[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 23 (Monday, June 11, 2007)]
[Pages 750-759]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Members of the White House Press Pool in Heiligendamm, 
Germany

June 6, 2007

    The President. Let me start off by talking about my speech 
yesterday. The purpose of the speech is to remind our allies and those

[[Page 751]]

who are wondering as to whether or not the United States is firmly 
committed to democracy that we are. I strongly believe that we are in a 
war with a group of ideologues and that we can eventually win this war 
by promoting an alternative ideology.
    And so the speech yesterday was to speak clearly to people around 
the world that the United States is committed to this freedom agenda, 
that there is a realistic reason why we promote freedom, that it's for 
our own security. There's a moral imperative to promote freedom, and 
that is to recognize that there are people who live in societies that 
are still repressive and that free nations have an obligation to work to 
secure their liberty. I made it very clear that democracy takes time, 
that it takes different forms in different places, but nevertheless, 
there are underlying principles which are essential to free societies.
    I pointed out that freedom has made great progress over 20 years. 
The reason I did that was, one, to express my optimism about the future, 
but, two, make it clear that things--the freedom agenda just doesn't 
bloom overnight; it takes hard work, but I also made it clear it's 
necessary work. And then, as you know, I went around the world and 
talked about different spots around the world.
    And I think it's very important for the 
G-8--nations in the G-8 to recognize the power of liberty to transform 
societies. And so I'll be talking, of course, about that here. I think 
it's important for nations that are free to recognize they have an 
obligation to help others. I was moved by the people I met. It was just 
very heartwarming to meet with heroic souls that do have the capacity, 
with proper support, of changing their societies and, therefore, 
changing the world.
    Anyway, it was an important speech to give. It's always important 
for the American President to keep setting an agenda based upon values. 
And those of you who followed me know full well that I believe that 
liberty has transformed Europe, liberty has transformed the Far East, 
and I believe liberty can transform the Middle East. And I'm determined 
to advance that cause.
    Here at the G-8, there's obviously a variety of subjects. One, it's 
going to be very important for us to continue to discuss climate change 
in a way that actually accomplishes an objective, which is the reduction 
of greenhouse gases over time and the advancement of technologies, which 
will yield to better environmental policy as well as energy security.
    The United States can serve as a bridge between some nations who 
believe that now is the time to come up with a set goal, as well as a--I 
said, the remedy, and those who are reluctant to participate in the 
dialog. So I laid out an agenda that can move the process forward within 
the framework of the United Nations, that, in essence, says that we'll 
be setting a goal at the end of 2008--that ``we'' being the major 
emitters--within the framework of the U.N. In other words, this will 
fold into the U.N. framework. And that enables us to get China and India 
at the table to discuss how we can all move forward together.
    Secondly, in my speech, I said we'll come up with our own policies 
to meet an interim goal for our country as well as a national goal--or 
international goal for the rest of the world. And I'll be talking to 
Angela about that at lunch. I think it fits into her desires to see the 
process move forward. One of the concerns was, is that there would not 
be a constructive result of this meeting that basically announced that 
there should be a post-Kyoto framework. And we will achieve that 
objective here at the G-8 because we will have set a post-Kyoto 
framework.
    This is an important subject. I also hope we spend an equal amount 
of time on HIV/AIDS on the continent of Africa or reducing malaria on 
the continent of Africa or helping feed the hungry. So it's a--and 
finally, it's going to be important for us to continue to discuss vital 
cooperation on fighting extremists and radicals who still pose a threat 
to our respective nations. The temptation is to sit back and say, well, 
maybe they're not dangerous anymore because they haven't launched an 
attack on our respective homelands. They are dangerous. They do want to 
attack. And the best way to deal with it is to work closely together.
    Anyway, I'm looking forward to this. It's obviously a lovely spot. 
I've been here before. I think some of you came with me--nice and 
relaxing. Went for a good, hour bike ride today with a couple of Secret 
Service agents

[[Page 752]]

and some German police, got out in the woods and charged around. Felt 
pretty good about it.
    Q. Can we ask some questions?
    The President. No. That's all I wanted to tell you. Go on home. 
[Laughter] I feel so good about life; I'm not going to answer questions. 
[Laughter] No--yes, you can, please. Please ask a few.

Missile Defense System/Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. What kind of military response would the United States take if 
Russia retargeted its missiles on Europe, as President Putin has 
threatened?
    The President. As I said yesterday, that Russia is not an enemy. 
There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with 
Russia.
    You know, my first meeting with Vladimir Putin, I told him, I said, 
what we need to do is get the cold war behind us and work constructively 
on how to deal with the threats of the 21st century. Russia is not a 
threat. Nor is the missile defense we're proposing a threat to Russia. 
So I'm going to talk to Vladimir about that. I've already talked to him 
about it once on the telephone. I sent Bob Gates to talk to him. And 
we'll have a good dialog about how we can constructively work together 
to deal with--modernize our capacity to deal with the threat to the--the 
true threats.
    So I don't see any military response needed. Russia is not going to 
attack Europe. The missile defense system is not aimed at Russia. As a 
matter of fact, I believe it would be in Russia's interest to 
participate with us, and have made that offer and will continue to make 
the offer.
    Q. Do you take that threat seriously, though?
    The President. I don't think Vladimir Putin intends to attack 
Russia--I mean, Europe. So I'll talk to him about it, but it's--if he's 
saying, ``The missile defense system is a threat to us,'' our--the need, 
therefore, is to make clear there is not.
    By the way, a missile defense system that is deployed in Europe can 
handle one or two rocket launchers. It can't handle a multiple launch 
regime. Russia has got an inventory that could overpower any missile 
defense system. The practicality is, is that this aimed at a country 
like Iran, if they ended up with a nuclear weapon, so that they couldn't 
blackmail the free world.
    Q. What do you make of his motivation for all----
    The President. I haven't had a chance to talk to him about it. I'm 
going to.
    Q. Right, and say, this is just some sort of misunderstanding that 
he doesn't--you don't see any political purpose behind what he's doing?
    The President. For his own sake inside his country? I'm not sure. I 
haven't had a chance to visit with him about that. As you know, I've got 
a visit here, and then I'll visit with him in Maine.

Kosovo/United Nations Security Council

    Q. Do you think it might be an effort to obtain bargaining chips for 
negotiating over other issues, like Kosovo?
    The President. I talked to him about Kosovo the other day, and I 
don't recall missile defense coming up. In other words, it wasn't a quid 
pro quo. So--he's got deep concerns about Kosovo, and so do we. It's an 
issue that we're just going to have to continue to work with him on. We 
believe we ought to move the Ahtisaari plan forward through the United 
Nations, and he's got reservations about it.

Democracy in Russia

    Q. Gary Kasparov, who you met with yesterday, has said that Russia 
is now a police state, and he said the West should stop giving Putin 
democratic credentials. What do you----
    The President. I think there are--as I said yesterday, society has 
advanced a long way from the old Soviet era. There is a growing middle 
class; there is prosperity; there's elections. It's interesting you 
would ask the question, do you think he is trying to position himself at 
home--thereby meaning that he is concerned about public opinion, which 
is a sign that there is a--when public opinion influences leadership, it 
is an indication that there is involvement of the people. I think what 
you're referring to is the upcoming elections, is he trying to say 
something about

[[Page 753]]

the upcoming elections. I, frankly, haven't talked to him about that 
aspect. But if, in fact, he is concerned about the upcoming elections, 
it does say something about the state of the political scene in Russia.
    And as I said yesterday, we've got a friendship with Russia, and 
there is a lot of common interest in Russia. But I expressed concerns 
about what were Western expectations and what has now happened inside 
Russia--for example, rule of law or some press decisions he's made. I've 
had these discussions with Vladimir, frankly, over my time as President. 
I remember our meeting in Slovakia. It was a good, frank discussion 
about decisions he's made, and he asked me about decisions I made.
    Now, the fundamental question is, does it make sense to have 
relations with Russia? I think it does. Do we agree on everything? No, 
we don't. Are there areas where we can work together? You bet. And 
that's why I call it a complex relationship.
    Same issue with China. China has got a--we've got an economic 
interest in China. We've got interest with China in working with North 
Korea, just like we have with Russia. And yet we disagree with China's 
reluctance to advance the democratic process.

International Cooperation on the Environment/Climate Change

    Q. On the issue of climate change, are you frustrated at always 
being portrayed as the odd man out? And what do you make of the 
portrayals of the U.S. trying to upstage Merkel with your climate 
announcement last week?
    The President. Well, Angela Merkel and I have had a lot of 
discussions about this issue. And as I told you, she was interested in 
whether or not there should be a--whether or not we agree there ought to 
be a post-Kyoto framework. And my announcement clearly said there should 
be one and that the United States will be directly involved in 
developing that framework.
    I've got a very substantial record when it comes to advancing 
technologies to make the air cleaner in the United States. We've 
actually had a reduction of greenhouse gases and--in spite of the fact 
that our economy grew. In other words, it's hard to reduce greenhouse 
gases in the face of economic growth, but we were able to do so. We've 
laid out a substantial initiative when it comes to tailpipe emissions, 
and that is the reduction of our usage of gasoline by 20 percent over a 
10-year period. So I'm looking forward to telling people exactly what 
we've done here in the United States.
    Q. Will you give any ground on the two-degree target that she wants?
    The President. No, I talked about what I'm for. Remember? I said I'm 
for sitting together with the nations to sit down and discuss a way 
forward. I think when people really look at what I've said, they say, 
well, that's an interesting way to bridge the difference between what 
China has said, for example, and what others in Europe have said. And in 
order for there to be--first of all, you're not going to have greenhouse 
gas emissions that mean anything unless all nations, all emitters are at 
the table. And if China is not a part of the process, we all can make 
major strides and yet there won't be a reduction until China and India 
are participants. And what I have said is, here's a way to get China and 
India at the table.

Pakistan

    Q. Can I go back to your democracy speech?
    The President. Yes. Did you like it?
    Q. I loved it.
    The President. Thank you. Say that in your stories.
    Q. I'll say it anywhere. [Laughter]
    The President. What did he say?
    Q. I'll say it anywhere.
    The President. Okay, good. How about in print? [Laughter]
    Q. Oh, well----
    The President. That may be taking it too far. [Laughter]
    Q. How do you square your commitment to democracy and as a priority 
for your foreign policy with what we're seeing in Pakistan now--major 
ally in the war on terror, but also a place where a core leadership of 
Al Qaida has found some sanctuary in tribal areas; the Government has 
been taking a repressive attitude toward a free press; it's got into 
this conflict with the judiciary, firing the chief justice. Have you had 
conversations

[[Page 754]]

with Musharraf about democracy in his country? Do you want to see free 
and fair elections in Pakistan?
    The President. I do, and said that in Pakistan the time I was there, 
standing right next to President Musharraf. And we do discuss democracy, 
as well as routing out foreigners in his country who are an equal 
threat, a threat to America and a threat to him.
    It's a very--Pakistan is an important ally in this war against these 
extremists. As you mentioned, there are some in his country, and I'm 
convinced that he would like to rout them out. But it's not easy 
territory in which to rout people out. We've had some successes inside 
Pakistan, thanks to his leadership. And in terms of the democracy 
issues, he's going to have to deal with it. And the interesting question 
is, is the issue about uniform, and he addressed that at the last--only 
time I've been in Pakistan. He said he would seriously consider--I don't 
want to put words--you'll have to pull up the press conference.

Spread of Democracy

    Q. But if you think democracy is the best way to confront radicals 
and terrorists, shouldn't we be pushing hard for democracy to really get 
established in Pakistan?
    The President. Well, democracy is--it's a lot more established in 
Pakistan than some of the other nations I mentioned. And there's 
upcoming elections. And what you're seeing is a lot of posturing about 
the election process, and it's not perfect. Either was our democracy 
perfect for 100 years when we enslaved people.
    And so it's--we do push for democracy. We push in the context of the 
reality on the ground as well. I mentioned Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is 
a close ally in the war on terror. His Majesty has done and his services 
have done the world a service, a good service by bringing people to 
justice. And he is also making some incremental reforms. He will go at a 
pace slower than some would like to see; nevertheless, he's moving. And 
the question is, is there progress?
    We live in a world where people expect things to happen overnight, 
and that's just not the way it works. I think it's going to be important 
for whoever is President to take a long-term view of the ability of 
democracies to progress and, therefore, change.
    I mentioned South Korea as an example of what I'm talking about. I'm 
sure--I suspect that if a President were having this conversation with a 
press corps in the sixties and seventies, they'd say, well, we're for 
democracy; therefore, how come you're not? How come it hadn't happened 
yet in South Korea? And yet it did eventually happen in South Korea.
    The process and progress move at different paces and different 
places, and the role of the United States is to help encourage them 
along, while at the same time achieving certain national objectives. It 
just so happens that the key national objective in the beginning of the 
21st century is to make sure we don't get attacked again and innocent 
people get murdered. And so we can do both. We can say that in the long 
run, the best way to secure your society is through liberty. In the 
short run, let's work collaboratively to protect ourselves.

Missile Defense System/Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. Can I go back on missile shields for a second?
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Vladimir Putin says that you're building a shield for weapons 
that don't exist now----
    The President. Right.
    Q. Doesn't he have a point? Do you see why he might be suspicious of 
that?
    The President. Well, I would argue that it's best to anticipate what 
might happen and work to see that it doesn't happen, as opposed to not 
be prepared if it does happen. I mean, if somebody pops up with a weapon 
and says, ``Hands up,'' people will say, well, how come we didn't have a 
shield? And so it's--I think we need to do both. I think we need to 
protect ourselves of what might happen and then work collaboratively to 
make sure it doesn't happen.
    Q. On the missile defense system, if there's a misunderstanding 
between President Putin saying that this is a threat towards Russia and 
the U.S. saying it is not, what's more important, pushing the system 
through or maintaining a solid, good relationship with Russia, 
especially since he's leaving office?

[[Page 755]]

    The President. I think it's important to make sure we have a system 
to protect ourselves against the threats of the 21st century, the true 
threats. And that would be the threat of rogue regimes using a weapon of 
mass destruction to either blackmail and/or attack allies and friends; 
cells moving through our societies with the intent upon killing; radical 
forces undermining young democracies. Those are the threats, and 
therefore, we need to address them.
    And I will continue to work with President Putin, Vladimir Putin, to 
explain to him that this is not aimed at him. And there's all kinds of 
ways you can do that. One is total transparency between our militaries 
and scientists--military people and scientists, which I'm more than 
happy to do.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia

    Q. Do you see this as hurting the relationship between you and 
President Putin?
    The President. No. As I said, it's a complex relationship. We've had 
issues before. I think if you look at the history of our relationship, 
there's been some moments where we've agreed and moments where we 
disagreed. That's just the way--that's what happens when you've got 
nations that are influential.
    And we've had our disagreements with different allies, had 
disagreements with France over Iraq. We've had disagreements with other 
nations, but that doesn't mean they're not friends, or that doesn't mean 
we can't work with them.
    Yes, sir.

Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. Are you at all concerned, though, that this current state of the 
relationship between you and President Putin might have some 
implications for the outcome with regard to Iran? You've sort of relied 
on his----
    The President. Well, we've been working very closely with Russia on 
Iran, and I don't think that this--first of all, my comments yesterday 
were very realistic in the sense that said, we're friends; we've got a 
complex relationship; we can work together, but we've had some 
disagreements. I just don't see how--why that, those kinds of statements 
are going to prevent the United States and Russia from working closely 
together on key issues like Iran or proliferation, areas where we can 
get along.
    Obviously, there's disagreement. You mentioned Kosovo. No question, 
he doesn't agree with our position. And so we've got to work together 
and see if we can't understand each other on a lot of issues. But it's 
an interesting question about, well, shouldn't you just scrap the 
system? And the answer is, is that the system exists in the first place 
to deal with threats. And that's why it needs to go forward.

Situation in Sudan/United Nations

    Q. Can I ask about Darfur?
    The President. Yes.
    Q. Have you expressed your frustration with why the international 
community hasn't been moving on Darfur? You obviously introduced 
sanctions. Would you be prepared to see a no-fly zone over Darfur to 
have some direct interaction?
    The President. We would consider that. And, yes, I've expressed my 
frustrations.
    Q. You would consider it in what context? Would you want to see 
other people help establish----
    The President. Look, I want to see other people helping Darfur and--
by joining us and sending clearer and stronger messages to President 
Bashir. And yeah, I'm frustrated. It--because there are still people 
suffering, and yet the U.N. process is moving at a snail's pace. As you 
know, I gave this speech at the Holocaust Museum and caveated it because 
the Secretary-General asked for a reasonable period of time to see if he 
could not get the process moving.
    Q. And the reasonable period is over?
    The President. Yes, it was. That's why I gave my speech. And I don't 
know if you noticed, but Sudan is now headed to peacekeeping at the U.N.

Trial of I. Lewis Libby

    Q. Sir, will you pardon Scooter Libby?
    Q. [Inaudible]
    The President. It's interesting, isn't it? And the second in charge 
is Iran.
    Q. And a no-fly zone, have you----
    The President. I can't give you all the tactics on it yet, but I 
understand the principle

[[Page 756]]

and said so in my speech that we would consider such.
    Listen, that was a sad day for--yesterday was a very sad day for 
Scooter and his family. But there's an ongoing process, and it wouldn't 
be appropriate for me to discuss it until the process has run its 
course.
    Q. Do you think it says something about you and Vice President 
Cheney, that you continue to embrace a man who has been convicted and 
sentenced?
    The President. No, it's a sad day for him, and my heart goes out to 
his family. And it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss the case 
until after the legal remedies have run its course.
    Q. Well, there's a lot of speculation that you are going to pardon--
--
    The President. Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press].

Russia-U.S. Relations

    Q. Back to Russia?
    The President. Yes, back to Russia. [Laughter]
    Q. Fun stuff. [Laughter]
    Q. Nice going, Terry. [Laughter]
    Q. Yeah, right. [Laughter]
    Q. You seemed to have carefully calibrated your response to some of 
the comments that you made----
    The President. Well, I think what you ought to do--look, I would 
suggest going back and looking at a series of my responses. In other 
words, put--and yesterday was an important speech to give about 
democracies. And I think in terms--if you want to really figure out how 
I conduct relations with Russia, it would be helpful for you--if you're 
interested in writing a genuinely--I know you are--an indepth piece 
about how I've conducted relations with Russia to look at different 
comments I have made relative to different moments of drama or moments 
of discord or moments of agreement.
    And I have always said that, one, this is an important relationship. 
It's an important relationship because when we work together, we can 
solve problems. I've also said it's a complex relationship because there 
are disagreements. You asked why--I haven't had a chance to talk to him 
about it. The insinuation was that he's doing this for internal 
political reasons. I can't make that the case. And it would be unfair 
for me to put words in his mouth, and so, therefore, I won't.
    I've also said it's important for there to be a personal 
relationship between me and President Putin so that we can have frank 
discussions in a way that enables us to more likely deal with the 
problems we face. That's why I'll visit with him here, and that's why 
I'm looking forward to welcoming him to my dad's house in Kennebunkport. 
It's an opportunity to continue to have a serious dialog with serious 
players in trying to keep the peace.
    There will be disagreements. That's just the way life works. And--
but that doesn't necessarily lend itself to speculation that somehow the 
relationship between me and the President is not a positive 
relationship. It is a positive--and I'm going to work to keep it that 
way.
    There are some who say we shouldn't have any relations with Russia. 
I strongly disagree with that. I think it's important for us to maintain 
relations with Russia and--on a variety of fronts, whether it be--you 
know, look, I want him to join the WTO for a reason. I believe it's--I 
think if trade increases between Russia and the United States, it's 
important to have some structure and ways to resolve the inevitable 
disagreements that will arise. And that's what happens not only with a 
nation like Russia; that's what happens all the time in Europe. There's 
trade disputes where there needs to be a dispute resolution mechanism. 
And that's one of the things that the WTO provides.
    Yes, sir.

Russia/Energy Resources

    Q. You talked about the need to prevent extremists from getting 
their hands on oil in the Middle East or anywhere else. How would you 
characterize how Vladimir Putin manages his country's energy resources?
    The President. Well, first of all, he is--he has got the opportunity 
to really develop the greatest asset of Russia, and that's her brain 
power. He's inherited a very difficult situation in Russia. The 
demographics indicate that it will be a shrinking society for a variety 
of reasons. One, it's health care system is good in parts of the country 
and not

[[Page 757]]

so good in other parts. They've got a needle issue--they've got HIV/AIDS 
issues. They've got a series of issues that he knows he has to deal 
with. They've got an old pensioner system. So that cashflow from oil 
will enable him to modernize his society, and he's making steps to do 
that.
    Secondly, it is a--obviously, it creates tensions with Europe. His 
being a sole source of natural gas for certain countries creates a 
degree of tension. And that's why the European Union and Russia are 
continuing to work through their issues.
    The fundamental question is, will he make enough investment in his 
oil infrastructure to take advantage of these cashflows and, at the same 
time, make an investment inside his country? And he believes he is 
committed, enhancing human capital. The question is, is that--is the 
middle class going to continue to grow? It looks like it has grown 
substantially in the past.
    This country, again, is certainly not perfect in the eyes of many 
Americans. On the other hand, if you consider where it's come from, it 
has made substantial progress toward a freer society in the sense that 
there is a middle class that's growing and will eventually make more 
demands. Now, having said that, there's been--as I said yesterday, 
there's been some backtracking. We had expectations, and those 
expectations weren't met.

Progress in Iraq

    Q. Can I ask about Iraq? The idea of the surge seemed to be to buy 
some time for the political leaders in Iraq to make progress on 
reconciliation. Have you seen any real, meaningful progress on that 
front?
    The President. Yes, look, they're close to getting an oil deal done. 
It's--it hadn't been the closure on certain issues, but they're working 
hard to get it there.
    Q. Is that--I mean, they've been talking about that for a long time. 
It doesn't seem that they--the increased security operations have moved 
them to speed----
    The President. Well, I think on certain fronts, they have made 
progress. They've got a budget that's now moved out. They've got a--I 
know they're working on an oil law. They're working on different--
discussing whether or not they have Provincial elections, and we hope 
they get--hope these issues come to fruition.
    But you're right, that's what the surge is intended to do, plus 
provide enough time for these Iraqi forces to step in, prevent the 
sectarian violence from spilling out of the capital. What's difficult is 
the fact that Al Qaida continues to kill. And it frustrates the Iraqi 
people, and it should frighten the American people that Al Qaida is 
active in Iraq looking for a safe haven from which to launch further 
attacks. And they're the primary--they're the ones primarily responsible 
for these EID [IED] * and suicide bombers.
    * White House correction.

Alternative Fuel Sources

    Q. Can I go back to Brendan's [Brendan Murray, Bloomberg News] 
question for a second?
    The President. What was it?
    Q. About Russia's economic situation and the use of its oil wells. I 
guess my question is, are you concerned that Russia's enormous energy 
wealth is going to kind of create a situation where its leaders are 
vulnerable to the arrogance of power? In other words, they've got an 
immense amount of wealth concentrated in their hands, and inevitably 
that tends to make people act in aggressive ways, doesn't it?
    The President. I think what--one reason why I promote rule of law 
throughout the world is to make sure that that very scenario doesn't 
accelerate. A second initiative that we all have got to take is to 
diversify away from hydrocarbons, and that's what will eventually yield 
to national security and economic security for countries that are 
dependent upon hydrocarbons from other places, such as ourself.
    You know, there is--there are mechanisms in place to basically 
enable nations to protect themselves. The EU is a mechanism. If you 
noticed, there's constant jockeying here in Europe with Russia about 
security. No question, some nations are concerned about their supplies 
of gas being used for political purposes. And therefore, all of us need 
to work collaboratively to convince nations not to do that, whether it 
be Russia or any other nation that is supplying hydrocarbons to the 
world.

[[Page 758]]

    You've heard me say, we import oil from places that don't 
necessarily like us. Oil is fungible, by the way. But nevertheless, we 
do. And therefore, it is in our interest, just like it's in the interest 
of other countries, to diversify. And that's really going to be the 
interesting challenge here as we move forward in this 21st century. One 
of the dividends of diversification through new technologies is better 
environmental quality. And that's why this issue is--it's got a real 
poignancy, as far as I'm concerned. One, I know we can be better 
stewards of the environment. But also, at the same time, it ends up 
making us less dependent on crude oil from overseas, in our case.
    It's coming, and the question is, how do you stimulate new 
technologies? What is the most effective way to get technologies to the 
market that will enable the world to control greenhouse gases, for 
example? And that's really where the--see, once you get people to agree 
to a goal, then the next question that needs to be answered is, how best 
to achieve that goal? We've taken the lead in achieving that goal by 
spending billions of dollars on new technologies.
    We've got new technologies being advanced in cellulosic ethanol. 
That will help nations once that becomes able to compete in the market. 
There's new battery technologies being promoted, primarily out of Japan. 
But nevertheless, it's--will have the beneficial effect of enabling 
people to drive without the use of gasoline. Clean coal technologies are 
going to be a really important part of a strategy to deal with what will 
be an international goal.
    And so the question is, how best to stimulate that type of 
investment? And that's an important discussion to have here at the 
G-8. It's also an important discussion to have at home.

Iran

    Q. Iran--President Ahmadi-nejad says that Iran's nuclear program 
cannot be stopped. Is he right?
    The President. Therefore, let's build a missile defense system. And, 
yes, we're going to work to stop him. That's why we are constantly 
working through diplomatic channels to continue to apply pressure. And I 
mentioned the other day, I think we need to go back to the U.N. Security 
Council. And we'll see.

Spread of Democracy

    Q. You mentioned South Korea earlier. Do you think South Korea could 
be a model for Iraq?
    The President. I think that--first of all, the situation inside 
South Korea is different--or was different than it is in Iraq. On the 
other hand, U.S. presence enabled the South Korean economy and system to 
evolve and, at the same time, provided assurances to the Chinese and the 
Japanese.
    And you hear me say that--and compare the situation in the Middle 
East to what happened in the Far East. It's not to say that the cultures 
were the same or the difficulties in the different countries are the 
same. It is to say, however, that the U.S. can provide a presence in 
order to give people confidence necessary to make decisions that will 
enable democracies to emerge and say to other people, step back and let 
the democracies emerge.
    It's very interesting to note that the U.S. presence in the Far East 
was welcomed by different countries with different interests. But it 
helped achieve an objective for all of us, and today, the Far East is 
peaceful. And it wasn't peaceful at the end of the Korean war. It was a 
place where thousands of Americans had lost lives.
    And so the comparison between Korea and the Middle East is, again, 
not to say that the religious situation was the same--of course, it was 
different--nor to say that some of the influential players were the 
same--it's different. But it is to say that given time, these 
democracies will emerge.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France

    Q. What do you think of the new French President?
    The President. I haven't met him yet--I have met him, excuse me, but 
not as President.

Note: The interview began at 11:45 a.m. at the Kempinski Grand Hotel 
Heiligendamm. In his remarks, the President referred to Secretary of 
Defense Robert M. Gates; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; King 
Abdallah bin Abd al-

[[Page 759]]

Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia; President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir of 
Sudan; Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations; and 
President Mahmud Ahmadi-nejad of Iran. A tape was not available for 
verification of the content of this interview.