U.S. Relations with the People's Republic of China (2005)

U.S.-India Partnership Based on Shared Values, State's Burns Says

Under secretary announces $500,000 more for Indian earthquake victims

Following are the transcripts of Burns' interview with the Hindustan Times and his comments to the media with Foreign Secretary Saran:

(begin transcript)

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE NICHOLAS BURNS
Interview with Pramit Pal Chaudhury of The Hindustan Times
October 21, 2005
Roosevelt House, New Delhi

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Question: On all these issues other than democracy promotion, it could also be argued that China also has a convergence of interests with the United States. But the relationship there is clearly different.

Under Secretary Burns: The relationship is different. You know, China is a very important country with which we have a good relationship. I wouldn't say it's a strategic partnership. What's different is that, you get back to the values that unite us. We are both large democracies – multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious -- we are the two great personifications of globalization in the world in terms of our societal structures and we know what kind of country India is going to be 25 or 50 years from now. India knows what kind of country we are going to be – we, Americans – the United States. So I think there is a foundation to the relationship, which is very strong because of that reason. You know, we have different relationships with other countries around the world. But our strongest relationships are with democratic, pluralistic societies with liberal economies: India, Japan, Britain, France, Australia. These are strong relationships all with the same type of foundation.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Question: There is an argument among skeptics here that flows from the fact that we are still trying to understand what America, why America is doing what it is regarding India. That this is essentially part of an attempt to bring us into a future Cold War against China. How do you react to that?

Under Secretary Burns: I think that is a completely inaccurate understanding of American foreign policy. We don't seek to contain China. We do not seek to isolate China. China is too big and too powerful a country and frankly too intertwined with us economically, and now in the terms of foreign policy, for us to even contemplate such a construct in 21st century. You have seen, actually, the U.S. relationship with China improve over the last four or five years. I think most people objectively would say that that is true. You have also seen a constant call from Washington for an American engagement with China. So we don't seek to contain, we seek to engage. We hope that China, both in its economic, foreign-economic policy, but also in its security policy, will be a country that seeks to work with us in finding solutions to problems. Secretary Rumsfeld was there just this weekend. He called on China to, for instance, to explain and clarify its military policy in Asia and its rapid increase in military spending. And our Deputy Secretary of State, Bob Zoellick, has called on China to be a more cooperative country in terms of its trade practices. So there are problems in the relationship, but strategically we would rather see an Asian environment in the 21st century where there were, where the major countries work together for peace and stability -- Japan, Australia, India, United States and China. We are an Asian-Pacific country as well. We, our entire West coast economy and, of course, Hawaii and Alaska, are oriented towards the Pacific and Asia in terms of trade. Our fleet and air force have been a fundamental part of the security structure in Asia since the end of the war in 1945. And so we are confident that we can work out a constructive relationship with China.

Question: What you are describing seems to be a concert of Asia, but your Secretary of State likes to talk about the balance of power for freedom, which seems to be pushing it slightly differently.

Under Secretary Burns: No, I am not describing some kind of 21st century version of what existed in the 19th century in Europe, not at all. I am simply saying that, of course, American foreign policy under President Bush is focused on democratization. That is why we have objected to the authoritarian policies of the Burmese government in this region. That is why we have been concerned by the lack of commitment to political party rights in Nepal. That is why we want to see authoritarian governments in other parts of Asia modify their practices. That is a big part of America's foreign policy. But it is also obviously a central interest of ours to work constructively with China. There is no contradiction there. But the reality is that China is the country that cannot be ignored and we have a vast interlocking relationship with it, especially in the economic field, and I think we have had some success in pursuing this policy with China.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Question: What are your views on Iran and the November 24 IAEA meeting. Have you asked India, are you going to watch India's voting behavior if it comes to voting on November 24? And what happens if India abstains or does not vote for the resolution at that time?

Under Secretary Burns: Well, the first thing I learned when I was State Department spokesmen ten years ago was never answer hypothetical questions, and you're asking hypothetical questions here today. But let me give you a serious answer. What do we think about Iran? We're concerned about the attitudes and the behavior of the Government of Iran. Iran is a state trying to build nuclear weapons capability and I don't think there is a single country in the world that wants to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons. You'll notice at the IAEA vote in September, that Russia and China and Brazil and South Africa abstained. They didn't support Iran in that vote and that probably came as somewhat of a surprise to the Iranian government. The only country that it had voted with it was Venezuela, and if you've only got Venezuela on your side, and you have the rest of the world not agreeing with where this country is heading -- Iran -- in terms of its nuclear future, then the Iranians must feel fairly isolated and fairly alone in the world these days. Our belief is that Iran should come back to negotiations. They unilaterally abrogated the negotiations with the EU-3 in August. The EU-3 was negotiating in good faith. There is still a possibility for Iran to sit-down with the European countries and seek a diplomatic solution to this very important problem. And our advice to the Government of Iran is to do that -- come back to negotiations and resolve this issue by peaceful and diplomatic means. But Iran is a country that most of the world believes is trying to create a nuclear weapons future. It's also a country that is the leading supporter and funder of the major terrorist groups in the Middle East -- the groups that are in action in Israel, in the Palestinian territories, and in Lebanon. And as a country devoted to counterterrorism worldwide, we are extremely concerned about Iranian behavior. Our Secretary of State has spoken about, also, the very unhelpful Iranian behavior in Iraq, specifically concerning support to terrorist groups there. So there's a lot we are concerned about and we believe that the best route forward is negotiations. Now, if Iran does not come back to negotiations, then there is every reason to believe that there will be a vote in the IAEA Board of Governors on November 24th, that there is a majority of countries that already exist, there are countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America that have voted to find Iran not to be in compliance. That is a fairly sizable and widely spread sense of the international opinion of Iraq, on Iran, excuse me.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

(end transcript)