For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 19, 2004
Dr. Rice Addresses War on Terror
Remarks by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice Followed by Question and Answer to the U.S. Institute of Peace
Washington, D.C.
DR. RICE: Directors and distinguished guests, I'm delighted to
have a chance to come to this fine institution to talk about policies
that will help us to deal with the long-term challenge of confronting
Islamic extremism and replacing the hopelessness and the lack of
opportunity in the Middle East that has led to that challenge.
In its comprehensive report, the 9/11 Commission called for the
United States to develop a long-range strategy to engage in a struggle
of ideas to defeat Islamic terrorism. The report says that we must
have a "strategy that is political, as much as it is military," and
that "long-term success demands the use of all elements of national
power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement,
economic policy, foreign aid, public policy, and homeland defense."
President Bush and the members of his administration could not
agree more. Since the beginning of the war on terror, the President
has recognized that the war on terror is as much as conflict of visions
as a conflict of arms. One terrorist put it succinctly. He said, "You
love life, we love death." True victory will come not merely when the
terrorists are defeated by force, but when the ideology of death and
hatred is overcome by the appeal of life and hope, and when lies are
replaced by truth.
This has been the President's clear message and consistent
practice. In his very first State of the Union speech, he said,
"America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate values
around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a
greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment.
We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror."
The President has put these words into action. Under his
leadership, America has adopted a forward strategy for freedom for the
Middle East. That strategy has many elements. We are supporting the
people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they fight terrorists and extremism
and work to build democratic governments. We have joined with our NATO
and G8 allies to help the people of the broader Middle East and North
Africa to create jobs, increase access to capital, improve literacy and
education, protect human rights, and make progress toward democracy.
President Bush has launched the Middle East Partnership Initiative
to link America with reformers in the Middle East through a concrete
project. He is working to establish a U.S.-Middle East free trade area
within a decade, to bring the people of the region into an expanding
circle of opportunity. And just this week, he signed America's newest
free trade agreement in the area with Morocco. The latest
administration budget doubles funding for the National Endowment for
Democracy for its new work, focusing on bringing free elections, free
markets, free press, free speech and free labor unions to the Middle
East. And we are increasing our efforts to support broadcasting in the
Middle East by one-third, from $30 million to $40 million. And early
in the administration, we began the successful Arabic language Radio
Sawa service, and the Persian language Radio Farda service. This year,
we launched a new Middle East television network called "Alhurra,"
Arabic for "the free one." The network broadcasts news, movies,
sports, entertainment and educational programming to millions of people
across the region -- fulfill a goal of getting to the truth.
We can and we must do more. Our future efforts should focus on two
areas. First, we must work to dispel destructive myths about American
society and about American policy. Second, we must expand dramatically
our efforts to support and encourage the voices of moderation and
tolerance and pluralism within the Muslim world.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, many Americans were
asking, "Why do they hate us?" It was even the title of a celebrated
Newsweek cover story by my friend, Fareed Zakaria. Then, as now, the
answer to that question depends on what one means by "they." There is
a small minority of extremists in the Muslim world who, indeed, hate
America and will always hate America. They hate our policies, our
values, our freedoms, our very way of life. When that hatred is
expressed through terrorist violence, there is only one proper
response. And that response is that we must find them and defeat them,
defeat those who seek to kill our people and to harm our country.
Yet, there are some 1 billion people in the world who profess the
Islamic faith. And the evidence about their attitudes toward the
United States is far from conclusive. A great many Muslims still come
to this country every year in search of a better life. And surveys
show that a great many more would do so if they could. Yet, surveys of
Muslim populations also show that large majorities of Muslims fear
American power, or mistrust American intentions, or misunderstand
American values.
For instance, many in the Muslim world see the worst of American
popular culture and assume that American-style democracy -- or any
democracy at all, for that matter -- inevitably leads to crassness and
immorality. Others believe that democracy is inherently hostile to
faith, and corrosive of cherished traditions. And many more are
federal a steady diet of hateful propaganda and conspiracy theories
that twist American policy into grotesque caricatures.
These views pose a serious challenge for our country. At their
worst and most intense, they create a climate of bitterness and
grievance, in which extremism finds a sympathetic ear. And such views
can hold entire societies captive to failed ideologies and prevent
millions of people from joining in the progress and prosperity of our
time. The consequences for much of the Muslim world are stagnation,
persistent poverty and a lack of freedom.
Dispelling these myths and instilling trust is a difficult and
long-term proposition. We must not lose sight of the fact that some of
the mistrust and suspicion felt toward the West by many in the Middle
East and in the Muslim world, in fact, have some basis in reality.
Relations between the Islamic world and the West began in conflict, and
for many centuries, bitter and bloody conflict -- wars of religion and
then colonial wars -- defined the contact that each side had with each
other. And for the last six decades, America and our allies excused
and accommodated the lack of freedom in the Middle East, hoping, as
President Bush said, "to purchase stability at the price of liberty."
Of course, we got neither.
Yet, this is far from the whole story. The story of America's more
recent relations with the Muslim world is a story of friendship and
partnership. Turkey is a strong ally of the United States, and a full
and proud member of the NATO alliance. America has built alliances
with Muslim nations around the world, from Morocco to Indonesia. We
have signed free trade agreements with two Muslim nations, and we are
working on two more. We are a major provider of development assistance
in the Muslim world.
And America has worked to find a lasting solution to the conflict
between the Israelis and Palestinians. No matter who is in office, no
matter from what party, American Presidents have cared to try to find
peace in the Holy Land.
In doing so, we stand these days with the Palestinian people who
seek democracy and reform. After all, President Bush is the first
American President to call, as a matter of policy, for a Palestinian
state. Yet, because America supports Israel's desire for security,
many in the Muslim world seem to believe that America opposes the
Palestinian desire for freedom. This is a misconception that we must
take head-on and dispel. Because the truth is that our policy insists
on freedom. The President believes that the Palestinian people deserve
not merely their own state, but a just and democratic state that serves
their interests and fulfills their decent aspirations.
For its part, Israel must meet its responsibility under the road
map and help create conditions for a democratic Palestinian state to
emerge. Israel must take steps to improve the lives of the Palestinian
people and to remove the daily humiliations that harden the hearts of
future generations. Along with the vast majority of people who dwell
in the Holy Land, Americans want peace for this troubled region -- but
we realize that there can be no lasting peace for either side until
there is freedom and security for both sides.
The story of America's recent relations with the Muslim world is
also one of help and, we can even say, perhaps, rescue. America --
American soldiers gave their lives trying to provide food in Somalia.
America has gone to war five times since the end of the Cold War, and
how many in the Muslim world know that each time it was to help
Muslims? Americans have fought in Kuwait and in Bosnia and in Kosovo
and in Afghanistan and Iraq. Without exception, these were wars of
liberation and of freedom. Kuwait's sovereignty was restored and today
that monarchy is pursuing reform. Kuwait has a directly elected
national assembly.
America stopped the killing in Bosnia and reversed ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo. Today, those two nations are making the tough reforms
needed so that they can join a united Europe. Afghanistan is free of
the brutal repression of the Taliban and building a democracy that
recognizes the central role of Islam in Afghan life, and that sees that
control as completely consistent with democracy.
Iraq is free of the terror and fear of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis are
free to worship as they choose. Major religious shrines are open to
pilgrims for the first time in decades, and the Iraqi people are taking
the very hard steps toward the building of democracy.
These are stories that need to be told and that need to be heard.
And so does the truth about American society. From a distance, I am
certain that America can seem secular and commercial and hectic and
hyper-modern and dismissive of tradition. Yet, Americans have a
profound respect for tradition, a deeply felt sense of justice, and a
strong attachment to our communities and families.
Survey after survey shows that Americans are the most religious
people in the developed world. The American Constitution and the
American way of life strike a successful balance between the
imperatives of government and the demands of conscience. Since our
founding we have separated church and state, but we do not exclude
religion from our lives. In fact, among all the modern societies in
the world, America is the one in which religion and religious people
play the largest role. There is no conflict between being a good
citizen and being a good Jew or Christian or Hindu or Buddhist or
Muslim. Many Muslims born in other lands have learned this for
themselves, as they pray in America's 1,200 mosques and raise their
American children in the Islamic faith.
Yet, we cannot take for granted that Muslims in the rest of the
world know these simple truths. We need to get the truth of our values
and our policies to the people of the Middle East, because truth serves
the cause of freedom. We must also do everything that we can to
support and encourage the voices of moderation and tolerance and
pluralism within the Muslim world. There is a hunger for new ideas and
fresh thinking in the broader Middle East, and that hunger cannot,
ultimately, be satisfied by the work of outsiders. Just as freedom
must always be chosen, lasting progress and reform in society must
emerge from within.
Don't worry, I can still see. (Laughter.)
We are fully aware that outside support can sometimes harm more
than it helps. Some critics in the Muslim world will point to aid from
the West as a way to de-legitimize reformist ideas. We are thinking
hard about how moderate and democratic forces in the West can usefully
help those in the Islamic world who are fighting against extremism --
because they need our help. But, of course, democracy and freedom must
be home-grown. Today, outside support for extremists is common, while
moderates too often struggle with inadequate resources and too little
solidarity. That has to change -- and we have to help to change it.
Americans also need to hear the stories of the people of the Muslim
world. We need to understand their challenges and their cultures and
their hopes; to speak their languages and read their literature; to
know their cultures in the deepest sense. Our interaction must be a
conversation, not a monologue. We must reach out and explain, but we
must also listen. Student exchanges and sister city programs and
professional contacts helped forge lasting ties of friendship and
understanding across the Atlantic and across the barriers of tyranny
during the Cold War. Similar efforts today can achieve similar results
between Americans and Muslim peoples throughout the world.
This is, by the way, not a task for the American government,
alone. Our nation needs the help of all of our citizens -- of our
schools and our universities, and of institutions like this one, the
U.S. Institute of Peace. All of us must play a vital role in this
dialogue.
These efforts begin from a simple principle: America is taking the
side of the millions of people in the Muslim world who long for
freedom, who cherish learning and progress, and who seek economic
opportunity for themselves and for their children.
If history has taught us anything, it is that these aspirations
are, indeed, universal. Their realization can be delayed by tyranny or
corruption or stagnation -- but they cannot be indefinitely denied.
People will not tolerate arbitrary or artificial limits on their hopes
forever.
As we speak, the momentum of freedom is building in the broader
Middle East. At Alexandria and Istanbul and the Dead Sea and Sana'a
and Aqaba, political, civil society, and business leaders have met in
the last years to discuss modernization and reform, and have issued
stirring calls for political, economic and social change. There will
always be cynics who deride freedom and democracy as dangerous foreign
imports -- just as there are cynics here at home who allege that Arabs
and Muslims are somehow not interested in freedom, or aren't yet ready
for freedom's responsibilities. Yet, time and truth are on the side of
liberty.
The 9/11 Commission report has it exactly right. Our strategy must
be comprehensive, because the challenge we face is greater and more
complex than the threat. The victory of freedom in the Cold War was
won only when the West remembered that values and security cannot be
separated. The values of freedom and democracy -- as much, if not
more, than economic power and military might -- won the Cold War. And
those same values will lead us to victory in the war on terror.
That is why it is President Bush's strong belief, and his
strategy. America will fight and win the war on terror, because
freedom is worth defending. And America will fight and win the war of
ideas, because truth is needed for freedom's defense.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Q My question is with regard to the transatlantic
relationship. It seems that one of the biggest impediments to success
in the Middle East is deep divisions between the United States and our
European allies as to how to deal specifically with the issue of Iraq,
Iran and the (inaudible) conflict. Can you describe the state of this
relationship and how would you attempt to deal with that problem?
DR. RICE: You know, I'm tempted to say about the transatlantic
relationship what I think Mark Twain apparently said about Wagner's
music: it's better than it sounds. (Laughter.)
The transatlantic relationship is actually in very good shape, and
it's in very good shape because we have had to confront, once again,
the fact that we are an alliance of values. I will take each of those
in turn, because I think they are somewhat different.
On Iraq, there were differences among some allies on Iraq, not
all. There's no doubt that with France and Germany, there were
differences; with Britain, Italy, at the time, Spain, Poland and
others, there were not differences. And so it was not somehow the
Europeans and the Americans on Iraq. There were differences within
Europe about Iraq.
Now, to this day, there are some 16 members of NATO serving in
Iraq, and a number of those forces serving in very dangerous
circumstances, in harm's way, and I think we should honor their service
and appreciate the fact that we have allies who are there with us from
the beginning and who have joined us since.
There is now, I think, complete agreement -- and there I would
include the French and the Germans -- that a free and stable Iraq is in
the interest of everybody and that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq.
And I think you are seeing in NATO's willingness to provide training an
example of that. You might also notice that most of the states of
Europe have re-established diplomatic relations with the Iraqis, are
engaged in discussions about economic relations and so on.
As to Iran, I think there the United States was, perhaps at one
time, the state that was most concerned about Iran's activities, but
others have come to that position, principally because of Iranian
behavior. There is great concern that the Iranians, under the cover of
civilian nuclear program, are, indeed, engaged in illegal activities,
activities that are not -- that are inconsistent with its international
obligations. And I think you will see that the statements that have
been coming out of the European Union Three -- the
French-British-German effort to deal with the Iranians -- are very
consistent with what we, the United States, believe and we've been in
very close contact with them. That is one of the stories, the coming
together of the international community around, and insistence that
Iran deal with its international obligations, and a lot of concern
about it.
Finally, as to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think there's a
general understanding on all sides that you have got to have two
partners in order to make this work. It is our belief -- and we are
getting support for that view from a number of quarters -- in the
Quartet, in Europe -- that the disengagement plan which Prime Minister
Sharon has put on the table could provide an opportunity to give a new
spur to the Palestinian -- to a possibility of a resolution of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as long as that disengagement plan from
the Gaza is followed by further steps, which the Israelis have said
they're prepared to take.
Now, in order to do that, we do need leadership on the Palestinian
side, as well. And I think that the recent problem that we've been
through in the Palestinian territories where, really, lawlessness has
broken out and where the Palestinian Authority has not been able to
deal with it, and where Chairman Arafat's first idea was to appoint his
cousin, or nephew as chairman of the security forces, and where that
was violently rejected by the Palestinian people shows that there is
growing discontent with a leadership that has not been prepared to deal
with the best aspirations of the Palestinian people.
We remain committed to a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. I think the Europeans remain committed to that. Yes, we
have degrees of difference from time to time, but through the Quartet
we've been able to coordinate our policy, I think, in a quite effective
way.
Q Can I follow? I'll be brief. (Inaudible) -- and let's stay
off the Middle East -- if you'll agree with me that Iran isn't the
Middle East, exactly. This --
DR. RICE: -- asked about Iran.
Q No, I understand that. And I had this question in my head
before you got to Iran.
So, how would this be translated? Do you expect that the policy
that John Bolton has enunciated this week to try to isolate, to try to
interdict, to stop Iran's nuclear program will get support from the
Europeans? Do you suppose the Europeans will support the United States
on Darfur, should it come to applying sanctions? Are we hearing just
expressions, or do you think there really is an alliance? And, Middle
East aside, I think we know how they feel about the --
DR. RICE: Well, of course there is an alliance. And, of course it
has served us extremely well in a number of crises -- whether it is
Afghanistan or in Iraq or a number of places it served us very well.
Now, as to Darfur, we have just gotten a U.N. Security Council
resolution on Darfur in which we and the other European members of the
Security Council were completely united. Everybody knows that there
needs to be a solution to Darfur. The problem is the government in
Khartoum, not the alliance, when it comes to Darfur. I don't know if
people are prepared to support sanctions. The U.N. Security Council
made very clear that there will be next steps if the Somalian
government -- I'm sorry, the Sudanese government has not acted to deal
with the Jangaweed and to deal with the threat to the populations of
the West. So I suspect that if they do not act within the 30 days that
they were granted, that people will be prepared to look at what those
next steps ought to be, and nothing is off the table.
So, yes, we've had very good cooperation and it's a constant source
of discussion among us, with our European allies, how we can be
supportive of the AU efforts there. But, of course, the African Union
has the lead, and that's only appropriate.
On Iran, I think we've gotten very good cooperation with our
European allies on Iran. Now, the problem, again, is Iran, because the
European Three went to the Iranians and they thought that they had an
arrangement where the Iranians were agreed to not reprocess and
enrich. The Iranians have gone back on that deal. The Iranians have
not been forthcoming with the IAEA. We have a board meeting in
September, and we will see what people want to do. But it is not for
lack of consistency and lack of coherence in alliance policy -- these
problems are that you have some very recalcitrant governments that have
to come under even greater pressure to live up to their international
obligations. But we and the Europeans have been very much united on
both these fronts.
Q (Inaudible) -- the U.S. administration has had to deal with
Israeli and the Palestinian and they have an even-handed policy. Why
do you find it so hard to condemn the Israeli plan, because 1,000 new
settlements? Do you think that's mostly a (inaudible) --
DR. RICE: What we have asked of the Israeli government is to let
us know what it is that they are doing and what it is -- our policy on
settlements are very clear. We believe that the Israelis should live
up to their obligations under the road map. I might mention, by the
way, the dismantlement of settlements comes in the third phase of the
road map. If you get the disengagement plan from the Gaza, you will
have dismantlement of settlements early in the process.
And so we are very engaged with the Israelis on how they begin the
disengagement from the Gaza, the dismantlement of settlements there,
the dismantlement of settlements in parts of the West Bank. And we've
been very clear so that settlement expansion is not consistent with our
understanding under the road map.
Now, when I said that our policies were to -- were equally to try
to find peace and security for both sides, I do want to be very clear
that the President did make clear that he felt that it was time for a
Palestinian leadership that was ready to take up that challenge, and
that was ready to live up to its obligations under the road map. The
fact is that we had, in 2000, an opportunity for a resolution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the Palestinian leadership, for one
reason or another, was unable to take that opportunity. We have not
been able to get back to that place since. We tried in the Aqaba
process to re-start that again, working very hard with the then-Prime
Minister of the Palestinian territories, Abu Mazen, to put forward a
set of steps that would be taken on the road to a final status
solution, to get back on the road map. Within a few weeks of Aqaba,
Chairman Arafat decided that he didn't want Abu Mazen around, and he
eventually resigned because he was not given the freedoms to do what he
needed to do.
Yes, the Israelis have obligations and the Israelis need to act on
those obligations because they need to end the occupation that began in
1967. But the Palestinians have got to give them somebody to work
with. And they've got to embrace a leadership that does not believe
that terrorism is a means to an end. And they have got to embrace a
leadership that believes that democracy and transparency and good
government deserve -- the Palestinians also deserve good government and
democracy and transparency. And that's what we believe.
Q You gave a picture half-full. Let me try to make it look
half-empty. Your own commission reported to Congress last fall that
the United States is providing (inaudible) -- of funding for things
like public diplomacy, (inaudible) -- in 1980. is there any plan to
increase the amount of funding to match the zillions that are going
into airline security, (inaudible), homeland security, (inaudible) --
the core issue that spawned (inaudible). And, secondly, why is it that
in the three years since 9/11 you haven't given this kind of a speech
to a Muslim audience in one of the five largest Muslim countries, nor
has any senior administration official?
DR. RICE: That's a very good question, maybe we should.
Look, on where we've given the speech, the President has tried to
rally the international community and what we once called the western
world, but I'll call the alliance of free nations, to be supportive of
a policy that looks to the broader Middle East and that looks to trying
to deal with the freedom deficit.
A year ago, the President identified the fact that for 60 years it
has been the policy of the United States and our allies to turn a blind
eye to the absence of freedom in the Middle East. It was high-time
somebody did it. It was this President who did it. We, out of that,
got a G8 agreement to a broader Middle East initiative that has not
just a set of good words about reform in the Middle East, but, in fact,
a series of action items that G8 nations and the G8 as a whole will
take. We will have the first meeting of the Forum for the Future at
the preparatory level and with the foreign ministers sometime in
September.
And so we are moving ahead on that agenda of engaging the Muslim
world. We took the time to try to build an international coalition
from which to do that. I know that you think that we do everything
unilaterally, but sometimes it's a good thing to stop and to build the
coalition, and that is what the President has done.
As to funding, it is later than it has been and it is more
identified with broadcasting, for instance, in which we've started two
new radio channels and a new television channel; new funding, doubling
the funding of the National Endowment for Democracy to do its work.
And I'm certain that we want to look at more. I think one of the
things that we will want to look harder at is how we do better on the
public diplomacy side. We are obviously not very well organized for
the side of public diplomacy.
I'm a student of the Cold War. I'm a Cold War baby. In fact, my
entire life was linked up in the Cold War. And I know that Radio Free
Europe and Radio Liberty played, and Voice of America played an
extraordinarily important part in making sure that clear and truthful
messages could get out, and that people on the other side of the Iron
Curtain hung on to those messages. I also know that we as a country
mobilized ourselves not just in the government, but in universities to
study the Soviet Union and east European languages, and to send our
best and brightest into the study of those societies; that we trained
under the National Defense Languages Act thousands of people who could
speak and work in Russian and east European languages. And I know that
we as a society, leave alone the government, we as a society are not
yet mobilized in that way.
And so, yes, there's more that the government should do. We should
be looking very hard at what new resources are needed. But so should
this country be looking. I'm a university professor, I come from a
great university. Great universities also ought to be looking at what
they're doing to engage the Muslim world, what they're doing to
encourage people to study these cultures, what they're doing to train
people in these languages. And I'm quite sure that if we, as a
country, take on this challenge in the way that we took on the war of
ideas in the Cold War, that we're going to succeed.
Q Dr. Rice, you mentioned Turkey as a great, strong ally, yet,
it's getting very hard for the Turkish public to understand why the
U.S. is waging a global war against terror, yet, because not taking any
action against the terrorist organization which is based in northern
Iraq, and why you're asking a more effective use of (inaudible). They
are still, you know, trying to understand (inaudible).
DR. RICE: And you mean against the PKK in northern Iraq. First of
all, we are in discussion with the Turkish government about what can be
done on both sides of the border to deal with the threat of those
irregular forces to Turkey. We've declared those as terrorist
organizations. They continue to be terrorist organizations.
It is obviously a complicated situation in Iraq right now, where
resources are an issue. But I think that the Turks know that we are
doing what we can with non-military means to try and make less active
and less capable those forces. And we are working with the Turks and
with the Iraqis -- who are now, by the way, sovereign -- with the
Iraqis to see if we can deal more forcefully and more effectively with
those forces.
We know that it is a problem. We have no desire to have Turkey
attacked by these irregular forces, which we have declared a terrorist
force, and we'll continue to work with our Turkish ally.
You do remind me, though, in answer to Robin's question, of course,
one of the places that the President gave a speech like this was in
Turkey, which of course is an important country as the bridge between
the Muslim world, a Muslim democracy and the Western world. And so he
did take that opportunity to talk about these values.
Q (Inaudible.)
DR. RICE: Well, we have, as you say, very good relationships with
the Egyptian government, we do. We have been very clear -- and, by the
way, Egypt has been important in a number of initiatives and is
increasingly important, for instance, in what we might be able to do in
the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and so Egypt is a good friend, has been
an ally for a long time and will continue to be.
We've been very clear that we are going to expect from our allies
that they take seriously the issues of the forum, that they take
seriously the issues of civil society, the spread of freedom in their
own society, economic opportunity, opportunity for women.
And while we don't expect that any of this will proceed rapidly,
because democratic change sometimes comes slowly; and while we are
quite cognizant that it can't be enforced from the outside, I do
believe that the President's decision in his Whitehall speech to make
very clear that the 60 years of the United States turning a blind eye
to the freedom deficit in the Middle East, that that 60 years is over
was an extremely important step in starting now a dialogue with others
in the Middle East who may or may not be governmentally affiliated.
You would be perhaps interested to find out that as we discussed
with the G8 how the Forum for the Future would evolve, how the broader
Middle East initiative would evolve, it was the United States that was
most insistent that this not be a dialogue between governments, but a
dialogue among civil society and, indeed, between government and civil
society.
Any specific organization I can't speak to, but I can see that we
believe very strongly in dialogues between civil society and government
as being one of the most important pillars of the beginnings of
democratic development.
Q (Inaudible.) On behalf of the (inaudible) people, I'd like
to thank you once again for a leading role in liberating our country.
But you mentioned in your speech about encouraging moderation and
pluralism in Iraq. I'm aware that the United States government in
formulating its expenditure of the $18.4 billion (inaudible) in Iraq is
setting aside a very disproportionately small amount of funds for the
north. And this is -- it still requires a lot of major infrastructure
projects. This is sending the wrong message to your allies in Iraq and
(inaudible) the Kurds are spearheading the democratic movement in
Iraq.
DR. RICE: Well, I can't speak to the specifics of which projects
are going to the north. I believe that they -- I know that what they
did was to make an assessment of the most critical infrastructure
projects at any particular point in time. We are working, of course,
not just with the $18.7 billion that was allocated by the United
States, but with other donor states and with the World Bank and with
the IMF to increase the amount of money that will be available for
infrastructure projects.
I will say that what was achieved in the north in the period after
the Gulf War, until Operation Iraqi Freedom, was really quite
remarkable. It showed what can happen under the protection, in effect,
of American and British forces, where I think the basic institutions
that now will help to spread Iraqi democracy did get in place and did
begin to function.
Iraq will need to remain a united country. I'm quite certain that
there will be elements of federalism that we here in the United States
would recognize. But what has been impressive to me so far is that
Iraqis -- whether Kurds or Shia or Sunni or the many other ethnic
groups in Iraq -- have demonstrated that they really want to live as
one in a unified Iraq. And I think particularly the Kurds have shown a
propensity to want to bridge differences that were historic differences
in many ways that were fueled by Saddam Hussein and his regime. And I
think it's a testament to the years that were spent in developing some
of the habits, at least, of liberty.
Q I'm wondering how you reconcile the statement you just made
about the Kurds with the fact that in January, 1.7 million people in
the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which is about 80 percent of the adults,
signed a petition asking for a vote on independence -- and, obviously,
anybody who signed the petition was in favor of that. And that raises
a larger question, which is, if, in fact, you find irreconcilable
differences in Iraq -- I mean, for example, Shiites who may well be
supporting religious parties wanting a nationwide Islamic state through
the democratic process, and a minority which wishes to preserve its
secular traditions, how would you see that being resolved within a
single state?
DR. RICE: Well, first of all, as to the Kurds, I would just note
that such referenda on independence have taken place in lots of places,
including, for instance, Canada to our north. And it has been the role
of leadership to convince people that they really ought to stay in the
same body. And so what I have found interesting and I think important
is the degree to which the leaders of the Shia and Kurdish and Sunni
communities have continually expressed their desire to have a unified
Iraq. I would note, for instance, when the work of, we believed,
Zarqawi was to try and foment problems between the various ethnic
groups so that he would bomb something in the Shia areas that the
Kurdish leadership was there within 24 hours to express solidarity.
When there was a bombing in the Kurdish areas, Sunni and Shia
leadership were there to express solidarity.
So I think these are a people who do want to live in the same
body. And I'm going to come back, in just a minute, to some of our
tendency towards impatience with every twist in turn in Iraq, I want to
come back to that.
But let me just speak also to the question of how they will resolve
their differences. Those of us who believe in democratic institutions
believe that what those institutions do is to mitigate against the need
for a full break between people who have differences. That's what
democratic institutions do. They give you a framework in which to
resolve differences.
Now, it's very interesting to go to another case, Afghanistan,
which is a country with a very weak history, really, of central
government and a very strong history of peripheral activity, to see
what is happening now that they are coming to a --
(End tape.)
|