people of all states is to not try to suppress their customs or traditions, but rather to open up opportunities and give them a chance for full participation in the life of their country. with respect to turkey, president sarkozy and i discussed this before, i'm not a member of the e.u., the united states is not a member of the e.u. so we can't dictate the terms in which any country enters into the -- i do think turkey is an enormously important ally in nato. they're helping us in afghanistan, in that critical effort. they have a growing entry and are interested in a further integration with europe and i would encourage that. . so i said publicly, i think

turkish membership in the e.u. would be important. now, president sarkozy, as an actual member of the e.u. has a different view, but i think it's very important to note he strongly supports the work that strongly supports the work that turkey is doing nato. i believe he's interested in further economic integration and what the united states wants to do is just continue to encourage discussions and talks and a process whereby turkey can feel confident that it has a friendship with france, with the united states, with all of europe and that to the extent it's defining itself as part of europe, it has an opportunity to be a party. but again, that's something that's going to have to move forward not based on what the

united states says but rather a dialogue between the european union members and turkey. in all of this, i think europe and france has a critical role to play just as the united states does, in sending a message to muslims around the world that we welcome and want their participation in a world community that is peaceful, that is prosperous, that is economically integrated, that is developing on behalf of all people and not just some people. and in both france and in the united states, we have enormous muslim populations. so as i said in the cairo speech, there's no contradiction between america islam because we have both form of americans who actually have

higher education and income averages than is the average in the united states. that's a testament to the degree to which they've been able to succeed, thrive, remain true to their religion and be full-fledged patriotic americans. and that kind of approach, i think, is the one that we want as opposed to an approach that increases tensions, both within our borders and outside of our borders. >> thank you. >> that was a great, self-serving -- >> perhaps i could just say a few words on this. first of all, i thought that president obama's speech was a remarkable speech. and we have long been awaiting

to hear the united states of america, world's number one power, shouldering its full share of responsibility in avoiding the clash of cultures and civilizations between east and west. and i totally agree with what president obama said, including on head scarves and veils. but let me simply say two things, in france, any young girl, any girl who wishes to wear a veil or head scarf may do so. it's her free choice to do so. we simply set two limits because we are a secular state. that is that the civil servants who are actually on duty must not have -- must not show any sign of religious belief, either jewish, orthodox, jewish, protestant catholic, that's what we call a totally

impartial secular administration. in other words, when on duty, at the actual place where they work there must be no visible signs of whatever religion they belong to. secondly, the fact that young girls may choose to wear a veil or head scarf is not a problem for as long as they have actually chosen to do so as opposed to this being imposed upon them by their families or by their environment. in france, in a country like france where everyone can live according to their convictions and beliefs, we respect the individual, we respect women, we respect the family. i've also done a lot when i was home secretary minister of the interior to ensure the muslim community in france could practice their religion and creed like any other -- any other religion or creed in france. now, you belong to a newspaper

i have a lot of respect for, which called for its readers to vote in the presidential election for my adversary and not for me. and what would you say to justify this? you said, well, be careful, president sarkozy is going to align us too much with the united states of america. and two years later, what are you telling me? the one subject on which president obama, president sarkozy don't agree, that should reassure you, you shoul be happy about that, no. of course we agree. we concur on the ultimate objective. what is president obama's objective? what is mine ultimately? is that turkey may play its full part, essential role as a bridge between east and west. that is an essential role. where there is a difference, it's how to go about doing this. be traditional, the position of america is the integration of turkey and this is the president's position and president clinton's position, the position of all united

states presidents. mine you're familiar with. it is not integration into the european union, not succession to the european union. but together with the russians and together with the turks to think about having a common economic and security era. we have no druthers to the objective we're thinking to achieve, simply the way of going about it, turkey, the objective is turkey play a role as a bridge between east and west. i said to president obama it's important that europe has borders, frontiers because that is a stabilizing factor and i cannot allow that stabilizing factor in the world to be undermined. that doesn't mean we have to push back turkey into the darkness. turkey is a strong ally. turkey is a bridge between different worlds. the only issue is how to go about achieving that. that's what we talked about. so let us have at least one

choice where we are not totally in agreement and that will give us time to think about future elections. >> question for both presidents, please. iran and north korea, what is the current policy which is largely one of recent years produced other than given time to north korea and iran to advance their nuclear ambitions. thank you. >> well, i think it's important to distinguish between the two countries and what they've been doing of late. north korea's actions over the last several months have been extraordinarily provocative. and they have made no bones about the fact that they are

testing nuclear weapons, testing missiles that potentially would have intercontinental capacity. and in fact, we are not intending to continue a policy of rewarding provocation. the parties that are involved in the six-party talks, we have contacted. they issued very clear statements and are now in the process of working on a very clear resolution condemning north korea's actions. you haven't seen china and russia respond as forcefully in the past on these issues because i think there's an indication that they recognize how destabilizing north korea's

actions have been. my preference is always to use a diplomatic approach, but diplomacy has to involve the other side engaging in a serious way and trying to solve problems. and we have not seen that kind of reaction from north korea. so we will continue to consult with our allies. we'll continue to consult with all the parties who previously have been involved in the six-party talks. but we are going to take a very hard look at how we move forward on these issues. and i don't think that there should be an assumption that we will simply continue down a path in which north korea is

constantly destabilizing the region and we just react in the same way, by after they've done these things for a while, then we reward them. now, with respect to iran, i've made very clear that we are not taking the same position. i'm curious that you would suggest we're taking the same approach when i'm spending an awful lot of time back home answering people who are concerned that what we're doing is too radical. and we are breaking significantly from past approaches and we are saying we're willing to have direct negotiations with the iranians on a whole range of issues without preconditions. in an atmosphere of music -- mutual respect and resolve.

like president sarp cozy, my view is that iran's -- like president sarkozy, my view is that iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would be profoundly dangerous, not just to the united states, not just to israel, but to the entire region and over time the entire world. because there's no possibility that iran gets a nuclear weapon in which you don't see a whole host of countries in the middle east decide we've got to go for it as well. this is part of the reason, by the way, when it comes to north korea and iran that i've said it's not sufficient for the united states or france or other members of the nuclear club simply to say all of you have to stop but we're not going to do anything to change ourselves. i gave a speech in prague in

which i said all of us have responsibilities that i am going to be traveling to moscow for a summit to restart significant arms -- nuclear arms reduction negotiations with the russians, that i want to reinvigorate our nonproliferation treaty. i think we should create a stable consensus in which countries who want peaceful -- nuclear power for peaceful civilian use are able to do so. and that our goal collectively is to eliminate proliferation, lock down the loose materials out there, negotiate a whole series of treaties that lower the temperature, and ultimately make nuclear weapons obsolete. now, that's not going to happen in my time, my lifetime. it won't happen in president

sarkozy's lifetime that -- but if we start moving on that pathway and other countries can look and say the united states is not just talking the talk but it's walking the walk, then i think that will indicate to the iranians, for example, that the goal here is no to single them out, per se, to suggest that this is dangerous for everybody, including them. their security interests will not be served. by possession of a nuclear weapon. last point i'd make on iran, the supreme leader has said we don't want nuclear weapons, that's not what we're pursuing. i'm happy to hope that that's true, but in international relations i can't just base things on hope, especially when you see actions to the

you see actions to the contrary. -- one of my famous predecessors, one of reagan, i think he said it pretty well. we are not even at the point of having those conversations with iran. hopefully, if iran does not seek nuclear weapons, then it should not be that hard for us to have a series of the association's. iran would then be able to enjoy a host of economic and political benefits in gains much greater -- with much greater legitimacy in all of its other endeavors.

>> thank you. >> you already got a whole interview. >> we will replay the president's speech in its entirety at 10:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on c-span can', and tn quickly addresses from president obama. coming up after that, on america

and the courts, the judge sotomayor speaks with six of the judiciary committee. >> how is he spent funded? >> baidoa nations? >> taxpayers? " i don't know. >> donations. >> i don't know where the money comes from. >> it is a private business initiative. no government money. but up next, a portion of a rally marking 25th anniversary -- the 20th anniversary of the tenements where protests. this took place some glass lot -- on the west lawn. it's about 50 minutes.

of communism memorial foundation. this is a wonderful monument on mass avenue that silently every day as we drive by pays tribute to the millions and million victims of communist tyranny. dr. edwards. >> thank you, jim. and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. like karl, i am so honored to be here and to stand where those heroes of tiananmen square stood. six years ago, i lectured in beijing and shanghai at the invitation of the chinese communist government. and my subject was american conservatism. but as i explained to my host,

i could not discuss the american conservative movement without explaining the centrality of anti-communism to its philosophy. and my host said, ok, we understand. and so i talked about the horrific loss of human life and the great leap forward when at least 30 million chinese and probably more died. that was a serious mistake. my host agreed. i then talked about the great cultural revolution when china was plunged into chaos for a decade. yes, my host admitted that was chairman mau's idea, and a bad one. and then i brought up the tiananmen square massacre of june 1989.

and my host fell silent. i waited but no confession was forthcoming. there was no admission that one, two, three million chinese had gathered in that great scare to ask for an end of corruption and movement towards freedom and democracy. my host would not admit that a terrible injustice had been done to the chinese people when ping ordered tanks and troops to sweep clean tiananmen square and kill anyone who resisted. we do not know exactly how many innocent people died that early june morning. but we do know this, no one, no one would have died without the

express orders of the chinese communist regime. four blocks from here on massachusetts avenue is the victims of communism memorial. which is the world's first memorial to all the victims of com miss him -- communism, some 100 million. at the center of our memorial is a bronze replica of the goddess of democracy statue erected by those courageous chinese students 20 years ago, several of whose leaders are here with us today. many different icons of communism were suggested to us but we selected the goddess of democracy because, number one, it's a reminder of what communists will not hesitate to do when their tyrannical rule

is challenged, but we also picked the goddess of democracy because it's based on the american statue of liberty and as karl gershman pointed out has become a symbol of freedom around the world. on the front pedestal of our statue are the words, to the more than 100 million victims of communism and to those who love liberty. on the back pedestal are the words "to freedom and independence of all captive nations and people." and that means china. that is why we're here today, to remember and honor those who died in continueman square, and to resolve that one day the chinese people will be free and live under a government of their choosing.

that day is coming, my friends. that day is coming. and sooner than the chinese communist government realizes thanks to it charter 08 and the internet, which prove that man does not live by bread alone. for those who may think that that's some kind of dream that freedom can come to china, let me remind them and let us remember that in the summer of 1989, the chinese -- the german communist boss looked at the berlin wall and said this wall will stand for another hundred years. six months later, the wall came down and communism collapsed in europe. so today, my friends, let us send this message to beijing.

mr. hu, mr. hu, if you want better relations between the chinese and u.s. governments, if you want to build a firm foundation of friendship between the chinese and american people, if you want a china that will be respected and honored and trusted by the world, tell your government to stop lying about what happened 20 years ago in the heart of beijing. [applause] >> chairman hu, tell the truth about tiananmen square. [applause]

>> thank you, dr. edwards. speak the truth. and speaking of the truth, i'm very honored to bring to the podium mr. shu wil lee. he is a distinguished professor at brown university. i got the pleasure of his hospitality many times down there in connecticut, a fine gentleman about a -- with a beautiful smile and a beautiful wife, ok, who spent 16 years in a chinese communist prison for no reason than speaking the truth. dr. shu win lee. >> translating for mr. shu win lee is his assistant. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese]

>> this year a fellow in new jersey wrote me an email asking me for my thoughts regarding the tiananmen massacre and the unknown rebels tankmen. the young men who bravely stood before the tanks in tiananmen in 1989. her email moved me tremendously. it has already been 20 years, and yet this young american girl was still concerned about the tiananmen square protests that happened 20 years ago in china, a land thousands of miles away from where she lives. unfortunately, i'm sad to say that due to the brutal suppression of information and sensorship by the chinese communist party, many of china, many of our own high school students do not even know of the tiananmen square purpose

nor off the democracy movement of 1989. tell me, how can i not be saddened by this? [speaking in chinese] >> a fellow had asked me in her email, do you, professor, believe the unknown rebel got the honor and respect he rightfully deserves? [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [applause]

[speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [applause] [speaking in chinese] >> i answered, the respect and honor that the unknown rebel has received is intangible because he has never received any award nor prizes. personally, i t