|
Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
I spent most of the 1980s working for George Shultz on issues in the Asia-Pacific region, four years as the assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific, and three years as the American ambassador to Indonesia - which, by the way, is in the news and has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. And I came here quite often, sometimes with Secretary Shultz and sometimes on my own, and San Francisco was then and remains today a gateway to the Asia-Pacific region. The Asia-Pacific region is one of the most dynamic and promising parts of the world.
I got a reception like this back in the spring; it was a very different sort of crowd. I was asked by the White House to go to Capitol Hill to address an Israel solidarity rally and I thought it was very important to say something about the fact that innocent Palestinians were suffering and dying as well, and that crowd wasn't particularly eager to hear it. But I suspect today is similar also in that most of the people in that crowd, even if they didn't agree with me, wanted to hear what I had to say, and I think that's true here and I'm glad to be here.
At the very beginning of the Shultz period as secretary of state, I was working on Middle East issues, and I remember what a relief it was to move from the Middle East to dealing with the Asia-Pacific region, to be working in a region where people were solving problems instead of creating them, a region where the present was better than the past and people were confident that the future would be better than the present. That attitude has been responsible for the remarkable progress that the Asia-Pacific region made in the last couple decades of the 20th century. It's progress that I think still today holds out promise for great progress in this century. But the 21st century has opened with a grim new reminder that threats have not gone away, that evil has not gone away. The evil of terror has struck that beautiful island paradise of Bali. And now, instead of traveling to Asian capitals to discuss peaceful progress, I find myself having just returned from three European capitals, where most of our talk was about how to win the war on terror. But I am convinced we can win that war, and if we show the same determination that our previous generations showed in fighting the war against fascism in the middle of the last century, and later the war against communism, that we can hope, in Winston Churchill's words in the middle of World War II, to "emerge on those bright sunny uplands that can spell future progress."
At the risk of a little bit of a travelogue, I'd like to structure my remarks this afternoon around that whirlwind three-day trip that we just made to London, Turkey and Brussels. In fact, according to my body clock, I think I'm still supposed to be somewhere over the Atlantic. Let me take a brief look at each city we visited, because each of these three major capitals, in its own way, symbolizes an important dimension of the war on terrorism. Brussels symbolizes the importance of the coalition in the war on terror. London symbolizes what we need to do if we hope to peacefully disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass terror. And finally, Ankara, the capital of Turkey, symbolizes the importance of supporting moderate Muslims - which we must do if we want to build a better world beyond the war on terror.
Brussels: The Importance of the Coalition
Brussels, of course, is the headquarters of NATO. I remember the first press conference of President George H. W. Bush right after the Berlin Wall came down 13 years ago. He was asked pointedly what the need was for NATO, now that the need seemingly had gone away. Many people discounted his wise answer, that a threat did remain and its name was "uncertainty." Looking back, I recall my own thoughts about NATO at that time in terms of one great fear and two great hopes. First, the fear that NATO, would, in fact, disappear if the world made the mistake of thinking, like the nay-sayers at that press conference, that just because the threat we feared so long had disappeared that there was nothing more to worry about - and that the mechanism that had been so effective in dealing with threats, the North Atlantic Alliance - would no longer be available.
Alongside that fear I also had two great hopes: that NATO could help the new democracies that were emerging in Central and Eastern Europe, to help move them forward with confidence to build free institutions and representative government; and that this consolidation of democratic progress in Central and Eastern Europe would not erect a wall against Russia, but instead could build a bridge to Russia - a democratic Russia that would have no security conflicts with NATO. To the contrary, Russia's security concerns would tend to overlap with those of NATO and the West. But here we are, 13 years later, and history records, and the recent Prague summit of the NATO nations reinforces, that those two hopes have come true and the great fear has been overcome. NATO not only survived, it adapted - and dealt effectively with a new kind of threat, the threat of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Balkans. NATO has grown, welcoming new democracies and encouraging the democratic process by doing so. NATO has established an unprecedented relationship with an increasingly democratic Russia, a relationship that has contributed to better relations between Russia and the countries of the Atlantic alliance, including countries of the former Warsaw Pact.
NATO has demonstrated that an alliance based on common values of freedom and democracy has more staying power than any alliance built purely on a narrow coincidence of interests. NATO has demonstrated that it is an alliance with the flexibility, under vastly different circumstances, to be relevant in confronting changing threats and seizing new opportunities. At the beginning of the 21st century, NATO has been an instrument not only for solidifying peace and progress in Europe and building bridges across that continent, but also for shaping a response to the extraordinary new threat posed by global terrorism.
The attacks of September 11th not only killed thousands of Americans but also citizens of some 80 nations. This global attack required a global response. And the world responded. NATO invoked Article V from its charter - the article that states that an attack against one country is an attack on all - for the first time in its history in response to something that NATO's founders probably never envisioned: an attack on U.S. soil. Many countries have contributed to the significant progress we've made against terrorists in the last year. Some have joined us publicly; others choose more quiet forms of cooperation. But 17 nations have contributed some 6,000 troops to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and to the international peacekeeping force in Kabul. Just as important, if not more so, the work of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with more than 90 countries has resulted in the arrest of some 2,400 dangerous individuals worldwide. We are not alone in this defense of freedom and justice and peace. The coalition will remain vitally important as we face other dimensions in the war on terrorism - a commitment that was reaffirmed in very strong language by our allies in Brussels.
London: Coalition's Role in Disarmament of Iraq's Arsenal of Terror
In London, our discussions focused on how to achieve that goal of disarming Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, peacefully if at all possible, but by force if necessary. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been the world leaders in that effort. When I saw Prime Minister Blair, he'd just met with a group of ten Iraqi women who'd given him their own accounts of the intimidation, torture and murder inflicted on their families by the current regime in Baghdad. It was plain that Blair had been profoundly moved. In Iraq, the experiences of those ten women, unfortunately, is multiplied a thousand fold. Theirs is part of a larger story told, in part, in a dossier released this week by the British government, outlining brutal human rights abuses in Iraq. The former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter recently spoke about that horror. He did so reluctantly, because, as he put it, he's "waging peace now." He described a scene more horrible than he was actually willing to say, but what he did say was bad enough. He described a prison in Baghdad whose stench was unreal. It was an amalgam he said, "of urine, feces, vomit and sweat," a hellhole where prisoners were, as he reports it, "howling and dying of thirst." The oldest prisoners were 12 years old; the youngest were toddlers. Their crime: being children of political enemies of that regime. It's hard to imagine a more grim symbol of a regime that rules by terror and embraces terror as a policy against those who oppose it than a children's prison.
That regime poses a particular danger to the Iraqi people. But it also poses a danger to the world at large. But the fact that Saddam terrorizes his own people is also his greatest weakness, a crucial weakness if it should become necessary to use force to disarm his arsenal of terror. Since Saddam Hussein rules by fear and fear alone, when his people no longer fear him, he will have to fear them. But we still do hope to achieve that disarmament by peaceful means, if at all possible. The UN Security Council's unanimous passage on November 8 of Resolution 1441 opened a decisive final chapter in the 11-year struggle to achieve that goal. Remember, though, the goal is not merely the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The goal is disarmament - the elimination of Iraq's programs to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
One of the questions that have been asked frequently is whether disarming Iraq would distract the United States from the global war on terror. The answer to that is simple and clear: disarming Iraq and fighting the war on terror are not merely related. Disarming Iraq's arsenal of terror is a crucial part of winning the war on terror. If we can disarm or defeat a terrorist regime in Baghdad it will be a defeat for terrorists globally. Let me explain why, and I'll start with the words of Secretary of State Powell, when he testified before the House International Relations Committee earlier this year. "Since September 11th, 2001,"Secretary Powell said, "The world is a more dangerous place. As a consequence of the terrorist attacks on that day, a new reality was born. The world had to recognize that the potential connection between terrorists and weapons of mass destruction had moved terrorism to a new level of threat, a threat that could not be deterred because of this connection, the connection between states developing weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist organizations willing to use them without any compunction and in an undeterrable fashion."
The war on terrorism is a global war, and one that must be pursued everywhere. We cannot allow one of the world's worst dictators to continue developing the world's worst weapons. We cannot allow one of the world's most murderous dictators to provide terrorists a sanctuary in Iraq. Clearly, the peaceful implementation of the role of the United Nations cannot happen without a fundamental change in the attitude of the Baghdad regime. It is not and cannot be the responsibility of the inspectors to scour every square inch of Iraq. Indeed, one former inspector was described recently as saying that would be like "trying to search under the snows of Siberia for a small box." It cannot be their responsibility to search out and find every illegal weapon or system and disarm it. That would be a task beyond their means and beyond their responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Baghdad regime to do so. What inspectors can do is give us some confidence if the regime has, in fact, assumed that responsibility, if it has, in fact, declared and destroyed every weapon of mass destruction and every delivery system and disclosed and destroyed every development program.
Saddam Hussein and his regime must fundamentally change their attitude and finally implement a disarmament that they agreed to more than a decade ago. If the inspectors are forced to go back to the old cat-and-mouse game that the world saw so often before, then the effort to resolve this problem peacefully will have failed. We are trying to achieve the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - to eliminate this serious danger to the United States and the world - if possible, by peaceful means. But, by one means or another, we will eliminate that threat. As President Bush made clear in Prague, Iraq must disarm: "Voluntarily, or by force, that goal will be achieved."
Eleven years of bitter experience makes it clear that Saddam Hussein will give up those weapons only if he believes that doing so is the only way for him and his regime to survive.
The debate is not between those who desire peace and those who love war. When I was sitting in my office early last year - long before September 11 - I asked to get a copy from the Army Museum of a painting of the Civil War battlefield of Antietam the day after the battle. That was the bloodiest day in American history - I believe the only day when more Americans died on a single day than September 11. I put it up there to remind myself and everybody who comes to my office what a horrible thing war is. Indeed, I know of no one - no one except perhaps the terrorists - who loves war. The issue we face today as a nation is how best to increase the chances of a peaceful outcome.
Let's acknowledge that there is a seeming paradox here that for some people may be difficult to understand. The simple truth is that our only hope of achieving that peaceful outcome is if we can confront the Iraqi regime with a credible threat of force behind our diplomacy. To be effective, the two must be part of a single policy. They are not two separate policies.
President Kennedy understood that paradox very well in 1962. When he began negotiating with the Soviet Union for the removal of their missiles from Cuba, he assembled a powerful force to demonstrate that, if the missiles were not removed peacefully, the United States would force their removal. That action was risky, but without it, a peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis would never have been possible. Some people said back then that Kennedy should have waited until the threat was imminent. We hear that again today. But we cannot wait to act until the threat is imminent. The notion that we can do so assumes that we will know when the threat is imminent. That wasn't true even when the United States was presented with the very obvious threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba. As President Kennedy said 40 years ago, "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." If that was true in 1962, facing a threat that was comparatively easy to see, how much more true is it today against threats developed by terrorists who use the freedom of democratic societies to plot and plan in our midst in secret.
Stop and think for a moment. Just when did the attacks of September 11 become imminent? Certainly they were imminent on September 10, although we didn't know it. In fact, the September 11 terrorists established themselves in the United States long before that date - many months or even a couple of years earlier. Anyone who believes that we can wait until we have certain knowledge that attacks are imminent has failed to connect the dots that took us to September 11.
As we seek a peaceful removal of the threat posed by Iraqi weapons, we recognize that we would never have succeeded in the United Nations without the support of our coalition partners. And we would have no chance of getting Saddam Hussein to take the United Nation's 17th and latest resolution seriously were it not backed up by the resolve of the brave men and women in America's armed forces and those of many other countries.
When the national security of the United States is at stake, we are not playing games. We cannot tolerate the game that Secretary Powell has correctly dismissed as "rope-a-dope in the desert," the game that the Baghdad regime played so skillfully over the last decade. The president of the United States has made his determination clear; his intentions are unmistakable. If Saddam Hussein and his regime underestimate our will and this coalition, they will have made a big mistake.
Ankara: Moderate Islam and Building a Better World Beyond the War on Terror
My visit to that third capital, Ankara, came during an extraordinary moment in Turkish history. It was fascinating to visit that city at one of the most critical times in the history of modern Turkey's relationship with the rest of Europe, a time when Turkey hopes at the coming December 12 summit of the European Union in Copenhagen to achieve a date to begin talks for Turkish succession to the European Union. Ankara symbolizes to me the importance of supporting moderate Muslim countries and people, which is critical - in order to work for peace and to build a better world beyond the war on terror.
This is also a crucial time for Turkey because that Muslim-majority country has a new government, a government headed by a party that had special appeal for Muslim voters, but a party that rejects the label Islamist and supports the secular principles of modern Turkey. Turkey can be a useful model for others in the Muslim world. That is because, in the long run, real success in the war on terror requires building what the president called in the State of the Union address last January a "just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror." "America," the president said, "must take the side of brave men and women who advocate the values of freedom and tolerance around the world - including the Islamic world - because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment."
It is our good fortune, our good fortune here in this country, our good fortune as members of the community of Western values, that Turkey, one of our strongest and most reliable and most self-reliant allies, occupies one of the most important strategic crossroads in the world. In Ankara, we had a series of very positive and constructive discussions about Turkey's future - a future of further integration with Europe, a future of economic and democratic progress, a future of freedom and tolerance. I discussed with the head of the new governing party, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the new prime minister, Abdullah Gul, a range of very important matters including, of course, the threat now posed by Iraq's arsenal of terror. With the cooperation of the Turks and our other allies, Saddam Hussein should make no mistake: He is surrounded by the international community. This unity of international will is the most hopeful route to achieving a peaceful resolution - through the prompt and complete disarmament of Iraq's most horrible weapons of mass terror.
Turkey's commitment to peace, though, is also demonstrated by peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, including their leadership of the peacekeeping force in Kabul. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait 12 years ago, Turkey was crucial in the coalition that liberated that country. Later Turkey helped us in Operation Provide Comfort, enabling hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees to return to their homes in Iraq. Turkish forces played an important role in Operation Restore Hope early in the 1990s, an operation that rescued some 200,000 Somalis from starvation. Perhaps most important, modern Turkey also demonstrates that a democratic system is indeed compatible with Islam. In upholding a peaceful vision of Islam's morals and values, Turkey offers a valuable model for Muslim-majority countries striving to realize the ideals of freedom, democracy and secularism. Turkey's recent election has been described by some as a "political earthquake," and there is no question that it has transformed Turkey's political landscape. But most informed observers agree that in this election Turks were casting their votes for the concept of responsible and accountable representation - they were not, as some might fear, seeking to politicize religion.
The ruling Justice and Development Party - they call it the AK Party - which is best known for its Muslim identity, rejects the Islamic label. It has strongly declared its belief in a Turkish destiny in Europe. Leaders of that party have traveled to 14 European capitals in less than that many days to argue Turkey's case for joining Europe, knowing full well what that will require of Turkey. The party has repeatedly expressed its support for the separation of religion and the state, which is the basis of Turkish democracy. If the AK Party continues to carry through with its stated positions, there is no more reason to fear this party than religious-based parties in Europe that combine religious faith with belief in tolerance and religious freedom and the separation of church and state. It was clear in our discussions this week that the new government is working to realize people's best hopes, not their worst fears.
Europe now has a strategic opportunity. By helping Turkey realize its aspirations to join the E.U., Europe would contribute to the progress of a country that has the potential to be a model. Turkey's success could demonstrate to the world's 1.2 billion Muslims that there is a far better path - far better than the path of destruction and despair that the terrorists offer. If Europe's leaders stand by Turkey, they will be making a great contribution to building that "better world beyond the war on terror." The stakes are huge.
People who share the values of freedom and democracy that grew out of European civilization are seeing increasingly that these are not just Western values or European values. They are Muslim and Asian and universal values as well. They are the bridge that spans civilizations. Turkey's democratic model can also serve as an inspiration to Iraqis. It is important to democratic Turkey, and to us, that the people of Iraq should eventually be able to govern themselves democratically, with full respect for the rights of all Iraq's citizens, and that the territorial integrity of that country be maintained. A democratic Iraq can stimulate economic growth with neighbors like Turkey and stabilize the region.
I was told recently about a former student of mine from Johns Hopkins, a young Arab woman, who's working in Washington now as a human rights activist essentially, who had maybe heard too many demonstrators and was convinced we were doing the wrong thing. She went to London recently and spoke with quite a few Iraqis. Every one of them told her it's time for the United States to do something, our people are suffering terribly. It was enough to change her mind. Once freed from Saddam's tyranny, it is reasonable to expect that Iraq's educated, industrious population, a population of more than 20 million, could build a modern society that would be a source of prosperity, not insecurity, for its neighbors.
We may someday look back on this moment in history as the time when the West defined itself for the 21st century - not in terms of geography or race or religion or culture or language, but in terms of values, the values of freedom, and tolerance and democracy. That great British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other systems that have ever been tried." In our time, more and more people who have tried those other systems are turning, in different ways, to freedom and democracy.
I'd like to close with one more story about our former secretary of state and my former boss, George Shultz. Every new ambassador heading out to his or her post would go to George's office for a picture with the secretary of state that we would hang proudly in our embassy offices. And each time a new ambassador came in, George would take them to this enormous globe that stood some three or four feet tall on the floor of his office. He'd casually say, "Just for this picture, turn the globe to your country." The new diplomat would eagerly spin the globe to France or Germany or Mali. And it was at that point that the secretary would say, "No, let me explain something," as he slowly turned it back to the United States.
I have to confess that by the time I went to Indonesia, I'd already heard the story, so I passed that exam. But George Shultz's exercise illustrates two very important things. First, the security of the United States must be foremost in our minds. And, second, people around the world look to the United States for leadership, whether it be as an example of representative government or in fighting terrorism, the great evil of our time. When we guard our own interests properly, we help shape a secure and peaceful world.
For people who cherish peace and freedom these are indeed difficult times. But such times can deepen our understanding of the truth. And this truth we know: that the greatest threat to peace and freedom in our time is terrorism. So this truth we should also affirm: the future does not belong to the terrorists. The future belongs to those who dream the oldest and noblest dream of all: the dream of peace and freedom.
