samples from patients. This led us to the genetic basis of this inherited blistering disorder in humans. Since, our method has become a paradigm for guiding scientists to the genetic basis of other human diseases.

Q. YOUR LABORATORY CURRENTLY FOCUSES ON SKIN STEM CELLS. WHAT ABOUT THEM FASCINATES YOU?
A. Skin stem cells have special properties that the ordinary skin cells lack. They can develop tissue that can become outer skin or hair follicles or sweat glands. I’d like to know how one stem cell can create tissues so different from one another.

This may, ultimately, prove helpful in treating burn patients. Right now, we can give them skin grafts, though the transplanted skin won’t grow hair and won’t sweat, which people need to regulate their body temperature. Once we fully understand how skin stem cells work, we may be able to engineer better skin grafts. We may even be able to create tissue that helps with corneal blindness. I hope so.

Q. AS PART OF THAT RESEARCH, YOU ENGINEERED AN UNUSUALLY HIRSUTE MOUSE. WHY?

A. We wanted to understand the function of a protein that skin stem cells produce: beta-catenin. It helps genes switch on and off and it helps cells adhere to each other. So we expressed the protein and put it into mice. To our surprise, we saw that the protein seemed to coax the stem cells into making hair follicles.

Q. WAS THAT A CLUE TO HOW SKIN STEM CELLS MAKE HAIR?

A. Exactly. The protein issued instructions to the switch that takes a stem cell and says to it, “Make a hair.” What we were doing by expressing high levels of beta-catenin was saying to the epidermal cells, “Make a hair.” And they said, “O.K.” Hence: the hairy mouse.

Q. DID YOU ALWAYS WANT TO BE A SCIENTIST?

A. I’ve always been interested in how things work. When I was child in 1950s Chicago, there weren’t many women scientists. So to ask the kinds of questions that interested me was unusual. I remember as one of three females among 200 male chemistry majors at the University of Illinois, I was terrified that if I did well in class, the professors would think I’d cheated. That’s how much I didn’t think I belonged. So I studied like crazy and routinely got the best grades on examinations because if I was No. 1, then who could I have cheated from?

When I entered graduate school at Princeton in 1972, one of three women in biochemistry, I had difficulty finding a thesis adviser. The first person I talked to about the possibility of working in his laboratory was Bruce Alberts. He said, “I only take the best students.” To me, it was an indication “out the door.” I then wrote to Art Pardee, who indicated he wasn’t taking on new students. The next year, he took two male students. The thesis adviser who accepted me was Charles Gilvarg. I was happy until his lab technician said, “It’s surprising that you work for him because he had indicated that women don’t belong in science.”

I took these things as an invitation to prove people wrong about women in science. It made me work harder.

Q. BRUCE ALBERTS WAS, UNTIL RECENTLY, THE HEAD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF. DID HE EVER TELL YOU HIS SIDE OF THE STORY?

A. Well, he claims no recollection of the event. But these days, all of these gentlemen are supportive of women in science. They’ve come around.

I have to tell you that now that I’m in a position of authority, I feel that it’s vital for me to pave the way for other women to get into the ranks. It’s true of many of the successful women of my generation. One of my closest friends is Susan Lindquist of the Whitehead Institute. She feels the same. I don’t think any of us view our success as an indication we can quit now. It is no longer fashionable to say out loud that you don’t believe that women should be scientists, but the attitudes remain.

Q. GETTING BACK TO STEM CELLS. DOES IT TROUBLE YOU THAT YOUR PARTICULAR AREA OF RESEARCH, SKIN STEM CELLS, IS CONSTANTLY TOUTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, WHICH IS CONTROVERSIAL?

A. We have to keep using embryonic stem cells because they provide a gold standard for learning about how all cells function. We have to understand what embryonic stem cells do — how they work. Why can they give rise to every single cell of our body, some 220 different types of cells? The adult skin stem cells I work with can only make three different tissues, which is minuscule by comparison.

Q. BUT KYOTO UNIVERSITY’S SHINYA YAMANAKA HAS REPROGRAMMED ADULT SKIN CELLS SO THAT, LIKE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, THEY APPARENTLY CAN MAKE MANY OTHER TISSUES, NOT JUST THOSE THREE. HE JUST RECEIVED AN AWARD FROM THE MARCH OF DIMES, WHICH SAID IN AN ANNOUNCEMENT, “HIS METHOD ELIMINATES THE NEED TO OBTAIN STEM CELLS FROM HUMAN EMBRYOS.” IS THAT RIGHT?

A. At the moment, Yanamaka’s discovery doesn’t replace human embryonic stem cells. What it does is give hope that we might eventually replace them. One reason we still need them is that Yamanaka’s own work is actually based on human embryonic stem cells! If he’s trying to coax a skin cell to become an embryonic one, he can’t do that without first knowing what an embryonic stem cell does. And we haven’t learned all of that yet.

Besides, people who work on reproduction will always need to work on the embryonic stem cells. So that’s never going to entirely go away. Once some of this is solved, I will favor focusing on adult stem cells. We’re not at that point yet.

Elaine Fuchs, 60, a cellular biologist at the Rockefeller University and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator, studies the biochemistry of skin tissue. She is the new president of the International Society for Stem Cell research. Some of her work is aimed at transforming the treatment of burn and wound victims.

Read more...

Interview with Australian Prime Minister

PM: Thanks for coming. I wanted to make some remarks about the RSPT, the Resource Super Profits Tax. After I've made some remarks I'll then hand over to the Treasurer and to Martin Ferguson to add to them.

The Government has received, now its interim, first consultation report from the first consultation panel which has been dealing with the contents of the tax proposal and the individual representations being made by individual mining companies. The Government will not be releasing this report or those which follow it because it's, of course, is a series of confidential consultations between the Government and industry.

However, the reason for calling you together today is to simply underline the fact that based on an initial round of consultations, first, consultations are going well, second, we do not expect to land any agreement with the mining industry any time soon. Anyone out there expecting that there'll be some magic deal at midnight tomorrow night is wrong. That's not how it's going to be. Furthermore, this is going to be quite a long and protracted negotiation over quite a long period of time. And there I speak of weeks, at least, if not beyond.

The Government of course, is sitting down with companies from right across the mining industry and will continue to do so because we believe it is right that we understand fully the implications of the Government's proposed tax on the individual circumstances of each company.

Furthermore, I wish to emphasise that the Government remains fully committed to a Resource Super Profits Tax consistent with the framework that we announced on 2 May. That of course, includes a 40 percent rate, that, of course, includes making sure that we can also bring about other elements of tax reform as well.

These reforms from the Government's perspective, are fundamental to building economic growth for Australia in the future because they make possible bringing down the company rate, they make possible changes to the taxation arrangements for small business, they also make possible the delivery of increased superannuation entitlements to working families.

For us therefore, this is important reform. We remain fundamentally committed to it. We intend to get on with the job, but this is going to take quite some time yet.

Treasurer, like to add to that?

TREASURER: Thanks, Prime Minister. I just wanted to make a couple of points and I think I made them quite strongly on the 2 May when we released the response to the Independent Tax Inquiry, and that is, fundamental reform is absolutely necessary to strengthen our economy for the long-term. And this reform of resource taxation is absolutely fundamental to boost investment, to strengthen the economy over time, but most importantly to deal with the challenges we face as we go forward, to build our national savings, to invest in infrastructure, to make our economy much more competitive by lower corporate rates across the board and in particular, tax incentives for small business.

Now, I think there are many here who are aware that over the years, particularly the last 25 years, it has been the hard, fundamental reforms that have built the strength of the Australian economy which has assisted us so much in recent years. This is fundamental, hard reform.

The Government is not surprised that it is meeting fierce resistance from some of the biggest companies in the country, and indeed, some of the biggest resource companies in the world. That is just a fact of life, and it is naïve for anybody to expect that it would be different because they will have to pay a bit more tax.

There is compelling evidence in the Henry Report that they've not been paying their fair share, but the Australian people deserve their fair share, and compelling evidence in that report as to what we must do for economic reform as we go forward to build our national savings, to make our economy more competitive through lower corporate rates and to invest in infrastructure. Thanks.

MINISTER FERGUSON: Might I remind you that this is a tax on profits. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, this is not a tax on extraction. We should also not forget that the industry itself has argued for tax reform. It has actually argued in support of a profit-based tax system.

What we are about putting in place is a modern tax system to actually take forward the resources and energy sector in the 21st century. We took on a debate 25 years ago akin to this with respect to the petroleum industry, and we've come a long way in that 25 years. Last year we landed the biggest ever single investment for a project in Australia.

What we're about is bedding down the detail and putting in place certainty, which ensures that we get a fair return for the Australian community for their resources during the good times but I also remind you that during the bad times there is also some relief for the mining industry. And in the past when we had a total focus at a state level on an extraction tax, time and time again this, the very mining industry that was approaching treasurers and resource ministers to actually get some relief from the royalty payments, and we should never lose sight of that because this is about a fair approach to how we develop the resources sector in the future, akin to how we put in place, 25 years ago, a Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, and the only person and organisation that is now opposed to the resources sector actually paying a fairer return to the Australian community during the good times is actually the Leader of the Opposition and the Coalition.

PM: Just before I take your questions, the Government therefore remains fundamentally committed to delivering this tax reform, important for the nation, important for the industry. Secondly the Government is entirely prepared for the sorts of scare campaigns that we've seen in times past. We saw it with the introduction of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, we saw it over Mabo, we've seen it in relation to industrial relations, each of which created a furore at the time with the mining industry at various stages saying that would end in the collapse of the industry, none of those scare campaigns proved to be accurate nor does this one have that potential either.

JOURNALIST: Whatever changes you make will be made before the election?

PM: We will take this process of negotiation seriously Michelle, however long it takes. We don't intend to be railroaded by any particular timetable, we intend to get it right and we will take those negotiations seriously. Our commitment to the reform hasn't changed one bit.

JOURNALIST: Mr Rudd why not offer the taxpayers a break here and offer a deal to the mining sector and say we'll back of our ads if you back off your ads while this consultation period proceeds?

PM: Well it's quite plain that, and I've seen some reports of advertising campaigns for the mining industry up to $100 million - Clive Palmer's probably kicking in I don't know - but the bottom line is we've got a responsibility to rollback against the misinformation, and there's a fair bit of misinformation out there. And it's in the public interest that that occur and we don't resile from that one bit. This is an important tax reform for the nation, any significant tax reform results in a public information campaign of one description of another. This is a major one. We therefore have a responsibility to make sure it is a debate based on facts, on facts, rather than misinformation.

JOURNALIST: The miners are going to be in town tomorrow, is this press conference, is this statement to them in advance you're not going to be pushed around?

PM: Well look I am sure when the miners are in town, Martin will have some time with them, he's always a cheery chap. Wayne I think you're going overseas aren't you?

SWAN: But we have been spending a lot of time together.

PM: And what I seem to remember last time that we had what is I think called a "minerals week" is that I had all those folk from the mining industry round for a drink beforehand, I am sure I'll do so again, unfortunately I can't attend the dinner itself -

JOURNALIST: (inaudible)

PM: I'm speaking at a Chifley Research foundation. I really haven't thought that through Phil but I'll let you know.

JOURNALIST: Was your decision to go with mining ads on the part of the Government a mistake in terms of what it's done to your credibility?

PM: Well first of all, we don't back away one bit from our responsibility to make sure we have a public information campaign on a major area of tax reform based on facts. Secondly the mining industry has very deep pockets. As I said, reports out there circulating of a campaign up to $100 million, that's a lot of advertising. We therefore have a responsibility to make sure that this is a debate based on the facts.

Furthermore, you go to the question of guidelines and the probity of decision making processes, can I make it very plain that the Government has adhered to the guidelines which it announced earlier in 2010 and we've adhered to those guidelines. Those guidelines make specific provisions for certain compelling circumstances, those compelling circumstances arose. We don't back away from that decision one bit.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, hello, we're doing a profile on Julia Gillard for Australian Story -

PM: Oh good.

JOURNALIST: Which has been sort of very interesting in the last couple of days, what we'd like to know from you is do you think she'll be the next Prime Minister?

PM: You know what I've said many times in the past when asked this subject, she's a fantastic Deputy Prime Minister and she's going to make a fantastic Prime Minister as well one day.

JOURNALIST: On the issue of the advertisements, you spoke of your system that you put in place, but in fact back in 2007 you in fact said that the Auditor-General would have it. You didn't say anything about giving yourself a get out clause of giving the Minister the right to give you an exemption. Why, given that you offered a 100 per cent guarantee that you wouldn't do what the previous government did, should I believe anything that you say about anything?

PM: First of all can I say that in the debate in 2007 it was about whether or not we would first of all bring down the quantum of public advertising, we have done that. Secondly, would we therefore introduce as well a set of guidelines anchored in the Auditor-General, yes we said that as well. Thirdly, very soon after the Government was elected, the Auditor-General in fact wrote to me and indicated that he regarding this as potentially in conflict with his position. Nonetheless we proceeded, and we proceeded on the basis they we'd review how those arrangements went for a period leading up to 2010; it was then subject to review. Subsequent to that review, the revised guidelines which introduced the Independent Communications Committee, that decision was taken and revised guidelines were issued I think in March of 2010.

Those guidelines contained the provision we referred to before, because exceptional circumstances do from time to time arise and that is the set of provisions that we drew upon in the case of this particular campaign.

On the question of the quantum, we've honoured our commitment. We implemented a set of arrangements with the Auditor-General for the first two years. There were considerable complaints about that initially from the Auditor-General, subsequently also from the Opposition, I think in the Public Accounts Committee level, the Opposition welcomed the change in the guidelines including the content of them, that is the full content of those guidelines.

JOURNALIST: What can you tell us about the Government's decision to move asylum seeker families to the West Australian goldfields and is there concern in the Government about this issue damaging the Government in the polls?

PM: Can I just be very plain on the question of asylum seekers, we're not going to be party to some fear campaign run by the Liberal Party in the community about asylum seekers. We believe that we should have a proper process to deal with genuine asylum seekers, we should have a proper process to return those who don't pass the criteria for being accepted as a refugee to return those to their country of origin. That's the right thing to do.

So we're not going to engage in some sort of race to the bottom as, which seems to be being embarked upon by the Leader of the Opposition. What we have out there is a fear campaign based on a whole series of myths, a whole series of myths. Let's go to one of them. Every year in this country, going back to Mr Howard's time, we have about 13,000 refugees come to this country. What varies from year to year is whether they come by boat, whether they actually arrive by plane or whether they are processed out of various refugee camps around the world, but the overall number's about the same.

That's the reality here. Now the fear campaign being mounted by our opponents is of a different type all together, based on a series of myths. Let's have some truth in this debate, some absolute truth in this debate. We have a fair and balanced and reasonable and humane asylum seekers policy, we believe it is the right policy for the future. And I think it's time that this scare campaign and fear campaign being mounted by our political opponents was confronted for what it is, which is essentially based on a series of untruths.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, where will you begin, when will you begin then processing Afghans and Sri Lankans again and will you do that before the next election? Will you give us some sort of timetable as to when those people who are in detention will know when that will come to an end?

PM: Firstly, the policy as it relates to both Afghanistan and Sri Lanka is entirely consistent with the one that we've had since the Government has been in. Secondly the operation of that policy is entirely contingent on changing security circumstances in countries of origin. Various parts of Sri Lanka, various parts of Afghanistan, that's why the decision to suspend processing was taken. As to what happens at the conclusion of that suspension period, that'll also be determined by the circumstances in those countries.

I go back to the general principle however, we have a fair, balanced, humane, tough border control immigration policy. We think it's the right one for Australia, and when it comes to the fear campaign being run by our opponents based on a series of myths out there about numbers and about push factors and about this that and the other and social security entitlements, let's just you know, unmask each of those for what it is: a rolled gold bucket of fear and invariably, in fact almost exclusively based on myth.

JOURNALIST: Given that you asked us or invited us a few years ago to keep you accountable on Government advertising, how is it that you're spending $7.6 million in the next, in the weeks to June 30, advertising your broadband scheme which similar to the RSPT, does not have the backing of legislation and you're still going through consultation. And following up from Mark Simkin's question, you said to your party room today that you wouldn't be outflanked by the right, so are you actually being outflanked by the left in terms of Colin Barnett who says that housing people in Leonora is not humanitarian.

PM: First of all on the question of the operations of the Independent Communications Committee of the Government and as it relates to other normal public information campaigns can I suggest you direct those questions to the Special Minister of State. Secondly, on the question of Colin Barnett and what he may have said or not said on a particular day, I don't know. But what I can say to you is this, we have a fair, balanced, reasonable policy for dealing with the challenge of asylum seekers, and I think, including in the great state of Western Australia, it's important to start rolling back in some of the myths and some of the untruths which have been put out there. Let's just bring this down to tin tacks in terms of numbers of folk in any given year, push factors around the world, processing arrangements, refusal rates. Let's just put this into some context and we should also put into a bit of context the role which people who come here and have done so in the past as refugees have played in subsequent Australian life.

I was, the other night at a do in Sydney to honour Frank Lowy's 50th anniversary of the establishment of Westfield. Now Frank's circumstances may be known to some of you, a lot of people have come to this country as refugees and made huge contributions. Now, right now in this debate around the country, there's a lot of fear out there, a lot of people in the community are feeling fear, and that fear is also being also whipped up by some folk as well. What we need to get down to is nailing each one of these facts and dismantling some of the myths being put around by our political opponents. We are not going to engage in some sort of race to the bottom with these guys on the question of asylum seekers. It seems to be fear is the common denominator for every public utterance by the Leader of the Opposition on any element of Government policy. (Inaudible)

JOURNALIST: Thank you. Prime Minister if you can break your word to someone like a Labor mate like Morris Iemma, why should we and voters trust you anymore?

PM: Well firstly Mr Iemma at the time asked me to publically support his position on the privatisation of the electricity industry of New South Wales. I did that, I supported the Government's policy. Secondly on the question of organisational matters within the Australian Labor Party, Mr Iemma's recollection of events is not accurate.

JOURNALIST: In 2007, you said that individuals and groups had a perfect right to use their own money to advertise their views. Why has that changed?

PM: Your reference is in particular -

JOURNALIST: You gave a news conference; it was the same news conference on the 13th of June 2007 in which you also said that taxpayer funded politicised advertising was a cancer on our democracy and your prelude to that was saying that individuals and groups had a perfect right to use their own money to advertise their views, but that using Government money for politicised advertising was a cancer on our democracy, I'm asking you why that changed.

PM: Well the first thing I'd say to you in response to that Karen is your assumption that the public advertising campaign as related to the RSPT does not deal with the matter in a factual manner. Let's call a spade a spade here. You have the Opposition and the mining industry saying that the Government's proposed changes to taxes represent a knife to the throat of the industry, what a load of balderdash, what a load of absolute bunkum. I mean let's just get straight a bit. I mean in terms of your reading, have a look at this bit in yesterday's Financial Times in London, I commend the editorial to you: 'miners like oilmen - this is editorial in the Financial Times yesterday - are a tough lot, they are fighting tooth and nail to derail the Australian Government's plan for a super profits tax, but just as oil and gas companies survive when a similar tax is imposed on them, the mining industry has broad enough shoulders to bear this new burden as well,' and it goes on and it goes and on and on.

This is the considered analysis of the Financial Times in London. Can I just say when you therefore have a stream of misinformation from a bunch of mining companies who just don't want to pay more tax, guess what? It gets pretty willing out there.

So, you either stand back and say well, we the Australian Government have no responsibility to explain the facts of our tax position or we do have that responsibility. We chose the latter. We make no apology whatsoever for engaging in this public debate and we intend to prosecute this debate. It is the right tax reform for Australia.

JOURNALIST: (inaudible) just broadly of promises, just listening to your answer to Matthew's question, it sounded like one of those pharmaceutical ads where the promise it'll stop you from heart attack and then there's the list of side effects that go on for about 30 minutes later. Will you be a bit more circumspect in the next election campaign when you're making promises so you don't give up 100 percent guarantees and then get mugged by political reality later on and not be able to deliver? Will you be a bit more upfront and realistic with the Australian people?

PM: Well Mark, on the question of did I believe that the mass of public advertising being used by the then Conservative government in 2007 was a cancer on democracy, I did and I do. If you look at the numbers, from memory it's about $250 million, I think, in that particular year. I stand to be corrected. Look at the volume that went out on WorkChoices in that particular year, and if you look at my interview at the time - part of it, not all of it, part of it dealt with the sheer quantum of this stuff being rolled out.

Therefore, if you look at that compared with what we the Government, have done, I'd ask to fairly compare. In our first - just one second - in our first year in office we, I think expended about one third of that amount, our second year in office about one half of that amount. We actually took seriously this whole injunction about being very, very mindful about the sheer quantum of this material out there.

Secondly, there'll be debate, which Matthew's legitimately engaged in just now, about the guidelines. We sought to implement a series of guidelines around the Auditor General. As I said, the Auditor General, just after the election in 2007, wrote to me and said 'why not set up an independent consultative committee?', because there was some concern about conflict of interest. That is, he approves ads and then to be expected subsequently to audit them? We then changed the guidelines. We made that public in March of this year. The Opposition supported them.

On your overall question about our language and my language in particular, look, I try to be as absolutely as, you know, passionate as I can about what I believe to be a real cancer on the show, which was just the sheer volume of that stuff at the time. I'll be held accountable for what I've done subsequently. I accept that responsibility.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, on the super tax, you've said there may be weeks or months of consultations and negotiations with the mining industry. What could the mining industry expect as a compromise? Not obviously details of the deal, but how much are you prepared to shift from the deal was announced on May the 2?

PM: What we've said consistently, Dennis, and I think the Treasurer has said the same and the Minister has the same, is that we believe this 40 per cent rate is right and we've said we will consult with the industry on detail and on implementation and on transition. In fact, I think the Treasurer's gone further than that and talked about generous transition.

That's the framework in which we're having these consultations and negotiations, but what I do know about consultations with very big - very big - mining companies who sometimes hunt in packs is that it's far better that these negotiations are conducted direct rather than through the media.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you've mentioned the 40 per cent rate and the other tax reforms that are funded by the revenue. Is the uplift factor and the concept of carrying forward credits for previous years' losses and for un-deducted capital expenditure, is that part of the framework that's not negotiable?

PM: Consistent with the answer to Mr Shanahan from The Australian newspaper, I repeat my earlier formulation and do not change one jot from it.

JOURNALIST: PM on advertising, are you saying that you did not break a 2007 election promise because of the process, and if not would you apologise for breaking the promise?

PM: What I said was that there was a huge cancer on Australia from the sheer volume of government advertising at the time. I undertook to change that. Guess what? We did. We reduced it and have reduced it hugely. The Finance Minister will give you the details of that.

Secondly- hang on, hang on - ou asked me a question, I'm answering it. The second part concerned the guidelines which we said would be framed around the Auditor General. We implemented those in July of 2008. We said we'd review those in 2010. We did so.

We obtained as I said, initial reservations from the Auditor General. Both Petro Georgiou and I think Bronwyn Bishop on the public accounts committee also expressed their view that this represented a deep conflict of interest. We therefore changed the guidelines. They were put out in March of this year and as a result of that the Opposition at the time fully supported the change, but they are -

JOURNALIST: (inaudible) watered down on the old ones and he says that they don't provide as much protection as the ones that you replaced.

PM: (inaudible) speak for himself, but I'm saying that is the process that we've gone through. That is what we've applied. That is what we have implemented.

JOURNALIST: In relation to the mining tax campaign, the advice suggests that the committee saw an initial draft of the mining tax advertisements. Did the Gov- in relation to your mining tax campaign, advice suggests that the committee, the independent committee of officials, saw an initial draft of those advertisements. My question is did the Government decide to step around the committee because it got an impression that the ads wouldn't be cleared expeditiously enough, or did you make that decision in advance of showing them the material?

PM: That's a question you should put to the Special Minister of State, that's the first point.
The second is, as I said in the Parliament yesterday, the Government from the beginning of this year, is my recollection, fully planned to bring about a public advertising campaign to explain the detail of the RSPT. The reason for using the particular provisions concerning pressing or compelling circumstances is because we confronted the reality of a mining industry about to dig deep into its pockets - in fact, had begun to do so, I think, very early in May - to run a campaign which we would describe as misinformation.

Therefore, it was necessary to expedite. That is why we did what we did.

Furthermore, can I say to each of you, and without apology, we have a fundamental reform at stake here. That is the future of the RSPT and the associated set of tax reforms which it funds. We take our responsibility seriously. The contrast between what we offer and the Opposition offers is clear: we stand for better super for working families; they want to take it away. We stand for tax cuts for all Australian companies; they want to increase the company tax for all Australian companies, virtually. We stand for reducing the tax burden on small business; they stand for increasing that burden. We stand for investing in infrastructure; they stand for taking it away.

The contrast here is pretty clear. It's a big debate. That is why we will join that debate using this form of public advertising. We can have this debate about the manner in which decisions were taken to launch into a public advertising campaign. It's proper entirely, to be the subject of that level of scrutiny.

On the question, however, on the question however, of joining this debate and dealing with the sheer volume of misinformation out there from a bunch of mining companies who don't want the Australian people to get their fair share of the resources which they themselves own, well frankly, we're not just going to declare the field vacant. We're going to join the battle. That's what we're doing.

Part of my purpose here today is to reflect to you all that the Government's intention to prosecute this tax reform remains unchanged.

You had a question on Israel?

JOURNALIST: Is there any justification for the lethal use of force on a civilian convoy in international waters?

PM: I am still to receive a full briefing on the facts relating to this. However, as I have seen them, let me say this very clearly, the Australian Government condemns any use of violence under the sorts of circumstances that we have seen.

Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the loss of life which has occurred.

Thirdly, it is imperative that the Government of Israel conduct its own immediate, independent inquiry as to what happened.

Fourthly, that should be immediately provided to the United Nations Security Council.

If the Israeli authorities and the Israeli Government do not do that, then consideration should be given to what other form of inquiry occurs.

The last point I'd make is this, because it is time for Question Time, and that is that also, when it comes to a blockade against Gaza, preventing the supply of humanitarian aid, such a blockade should be removed. We believe that the people of Gaza, letting aside the whole questions of the long-standing dispute and a long-standing war, the people of Gaza should be provided with humanitarian assistance.

Thank you, folks. Got to go.

Read more...

Obama's Interview on Channel Rossiya

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY SERGEY BRILEV
OF CHANNEL ROSSIYA, RUSSIAN TELEVISION

Diplomatic Reception Room

(Conducted May 6, 2010)

1:50 P.M. EDT

Q: President Obama, thanks so much for having me here.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Q: I've got several important issues in Russian-American bilateral relations, which we will of course discuss. But first let me come back to the events which happened 65 years ago. Now, Russia is, of course, a country which lost more than 20 million people; Russia proper, 70 percent of the losses of the USSR. And it's self-sufficient to say second world war and Russia. But it's also an important issue here. What do you tell your children, for instance, about the second world war?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have personal connections. My grandfather fought in World War II. He was part of Patton's Army. And my great-uncle, my grandmother's brother, was one of those who liberated Buchenwald. And so obviously those memories are very important. And the May 9th commemoration in Russia is so important because it reminds us of the extraordinary sacrifices that the then-Soviet Union made and the strength of the alliance between the U.S. and the Russian people.

In fact, our current ambassador in Moscow, Ambassador Beyrle, his grandfather briefly fought with the Soviet Army. He was part of U.S. operations there; was captured, escaped into the Soviet Union, and ended up fighting with the Soviet Union Army for a time. And that I think symbolizes how the joint allied efforts helped to defeat fascism and it is one of the most important military alliances of all time.

Q: Now that we are into reset, given today's certain responses, which are the common enemies of today?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, obviously terrorism is one of them. Immediately after the tragic events in Moscow I called President Medvedev and pledged that the United States would work in any way that Moscow thought made sense in helping to find the perpetrators of this terrible act.

We just recently had an attempted terrorist act in New York and it's a signal I think that whether these activities are happening in Moscow or they're happening in New York, that countries have to work together to make sure that these terrorists are apprehended, that their networks are destroyed, that their sources of financing dry up.

And no single country is going to be able to do that on their own; countries are going to have to work together. And that is something that I'm very much looking to increasing cooperation between the United States and Russia.

Beyond that, though, I think it's important to recognize that the whole concept of reset between U.S. and Russian relations is not just on issues of security. We have a lot of security issues that we have to discuss. Obviously, I'm very proud of the START Treaty and our efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenals. But one of the things that President Medvedev and I have discussed is how can we really ramp up our commercial, our trade, our economic ties? How can we help to promote the innovation agenda in Russia? What are we doing around high-tech industries that can produce jobs and raise standards of livings for both the Russian people and the United States? And that's an area where I think you're going to see a lot of work and a lot of cooperation.

One of things we're very excited about is we set up a presidential commission with 16 active groups on everything from energy to high-tech. And I recently extended an invitation to President Medvedev to visit the United States in late June. And one of the things we hope he's going to be able to do is not just visit Washington, but also travel, for example, to Silicon Valley and see how the connections between universities and venture capital and business has been able to create some of the extraordinary inventions that all of us use today.

Q: Now that you mentioned the START Treaty, when are we going to ratify it? And what are the chances?

THE PRESIDENT: My hope is that we ratify it this year on our side and --

Q: During this Congress or after the election?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'd like to see it happen before the election. Obviously it's technical and I think it's appropriate for the Senate to examine it, but we're going to be putting forward the text of the treaty, the annexes, all the necessary materials before the Senate in short order. And our hope is, is that they will be able to review it quickly and recognize that this is an important step in the efforts of both the United States and Russia to meet our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to lower our stockpiles, at the same time as we work together to hold other countries accountable on obligations regarding the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Q: Well, that was the point actually of signing the treaty -- to save money and also to convince the rest of the world. But then after what Mr. Ahmadinejad had to say this week, are we convincing the rest of the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I think Iran and North Korea are two special cases. I think most countries around the world have recognized that the core principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- the NPT -- would say that countries are -- that have nuclear weapons should try to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons; that countries that don't have them should forgo them; and that everybody has the right to peaceful nuclear energy. That principle has been embraced by a lot of countries. And there are countries like South Africa, for example, that had gone fairly far down the path of developing a nuclear weapon and decided this didn't make sense for us.

North Korea and Iran are two outliers -- countries that have insisted on flouting international rules and U.N. Security Council resolutions; aren't cooperating the way they need to with the IAEA. And so I've been very heartened by the cooperation that we've seen so far between the United States, Russia, the other members of the P5-plus-1, in terms of imposing the kinds of pressure and sanctions that are necessary to get Iran to choose a more responsible path that will lead it back into the heart of the international community.

Q: Having signed the treaty, and having carried out several other things within the reset framework agenda, we have achieved a better mutual understanding. How can you convert it into something of a substance in such particular area as European security? Because also, NATO is a solution for those countries which are in, but NATO is not a solution for self-sufficient countries like Russia. What's to do be done there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, President Medvedev has put forward some ideas about a new security architecture in Europe. We're examining them. I take them very seriously. But I think that the most important thing at this point is to work with the institutions we have to see if we can rebuild the trust that for some time had been lost.

So, for example, I have been supportive of NATO-Russia consultation in a much more systematic way than has been observed over the last several years.

My sense is, is that all the parties in Europe, all the members of the NATO Alliance, want to have a strong, cooperative relationship with Russia. There are certain core principles that we think have to be observed within that cooperative framework: a respect for territorial integrity of internationally recognized borders; a belief that a country's core sovereignty includes its ability to choose how it allies itself; a rejection of the notion of spheres of influence, whether it's U.S. spheres or European spheres or Russian spheres.

Within those broad principles, though, if you look -- going back to your earlier question -- the real threats against Russian well-being or U.S. well-being to a large degree are at this point much more aligned than they've ever been. It has to do with non-state actors. It has to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has to do with environmental catastrophes. It has to do with an integrated economy in which if you see a crisis in Greece taking place, that can affect world markets. These are all issues in which cooperation rather than antagonism are the order of the day.

And I think President Medvedev recognizes this. I've been very impressed with him. I think he is a strong leader, a good man, very thoughtful. I find it very easy to do business with him, and I think we've established a relationship, a real trust that can be hopefully bearing fruit in the negotiations and conversations that we have in years to come.

Q: I'll use this opportunity now that you mentioned Greece and the economic crisis. I had a free day yesterday preparing for this interview, so I went fishing to Maryland. I met someone called Dave Shelby (phonetic) I think, the captain of the boat. I caught a 24-pounder -- (laughter.) He said to me that he's got 30 percent less clients -- well, then, of course, the fuel is up a dollar per gallon. And I was comparing his economic comments with my position, and strangely enough and luckily enough, I can actually afford more things in America these days because of the ruble which is so stronger than the -- comparatively than euro and dollar were meant to be.

Where do you see the dollar, given the circumstances with the global economic crisis? Would you like to see a weaker dollar -- although it doesn't sound nice for the American public, but still -- internationally speaking, a stronger dollar? Where are you?

THE PRESIDENT: My basic principle is to focus on the fundamentals of the economy. We have a market-based mechanism for determining the value of currencies. I think that if we have a strong U.S. economy we're going to have a strong dollar. And obviously we've just gone through a very difficult period -- the whole world has. We've seen stabilization and the U.S. economy is slowly strengthening in ways that I think if you'd asked a year ago we might have said that it was going to take longer than it has for that stabilization to take place.

I am very concerned about what's happening in Europe. But I think it is an issue that the Europeans recognize is very serious. Greece is taking some very difficult measures -- at least they've put forward a plan that calls for difficult measures. And if we can stabilize Europe that will be good for the United States and that will be good for Russia as well.

But the key point today is the degree of integration among all economies. That's why I have said, and the United States is actively pursuing, the belief that the G20 framework is so important; that we have to recognize that China, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, all these countries that traditionally have been viewed as on the periphery of economic decision-making, they are now at the core -- India -- are huge economies. And what happens there is going to impact us in the same way that what happens in Moscow or New York is going to impact them.

Q: The G20 shall indeed substitute the G8.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, my belief is, is that there's going to be a transition period, but that the G20 represents the economic framework of the future.

Q: Lastly -- so lucky to be in front of the U.S. President, but still I have to ask one last question. The adoption issue -- well, I do not support those who say, well, Americans killing Russian children. This is not the case. Absolute majority of the children adopted from Russia have their lives here. Even more important is the fact that more and more Russians are adopting Russian children in Russia. In fact, there are more Russians than Americans these days doing such things. But then, still 17 kids have been killed -- or, well, died in this country. It is an issue, especially after this American woman sent Artem Saveliev to Russia. What's to be done?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, obviously, what happened with the small number of children who have been adversely affected is terrible. And we can't minimize what's happened. As you point out, there have been tens of thousands of Russian children adopted by U.S. families. The overwhelming majority are leading happy, healthy lives. But ultimately, the policy has to be what's best for children -- whether they're living in Russia or they're living in the United States.

What we've done is to set up a bilateral discussion between our State Department and counterparts in Russian to find out how do we create an agreement in which children are protected. And I think that's ultimately the goal. And as the father of two children, obviously, it breaks my heart to think about children who have been vulnerable, have probably already gone through difficult situations and then are subjected to even more difficult situations in the past. But as you point out, I think it's also important to recognize that in the overwhelming majority of cases, adoptions are the absolute best thing for the child. And we want to make sure that we preserve the best of the system while eliminating these abuses.

Q: Mr. President, thanks so much, indeed.

THE PRESIDENT: I enjoyed it. Thank you.

Read more...

Interview with Prime Minister of Australia

PM: It's good to be here with David Bradbury, our local Member- and to talk about the particular challenges facing the health and hospital needs in western Sydney, and here at the Nepean Hospital. Together with the Government of New South Wales, we're seeking to improve hospital services here. And as evidence of that, across the road you will see work commencing in about a month on what will be called East Wing, different to the West Wing I suppose, East Wing- which is a total investment on our part of nearly $100 million to add additional surgical beds, add additional mental health beds, add additional services to this hospital more broadly.

This is part and parcel of helping to build more health and hospital services here in western Sydney, which is a huge growth zone not just for greater Sydney, but for the nation. And that's why we've got to keep pace with that. Secondly, it's also evidence of the sort of work we'll now be doing together to improve health and hospital services under a new health and hospitals network for the nation. Last week in Canberra, together with Kristina Keneally, we agreed on a new NHHN for Australia-wide, a new National Health and Hospitals Network to be funded nationally, and run locally.

More autonomy for local clinicians and health experts in this part of western Sydney, and for the first time, the Australian Government becoming the dominant funder of the future needs of the health and hospital network, including of the public hospital system. That's a big reform. But the rubber hits the road in how we now implement this in improving the accident and emergency services here at Nepean, improving elective surgery rate here at Nepean, improving the number of services we can provide for rehabilitation beds, as well as the overall pressures on the health workforce here as well.

On the rehabilitation beds, it's probably best to describe it in these terms- we're going to have problems with accident and emergency and elective surgery, at the front end of the hospital, if you're not at the same time expanding your capacity at the back end of the hospital through rehabilitation beds. That is, where people need to go after surgery, or after particularly acute medical experiences, in order to transition them back to the community, or in some cases, to aged care.

That's why, again, in Canberra last week, we the Australian Government agreed to invest in an additional 1300 acute, sub-acute beds across the nation. Here at Nepean, I'm advised there are 18 such rehabilitation beds at this hospital. They're under pressure. We're going to need to see more investment in beds like that across western Sydney and New South Wales more broadly. That's why we've invested there. That's why we're investing specifically enhancing A&E services as well. That's why we're investing, also separately, in improving elective surgery capacity, and in the overall workforce.

None of this works unless we're adding extra doctors to the system. That's why we're investing in more than 6000 additional training places across Australia, a large slice of which of course will come here to New South Wales. So, work on the ground now, the building of the East Wing here at Nepean, a $100 million investment from the Australian Government. A new national agreement which helps to underpin the future needs for accident and emergency, for elective surgery, and for rehabilitation beds at this hospital, all part of a new partnership to deliver better health and better hospital services to the good people of Sydney, and wider New South Wales.

One last point on health. To fund this, we actually need to ensure that we are getting proper resources from those programs which should be yielding savings to the budget process. And here I refer of course to our proposal over a long period of time now to bring about fundamental reforms to the private health insurance rebate. Right now, what Mr Abbott and the Liberal party are doing is refusing to allow these changes to occur. The present system provides massive taxpayer-funded subsidies for my private health insurance and for Mr Abbott's. We're both on salaries of $2-300,000 plus a year. The system's just wrong. It shouldn't be that way.

What we are doing is proposing changes in order to bring about those savings, some $2 billion over the forward estimates, to instead invest into basic hospital services for working families, pensioners and carers right across the system. So, this is a very basic bottom line thing. Because by Mr Abbott denying the reform to richer Australians getting taxpayer-funded subsidies for their private health insurance, by refusing to embrace those changes, he is denying funding flowing through to the basic needs of working people in hospitals like Nepean. To fund these reforms for the future of the health and hospital system, we need every dollar available.

And that means the $2 billion plus that is currently being held up and blocked in the Senate by Mr Abbott and the position the Liberal party has adopted. It's reckless, and it's irresponsible. It's opposition for opposition's sake. And this measure should be passed, should be allowed to pass, in order to deliver more hospital beds, more doctors, more nurses, for working families, pensioners and carers everywhere.

Over to you folks.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister (inaudible) have things started to (inaudible)

PM: The challenge of climate change hasn't gone away. Climate change requires continued domestic and international action. The Australian Government believes that a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the most effective and least expensive way of acting on climate change. And remember, the Government- together with the Opposition- remains committed to bipartisan greenhouse gas emissions targets. The Opposition decided to backflip on its historical commitment to bringing in a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and there's been slow progress in the realisation of global action on climate change. These two factors together inevitably mean that the implementation of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia will be delayed.

The implementation of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia will therefore be extended until after the conclusion of the current Kyoto commitment period, which finishes at the end of 2012. By the end of that period, the Governments around the world will be required to make clear their commitments for the post-2012 period. And that will provide therefore the Australian Government at that time, at the end of 2012, with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change prior to the implementation of a CPRS in Australia.

The Government's targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions remain unchanged. The alternative, of course, is Mr Abbott's policy, which costs more, does less, has not been funded, and doesn't deliver a single dollar worth of compensation to working families. And remember, Mr Abbott at the end of the day says, quote "climate change is absolute crap", unquote. That's not our view.

JOURNALIST: A little while back you said that climate change is the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time. With this now being delayed, do you still believe that to be the case?

PM: Climate change remains a fundamental economic and environmental and moral challenge for all Australians, and for all peoples of the world. That just doesn't go away for the simple reason that it's not in the headlines. Therefore, the practical question is this. Our current actions delivered through until the end of the current Kyoto commitment period which finishes at the end of 2012- the critical question then is what actions postdate 2012, and the decision that we've taken as a Government is that that provides the best opportunity to judge the actions by the rest of the international community before taking our decision about the implementation of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme from that time on.

JOURNALIST: What about Australia being a world leader though? So we're now waiting for the rest of the world? What happened to the idea of us leading the way?

PM: The question of acting on climate change is a responsibility facing all Australians. The question of acting on climate change is a responsibility facing all peoples of the world. Australian action, combined with international action, is effective. That is why we've got to work together with our friends and partners in the world. The truth is, of course, that progress internationally has been slower. The truth also is that the Liberal party have executed a complete backflip on that historical position in support of an emissions trading scheme.
And therefore, therefore the appropriate course of action is to, as I said, to extend the implementation time for the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until the end of the current commitment period, which is 2012. And then, based on the commitments, which are then entered into by the rest of the international community, for the Australian Government to then make its assessment on the implementation of a CPRS following that time.

JOURNALIST: Isn't that a backflip on your position though? Because you were always for leading the way, and not waiting, necessarily, for the rest of the world.

PM: The Government's commitment to the targets I referred to before remain unchanged. And that is, we remain committed, together with the Opposition, to a unilateral target of 5% greenhouse gas reduction. We remain also committed to the possibility of doing more, consistent with global action. Nothing has changed there. What we are simply talking about is making a proper assessment at the end of 2012, at the end of the current commitment period, on parallel action around the rest of the world, and a judgment, therefore, based on that, on the implementation of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government's commitment-

JOURNALIST: (inaudible) this delay? Are you disappointed by this delay?

PM: Well, a couple of factors are real. Let's just be bottom-line about it - the Liberal Party have backflipped on their historical position in support of an emissions trading scheme. The rest of the world has been slow to act, or slower to act on appropriate action on international climate change. The real deadline facing us is the expiration of the current Kyoto commitment period, which concludes at the end of 2012.

We think this is a responsible course of action. As I said before, our commitment to the greenhouse gas reduction targets that I've outlined before remains unchanged. Secondly, our commitment to the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as the most effective and least expensive way of proceeding in action on climate change remains unchanged.

However, given that international action has been slower than was originally anticipated and given the fact that the Liberal Party has now backflipped completely on this position and therefore the legislation has not been passed, given those two factors, it's very plain that the correct course of action is to extend the implementation date and to assess the action by other states at the end of 2012, at the end of this current Kyoto commitment period.

JOURNALIST: Why not negotiate again with the Greens?

PM: Well, our doors have always remained open to negotiating with people from all sides of politics, but when you have one side of politics saying that you cannot act on climate change effectively through an emissions trading scheme, and another side of politics who would happily close the economy down tomorrow, it makes life a bit of a challenge. Therefore, we remain open to the possibility of discussions with all sides of politics. Our commitment to acting on climate change through a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme remains unchanged. Our commitment to the targets that we have announced before remain unchanged. What we are doing is extending the implementation period for a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and one which is linked, therefore, to the conclusion of the current Kyoto commitment period, which ends at the end of 2012.

Our actions in place right now as a country remain consistent with our obligations through until 2012. What we need to make a judgement of is what happens post-2012 and what the rest of the world is doing, because the rest of the world and what they do is pretty important in terms of Australia's future actions as well.

JOURNALIST: Speaking of the economy, how can businesses make investment decisions if they don't know when the scheme will start or what form it will take?

PM: I think the question of business certainty is best addressed by dealing with 1) the international realities on climate change and the actions by other states, 2) making a considered assessment of the actions taken abroad and at home, and 3) ensuring that therefore the future course of action is explained clearly to business and a timetable for its implementation. I've today indicated what the extension of that timetable would be and the reasons for it.

JOURNALIST: But there's no indication of when it would it would start. They've said that they're, you know, they're playing a waiting game.

PM: What I've indicated, well, on the question of delay, I think that's a question you could appropriately put to the Leader of the Opposition. Remember, the Government actually negotiated an arrangement with the Liberal Party, which was adopted by the Liberal Party, accepted by their Party room, and then they removed their leader. That's the reason why this legislation was not introduced at the end of last year. Let's be very clear about that.

Secondly, on the question of the timetable for the extension I've just spoken of, it's very clear - that is, the conclusion of the assessment period would be at the end of 2012, which is the end of the Kyoto commitment period.

JOURNALIST: Home insulation - were jobs considered more important than safety?

PM: For the Government, the importance of safety has always been paramount. Obviously, the Government has said before there have been real problems with the implementation of this scheme and let's just call a spade a spade. That's why we commissioned the Hawke Review, that's why various other reviews are underway as well, and we will of course respond to their recommendations.

There have been a range of recommendations contained in Hawke. I'm sure various other bodies which report on this will make other recommendations as well.

Our job, now, is to deal with the problems on the ground as they exist within individual households across the country. That's what Minister Combet is doing, and to deal with that effectively through the inspection program which he's unfolding. But plainly, plainly problems were made in the implementation of this program.

JOURNALIST: But was the aims of this, in terms of the urgency given to job creation and safety, of the two, which was the more important?

PM: For the Government, safety has always been the number one priority, but I've said also there have been problems with the implementation of this and let's be very clear about that. I think everyone would accept that, and the challenge now is to deal with the practical problems on the ground. That's what the Government is seeking to do with the inspection program, and that is also why the Government will be attending to any other recommendations which come forth in terms of future action as well.

JOURNALIST: You've been called a creep for not responding to the Fullers, for not apologising, rather, to the Fullers. Do you regret that?

PM: Can I say that any family that has lost a member of its family through accidents of this nature, any human being must feel regret and sorrow for what has occurred. Certainly, when it comes to the Fuller family, I, together with other ministers of the Government, are deeply sorry for what has occurred as it affects their loved ones and nothing, no action, actually brings those loved ones back.

JOURNALIST: Did you forget who Kevin Fuller was?

PM: I beg your pardon?

JOURNALIST: Did you forget who Kevin Fuller was?

PM: The discussion that I had with the Fuller family was a good and long discussion, a very difficult discussion, a very personal discussion, and the Government and ministers, and myself, are deeply sorry for the loss of life which has occurred, and that goes to the loss in the Fuller family and in other families as well.

JOURNALIST: Did you forget who he was though, when you saw him?

PM: I'd rather not go to the detail of a very long conversation, and what I've said today is consistent with the thoughts and the feelings I sought to bring to bear in a very difficult conversation with a deeply bereaved family.

JOURNALIST: Just getting back to the beginning, you mentioned that we have 18 (inaudible) present. When will we have a specific idea about how many resources Nepean will see (inaudible) be implemented?

PM: I'd rather not give you a specific timetable on that because I think it's very important that we get the planning right and the delivery right so that people's expectations are met and not disappointed. Therefore, when it comes to this expansion of services here at the Nepean Hospital, what we have done at a national level is make sure that the investment in the number of sub-acute beds is significant. It's 1,300.

If you look at the Bennett Commission of report and their analysis of the shortfall in the investment in sub-acute beds nationwide it is described by Commissioner Bennett as the missing link in the entire system. She was previously, I believe, a CEO of Westmead. She has familiarity with what happens in Western Sydney, so, therefore, mindful of what she has said, there's a big national investment in this. Now it's a question of making sure the distribution of these is right across each state and within each state and working closely with the state planning authorities and, as they emerge, the local hospital networks to make sure that is right, but once we have an implementation schedule for that, then of course we'll make that public. I just don't want to, as it were, shoot from the hip and get it wrong. I think it's far better-

JOURNALIST: (inaudible)

PM: Sorry?

JOURNALIST: Do you have an idea yet of how small they'll be? Is there an idea that they can be (inaudible)?

PM: Having spoken this morning with the clinical leaders here at Nepean, what they are concerned about, of course, is to make sure that they have a bigger say in the future. What they're concerned about is how local doctors and local nurses and local allied health professionals have a real say in how the health dollar is distributed in a community like this.

At present, I think it's fair to say that here in New South Wales the health areas of the states are too large. I think that's recognised also, now, by the State Government as well, so-

JOURNALIST: I just want to ask one quick question about the ETS, sorry, if you wanted to finish.

PM: Thank you. It's a pretty important question for the local communities about how these things work.

So, therefore, the key thing is to make sure that your local hospital networks are properly tied into the local communities of interest and how they are properly linked, functionally, to the big tertiary hospitals as well.

Therefore, I'm not in the business, from Canberra, of saying where a particular line should lie. For example, if there's going to be a local hospital network out here, and I assume there will be, where should it start and where should it stop. What we need is some ground-up consultation from the community to make sure we get that as right as possible.

There's one other factor which locals may be interested in as well. To make sure that those lines remain as closely allied as possible to where we have any local divisions of delivery for primary healthcare and we've got to make sure that the primary health care is better organised and better delivered and better integrated with what happens in the hospitals, and frankly what happens within aged care.

Where I'd like to move to over time is to ally the local hospital networks and their geographical footprint, the geographical footprint, also, of the primary healthcare organisations and those of the aged care networks so that we have systems which properly talk to each other so the patient actually becomes first.

I'll take yours. I better off. I'm late inside.

JOURNALIST: Just back to the ETS, who made the decision to delay?

PM: These have been deliberated upon through our Cabinet processes over a period of time, as you would expect, and the decisions that we take on the future of climate change are never taken lightly. Climate change remains a core concern of the Government. It is a core concern of the community. It is a problem which will not go away.

That is why we take these decisions carefully and deliberately and after much deliberation about action at home, action abroad, action both through emissions trading, actions when it comes to the role of renewable energy, actions when it comes to energy efficiency, actions when it comes to the application of the new and increased Renewable Energy Targets.

All these things together at home, together with action abroad, add up to a real difference for the planet. That's why we're carefully calibrating this as an integrated strategy for the future, because this, as much as others may wish, will not simply go away. It requires real action for the future.

Thanks folks.

Read more...

Best animated feature film of the year, Oscar 2010

A. Hello everybody. I'm Pete.

Q. Hey, Pete. I just wanted to say to you, what is it about animation that allows you to tell such different stories? This is, as we spoke about before, is a movie about a 78 year old guy and a chubby little kid and all the other things that are involved. What does animation give you that, you know, that other movies do not?
A. Well, I think for me there's a level of abstraction that is involved that, because it's not real actors on the screen, because they're designed and they're character that simplifies it, it allows the audience to kind of project a little bit of themselves in that character in a way that they might not for Tom Cruise or, you know, whoever. And plus, I think there is something about our process so. Of course we use scripts as everyone else does, but we very quickly move to storyboards, which are almost like a comic book version of the film. And we film those with our own dialogue and music and sound effects and that then becomes a real heavy reliance on the visual because we're telling it visually. We end up cutting lots of dialogue, and it's thereby we are allowing ourselves the visual side of the artist to express that as well, so that's my only guess.

Q. Well, congratulations.
A. Thank you.

Q. Hi Pete. Congratulations.
A. Thank you.

Q. You mentioned that one stage about how this idea came from a flip book or a math book that you used to make a flip book way back when. And I was just wondering, do you still have the flip book and are there any other books from your school days that you might be turning into a film?
A. Well, this one, just to clarify, wasn't actually from that. It was just the idea that, "Oh my gosh, I can make things look like they're alive" that got me hooked and that's why I'm here today is that idea of movement. But I still love flip books and I make this every Christmas. It's our Christmas cards to friends, a little book that I make. And I think it's basically the same thing that we do at Pixar only we use millions of dollars worth of computer equipment instead of, you know, 45 cents' worth of paper.

Q. Hi Pete. I'm over here.
A. Oh, hi.

Q. So I wanted to ask you if you have any advice for some of the kids back in Bloomington, how they too can get an Oscar?
A. Well, get lucky. Beyond that, I'd say draw, draw, draw. I don't think there's anyone who's ever regretted being able to draw and just it really it helps you see the world, things that you might notice or might not notice otherwise. When you draw them, you put them down on paper. Suddenly they become clear and it's just a great way to amplify and visually see the world better. Beyond that, just do it. More than ever before, there is technology out there. Make movies and love what you do.


Q. Hi, Pete. I'm interested in your view on the future of filmmaking and whether when we gather in here in 10 or 15 years' time they'll be traditional dramas as best pictures or whether technology will change all of that and, as Avatar almost did this year, and change, and your movie did too, and sort of made things different in terms of what is the best picture and what are actors and the director and stuff like that?
A. Well, I think Avatar is definitely changing things regardless of the awards. It's just as we move forward it seems as though the line between animation and real life is getting blurrier and blurrier. And I think as time goes on that technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, you just see more of that out there. But, no matter what technology comes new into the fray, it's always all about storytelling and characters and that's why good writers and directors will always be and actors will always be in need.

Q. Hi, Pete. Congratulations. Wanted to see if you feel like there's pressure from inside the halls of Pixar to constantly at least top what the last film has done or at least equal that amazing legacy?
A. You know, it's pretty there is like a little bit of sibling rivalry, but it's a very supportive and really I mean when one film does well, we all do well, and the whole system is very, very unique. I think in moviemaking today where when I show my movie as I'm working on it, along the way I get to use Brad Bird and John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton and all these amazing filmmakers who sit and watch what I'm doing and give comments and suggestions. And if they're great ideas, I get to take credit for them. And if I don't like them, I don't have to take them. You know. So it's very unique and amazing, and I think that contributes to what we do. But there's not really like a high I had to top this last guy, or whatever, like that. Thankfully.

Q. Hi, Pete. Just wondering if you could talk about the arrival of 3D as a creative tool to be taken seriously?
A. I think 3D can be a gimmick or it can be legitimate just like anything else. For us it's is a tool in which to amplify and tell the story. So if you've seen Up on in 3D, the scenes where Carl, say, is VERY depressed or alone, we purposefully made that flat when he floats up into the sky and takes off. And you want majestic and uplifting. We really stretched out the depth, so we tried to reflect what the main character is feeling just like you would with lighting or cinematography or music or any other of the tools. That's the way we look at it. It is a great new tool, a new toy to play with. Thank you.

Read more...

Best animated short film, 2010 Academy Awards

Q. I'm going to ask you a question in French if you don't mind?
A. I don't mind.


Q. French?
A. Maybe I should answer in English.


Q. French?
A. French.


Q. Congratulations.
A. Thank you very much.


Q. You chose to make the film in English and it is also interesting to me that Ronald McDonald is the villain of the piece. What kind of comments are you making about American commercialism and how it spread around the world?
A. The film is set in Los Angeles and also because of geographic reasons it's I don't think it's a film about America or about Los Angeles or California. I think it's about our modern western world. So it also applies to France and to I don't know, Buenos Aires, where I'm from, so it's not about Americans. It's about the way we live and the way we are not affected, but the way we react to these logos. I think there's a that says when we when we close the eyes and open it very fast, we can see the exterior, about 40 logos, without noticing so your brain produces about 40 levels in less than one second. So the idea with this film is, well, you can think about the logo this film is about total logo.

Everything is logo so you don't see that and I think that's what happens is in real life you don't see that, so making them characters sets some props (sic) and making the whole world of logo I think it's just a couple about what regarding the you say he's the villain. Yeah, I think he's the nicest character of the film. I think Ronald should be proud to be the main character of this film. And the film is not talking about what the logos represent. The logos are used for what they are. So we are not saying I don't know McDonald is not doing good sandwiches. We are just just Ronald playing in the film. I mean, he just did the actor for us. So yeah, I don't know if I answered your question.


Q. Nicholas, hi. Congratulations.
A. Thank you.


Q. Unfortunately your three directors were not able to come here with you. Did you speak about collaborating with them and just a little bit about the whole experience of getting this film?
A. I met the three directors in 2004. They already had a little screen from the first story board of him so they already had worked on the film. And they worked together at the time at animation and graphic studio called H5 Studio and basically the work with them was very easy because they are themselves directing music videos an also advertising, so they do very well.The logos, the brands and they knew how to play with them so I think it was also for them very cathartic being able to play with the logos after being after working with them for so many years it was like freedom for them. In terms of directing and technically and artistically, I mean, they are very mature and very I don't know. It looked like they already had done so many films even if this was their first short film.

Their first personal author film, but they were very professional and it was very easy to work with them. They shared some tasks, some doing more about preparing story board and gathering the logos. The other one was more about doing the animatic (sic) and building the film, the editing and one was supervising the animation. And so it was they were like complementary. And when you work with many people, and especially many directors, sometimes they don't agree. In the end I think the film is very great, and they did a really great job. And I have to say it took longer than Avatar. It took more directors than Avatar.


Q. Congrats. Great film. Congrats on the award. I'm curious. Given a lot of trademark used in the film what are the distribution plans here in the States, and have you encountered any legal resistance because of that?
A. Not yet. So I hope that this little man will protect me from everything that could come, but the film is being distributed in festivals, in Cannes Film Festival in May 2009 and so far nothing really happened, let's say. Or at least we received some e mails from brands that were happy to be in it. For instance, like two weeks ago we received a very nice e mail from the Los Angeles Zoo. They were really happy to be in the film. We didn't ask anybody. Of course, if not I think the film would not exist today, so we're happy to have taken the decision to make it anyway. So yeah, basically I think it's it would be it would not be good for them if I mean, if they do something bad to us. And to him. But I have to say that I would like to share also this award with my lawyer. He became like my best friend basically.


Q. Thank you so much. Congratulations.
A. Thank you.

Read more...

Clinton's Interview with Al Jazeera

SHEIKH ABDULLAH AL THANI: (In progress) American university to partner with Qatar Foundation. The U.S. is, of course, a country with which we have close ties. Many a Qatari, myself included, have been educated there. We have a sense of gratitude to the U.S. for the important role of education in our lives. We have a sense of friendship from our years of study in your country.

But this relationship is not based on sentiment alone. From the very outset, quality has been the hallmark of Education City. No one anywhere disputes the fact that some of the best education in the world is to be found in the U.S. Qatar Foundation is proud to be building Education City with six U.S. university partners, (inaudible) leaders and the disciplines they are teaching and researching here in Qatar. We thank them for their significant role in this partnership. Already we are producing graduates of the finest caliber who are making their mark in Qatar and in the region. I am confident that even greater achievements lie ahead.

And now, it is a great honor for me to introduce our distinguished guest. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has held significant public positions over several decades. She has had a prominent legal career. She is a former senator from the State of New York. And, of course, former First Lady. She is a champion of social justice, and particularly the rights of women. Now she is a very active Secretary of State in the Administration of President Barack Obama.

Madam Secretary, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to visit us in Education City. I know all of us, but especially our students, are delighted to welcome you today. On behalf of Qatar Foundation, welcome to Education City.

(Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Your Excellency. And it is, indeed, a great honor and a pleasure to be welcomed here to Education City. I have been following the progress of Education City from the United States, and I am delighted to be able to see with my own eyes the extraordinary commitment of the Qatar Foundation, of the Emir, the Sheikh, and of the people of Qatar to the importance of education, and to this really extraordinary partnership between our two countries. It is, for me, a personal privilege to be here and to see so many of the students who are part of this wonderful educational experience.

I am looking forward to our discussion today, and to have a chance to share ideas, to answer questions, to explore in an educational setting some of the important matters that are being faced, not only here in the country and region, but globally, as well.

I was privileged yesterday to participate in a dialogue, the World Islamic Forum, that is sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Government of Qatar. And there I gave a speech outlining some of the changes that we are undertaking in the United States under the leadership of President Obama based on the vision that he set forth in his Cairo speech about a new beginning for relations between the United States and the world that is often described as -- not just here in the Middle East, but in the higher globe -- as the Muslim-majority, Islamic.

But what I look for are ways that we can celebrate our differences, but narrow our areas of disagreements, and find the common cause in the pursuit of what are very human objectives of peace and prosperity and opportunity. And that is particularly important as we look into the future. Because in many places in the world, the majority of the population is under the age of 25. And so, the decisions that are made here at Education City, in my own country, in settings like this, are really about what kind of future we will help provide for those of you who are students here today.

So, I am looking forward to the conversation. We have a very distinguished interviewer, who maybe should join us, or -- you're going to come up here, or stand there? Okay, good. So, I am going to turn it over to the professionals here, and then we will start the interviewing and the town hall.

But again, thank you for welcoming me here at Education City.

(Applause.)

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, if the criteria for judging U.S.-Muslim relations is the issue of Palestine, as millions of Arabs and Muslims seem to feel, they would say that those relations, taking that criterion into consideration, are not in very good shape right now. What say you to that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I am delighted to be part of this exciting interview and town hall al Al Jazeera. And thank you for participating.

The first thing I would say is that, obviously, our relations with people around the world is much broader than any one issue, even an issue as important as the future of the Palestinian people and the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. I think it is a mistake to only look at the United States and our role in working with other countries through any single prism. But I accept the fact that this is a critical issue. It's a critical issue to us.

One of the very first decisions that President Obama made was that the United States would not be on the sidelines, that we would actively participate in trying to bring the parties into negotiations that would lead to a final resolution, and that it would result in a state for the people of Palestine, that they would have a chance to have their own future, fulfill their own dreams and aspirations, and that it would provide security for the people of Israel, that they too would be able to live side-by-side, in a two-state solution.

We have worked over this past year with both parties, as well as other interested countries, to try to bring that about. And I am hopeful that this year we will see the commencement of serious negotiations that will cover every issue that is outstanding. Obviously, those are the ones that have to be decided between the parties; no one can dictate to either the Israelis or the Palestinians what the outcome should be. They must make those decisions themselves. But the United States is very focused on being a facilitator and a help in every way possible to achieve that outcome. And we are working hard on it, we are working hard on it every day. And we hope that we will see the kind of break-through this year that everyone is anticipating.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, a lot of people look at the issue of settlement into West Bank, and they wonder if the United States gives priority to the concerns of the few thousand settlers over its interests and its relations with over a billion Muslims. How do you account for that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the fact is that we do not, that our position is that settlement activity is illegitimate, and that the final resolution of borders has to be worked out that will give both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians, the secure borders that they deserve to have. And both sides recognize that development and swaps will be necessary in order to achieve the outline of the Palestinian state. But, of course, it will be based, as I have said many times, on the 1967 lines, with the agreed swaps, and taking into account subsequent developments. Those are the very clear parameters that the United States believes that the parties should negotiate over.

So that is, then, our condition. It remains our condition. And we think the best way to resolve the ongoing concerns that are reflected in the question and the feelings that so many people have is to get the parties into a negotiation facilitated by the United States, and to assist them in whatever way we can to reaching a resolution on borders, on refugees, on security, on Jerusalem that will, once and for all, end the conflict.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, I have a few more questions, so I will be talking to you again, one-on-one, in a little while. But for now I would like to take a few questions from the audience, if that is okay with you.

QUESTION: Hello, Madam Secretary. My name is Kasi Irae. I am from Iran. But I was born and raised in Dubai. My question is about the war in Iraq. So, ever since -- throughout high school and subsequently in my university years, I have been watching the Iraq war. People are dying, you know, bombs are going off, and there are several (inaudible). And something I just -- I wonder if America were -- if Iraq didn't have any oil. And my question is, would America be in Iraq if Iraq didn't have any oil?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that what is happening in Iraq is very important on a number of fronts. And we are going to be leaving Iraq, and when we leave Iraq, as has been agreed to with our military -- and we are on schedule to do that -- we will, hopefully, have a relationship with Iraq as we would have with any other country. We hope to have a strong civilian partnership.

And I think that the short answer to your question is we will be in Iraq as we would be in any country, whether or not they have natural resources. And the Iraqis themselves are making the decision about the future of their oil industry. You may have followed the recent bidding that has been done, giving contracts to countries from all over the world, companies from China to Europe to the United States to the Middle East.

That's the way it should be. The people of Iraq, through their democratically elected government -- something they did not have in the past -- should be making those decisions for themselves. That is really what the United States hopes will be the future of Iraq, that it will remain democratic, a strong democracy, a pluralistic society, where every part of the country gets to participate, that there isn't any tilting of power for or against any group within Iraq, and that, as part of their democratic future, the Iraqi people will have the benefit of their oil revenues. Not one group, not any individual, but the Iraqi people.

And it is my hope that that becomes the reality for the Iraqis, that they benefit from their own natural resources, that they invest in education cities, that they build great health care facilities and housing for people. That is what we hope for them, and that is the direction that the Iraqi Government seems to be headed, themselves.

So, the United States is very pleased at the progress that Iraq is making. And the oil industry is broadly dispersed among many different companies and countries, at the decision of the Iraqis themselves. That is the way it should be, in our view.

MR. FOUKARA: Can I take the next question in Arabic, and preferably from a female voice, if that's okay?

QUESTION: Hello, Madam Secretary. (Inaudible.) I was wondering in regards to your (inaudible) in Doha, the campaign is pretty much emphasizing to cut off support for Iran's nuclear program, since you have evidence that they are, indeed, building nuclear weapons. How do you plan to implement that, especially in the Middle East? (Inaudible) the vast majority of the companies (inaudible) Iranian, and you have much (inaudible) Iranian. How do you (inaudible) that issue?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. I think it's important to remember that when President Obama went into office a little over a year ago, he made it very clear that we wanted -- the United States wanted -- a different relationship with Iran. We have not had a very good relationship for over 30 years. And President Obama decided that it was time to try to change that. And I agreed, that we wanted to reach out to the Iranian leadership and look for ways that we could begin to cooperate and have something of a more normal government-to-government, people-to-people relationship. And President Obama has reached out, and has publicly and privately made it clear that we are extending a hand. But it is a two-way street to have any kind of engagement.

We also believe that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons was very destabilizing for the entire region. People of Iranian descent may live in Qatar, but I think part of the reason why we're so focused on the nuclear threat from Iran is that it would be very destabilizing to all the countries in this region. And we believe that it is in violation of Iran's obligation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and violation of a number of United Nations resolutions for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

We have made it clear -- and it's on the front page of the paper in Doha, what I said yesterday -- that Iran, as any country, has a right to peaceful, civil nuclear power. We drew that distinction. Unfortunately, there has not been the kind of response that we had hoped for from the Iranian leadership.

And, therefore, we have pursued a dual track approach. The engagement offered is still there. But it is important for us to work with like-minded countries here in the Gulf, in the broader region, and around the world who share our concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. And the world community has made those concerns very clear. We have worked with Russia and Germany and France, the United Kingdom, and China to continually, over the course of this past year, make clear that we did not believe that Iran should pursue nuclear weapons.

So, where are we today? Well, on the nuclear front we see Iran being exposed for having a secret facility at Qom. We see Iran refusing an offer from Russia, the United States, and France to help it get the enriched uranium it needed to run something called the Tehran Research Reactor, which makes medical isotopes, something that we are willing to support Iran to do, for medical purposes. We see the president of Iran ordering the nuclear program to do its own enriching, and to begin to move toward the level of enrichment that certainly is troubling to us, because of what it well could be, with respect to nuclear weapons. We hear a lot of very negative language coming out of Iran.

And we are deeply concerned about the way Iran is treating its own people, and the way that it has executed demonstrators, imprisoned hundreds and hundreds of people whose only offense was peacefully protesting the outcome of the elections. Sitting here in this extraordinary campus, where you are encouraged to think and speak freely, it is hard to imagine what it must be like now to a young person in Iran, who wishes to have the same opportunities.

So, we are still hoping that Iran will decide to forgo any nuclear ambitions for nuclear weapons, and begin to respect its own people more on a daily basis, provide opportunities that the young students of Iran deserve to have for their future. But we cannot just keep hoping for that. We have to work to take action to try to convince the Iranian government not to pursue nuclear weapons.

And so, that is our policy. And that is what we are attempting to do. And we think it is very important for this region, but it is also important for the world.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, as a follow-up to what you said about giving young people in Iran an opportunity, a lot of Arabs and Muslims look at Gaza. They look at the young people in Gaza, and they say, "Well, aren't those also worthy of an opportunity? And is the U.S. working to (inaudible) on Gaza, so that they can enjoy that opportunity?"

SECRETARY CLINTON: And they are right. That is exactly how we view the situation in Gaza. We consider it a humanitarian crisis. It is something that I have worked on, ever since I became Secretary of State. The United States has contributed many, many hundreds of millions of dollars to try to assist the people of Gaza. We have worked to encourage the lifting of the boycotts, and tried to get more important materials into Gaza. And I deeply, deeply feel the terrible situation that all the people of Gaza are experiencing.

We have begun to deal with the immediate necessities of food and medical supplies. But we need housing for people to live in. We need hospitals rebuilt. We need schools that can function and provide an education. And we are continuing to push very hard for that to be realized. And we hope that once we get into the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, we will see more progress.

We would also love to see Hamas renounce violence, agree to recognize Israel, and be part of that future. Because, clearly, we want to see a secure and stable policy in place that would include Gaza. And that can only happen if Hamas decides that it wishes to be part of the solution, going forward.

So, this is a very, very serious humanitarian challenge that we feel very strongly about, and are working to try to address. That is part of the larger political challenge that we think can only be resolved through finally ending the conflict and creating a state for the Palestinian people to live in peace and security and pursue the kind of everyday activities, like educating their children, that should be the birthright of everyone.

MR. FOUKARA: Just for the sake of diversity, I am going to try to find and get a question in Arabic (inaudible), Madam Secretary.

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I hope so. That is certainly our goal. And it is President Obama's vision and hope that we would overcome stereotypes and misinformation, misconception. Because, clearly, the raw diversity of the Islamic world is something that Americans are learning more about, and recognizing to a greater degree.

But I think we have work to do. And so what we are trying to achieve is a broad program of outreach. And I have two young people here with me today, and I will ask them to stand up, so that you can see them. One of them is our new special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussein, who the President has just appointed. He is a trusted advisor to the President, works in the White House and in the State Department on behalf of this important position. The other is Farah Pandith, who is our special representative to the Muslim community, particularly young people. And Farah has been working non-stop, traveling the world, talking with and listening to young people in Muslim communities from Morocco to Malaysia. It has been a very concerted and broad outreach.

So, both of these young people are part of President Obama's and my outreach, because we want to have the kind of conversation we are having today. We will not agree on everything. I don't know any family that agrees on everything, let alone countries that have differences in experience and cultural views and the like. But we believe it is very important to have this kind of dialogue.

We are also investing hundreds of millions of dollars in more educational opportunities for Muslim students to come to the United States, because the young woman's question raises one of the challenges. After 9/11, as some of you may know, America became very focused on protecting our citizens, and made it more difficult for people to come to study and work in the United States. We are trying to, you know, reverse that.

We are also sending out science and technology envoys. We have Nobel Prize winners and other very distinguished scientists who are traveling the world, coming to countries, talking about what we can do in partnerships on science and technology. Entrepreneurships is an important area of our emphasis. And at the end of April, April 26th to 27th, President Obama will host an entrepreneurship summit at the White House, where we are identifying and bringing young people from across the Muslim world to be part of that networking and opportunity experience.

So, we are working hard on this, and we would hope that many of the Muslim communities around the world will, you know, reciprocate by inviting American students, inviting American professors, inviting American business leaders, media personalities, because that is the kind of dialogue that we think will help to move us beyond this very narrow focus that we, unfortunately, see too much of in the past.

MR. FOUKARA: How do you feel about veering to this side a little bit now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Indeed. Don't want to leave anyone out.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, why did the current U.S. Administration turn its back on UN and NATO central European allies' calls, specifically, in the context of the missile shield program, and instead chose to accommodate Russia's demands, which are more appropriate for the Cold War era?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Very good question, because I have the opportunity to explain our policy. And for those of you who may not have followed this issue, in the prior Administration of President Bush, a decision was made to deploy a so-called missile shield into Europe, particularly central and eastern Europe, as a defensive measure against potential missile attacks, particularly nuclear attacks.

When the Obama Administration came in, we conducted a very thorough review of the prior policy. And we concluded that it was not aimed at immediate threats, so much as longer-term threats, and that we could, with some changes in the architecture of the missile defense, be much more effective. And so we adopted a new approach. We did not eliminate missile defense, we changed how we were going to deploy it, and the various technologies that would be used for it. And you may have noticed in the last week there were announcements of placement in Poland and Romania.

Now, our belief is that there is a greater potential threat from Iran, with its missile -- with the development of its missile program, and with other potential rogue regimes or networks of terrorists who get a hold of missiles, than there are from a European-Russian conflict. We just do not see that as a problem, going forward. We may have political difficulties that we have to work out between the United States and Russia, or between Europe and Russia, but we don't see that as a kind of long-term threat, the way we unfortunately see Iran with its missile development, and its (inaudible) nuclear weapons.

So, the missile shield, which would protect into the Caucasus and down to Turkey, would provide some additional guarantee against threatening behavior. And we also are talking at length with a lot of our friends in the Gulf, as to what more they need defensively, in the event that Iran pursues this nuclear ambition.

So, we still are very committed to missile defense, but we think we have a better plan that is more effective than the one we inherited.

QUESTION: May I follow up? During the Aegis program, the Navy-based program that is going to be implemented now, didn't it fail most of its tests, the most recent one being (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: But it succeeded in most of its tests. I mean, that's why you test, you know. You test -- there were some radar problems with it, and it didn't hit a target. But we have a lot of data that shows it being successful. So I think you can rest assured that we are going to have a very robust, respected missile defense system that is of the variety that we think will actually meet the threats that are on the horizon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. FOUKARA: Just as a follow-up to what you said about Iran, Madam Secretary, you said in your speech before the U.S.-Islamic World Forum that more pressure should be applied to Iran. And there are a lot of people in the Middle East wondering if the United States is planning, at any one time, whether before the withdrawal from Iraq or after the withdrawal from Iraq, planning to launch a military attack of one kind or another against Iran.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. We are planning to try to bring the world community together in applying pressure to Iran through sanctions adopted by the United Nations that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard which we believe is, in effect, supplanting the government of Iran. I mean, that is how we see it. We see that the Government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship. Now, that is our view.

And so, what we are trying to do is to send a message to Iran, a very clear message, that we still would be open to engagement, we still believe that there is a different path for Iran to take. But we want the world united in sending an unequivocal message to Iran that, "We will not stand idly by while you pursue a nuclear program that can be used to threaten your neighbor, and even beyond." And we hope to try to influence the decision making within Iran. And that is our goal.

MR. FOUKARA: So, Madam Secretary, now you are saying there is no plan on the part of the United States to launch an attack? Not in the immediate future, not in the middle term, not in the long term?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are interested in changing Iran's behavior and -- now, we will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies. And we will certainly defend countries here in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran. But we have pursued a dual track, not a triple track, but a dual-track approach of engagement and potential pressure, and that is what we're focused on.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, I would like to take a short break with your permission and with the permission of the audience, a very short one. When we come back, we will take more questions from the audience.

(Applause.)

MR. FOUKARA: (Speaks in Arabic.)

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, our goal, eventually, is to have a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. In fact, the President has set a goal of eventually (inaudible) zero nuclear weapons in the world. I mean, that is our stated goal. We know that it will take time, and we are negotiating right now with the Russians to reduce our nuclear arsenal, because we are very committed to demonstrating our -- the importance that we place on this goal. So that is our goal.

Now, I have spent a lot of time talking with the leaders, and leading influential people from the Gulf and the broader Middle East. And they worry a lot about Iraq having nuclear weapons. And they tell me all the time that this is something that would cause them to have to react. And they don't want to. That's not something that they want to spend their money on, that they want to be involved in. But, on the other hand, they don't want to live in a region where they feel threatened.

So, our goal is to try to convince countries not to pursue nuclear weapons. And Iran signed a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And they really bound themselves not to do so, and now are, we believe, reconsidering if not violating that.

So it is an ongoing challenge that we think the world has to face up to. The Non-Proliferation Treaty conference will be held in May. President Obama is hosting, in April, a nuclear security summit. And maybe it's because we have to worry about all kinds of scenarios all the time. We know that a lot of countries around the world share our concerns. And, therefore, we want to talk about how we prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, how we control nuclear material that could fall into the wrong hands. We have reason to believe that al-Qaeda would be very interested in getting its hands on nuclear material to make a nuclear bomb.

And this is not the Cold War. In the Cold War the feeling was that you could deter each other, that no rationale actor, no rationale state would use a nuclear weapon on another, because they would immediately be destroyed. So that has kept everything in balance. When you have people who are willing to kill themselves, and kill many others at the same time, that upsets the balance. So it's not like it was 40 years ago. Now we are looking at threats that are much more difficult to evaluate and control, which is why we would like to move everyone towards a world in which we don't have nuclear weapons. We know that will take time, but we are pursuing it, and we are committed to it.

MR. FOUKARA: (Inaudible) question is what if Qatar or another ally of the United States decides to go for nuclear capability? How would you handle that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we would do everything we could to discourage it, because even though we have great relations with our friends here in the Gulf, we don't think it is smart for more countries to be developing nuclear weapons.

And, given the legitimate concerns and even fears that some countries might have that others would have it and they wouldn't have it, we would work to provide more defensive capability. Going back to the young man's question about missile defense, we would do more to try to persuade our friends that they would be protected, and that they wouldn't have to do this on their own. So that would be our response.

MR. FOUKARA: Israel. Everybody in the region knows that the Israelis have nuclear weapons. What if another state, another ally of the United States, decides openly that they want to have nuclear capability for military purposes? How would you handle that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I would give you the same answer. I mean, we have had these conversations, as you might guess, going back many years. A number of countries that thought about it -- and this is public information -- like a Brazil or South Africa, decided not to pursue it. I mean it is a very expensive undertaking. It requires enormous commitment of technical expertise and financial resources. And in this world, as it exists today, it is not at all certain that it makes you safer.

So, I think a lot of countries who have done the balancing test have concluded not to pursue it. If a friend, an ally of ours, were to say, "Look, I worry about living in a neighborhood where a country that we are not friendly with has it and we don't have it," which is only a conversation that I think has been really active in the last year or two because of Iran, which is the focus of these conversations, again, we would say, you know, "We would hope that you would not do that," and we would try to reassure our friends that we would provide the defense and provide them with the defensive capability that they need to protect themselves from whatever that threat might be. That, I think, is the best way for us to proceed, and for our allies and friends to proceed.

MR. FOUKARA: (Speaks in Arabic.)

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have to look at how we can best work with or influence or coexist with Iran. And that is really at the heart of your question: What is the best way to get along with Iran?

I can only tell you what so many leaders tell me, which is that they worry about Iran's intentions. They worry about whether Iran will be a good neighbor, and will live peacefully. They know that Iran has funded activities that are against a lot of countries and people in the region. They know that Iran directly funds terrorist activities. So I think people have reason to worry.

And the question is, what can Iran do in order to allay the worries and the fears of their neighbors? And that is what we are trying to encourage Iran to consider. And yet, I don't see much progress there, to be honest. I just wish that we could tell you that there was more progress.

And I don't know whether the reaction that the Iranian Government had to the election, and now the opposition trying to express itself -- which we fully support their right to do so -- has made the Iranian Government even, you know, more unwilling to open up and talk with their friends and their neighbors about how to prevent the concerns from escalating. I wish that Iran would take a different approach. The United States, under President Obama, would really welcome a positive, normal relationship with Iran. But you can't do that unless there is something coming back to you. And there hasn't been. So, I wish that we could be having a town hall in Tehran. I wish that we could be having this conversation with members of the opposition and members of the government, and students from all points of view. But we are not.

So, our challenge is, how do we try to influence Iran to be a good neighbor and to treat its own people fairly and decently? And anyone who has answers to those questions, I really would love to hear them.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, we want to get off the subject of Iran, and use your time with us to talk to you about other topics. I have one question for you before I go back to the audience.

Madam Secretary, you are obviously a Secretary of the United States of America. Part of your job is to look after the interests of the state that is your country. But you are also a human being. We all, as human beings, feel the need to see justice, whether in the Israeli-Palestinian issue or any other issue. How do you find that balance, between being the Secretary of State and just Hillary Clinton?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I find the balance because I think that my country and the people of the United States want very much to see other people around the world have the same rights and opportunities that we have. And it is heartbreaking when you see people mistreated or abused or deprived of those rights, or suffering from natural disasters or war or oppression or other terrible events.

We can't be everywhere at all times, despite the size and the reach of the United States. But the United States has been extremely generous and concerned about meeting the needs of people. And I personally believe strongly that that is part of our obligation on this earth, to reach out and provide help and support to those in need. So, I think that the balancing act is not that hard. The prioritizing is hard, because there is so much need, and there are so many people who are suffering.

I took a very long trip to Africa last summer, and had a wonderful visit in many different places. But you go to a place like Eastern Congo, where more people have died in the conflict in Eastern Congo than any conflict since World War II -- more than 5.5 million people -- yet we rarely talk about it. We rarely see it on television. Women are raped and mutilated. People are driven from their homes. It is a horrible humanitarian disaster. And we are struggling to try to figure out a way to end the fighting, and to give people a chance to go back to their small homes and grow their food and raise their children, which is just the kind of common, everyday living that everyone should be entitled to.

So, when you look around the world, there are so many challenges that -- the balance is not the hard part. It's trying to figure out what we can constructively do, how the United States can best intervene, how we can bring people together, how we can work with others to end suffering in Darfur, or to try to provide a better life for girls to go to school in Afghanistan. It is a very long list. But I think you have to keep your heart open, and you have to keep your mind alert to try to find opportunities to help wherever you can.

MR. FOUKARA: (Speaks in Arabic.)

QUESTION: (Speaks in Arabic.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that women everywhere should be able to pursue an education, and to have the opportunity to make important choices for themselves. But not every woman everywhere wants the same things in life. And we have to be respectful of our differences. But I do believe that there are certain basic rights that every woman and girl should have, and then for women to choose how to pursue your life, how to live with your family, and all of these choices that are so important to us.

I have been very blessed over many years to have a number of close friends and associates of women who have been from Gulf countries or other places in the world, who are Muslim, who have a great pride in their heritage, but who also are very independent and very strong-minded, and who make their own way in life.

And I think that the education that you are receiving here is absolutely critical, because you will then have more opportunities. And it's not so much about what one wears as what is in one's mind and one's heart, and the kind of person one becomes. And I think that should be the emphasis as to how we look at girls and women's lives around the world.

And, you know, I have spent a lot of time working in Afghanistan. When President Karzai became president, there were a little less than a million children in school, and they were all boys. Now there are closer to 7 million children, and 40 percent of them are girls. And many families, even though they are conservative, want their daughters, just as their sons, to be educated.

And so, that's what we should be striving for. And that's why what Education City represents -- and I am sure you are aware of this -- is so important, not only in Qatar, not only in this region, but far beyond. And the fact that young women and young men go to school together, study together, learn together, sends a strong message to the entire world.

So, that is my hope, that each young woman has a chance to fulfill her God-given potential, just as I hope the same for each young man.

MR. FOUKARA: Madam Secretary, I just want to say thank you. I hope we will have another opportunity to do something like this down the road. And I want to thank the Qatar Foundation, and everybody who has taken part in this program. Thank you.

Previous Post's: Clinton Cites Mutual Respect with Muslim World

Home - About us - Register - Downloads - Download Toolbar - Contact us

Read more...