For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 28, 2004
Remarks by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the Reagan Lecture
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum
Simi Valley, California
February 26, 2004
As Delivered
DR. RICE: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very, very much for
that wonderful introduction and that terrific introduction. In fact, I
was supposed to be here a couple of months ago and it was because of
one of those telephone calls in the middle of the night that I didn't
make it. That was one that told us that, in fact, we had gotten Saddam
Hussein. (Applause.)
And Mrs. Reagan and I agreed that the only reason that I wouldn't
make it this time was if somehow we'd gotten Osama bin Laden.
(Laughter.) Unfortunately, I'm here.
I am grateful to have been invited to deliver this lecture --
first, because it gives me a chance to come back to California,
something I do all too rarely. But more importantly, I'm mindful of
the tremendous honor of delivering only the eighth Ronald Reagan
Lecture since this institution was founded. It is humbling to be asked
to join a group that includes a senator, two governors, and a Supreme
Court justice.
Four years ago, when then-Governor George W. Bush sought a venue to
explain his foreign policy vision to America and to the world, he came
here. I remember sitting in this very room as he delivered that vision
for how he would lead America if he had an opportunity to become
President. And of course, we didn't know the tremendous consequential
times in which he would serve.
It is fitting then that I have a chance to come back here to
discuss the foreign policy vision of President George W. Bush, in a
world that has changed dramatically since in 1999.
Mrs. Reagan, thank you for this invitation. But I especially want
to thank you all that you've done for this country. (Applause.) You
have fought drug abuse. You've represented America to the world.
You've supported your husband during pivotal periods in our history.
And you've preserved his legacy for Americans and for all free men and
women across the world. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thanks to Fred Ryan (ph), the chairman of the board of trustees of
the Reagan Library Foundation, and to Duke Blackwood, the executive
director of the presidential library and foundation, and to the
distinguished trustees and guests, thank you for having me here.
Clare Boothe Luce famously said that every President will be
remembered with a single sentence. My friend Peggy Noonan updated that
maxim, and observed that Ronald Reagan was the one President who knew
the sentence he wanted -- and he got it. President Reagan lifted
America's spirits and led the free world to victory in the Cold War.
Ronald Reagan was President during a pivotal period in the history
of our country, and of our world. But unlike most Presidents who face
great crises, Ronald Reagan, in some sense, chose his moment. He
watched with alarm the rise of Soviet aggression and adventurism in the
1970s and the corresponding decline in American self-confidence and
prestige. He saw clearly that if those trends continued, not just
America's future, but the future of freedom itself, would be
imperiled. Ronald Reagan had a vision for overcoming and reversing
those trends. He would rebuild America's military strength, unleash
the creativity of our economy, and tell the truth about the Soviet
Union.
That vision and determination with which President Reagan pursued
these goals sometimes roiled public opinion at the time. It certainly
roiled the foreign policy establishment. And I know that because I
came from the foreign policy establishment. (Laughter.) As an arms
control and Soviet specialist just getting started, I remember those
debates well. And I sometimes participated in them.
I remember one particular one when I served on a panel discussing
the Zero Option -- the complete elimination of all U.S. and Soviet
intermediate-range ballistic missiles. This was in San Francisco, in
the early 1980s, at the height of the nuclear freeze movement. I was a
young academic, just starting out. And I'd like to think that they
invited because of my rising reputation. But it's entirely possible
that I was the only person in the entire San Francisco Bay area who
would actually support the Reagan policy. (Laughter and applause.) I
defended that position as best I could, against an older gentleman who
strenuously argued that President Reagan and his belligerent rhetoric
were the real problems. Aggressive Soviet behavior was understandable,
given the threat that Moscow perceived from Reagan. President Reagan's
proposed response -- deploying American missiles to counter any
increase in Soviet missiles -- would only make things worse, so on and
so on. I'd like to think that I won the debate. But looking back, I
have my doubts because afterwards, several women in the audience --
clearly Reagan opponents and Nuclear Freeze supporters -- approached
me. They thanked me for doing so much for peace, and for standing up to
that awful Reagan. (Laughter.) I think they looked at me, a young,
black female and they just assumed that I was an opponent of President
Reagan. After listening to me for an hour, clearly, they were unable
to see past the surface of things.
But in truth, we arms controllers were having trouble seeing past
the surface of things. We were fixated on a host of details:
megatons, MIRVS, throw weights, and verification measures. We were
absolutely determined to get the best possible deal with the Soviet
Union and, in retrospect, we missed the big picture. Ronald Reagan the
big picture. He challenged the whole premise of arms control and the
whole premise of Soviet power. For him, arms control was a means, not
an end. The end he sought were nothing less than the end of the Soviet
Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the victory of liberty
over tyranny. To achieve these ends, he had to challenge most -- if
not all -- the received wisdom of the time. That is what great leaders
do -- and what only they can do.
Today, America is again fortunate enough to a leader who believes
that you need to say what you mean, mean what you say, and then do it.
President Bush's foreign policy is a bold new vision that draws
inspiration from the ideas that have guided America's foreign policy at
its best: that the spread of democracy leads to peace, that
democracies must never lack the will, or the means to meet and defeat
freedom's enemies, that America's power and purpose must be used to
defend freedom.
These are principles that great leaders have put into practice
during challenging times -- and these are challenging times. Thus, the
President calls on America to use our unparalleled strength and
influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom. His vision
stands on three pillars. First, we will defend the peace by opposing
and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes. Second, we
will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the
world's great powers. And third, we will extend the peace by seeking
to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe.
Yet in the final analysis, President Bush's vision begins from a
single, simple premise: As the President recently said, "Human beings
are not made by the Almighty God to live in tyranny. When given a
choice, people everywhere, from all walks of life, from all religions,
prefer freedom to violence and terror."
This is a time when the defense of freedom has never been more
necessary, and it is a time when the opportunity for the triumph of
freedom has never been greater.
The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, were the greatest
strategic shock that the United States has experienced since Pearl
Harbor. These attacks crystallized our vulnerability to plots hatched
in different lands, that come without warning, bringing tragedy to our
shores. These attacks made clear that sweeping threats under the rug
is simply not an option.
President Bush saw the implications of that immediately. The very
day of the attacks -- as smoke still rose from the Pentagon, and the
rubble of the Twin Towers, and that field in Pennsylvania -- he told
us, his advisors, that the United States faced a new kind of war and
that the strategy of our government would be to take the fight to the
terrorists. That night, he announced to the world that the United
States would make no distinction between the terrorists and the states
that harbor them. He promised that America's words would be credible.
And he has proved true to his word.
Since that day, over two-thirds of al-Qaeda's known leadership have
been captured or killed. And the rest are permanently on the run. And
we are working with governments around the world to bring to justice
al-Qaeda associates -- from Jemya Islamiya, in Indonesia; to Abu Sayef,
in the Philippines; to Ansar al-Islam, in Iraq. Under President Bush's
leadership, the United States and our allies have ended terror regimes
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have delivered
freedom to more than 50 million people in the space of two-and-a-half
years. All regimes are on notice -- supporting terror is not a viable
strategy for the long term.
And of course, we also face every day the possibility of our worst
nightmare: the possibility of sudden, secret attack by chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, the coming together of
the terrorist threat with the world's most dangerous weapons.
September 11th made clear our enemies' goals and provided painful
experience of how far they are willing to go. From the terrorist's own
boasts, we know that they will not hesitate to use the world's most
terrible weapons. In fact, they would welcome the chance to do it.
We can, therefore, not afford to allow the spread of weapons of
mass destruction to continue. For so many years, the world pretended
that important treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were
keeping this problem in check. For many years, the world marked time
while the proliferation threat gathered. For many years, the world
refused to live up to the resolutions -- resolution after resolution --
which it had passed.
Now, the United States is confronting that threat posed by the
spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive new policies from
which we are already seeing results. President Bush has moved our
Nation beyond antiquated theories like mutually assured destruction and
moved forward with the development of ballistic missile defense.
Deploying these defenses builds on the proud legacy of President
Reagan, who first set forth a vision to protect our nation from missile
attack in a famous speech twenty-one years ago next month.
The decision to hold the Iraqi regime accountable after twelve
years of defiance is another part of an aggressive strategy to deal
with the proliferation threat, because it has finally restored the
credibility of the international community to do what it said. The
former Iraqi regime was not just a state sponsor of terror. It was
also for many years one of the world's premier weapons of mass
destruction-producing states. For twelve years, Iraq's former dictator
defied the international community, refusing to disarm or to even
account for his illegal weapons and programs. We know he had both
because he used chemical weapons against Iran and against his own
people -- because, long after those attacks, he admitted having to
stocks and programs to U.N. inspectors. The world gave Saddam Hussein
one last chance to disarm. He did not and now he is out of power.
The President's strong policies are leading other regimes to turn
from the path of seeking these terrible weapons of mass murder.
Diplomacy succeeded in Libya, in part because no one can now doubt the
resolve and purpose of the United States and our allies. The
President's policy gives regimes a clear choice -- they can choose to
pursue dangerous weapons at great peril or they can renounce such
weapons and begin the process of rejoining the international
community.
Libya's leader made the right choice, and other regimes should
follow his example. We are working with the international community to
prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. And with our four
partners in East Asia, we are insisting that North Korea completely,
verifiably, and irreversibly dismantle its nuclear programs.
And as we advance a broad non-proliferation agenda, we also
recognize that proliferators cannot always be stopped by diplomacy
alone. But they can be stopped. Through the President's Proliferation
Security Initiative, the United States and a growing number of global
partners are searching ships carrying suspect cargo and, where
necessary, seizing dangerous materials. The Proliferation Security
Initiative has already proven its worth by stopping a shipment of
centrifuge parts bound for Libya, just in time to reinforce the Libyan
leader's decision to disarm Earlier this month, the President also
announced new proposals to close a loophole that undermines the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, to strengthen anti-proliferation laws and
norms, and to tighten enforcement. The fact is, ladies and gentlemen,
we must strengthen the world's ability to keep dangerous weapons out of
the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes.
We now know, however, that there are actually two paths to weapons
of mass destruction -- secretive and dangerous states that pursue them
and shadowy, private networks and individuals who also traffic in these
materials, motivated by greed or fanaticism or, perhaps, both. And
often these paths meet. The world recently learned of the network
headed by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons
program. For years, Khan and his associates sold nuclear technology
and know-how to some of the world's most dangerous regimes, including
North Korea and Iran.
Working with intelligence officials from the United Kingdom and
other nations, we unraveled the Khan network and we are putting an end
to its criminal enterprise. Its key leaders -- including A.Q. Khan --
are no longer in business, and we are working to dismantle the entire
network. Together, the civilized nations of the world will bring to
justice those who traffic in deadly weapons, shut down their labs,
seize their materials, and freeze their assets.
All of these efforts and many others require the close cooperation
of many nations. Across a range of issues, we are seeing exactly
that. Now, I will not deny that there is a lot of noise and chatter
among the world's great powers. But this noise is obscuring one of the
most striking facts of our time: the world's great powers have never
had better relations with one another. And there has never been a
lower likelihood of great power conflict -- with all the destruction
and disaster that would entails -- since the birth of the nation state
in the mid-17th Century.
In Europe, the threat of another catastrophic, continental war --
omnipresent through most of the last century -- has all but
disappeared. Instead, the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace
-- the dream of centuries -- is closer to reality than at any time in
history. NATO enlargement and EU enlargement are erasing the last
lines of the Cold War and advancing freedom to all of Europe. In
Russia, we are seeing that the path to democracy is uneven and that the
nation's success not yet assured. Yet, we are working closer than ever
with Russia on common problems. And our transatlantic alliance is no
longer preoccupied with existential threats and massed armies poised to
strike the Central European plain. In fact, the remarkable thing is
that Central and East European countries -- once members of the Warsaw
Pact -- have taken up their duties in the defense of freedom in places
like Iraq and Afghanistan.
For many years, it was thought that it was not possible to have
good relations with all of Asia's powers. It was thought that good
relations with China came at the expense of good relations with our
ally Japan -- that good relations with India came at the expense of
constructive engagement with Pakistan. The President has changed this
paradigm. Our Asian alliances have never been stronger. Forces from
Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines are making
important contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has
negotiated free trade agreements with Singapore and Australia. We are
working with the 21 nations of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
Forum on an ambitious agenda designed to bolster economic growth and
promote common security. And at the same time, we are building a
candid, cooperative, and constructive relationship with China that
embraces our common interests but never loses sight of our considerable
differences about values.
And President Bush has brought a new approach to American policy
toward Africa and Latin America, as well. He sees these regions not as
problems to be solved, but as opportunities to be embraced. The
Millennium Challenge Account is revolutionizing the way America
provides aid to developing countries by linking new assistance to good
governance, investment in people, and economic freedom. And the
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- a five-year, $15 billion initiative
-- will help to prevent seven million new infections, treat at least
two million people with life-extending drugs, and provide care for ten
million more people affected by the disease.
The administration's record of engagement with Africa is
unprecedented for a first-term presidency. We are working with leaders
throughout the continent to fight terror, advance democracy, spread
prosperity, and solve regional conflicts. In Liberia, and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan, there is hope of peace for
the first time in many decades.
And in our own neighborhood, the Western hemisphere, President Bush
is committed to a vision of a fully democratic Western hemisphere,
bound by common values and freedom. When he goes to the Summit of the
Americas, recognizing that there is an empty chair because Cuba cannot
attend, since only democracies can attend, he remains committed to the
day when there is a free Cuba. The commitment to freedom, the
commitment to democracy, the commitment to prosperity is showing
results. We have re-energized negotiations on the Free Trade of the
Americas agreement, and completed free trade agreements with Chile and
five other Central American democracies.
We've been busy over the last several years, but as we move forward
with this ambitious agenda, day by day, we never lose site of a central
truth: Lasting peace and long-term security are only possible through
the advance of liberty and justice. Military power alone cannot
protect us from the defining threats of our time. The War on Terror,
like the Cold War, is as much a conflict of visions as a struggle of
armed force. All of the early heroes of the Cold War -- Truman, and
Churchill, and Adenauer -- understood this. Decades later, we seemed
poised to forget it, viewing the Soviet Union as just another state
with interests, and its continued existence -- even its permanence --
as inevitable. It was President Reagan who peeled back the layers of
complacency surrounding detente and saw that underneath, the Soviet
Union had not changed, that the moral element of the early Cold War was
still relevant. President Reagan re-infused the Cold War with moral
purpose. And that renewed sense of purpose allowed the free world to
prevail.
The terrorist ideology is the direct heir to communism, and Nazism,
and fascism -- the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. The
struggle against terror is fundamentally a struggle of vision and
values. The terrorists offer suicide, and death, and pseudo-religious
tyranny. America and our allies seek to advance the cause of liberty
and defend the dignity of every person. We seek, in President Bush's
words, "the advance of freedom, and the peace that freedom brings."
That means, above all, addressing what leading Arab Intellectuals
have called the freedom deficit in the Middle East. The stakes could
not be higher. If the Middle East is to leave behind stagnation, and
tyranny, and violence for export, then freedom must flourish in every
corner of the region.
That is why the United States is pursuing a forward strategy of
freedom for the Middle East. Freedom must be freely chosen -- and we
will seek out and work with those in the Middle East who believe in the
values, and habits, and institutions of liberty, and who desire to see
the rule of law, and freedom of the press, and religious liberty, and
respect for women, and limits on the power of the state, and economic
opportunity thrive. We reject the cultural condescension which alleges
that Arabs or Muslims are somehow not interested in freedom, or aren't
ready for freedom's responsibilities. We will refuse to excuse
tyranny. We will insist on higher standards from our friends. And we
will enlist support from our allies in the region, and beyond.
Iraq and Afghanistan are vanguards of this effort. Fifty million
people have been liberated from two of the most brutal and dangerous
tyrannies of our time. With the help of over 60 nations, the Iraqi and
Afghan peoples are now struggling to build democracies, under difficult
conditions, in the rocky soil of the Middle East. In January,
Afghanistan approved a new and progressive constitution. And later
this year, the Afghan people will hold elections. Every day Iraqis
take more responsibility for their nation's security -- from guarding
facilities, to policing streets, to rebuilding the infrastructure that
Saddam Hussein neglected for decades. The Iraqi people are making
daily progress toward democracy. We are working with the Iraqi
Governing Council to draft a basic law, and a bill of rights. And we
are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a
transition to full sovereignty for Iraq.
The work of building democracy in these places is opposed by
hold-outs from the former oppressors and by foreign terrorists. These
killers seek to advance their ideology of murder by halting all
progress toward democracy and a better future. They are trying to
shake our will -- that of our country, that of our friends. They are
killing Iraqis who are innocent. They are sowing a reign of terror.
But we and the people of Iraq will never be intimidated by thugs and
assassins because America and her forces will stay the course until the
job is done. (Applause.)
The world is watching. The failure of democracy in Iraq and
Afghanistan would condemn millions to misery and embolden terrorists
around the world. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in
those nations will serve the interests of our nation because free
nations do not sponsor terror and do not breed the ideologies of
murder. And success will serve our ideals, as free and democratic
governments in Iraq and Afghanistan inspire hope and encourage reform
throughout the world.
These principles of freedom must also apply to the conflict between
Palestinians and Israelis. President Bush, the first American
president to issue a clear call for a Palestinian state, has stated
plainly that there can be no peace for either side until there is
freedom for both sides. The nature of the Palestinian state and the
quality of its leadership is as important as its borders. Palestinian
leaders need embrace democracy, eliminate corruption, and fight
terrorism. For its part, Israel must help create conditions for a
Palestinian state to emerge. It must do nothing to prejudge the
outcome of a final status agreement. And, it must do more to improve
the lives of the Palestinian people, removing the daily humiliations
that harden the hearts of future generations.
The work of building democracy in these nations is hard -- the work
of building democracy is always hard. Success will require the work of
a generation. Winning the Cold War wasn't easy, either -- and it took
40 years -- but the free world's alliance of strength and conviction
prevailed because we never abandoned our values or our
responsibilities. As in the Cold War, progress may at times seem
halting and uneven. Times of great strategic importance are also times
of great turbulence. It is always easier for Presidents, no less than
citizens, to do the expected thing -- to follow the accepted path.
Boldness is always criticized, change is always suspect, and Presidents
from Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, to Harry Truman, to Ronald Reagan
knew that history is, indeed, the final judge. I can tell you that,
like those Presidents, this President knows that his obligation is not
to the daily headlines but to securing the peace and that it is history
that will be the final judge.
I had a great opportunity to serve on the National Security Council
staff a dozen years ago, when the Berlin Wall fell, and the Warsaw Pact
dissolved, and the Soviet Union gave way to a free Russia. It was, of
course, exhilarating to be in government at such a time and a part of
me felt some small measure of pride. But that pride quickly gave way
to a humble awe for the giants who faced the challenges of the
post-World War II moment -- the Trumans, the Marshalls, the Achesons,
the Kennans -- and to those who reimagined and revitalized that
struggle: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and George
Herbert Walker Bush.
These men and women -- in the most uncertain times, amidst often
noisy acrimony -- made decisions that would bear fruit only years, in
some cases decades, later. My colleagues and I were simply reaping the
harvest of the good work that they had sown.
That harvest -- a safer, freer, better world -- is no less our hope
for the decisions that the United States and our allies and friends are
making today. Realizing this vision may take decades. It will
certainly not happen on my watch. It will not happen on this
President's watch. It will require a commitment of many years. But
that is what Americans do when faced with great peril and great
opportunity. We know that the effort and the wait will be worth it.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
All right, I'm happy to take a few questions, if you have them.
Q Thank you for your great speech. And my question is, is
there any foreseeable time that our military from Iraq will come home,
that we get our boys back and there will be an establishment of the
self-government of the Iraqis?
DR. RICE: Absolutely, the United States will be able, at some
point in time, to rely on the Iraqi people for the further development
of their democracy.
I think that we need to think about our forces as being there until
the job is done. We have not wanted to even try to speculate about
time. The thing to recognize, though, is that the Iraqis are taking
responsibility daily for more and more of their own security. They are
patrolling their streets, they are breaking up terrorist ambitions and
plots daily. We are training Iraqi policemen; we are training the
Iraqi civil defense forces; we are training the Iraqi army. And we are
training them in principles that they did not adhere to during Saddam
Hussein's period, which is that they should be respectful of democratic
values, respectful of the rights of their fellow citizens in Iraq, and
that they should carry out their responsibilities with honor and with
an eye to preserving Iraqi democracy.
They will be capable of doing this on their own, I am absolutely
certain of it. They are a smart people, they are a sophisticated
people. They come from a place of great cultural heritage and great
cultural import. They need the support of the United States and the
allies to get this work done.
Talking to many of the men and women in uniform who are there, they
know why they are there, and they know what they are doing in support
of this great cause. And so I think the best thing we can say to them
as a country is, we support what you're doing; what you're doing is
important to the future of the world, what you're doing is important to
the security of the United States. And we will stay there to support
the Iraqis in what they are doing until the job is done.
We will begin, by the way, a further move towards self-government
when, at the end of June, the Iraqis -- we return sovereignty to an
Iraqi transitional government arrangement of which will be able then to
hold that sovereignty until a time at which they can have free and
complete elections. (Applause.)
Q What are the specific diplomatic approaches towards the
North Korean crisis?
DR. RICE: Thank you. Well, the most important achievement in
dealing with the North Korean issue has been to mobilize a multilateral
approach to the North Koreans so it's not just us and the North
Koreans. The North Koreans would like nothing better than to go back
to the time when the United States and North Korea were dealing
bilaterally on their nuclear program.
In 1994, the Clinton administration signed an agreement with the
North Koreans called the Agreed Framework. It was the right thing to
do at the time. I don't think anybody can be critical of that. The
problem is that within just a couple of years, the North Koreans were
cheating and finding another path to a nuclear weapon. And we're not
going back down that road. When you've seen that happen, you think,
okay, that's happened, you're not very smart to do it again.
So what we are doing this time is that any agreement is going to
have to come in the context of what we're doing with China, what we're
doing with Japan, what we're doing with South Korea, what we're doing
with Russia. And the North Koreans are not going to be able to divide
and conquer the international community on their nuclear program in the
way that they had before. So the six-party talks are extremely
important.
Now, the North Koreans should also recognize that, with the
unraveling of these proliferation networks, the A.Q. Kahn network, what
the Libyans are now freely admitting and talking about, that their
admissions and what they say is not the only source of information
about what's going on in North Korea. And it's probably a good time
for the North Koreans to come clean about what's going on in North
Korea.
What we will do is we will take this one step at a time. We
understand this may take some time. But there can be nothing less than
the verifiable, complete elimination of North Korea's nuclear
programs. And it's going to take place in the context in which it's
not just us that insists on that, because everybody in that region
wants a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. (Applause.)
Q Dr. Rice, the press is implying there is not a lot of
support, public opinion support, within Iraq for our efforts over
there. If there are other reports indicating that there is significant
support, could you address that, please?
DR. RICE: Absolutely. The Iraqi people are going through an
awakening of their politics. They've never had in their lifetimes real
politics, because Saddam Hussein crushed anybody who had any differing
views. And it's wonderful to see them debating the future of Iraq.
How are they going to address the role of women in their
documents?
How are they going to deal with federalism, with the separation of
power between various elements of the government? They're really
having a real political debate. And that's a really good thing.
What is very clear is that they're really glad to have been
liberated and they appreciate the fact that the United States and the
allies liberated them. I'll tell you one of the most stirring speeches
that I've heard in a long time was given by the Iraqi Foreign Minister,
a man named Zabari, when he was up at the United Nations. And he
essentially said, how could the world have let this tyrant go on for so
long? How could you have let him rape and torture our people for so
long and not do something about it? So the Iraqi people know that they
have been liberated from a great national nightmare. And they want to
have this new start.
Now, there are people who don't want Iraq to have a new start. And
they come essentially in two categories: Those who oppressed their
fellow Iraqis before; that is, former loyalists of Saddam Hussein's
regime, who had privileges that they are trying to preserve -- that's
some of the problem in Iraq. The other is, foreign terrorists like
this man Zarqawi who you probably read about, who is an Al Qaeda
affiliate. We've seen him before. He was in Iraq before the war.
He's back in Iraq now. He's determined to try to foment trouble. He
says he's going to try to cause civil war in Iraq.
Because people like Zarqawi and their Al Qaeda affiliates and their
Al Qaeda colleagues know that when Iraq is stable and peaceful and
prosperous and democratic, that we will blow a huge hole in their sense
of inevitability for this murderous jihad that they're trying to carry
out. That's why Zarqawi and those people are in Iraq. And if you
think for one minute that if we weren't in Iraq, they were just going
to be someplace drinking tea? No. (Laughter.) They were going to be
fighting the jihad somewhere. They decide that they're going to do it
in Iraq because they know it's an extremely important battle in the
central front.
I've been really kind of amused that when the President said Iraq
was on the central front in the war on terrorism, people said, oh, no,
no, no, it doesn't have anything to do with the war on terrorism.
What's Zarqawi doing in Iraq? He seems to know it has something to do
with the war on terrorism. So we need to get very clear on what it is
we're doing in Iraq.
Yes, we are giving the Iraqi people an opportunity for a free
Iraq. After 12 years of not dealing with Saddam Hussein, the world
really owes them that. But, as importantly, we are making ourselves
more secure, because we cannot fight the terrorists in New York; we've
got to fight them out there. We have to have an aggressive policy to
go after them. We've got to change the nature of the Middle East so
that you don't have ideologies of hatred that lead people to fly
airplanes into buildings on a pleasant September morning. We are
fighting the war in Iraq for our security, as well as for the benefit
of the Iraqi people. (Applause.)
Q First, just the observation that there is a very special
state-to-state relationship between California and Taiwan. And the
question that I have is, we spoke about hate and we're going into this
election campaign. Like with President Reagan when he brought in the
cruise missile and the Pershing missile, there is a staggering amount
of animosity amongst the Democratic left towards their neighbors, their
coworkers, those of us who are the conservatives. And this goes back
even to the time of Churchill and Chamberlain. Can you address this
animosity that we're going to see in this campaign of the Democratic
left, so adverse to having us take on the totalitarians of the world?
DR. RICE: Well, Americans just need to step back for a moment and
ask themselves several questions about what has happened over the last
two-and-a-half years. We were brutally attacked on September 11th on
our own territory. We didn't know it was coming an hour before it
happened. We didn't know it was coming minutes before it happened.
How do you know when you have let a gathering threat go too long? You
know when somebody attacks. That's not acceptable. And the President
has said, he is going to do everything that he can not to put America
in that position again. He tells everybody who comes into the Oval, my
solemn duty is to protect the people of the United States of America.
So one thing we can all agree on as Americans is we don't ever want to
go through September 11th again if we can humanly avoid it.
That means that you don't get to go back to the days when we
thought of terrorism as just some kind of law enforcement problem.
Yes, there were people who were fighting to make us be more aggressive
in Afghanistan and wipe out al Qaeda. There certainly were in the last
administration and this administration. But we have not really
mobilized our country for a war on terrorism. We had not mobilized the
international community to recognize that, yes, you have to have broad
sharing of intelligence, you have to have broad sharing of law
enforcement. But you also have got to use when you must the military
instrument to deprive them of sanctuary, which is what we did in
Afghanistan, so that they don't have camps in Afghanistan anymore --
that you have to go after terrorist states that are a gathering threat
like Saddam Hussein.
Who are we fooling? We went to war against them in 1991. I guess
he was a threat; President Clinton bombed him in 1998. I guess he was
a threat; he was shooting at our aircraft every day, practically, in
the no-fly zones, as we flew military missions to try to keep him from
harming his own people or from attacking his neighbors. He was
shooting at our airplanes. He was defying the international
community's calls and demands that he disarm. This was one of the most
dangerous regimes of all time -- of recent times, sitting in the
world's most dangerous region.
Now, are we better off that he's gone? Is the Middle East better
off that he's gone? Is it worth the sacrifice to rid this region of
one of the most dangerous regimes in modern times? Yes.
And so that's what we need to step back and look at. And if
somebody has got a better idea of how to protect America, then I think
they ought to put it forward. That's the debate that I think we will
have. That's fine. That's what debate is all about. But I hope that
as we have the debate, we will also try very hard to send a strong
message that America is going to stay after the terrorists, that
America is not going to abandon the Iraqi people, that we will be there
with them through this struggle, that the United States of America
finishes the jobs that it began.
That's a worthy debate for the United States of America, because
the role of the United States is the major one in foreign policy. But
at a time of consequence, you don't have a choice but to take the
difficult and tough road sometimes, and that's what this President has
done. (Applause.)
There was one -- all the way back, there's a lady, yes.
Q Dr. Rice, I have more than one question, if I may. Thank
you. (Laughter.) I would like to know, how close in actuality are you
in capturing Osama bin Laden? And if you could elaborate a little bit
on the close ties of France and Germany with Iraq. And also, what is
the agenda that the United States might have with Haiti besides sending
in 50 military men to guard the embassy? That's not going to be
enough.
DR. RICE: Thank you. Well, thank you. I'm glad that you
particularly asked the last question about Haiti because I would like
to have a chance to address that. But let me go -- look, I don't know,
these people who report in papers were close to him, were just close --
I don't know what they're talking about. (Laughter.) You know, I
assume that if we are so fortunate to bring -- to find Osama bin Laden,
that is going to happen with one of those middle of the night phone
calls like I got about Saddam Hussein, and I will be perfectly happy to
take it.
But he's a very difficult target. We continue to work. It's
basically a business of having people to help you to find him, and the
good news is we have a lot of Afghans and others who work with us, and
eventually, we will.
I just want to mention that there are others who are equally, if
not more dangerous. His deputy, Zawahiri, if you see that name go
down, that will be a tremendous -- of tremendous benefit. Zarqawi, who
I mentioned, is somebody who is probably organizing a lot of the
resistance -- a lot of the problem in Iraq. It is also the case that
we have taken out much of their field-generalship. When you read names
like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad or Abu Zabaydah or al Libi, you should know
that what you're doing is you're taking out their field generals. And
those are the people who really plan these operations.
And so it would be absolutely an important thing to get Osama bin
Laden. But let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a big network
that requires broad leadership and requires leadership at several
levels, and taking out the leadership is important.
As to Haiti, this is an extremely difficult situation, and it is
really time for all the parties to recognize that violence is getting
them nowhere. We have a very strong concern, and the President issued
a statement last night for the Haitian people, for the dangers that
they face. We are intensifying our efforts to try to get humanitarian
assistance to places that are having difficultly getting it.
But what we need is a political solution in Haiti. Colin Powell is
working many, many hours with his Canadian counterpart, with his French
counterpart, with his counterparts from around the region, particularly
from the Caribbean area, to try and get the opposition and President
Aristide to agree on a political course going forward.
At which time, incident to that, you could probably find an
international security and police force to try and help stabilize the
situation. But without some kind of political path forward, it's just
extremely difficult to deal with the situation. But I want everybody
to know that it is a problem about which we have considerable concern.
We are working very hard with Haiti's neighbors, as well as with the
Canadians and with the French, to see if we can get to a political
solution which could then provide a basis for stability.
But every -- all of the parties in Haiti need to step back and look
at where they are. President Aristide needs to take a hard look at
where he is; the opposition needs to take a hard look at where they
are. And hopefully we can come to some solution.
Thank you, very much. (Applause.)
END
|