For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 1, 2002
Dr. Condoleezza Rice Discusses President's National Security Strategy
Waldorf Astoria Hotel
New York, New York
I am honored to deliver this year's Wriston Lecture. And happy to
be in New York. It is important for government officials to venture
beyond Washington, to get out, talk to -- and listen to -- Americans from
every corner of our vast, great country. The President said it best
when talking about the National Security Strategy that he sent to
Congress ten days ago. He was very clear that he wanted the document
written in plain English, not academic jargon. He said, "This is the
... Security Strategy of the [entire] United States. The boys in
Lubbock ought to be able to read it." Manhattan is not Lubbock, but it
is that same spirit that brings me here tonight to speak plainly about
some of the great issues facing our country.
Wriston Lecturers are an eclectic group, but this is the first time
you've ever had a National Security Advisor, and it may seem like an
odd fit. The Manhattan Institute's expertise is not foreign policy,
but domestic policy, with a special emphasis on America's great
cities. Yet there is a crucial intersection between what you do and
what I do.
Foreign policy is ultimately about security -- about defending our
people, our society, and our values, such as freedom, tolerance,
openness, and diversity. No place evokes these values better than our
cities. Here in New York, about a third of the population was born
abroad. Across the street from here is St. Bartholomew's, a Protestant
church. Go three blocks to the east from here and there's the Sutton
Place Synagogue. Go a couple of blocks to the west, and you'll come to
St. Patrick's Cathedral. Over the bridge in Queens, you'll find a
Hindu temple. Go uptown a few blocks from where we are and you will
come to the Manhattan Won Buddhist Temple on East 57th. Keep going
north and you will run into the Islamic Cultural Center on East 96th.
Go further up and into the Bronx and you will come to a
neighborhood that used to be called "Banana Kelly" because it was a mix
of immigrants from the Caribbean and Ireland. And there, a
Jamaican-American family raised the boy who became the man who is now
our Secretary of State.
These facts stand as living rebukes to the extremism of our
enemies, and the mindset that prevails in too many parts of the world
that difference is a reason to hate and a license to kill. America is
proof that pluralism and tolerance are the foundations of true national
greatness. And today -- 385 days after September 11, 2001 -- it is clear
that our commitment to our ideals is stronger than ever.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the World Trade Center
were the bookends of a long transition period. During that period
those of us who think about foreign policy for a living searched for an
overarching, explanatory theory or framework that would describe the
new threats and the proper response to them. Some said that nations
and their militaries were no longer relevant, only global markets
knitted together by new technologies. Others foresaw a future
dominated by ethnic conflict. And some even thought that in the future
the primary energies of America's Armed Forces would be devoted to
managing civil conflict and humanitarian assistance.
It will take years to understand the long-term effects of September
11th. But there are certain verities that the tragedy brought home to
us in the most vivid way.
Perhaps most fundamentally, 9/11 crystallized our vulnerability.
It also threw into sharp relief the nature of the threats we face
today. Today's threats come less from massing armies than from small,
shadowy bands of terrorists -- less from strong states than from weak
or failed states. And after 9/11, there is no longer any doubt that
today America faces an existential threat to our security -- a threat
as great as any we faced during the Civil War, the so-called "Good
War", or the Cold War.
President Bush's new National Security Strategy offers a bold
vision for protecting our Nation that captures today's new realities
and new opportunities.
It calls on America to use our position of unparalleled strength
and influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom. As the
President says in the cover letter: we seek to create the "conditions
in which all nations and all societies can chose for themselves the
rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty."
This strategy has three pillars:
- We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.
- We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good
relations among the world's great powers.
- And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe.
Defending our Nation from its enemies is the first and fundamental
commitment of the Federal Government. And as the world's most powerful
nation, the United States has a special responsibility to help make the
world more secure.
In fighting global terror, we will work with coalition partners on
every continent, using every tool in our arsenal -- from diplomacy and
better defenses to law enforcement, intelligence, cutting off terrorist
financing, and, if needed, military power.
We will break up terror networks, hold to account nations that
harbor terrorists, and confront aggressive tyrants holding or seeking
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that might be passed to
terrorist allies. These are different faces of the same evil.
Terrorists need a place to plot, train, and organize. Tyrants allied
with terrorists can greatly extend the reach of their deadly mischief.
Terrorists allied with tyrants can acquire technologies allowing them
to murder on an ever more massive scale. Each threat magnifies the
danger of the other. And the only path to safety is to effectively
confront both terrorists and tyrants.
For these reasons, President Bush is committed to confronting the
Iraqi regime, which has defied the just demands of the world for over a
decade. We are on notice. The danger from Saddam Hussein's arsenal is
far more clear than anything we could have foreseen prior to September
11th. And history will judge harshly any leader or nation that saw
this dark cloud and sat by in complacency or indecision.
The Iraqi regime's violation of every condition set forth by the UN
Security Council for the 1991 cease-fire fully justifies -- legally and
morally -- the enforcement of those conditions.
It is also true that since 9/11, our Nation is properly focused as
never before on preventing attacks against us before they happen.
The National Security Strategy does not overturn five decades of
doctrine and jettison either containment or deterrence. These
strategic concepts can and will continue to be employed where
appropriate. But some threats are so potentially catastrophic -- and
can arrive with so little warning, by means that are untraceable --
that they cannot be contained. Extremists who seem to view suicide as
a sacrament are unlikely to ever be deterred. And new technology
requires new thinking about when a threat actually becomes "imminent."
So as a matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to
take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized.
Preemption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or
legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can
address existential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, "If
there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike
before you take action in self-defense." The United States has long
affirmed the right to anticipatory self-defense -- from the Cuban
Missile Crisis in 1962 to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula in 1994.
But this approach must be treated with great caution. The number
of cases in which it might be justified will always be small. It does
not give a green light -- to the United States or any other nation --
to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy.
Preemptive action does not come at the beginning of a long chain of
effort. The threat must be very grave. And the risks of waiting must
far outweigh the risks of action.
To support all these means of defending the peace, the United
States will build and maintain 21st century military forces that are
beyond challenge.
We will seek to dissuade any potential adversary from pursuing a
military build-up in the hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of
the United States and our allies.
Some have criticized this frankness as impolitic. But surely
clarity is a virtue here. Dissuading military competition can prevent
potential conflict and costly global arms races. And the United States
invites -- indeed, we exhort -- our freedom loving allies, such as
those in Europe, to increase their military capabilities.
The burden of maintaining a balance of power that favors freedom
should be shouldered by all nations that favor freedom. What none of
us should want is the emergence of a militarily powerful adversary who
does not share our common values.
Thankfully, this possibility seems more remote today than at any
point in our lifetimes. We have an historic opportunity to break the
destructive pattern of great power rivalry that has bedeviled the world
since rise of the nation state in the 17th century. Today, the world's
great centers of power are united by common interests, common dangers,
and -- increasingly -- common values. The United States will make this
a key strategy for preserving the peace for many decades to come.
There is an old argument between the so-called "realistic" school
of foreign affairs and the "idealistic" school. To oversimplify,
realists downplay the importance of values and the internal structures
of states, emphasizing instead the balance of power as the key to
stability and peace. Idealists emphasize the primacy of values, such
as freedom and democracy and human rights in ensuring that just
political order is obtained. As a professor, I recognize that this
debate has won tenure for and sustained the careers of many generations
of scholars. As a policymaker, I can tell you that these categories
obscure reality.
In real life, power and values are married completely. Power
matters in the conduct of world affairs. Great powers matter a great
deal -- they have the ability to influence the lives of millions and
change history. And the values of great powers matter as well. If the
Soviet Union had won the Cold War, the world would look very different
today -- Germany today might look like the old German Democratic
Republic, or Latin America like Cuba.
Today, there is an increasing awareness -- on every continent -- of
a paradigm of progress, founded on political and economic liberty. The
United States, our NATO allies, our neighbors in the Western
Hemisphere, Japan, and our other friends and allies in Asia and Africa
all share a broad commitment to democracy, the rule of law, a
market-based economy, and open trade.
In addition, since September 11th all the world's great powers see
themselves as falling on the same side of a profound divide between the
forces of chaos and order, and they are acting accordingly.
America and Europe have long shared a commitment to liberty. We
also now understand that being the target of trained killers is a
powerful tonic that makes disputes over other important issues look
like the policy differences they are, instead of fundamental clashes of
values.
The United States is also cooperating with India across a range of
issues -- even as we work closely with Pakistan.
Russia is an important partner in the war on terror and is reaching
towards a future of greater democracy and economic freedom. As it does
so, our relationship will continue to broaden and deepen. The passing
of the ABM Treaty and the signing of the Moscow Treaty reducing
strategic arms by two-thirds make clear that the days of Russian
military confrontation with the West are over.
China and the United States are cooperating on issues ranging from
the fight against terror to maintaining stability on the Korean
peninsula. And China's transition continues. Admittedly, in some
areas, its leaders still follow practices that are abhorrent. Yet
China's leaders have said that their main goal is to raise living
standards for the Chinese people. They will find that reaching that
goal in today's world will depend more on developing China's human
capital than it will on China's natural resources or territorial
possessions.
And as China's populace become more educated, more free to think,
and more entrepreneurial, we believe this will inevitably lead to
greater political freedom. You cannot expect people to think on the
job, but not at home.
This confluence of common interests and increasingly common values
creates a moment of enormous opportunities. Instead of repeating the
historic pattern where great power rivalry exacerbates local conflicts,
we can use great power cooperation to solve conflicts, from the Middle
East to Kashmir, Congo, and beyond. Great power cooperation also
creates an opportunity for multilateral institutions -- such as the UN,
NATO, and the WTO -- to prove their worth. That's the challenge set
forth by the President three weeks ago to the UN concerning Iraq. And
great power cooperation can be the basis for moving forward on problems
that require multilateral solutions -- from terror to the environment.
To build a balance of power that favors freedom, we must also
extend the peace by extending the benefits of liberty and prosperity as
broadly as possible. As the President has said, we have a
responsibility to build a world that is not only safer, but better.
The United States will fight poverty, disease, and oppression
because it is the right thing to do -- and the smart thing to do. We
have seen how poor states can become weak or even failed states,
vulnerable to hijacking by terrorist networks -- with potentially
catastrophic consequences. And in societies where legal avenues for
political dissent are stifled, the temptation to speak through violence
grows.
We will lead efforts to build a global trading system that is
growing and more free. Here in our own hemisphere, for example, we are
committed to completing a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005. We
are also starting negotiations on a free trade agreement with the
Southern African Customs Union. Expanding trade is essential to the
development efforts of poor nations and to the economic health of all
nations.
We will continue to lead the world in efforts to combat HIV/AIDS --
a pandemic which challenges our humanity and threatens whole
societies.
We will seek to bring every nation into an expanding circle of
development. Earlier this year the President proposed a 50 percent
increase in U.S. development assistance. But he also made clear that
new money means new terms. The new resources will only be available to
countries that work to govern justly, invest in the health and
education of their people, and encourage economic liberty.
We know from experience that corruption, bad policies, and bad
practices can make aid money worse than useless. In such environments,
aid props up bad policy, chasing out investment and perpetuating
misery. Good policy, on the other hand, attracts private capital and
expands trade. In a sound policy environment, development aid is a
catalyst, not a crutch.
At the core of America's foreign policy is our resolve to stand on
the side of men and women in every nation who stand for what the
President has called the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" --
free speech, equal justice, respect for women, religious tolerance, and
limits on the power of the state.
These principles are universal -- and President Bush has made them
part of the debate in regions where many thought that merely to raise
them was imprudent or impossible.
From Cairo and Ramallah to Tehran and Tashkent, the President has
made clear that values must be a vital part of our relationships with
other countries. In our development aid, our diplomacy, our
international broadcasting, and in our educational assistance, the
United States will promote moderation, tolerance, and human rights.
And we look forward to one day standing for these aspirations in a free
and unified Iraq.
We reject the condescending view that freedom will not grow in the
soil of the Middle East -- or that Muslims somehow do not share in the
desire to be free. The celebrations we saw on the streets of Kabul
last year proved otherwise. And in a recent UN report, a panel of 30
Arab intellectuals recognized that for their nations to fully join in
the progress of our times will require greater political and economic
freedom, the empowerment of women, and better, more modern education.
We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help
create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for
themselves. We recognize as well that there is no "one size fits all"
answer. Our vision of the future is not one where every person eats
Big Macs and drinks Coke -- or where every nation has a bicameral
legislature with 535 members and a judiciary that follows the
principles of Marbury vs. Madison.
Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South
Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself
differently around the globe -- and that new liberties can find an
honored place amidst ancient traditions. In countries such as Bahrain,
Jordan, Morocco, and Qatar, reform is underway, taking shape according
to different local circumstances. And in Afghanistan this year, a
traditional Loya Jirga assembly was the vehicle for creating the most
broadly representative government in Afghan history.
Because of our own history, the United States knows we must be
patient -- and humble. Change -- even if it is for the better -- is
often difficult. And progress is sometimes slow. America has not
always lived up to our own high standards. When the Founding Fathers
said, "We, the people," they didn't mean me. Democracy is hard work.
And 226 years later, we are still practicing each day to get it right.
We have the ability to forge a 21st century that lives up to our
hopes and not down to our fears. But only if we go about our work with
purpose and clarity. Only if we are unwavering in our refusal to live
in a world governed by terror and chaos. Only if we are unwilling to
ignore growing dangers from aggressive tyrants and deadly
technologies. And only if we are persistent and patient in exercising
our influence in the service of our ideals, and not just ourselves.
Thank you very much.
# # #
|