For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 31, 2003
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Interview with ZDF German Television
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Room 459
11:52 A.M. EDT
Q Dr. Rice, let us start with a question to the academic/teacher
Condoleezza Rice. Struggling to find a comparison in history for
America's position in the world now, people have come up with the Roman
Empire, as in comparison. There's an obvious difference: America
doesn't strive to acquire foreign countries. But beyond that, would
you, as an academic, accept the comparison?
DR. RICE: I wouldn't accept the comparison to the Roman Empire, of
course, because the United States has no imperial ambitions. This is
an unusual time. The United States has a preponderance of military
power. It, of course, has a strong economy, a lot of influence in the
world. But I think the point that's been missed here is that it is
really the alliance of states that were on the right side of history
after World War II, the countries that dedicated themselves to values
-- human values of democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of
religion and prosperity for people based on human dignity. That is
really the alliance that is very, very powerful.
Yes, the United States is the most powerful state within that
alliance. But we see this, really, as an opportunity for states that
share values to have an opportunity to bring those values to other
parts of the world where they are not yet -- have not yet taken hold.
If I think of a historical analogy, I think rather of what happened
after World War II, when the United States -- after having fought in
two European wars -- came back to Europe and helped to create a whole
set of institutions like NATO, and to spearhead the Marshall Plan, and
to contribute to the creation of a new kind of Germany that became an
anchor for a democratic Europe.
We're now trying to do that, in a sense, in the Middle East, with
Iraq and with the Palestinian state and with what we've done in
Afghanistan. And there, again, it is the spread of values that will
make us more secure. And so I think of this rather as a period of the
triumph of states that are committed to a set of values, not the
triumph of the United States alone.
Q Europeans, increasingly, especially after the Iraq crisis,
have a suspicion that America is not really looking for allies any
more, but rather for followers. The difference being that an ally can
determine the course of action, or be part of the determination. A
follower just follows. And it seems that in many important cases, from
land mine ban, from Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treat, to the
International Court of Justice, America seems to say, it's either our
way or no way. We are strong enough to determine what's done and
what's not done. And you either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
DR. RICE: Well, there, clearly, will be differences from time to
time -- even among the strongest allies -- on what to do about a
specific set of issues. Yes, the United States has had real
difficulties with the international criminal court. We are a country
that believes very much in the sovereignty of our own Constitution over
our citizens. And so we've been concerned about that.
But if you look at the cooperation that we've had in the criminal
court dealing with the tribunals in Yugoslavia, you see that the United
States is not opposed to the principle of having tribunals to try to
war crimes. We've had very good cooperation on the big issues, on the
expansion of NATO, of bringing Russia toward the West. We have a big
job to do in Afghanistan. One of the places that Germany has been
really quite remarkable, and in fact, probably after the United States,
the most important country, is in Afghanistan, in the leadership of the
International Security Assistance Force. We have many, many examples
-- the World Trade Organization -- many examples where we are working
together very, very well.
Occasionally, we'll have differences. But that does not mean that
the United States does not value its allies, does not value the
opinions of its allies. And it, most especially, does not mean that we
don't need allies. We need allies and need them badly.
Q When the United Nations cannot be the system of checks and
balances, even for the largest of the players on the globe, where are
checks and balances coming from in the future when America says, we are
entitled to preemptive strikes when we feel that our security is
threatened? Even after the Iraqi experience, when it is now in doubt
internationally that the real reason for the war was actually there,
America still says, we determine what's good for us, and if the United
Nations helps us, great. If not, we go it alone.
DR. RICE: Well, the interesting thing about the Iraq case was that
the United Nations had determined that Saddam Hussein was a threat.
This is a regime that was sanctioned by the United Nations 17 times in
resolutions, many of them referring directly to the threat of his
weapons of mass destruction. This was a regime in which the United
Nations had tried to put inspectors into the country, only to have them
effectively pulled out of the country because they couldn't do their
work. These were -- this was a regime that had lost a war in 1991,
signed on to a set of obligations to the United Nations, and then
systematically violated them. And so the idea that somehow this was an
American decision to deal with the Iraqi regime, what the United States
finally did -- not just the United States but a number of other
countries, as well -- is to say that if U.N. resolutions are to
actually matter, if countries are not just to violate them without --
with impunity, to have no responsibility for violating those, then the
U.N. is not going to be very strong. The Security Council is not
going to be very strong. And, indeed, Resolution 1441, the one that
set up new inspections was a 15 to 0 vote of the U.N. Security
Council.
So, yes, we had a disagreement in the final analysis of what means
to use to deal with the Iraqi crisis. But that Iraq was a threat, that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had used those weapons
of mass destruction on its neighbors and its own people, that Iraq had
ambitions in the volatile region of the Middle East and was therefore a
danger to international security, these were shared premises of the
entire international community represented by the 17 United Nations
Security Council resolutions that sanctioned Iraq.
Q Does that mean it is not all that important that within the
next six or 12 months, my friend David Kaye, will find proof for
weapons of mass destruction?
DR. RICE: Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong
intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And some of
the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen, key judgments by our
intelligence community that Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapon
by the end of the decade, if left unchecked; that he had biological and
chemical weapons; that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear
program. We had very strong intelligence going in. Nobody doubted
that he had weapons of mass destruction.
Now, we are now in Iraq. And as you mentioned, David Kaye is
systematically going to understand precisely what happened to Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction and the state of their programs. We do
know that this was a program that over 12 years was built for
deception. We know that it was a program that took into account the
fact that there might be inspectors in the country, the fact that there
were sanctions, and that designed the program, therefore -- the Iraqi
regime designed the program so that it couldn't be discovered.
And so it will take some time, but we're uncovering, literally,
miles of documents. We are coming into contact with more and more
people who were a part of the programs. And we will be able to put
together a full picture of what Saddam Hussein was really intending to
do. But I have no doubt that that picture will confirm that this was a
regime that was a grave threat to international peace and security
because of its intent on having the world's worst weapons.
Q Would you agree that for the next case down the road --
history will tell what it is -- American credibility rests on proving
that case?
DR. RICE: The case against Iraq was not just an issue of American
intelligence. It was an issue, also, of intelligence services around
the world; of U.N. reports that there were large quantities of missing
chemical and biological agents; of defectors -- including Saddam
Hussein's own brother-in-laws, who had left the country and revealed
major weapons programs. No, there is no issue of credibility here.
The case going in was one in which everyone shared the view that this
was a country that had weapons of mass destruction, that had tried to
use -- had used weapons of mass destruction. And you had to believe,
somehow, that after the inspectors left the country in 1998, that this
had somehow gotten better between 1998 and 2003. It's just not
plausible.
Q I have one minute for two questions now. I get signals.
(Laughter.) And it's your schedule that dictates that. Korea -- has
the situation for the 30,000 U.S. troops in Korea changed in any way
recently, through recent developments? And what's their purpose now
when the threat is becoming so much greater?
DR. RICE: Well, absolutely, the most important thing about the
Korean peninsula is the alliance between the United States and South
Korea that has helped to keep the peace on the Korean peninsula. And
the American forces have been a part of that. We seen no change in the
requirements. But we do see potential changes in how we might meet
those requirements. And I think there's been some discussion of that
in the press and, certainly, with the South Korean government. But the
American forces there are a firm commitment to an alliance with South
Korea and to a presence in Asia that has served the world well.
There have been a lot of changes in military technology. There
have been a lot of changes in the threat environment. But there's been
no change and will not be a change in the solidity of the U.S.-South
Korean alliance.
Q Final question, looking 25 -- again, asking the historian,
looking 25 or even 50 years down the road, what's your vision of the
role of the United States then? Will it still be the dominant power
that it is today? Or are we in a window of history that is slowly
closing again?
DR. RICE: The next 25 years I would hope would be the triumph of
the values that we all hold dear. The United States will have a role
in that. It is, indeed, the strongest country. But it won't be the
only country to have a role in that. And I think rather than
concerning ourselves with what our individual or specific roles will
have to be, we need to concern ourselves with what it is we're trying
to achieve. And what we, the people of Germany, the United States,
France, Great Britain, the new democracies of Eastern Europe that are
so fortunate to live in places where human dignity is preserved, where
democracy allows us that human dignity, we need to have as our goal the
spread of those values. We need to have as our goal a balance of power
that favors freedom -- a balance of power that allows all people to
have those universal values.
Q Balance?
DR. RICE: Well, a balance of power in which all of us are devoted
to the freedoms that we enjoy so much and should be able to spread to
others.
We learned a very important lesson in 1945, just that security and
principles, security and values are inextricably linked. No one can
imagine a major war in Europe today. That is not because Europe
finally got the balance of power right. It is because Germany became a
functioning and prosperous democracy, made alliance with France -- a
longtime enemy. No one could even imagine now a war between Germany
and France. Our values do bring us security. And so we now need to
see that across the globe. We need to worry about prosperity for
others. We need to fight disease and poverty in places like Africa.
We have a huge agenda ahead of us. And if we can focus on that
agenda, on the great project of finally seeing these values spread, I
think it'll be far less important who's powerful and who's not 25 years
from now.
Q Thank you very much.
DR. RICE: Thank you.
END
12:05 P.M. EDT
|