• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

03 December 2002

Wolfowitz on Iraq, War on Terror, Turkey's Role in Europe

(Speech December 2 in London by Deputy Defense Secretary) (8420)
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz spoke to the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London December 2 that the goal in
Iraq is "disarmament-the elimination of Iraq's programs to build
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver
them. Disarming Saddam Hussein and fighting the war on terror are not
merely related; the first is a crucial part of the second."
Wolfowitz also discussed the importance of Turkey's role in the Muslim
world and in Europe. He said Europe "now has a strategic opportunity -
by helping Turkey realize its aspirations to join the EU [European
Union], Europe would contribute to the progress of a country that has
the potential to be a model for the Muslim world."
This ties in with the war on terrorism, Wolfowitz said, because that
"requires more than just defeating and capturing terrorists. In the
long run, real success also requires building what President Bush
referred to in his State of the Union Address last January as a 'just
and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.' Doing so means
supporting people who share our values of tolerance and freedom, and
who are struggling to achieve them, particularly in the Muslim world."
He added, "Turkey's success could demonstrate to the world's 1.2
billion [1,200 million] Muslims that there is a far better path than
the path of destruction and despair offered by the terrorists and
demonstrate that the benefits of free and prosperous and open
societies are available equally to Muslims as to everyone.
"Turkey's democratic model can also serve as an inspiration to Iraq.
It is vital to democratic Turkey, and to us, that the people of Iraq
also govern themselves democratically, with full respect for the
rights of all its citizens, and that the territorial integrity of the
country be maintained. A democratic Iraq can stimulate economic growth
with neighbors like Turkey and stabilize the region."
As Europe's leaders stand by Turkey, they will be making a great
contribution to the war on terror and to building what President Bush
called 'a better world beyond,'" Wolfowitz said.
Concerning the inspections in Iraq, he said the UN Security Council's
Resolution 1441ordering the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction "opened a decisive final chapter in the eleven-year
struggle to achieve that goal."
The United States and its coalition partners, including Great Britain,
have demonstrated "a unity of purpose that is essential to convincing
the current Iraqi regime that this time the world is serious,"
Wolfowitz said.
Following is a transcript of his speech:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense 
Washington, D.C.
REMARKS BY DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PAUL WOLFOWITZ
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Arundel House, 
London, England
December 2, 2002.
In July of 1990, I was privileged to be here attending what was the
first post-Cold War Summit of NATO, hosted by then-Prime Minister
Thatcher. In opening that historic summit conference-at a time when
many people were questioning whether there was any longer a need for
NATO now that the Berlin Wall had disappeared-the British Prime
Minister began by remarking that Europe was standing at the dawn of a
new era, as promising in its own way as 1919 and 1945, she said with
irony dripping from her voice. Clearly, that reference to earlier
post-war eras was intended not only to underscore the promise of the
moment but also the uncertainty of the future and the danger of
believing that there were no longer threats in the world simply
because the threat that we had worried about for so long had
disappeared.
I remember the first press conference of President George H.W. Bush-or
Bush 41, as we call him-after the Berlin Wall came down. He was asked
what need was there for NATO now that the threat had gone away. I
remember how many people discounted his wise answer that a threat did
remain, and the threat was "uncertainty."
The intervening years have demonstrated both the promise of that new
era and the continuing relevance of NATO. Barely a month after that
summit here in London, Iraq attacked Kuwait and we found ourselves
facing the first major conflict of that new era. During the 1990s,
NATO not only welcomed three new members but found itself the
instrument of ending ethnic strife and genocide in the Balkans. Now,
at the beginning of the 21st Century, NATO has been the instrument for
solidifying peace in Europe and building bridges across the continent
- at the same time that it is putting in place an historic response to
the extraordinary new threat posed by international terrorism.
The success of the recent Prague Summit is gratifying to me
personally. I recall my own visit to Prague in April of 1991 to attend
a remarkable event: Manfred Woerner, who was then the Secretary
General of NATO and Vaclav Havel, the President of Czechoslovakia had
invited representatives of all the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries to
an unprecedented conference on European security - and indeed they all
came. Such a (inaudible) conference had never happened before. Yes,
there was still a Warsaw Pact at that time. It seems like ages ago. It
was on that occasion that we had private discussions with President
Havel about the possibility, which then still seemed remote, that
Warsaw Pact countries might eventually join NATO - indeed they have.
A year later, I recall being in Moscow - this was 1992 - for
discussions with my counterpart in the Russian Ministry of Defense,
Deputy Minister, the first civilian deputy minister, Andrei Kokoshin.
On that occasion, we pointed out that not only was NATO not a threat
to Russia, but indeed it was entirely reasonable to expect that
someday NATO and Russia could be security partners.
It is a real pleasure, therefore, to be able to say a decade later
that NATO has not only survived, but it has extended the benefits of
Alliance membership to the new democracies of Central and Eastern
Europe, and it has done so while also developing a new and positive
relationship with an increasingly democratic Russia.
Indeed, what NATO has succeeded in demonstrating is that an alliance
based on common values of freedom and democracy has had more staying
power than any historic alliance built purely on a narrow coincidence
of interests. It has also demonstrated that NATO is an alliance with
the flexibility, at different times, under vastly different
circumstances, to be relevant in confronting changing threats and
seizing new opportunities.
Tomorrow, I travel to Ankara, another capital of an important
democratic ally and a steadfast partner in securing peace.
But today, I am happy to be here in Great Britain, the birthplace of
so many of the modern institutions of liberty and democracy that we
Americans sometimes mistakenly claim as our own. Indeed, the political
philosopher who most directly influenced the framers of our
Constitution was a Frenchman, Baron Charles de Montesquieu, who
discerned in the developing political institutions of Eighteenth
Century England the outlines of modern liberal democracy. And so, when
America was breaking away-on which point, I must note, some British
leaders have gone on record agreeing that "a little rebellion now and
then is a good thing"- when we were setting out on our own, we knew we
owed a great deal to the example of this government as we set up ours.
As beneficiaries of that example, we need to thank the members of
Parliament and the people of Great Britain who have continued to
foster this democratic tradition. And so, when we come to Britain,
Americans feel at home.
In 1982, when President Reagan spoke at Westminster, he paid tribute
to the role of Parliament in strengthening the rule of law and
advancing what he called the "great civilized ideas." He also spoke
about the character of our British allies. He told the story of an
elderly British woman whose home was bombed and nearly obliterated
during the Blitz. As rescuers searched through the wreckage, they
found a bottle of brandy that the woman had placed behind a staircase.
When they finally got to her, the poor lady was barely conscious, so a
rescuer pulled the cork from the brandy and gave her a taste. As she
quickly came around she said, "There now, put that back. That's for
emergencies."
My boss, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has observed that "everything [is]
easier" when British forces are with you. Americans-from the soldiers
in the field to the leaders in Washington-could not agree more. From
the first days of the war on terror, Prime Minister Blair, members of
Parliament, the British people and British forces in the field have
stood with America and other members of the coalition in the war on
terrorism. And for that we are indeed grateful.
The Importance of the Coalition
It is difficult to exaggerate how much the fury of September 11th
changed America's outlook on the world. And although the attacks took
place in the United States, no one should lose sight of the fact that
people from some 80 nations - including the United Kingdom - were
killed when the World Trade Towers were brought down. And the innocent
victims included not only Christians and Jews, but innocent Muslims as
well.
That global attack required a global response. And there has been one.
The commitment of our allies and partners has shown that we are indeed
not alone in this defense of freedom and justice and peace.
As Prime Minister Blair said recently, "This is a new type of war,
fought in a different way by different means. But, as with all wars,
it will test not just our ability to fight, but our character, our
resilience and, the Prime Minister said, our belief in our own way of
life." Indeed, this new war has tested us on all fronts, and we have
responded on all fronts. Immediately following the attack, President
Bush defined the scope of our response in his address to a joint
session of Congress when he said: "We will direct every resource at
our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence,
every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and
every necessary weapon of war - (inaudible) the Pentagon notice that
we came last I might add - every necessary weapon of war," the
President said, "to the disruption and to the defeat of the global
terror network. "
We have been joined on all these fronts by our allies and partners,
especially our NATO allies. For the first time in its history, NATO
invoked Article V-in a way that some never thought we would, because
of an attack on the United States. NATO AWACS, developed to counter a
Soviet attack on Western Europe, instead were deployed to the United
States to monitor our airspace and help prevent further terrorist
attacks.
Many countries have contributed to the significant progress made in
the last year. Some have joined us publicly; others have chosen quiet
and discrete forms of cooperation. More than 150 countries have
blocked terrorist assets of more than $100 million dollars.
Seventeen nations contributed some 6,000 troops to Operation Enduring
Freedom and to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul,
led first by the United Kingdom. Equally important, if not more so,
the worldwide efforts of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies
in cooperation with more than 90 countries have resulted in the arrest
of some 2,400 individuals.
The coalition will remain vitally important as we face other
dimensions in the war on terrorism. As President Bush said recently at
the Prague Summit of NATO, "Never has our need for collective defense
been more urgent... Freedom," he said, "still has enemies.... Every
free nation is a potential target [of terrorists and terrorist
states], including the nations of Europe," a fact that has led the
world to unite in facing, what President Bush called, "the unique and
the urgent threat posed by Iraq."
Peaceful Resolution of the Iraq Problem
So, let me here say a few words here about Iraq. The UN Security
Council's unanimous passage on November 8th of Resolution 1441,
ordering the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, opened
a decisive final chapter in the eleven-year struggle to achieve that
goal. That strong expression of the international community, backed up
by the determination of President Bush with the strong bipartisan
support from both houses of the U.S. Congress and many expressions of
international coalition support-particularly from the United
Kingdom-demonstrate a unity of purpose that is essential if we are to
convince the current Iraqi regime that this time the world is serious.
It tells Baghdad in no uncertain terms that the time has come-once and
for all-for Iraq to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.
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.
Disarming Saddam Hussein and fighting the war on terror are not merely
related; the first is a crucial part of the second.
The peaceful implementation of Resolution 1441 can only happen if
there is a fundamental change in the attitude of the Iraqi regime. It
is not and cannot be the responsibility of the inspectors to scour
every square inch of Iraq. It cannot be their responsibility to search
out and find every illegal weapon or system. That would be a task
beyond their means. Nor is it their responsibility to disarm Iraq.
That is the responsibility of the Iraqi regime itself. What inspectors
can do is give us some confidence if the regime has, in fact, assumed
that responsibility, if it has, in fact, declared every weapon of mass
destruction and every development program that exists and has, in
fact, destroyed those and dismantled those programs.
The bottom line is that 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 the
world saw so often before, then the effort to resolve this problem
peacefully will have failed.
However, let me make it clear that President Bush is making every
effort to bring about the disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction without the use of force. The goal is to achieve the
disarmament of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and to
do so-to eliminate this very serious danger to 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 will
disarm-"voluntarily, or by force, that goal will be achieved," in the
President's words.
But Saddam Hussein will not easily give up the weapons, which he
worked so hard to obtain and has paid such a high price to keep. It
has been estimated that the Iraqi government has sacrificed more than
$100 billion in oil revenues to avoid complying with the UN
resolutions that mandated the end of its Weapons of Mass Destruction
programs
Saddam Hussein will give up those weapons only if he believes that
doing so is the only way in which he and his regime can survive.
The debate is not between those who desire peace and those who love
war. I know of no one, no one, except the terrorists, who loves war.
The issue is how best to increase the odds of a peaceful outcome.
Let's acknowledge that there is a seeming paradox here. The simple
truth is that our only hope, and let me emphasize-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.
That paradox was well understood by President John Kennedy in 1962.
When Kennedy began negotiating with the Soviet Union for the removal
of their missiles from Cuba, he assembled a powerful force to
demonstrate to Khrushchev 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 not have been possible.
As Prime Minister Blair has reminded us recently, given the ongoing
threats we face, we must remain vigilant. We must be prepared to act.
We cannot wait to act until the threat is imminent. The notion that we
can wait to prepare 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 at that time, "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." That was John Kennedy
40 years ago.
If it was true 40 years ago facing a threat that was comparatively
easy to discern, how much more true is it today against threats
developed by terrorists who use the freedoms of democratic societies
to plot and plan in secret.
Just stop and think for a moment. When were the attacks of September
11th imminent? Certainly they were imminent on September 10th,
although we didn't know it. In fact, the September 11th terrorists had
established themselves in the United States long before that date -
months or even a couple of years before. Anyone who believes that we
can wait until we have certain knowledge that attacks are imminent,
has failed to connect the dots that led to September 11th.
As we seek a peaceful outcome to the Iraqi problem, 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 UN's seventeenth and latest
resolution seriously were it not backed up by the resolve of the brave
men and women in the armed forces of our two nations and those of many
others.
Winston Churchill expressed a similar truth about the will and means
to use force when he observed in 1949 that "we arm to parley." As that
great statesman and leader knew so well, in some cases, only a
credible threat of force opens the way to diplomacy.
President Bush has made it clear that when the national security of
the United States is at stake, he will not play games. He will not
tolerate the game that Secretary of State Powell has characterized as
"rope-a-dope in the desert"; the game that the Iraqi regime was so
adept at playing 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 the
President of the United States and his partners here in the United
Kingdom and around the world, they will have made a big mistake.
Turkey as a Member of Europe
Let me talk about a broader aspect of the war on terrorism and
something that connects to the very important current issues facing
Turkey in Europe.
Soon after September 11th, my boss, Secretary Don Rumsfeld reminded
people of a big mistake that we should not make. It's a big mistake,
he said, to focus too much on one individual or one aspect of the war
on terror. That is why he and President Bush have reminded us so often
that this battle on terror will not be over quickly.
And, indeed, the war on terrorism requires more than just defeating
and capturing terrorists, more than breaking up terrorist networks and
eliminating state support for terrorism, even though those tasks are
obviously essential. In the long run, real success also requires
building what President Bush referred to in his State of the Union
Address last January as a "just and peaceful world beyond the war on
terror." Doing so means supporting people who share our values of
tolerance and freedom, and who are struggling to achieve them,
particularly in the Muslim world. "America," the President said, must
"take the side of brave men and women who advocate [the values that
bring lasting peace] around the world, including, the President said,
the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than
eliminating threats and containing resentment."
Tomorrow, I'll be traveling from here to Turkey. The Turks are
striving to develop a free and democratic and tolerant society that
can be a useful model for others in the Muslim world.
It is the great good fortune of NATO and the West, indeed of the
world, that Turkey, one of our strongest, most reliable and most
self-reliant allies, occupies one of the most important strategic
crossroads in the world. Against the background of an economic crisis
and profound changes in domestic politics, Turkey, which has been
committed to integration with the West since the creation of the
Turkish republic by Kemal Ataturk nearly 80 years ago, also faces a
defining moment in its relationship with Europe and the West. It would
be to the benefit, not only of Turkey and Europe, but the to entire
world, including my country, if the December 12th EU Summit in
Copenhagen can succeed in advancing two important goals: a settlement
in Cyprus and an agreement on a date to begin negotiations on Turkish
membership in the EU. The United States strongly supports the efforts
of the UN Secretary General to achieve a Cyprus settlement.
The decision on EU membership is, of course, Europe's to make. But
history suggests that a European Union that welcomes Turkey will be
even stronger, safer, and more richly diverse than it is today. The
alternative, exclusionary choice, is surely unthinkable.
Although the two issues in principle are separate, both Turkish and
European leaders recognize that Turkey's EU application and the
long-standing Cyprus problem are linked at the practical level. The
plan put forward last month by the UN Secretary General provides the
basis for a just and lasting solution.
If the two sides are willing to engage in serious constructive
negotiations to resolve their differences in accordance with the
Secretary General's plan - and provide tangible evidence of this
determination by Copenhagen - the European Union could look forward to
the accession of a Cyprus involving both peoples of that troubled
island. Cyprus could be transformed from a perennial problem that
divides Turkey and Greece - and become instead a showcase for
Turkish-Greek cooperation, eliminating one of the most troublesome
issues on the Turkish-European agenda.
Turkey was a staunch NATO ally through 40 years of Cold War and helped
stabilize Central and Eastern Europe. Its strong commitment to peace
continues today, with Turkish troops serving in peacekeeping forces in
Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Ten years ago, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Turkey played a
crucial role in the coalition that liberated Kuwait and later provided
critical support for Operation Provide Comfort that enabled hundreds
of thousands of Kurdish refugees to return to their homes.
When international terrorism struck the United States last year,
Turkey offered its unconditional support, including bases, over-flight
rights and the deployment of ground forces in Afghanistan. Later,
Turkey came forward to take over the leadership of ISAF in Kabul,
building on the excellent foundation established by our British
allies.
And Turkey offers a valuable model for Muslim majority countries
striving to realize the goals of freedom, secularism and democracy. As
the great Anglo-American scholar of Turkish history, Bernard Lewis,
has observed, "Turkey's experience shows that democracy is difficult,
but also that it is possible."
Those who would criticize Turkey for its problems confuse what is
challenging with what is fundamental. They focus too much on the
problems Turkey is struggling to solve today and ignore where it is
heading. What is fundamental is Turkey's democratic character - a
country that believes in freedom and that changes its leaders at the
ballot box.
Demonstrating its desire to be part of a greater Europe, Turkey has
confirmed its commitment to pursue a broad range of reforms. Turkey
has undertaken sweeping constitutional reforms, as suggested by the
European Commission. It has strengthened the protections for a free
press and provided for free and fair elections. It has conferred
Kurdish linguistic and educational rights. Very importantly, Turkey's
new government has just decided to end the state of emergency in
Southeast Turkey. Turks know that there is more to do, but I am
confident that they will do it and the European Union can do a lot to
encourage them.
Turks have also shown the courage to correct the structural weaknesses
in their economy and as a result, there have been encouraging signs
that the economy has begun to turn the [inaudible]. The United States
has a strategic interest in the economic success of Turkey, and we are
committed to continuing to help Turkey, in the IMF and elsewhere, in
taking steps to recover from the present economic crisis.
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. 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 AK Party, which is best known for
its Muslim identity, but which rejects the Islamic label, has also
strongly declared its belief in a Turkish destiny in Europe, and the
government it has formed has demonstrated this since coming into
office. It has repeatedly expressed its support for the separation of
religion and the state, which is the basis of Turkish democracy. If it
carries through with its stated positions, there is no more reason to
fear this party than religious-based parties in Europe and elsewhere
in the world that combine religious faith with belief in tolerance and
religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
Modern Turkey demonstrates that a democratic system is indeed
compatible with Islam, a Muslim understanding Ataturk once expressed,
when he said: [phonetic: Islam ahLAK deMEKtir]. "Islam means morals
and values." And in upholding Islam's morals and values, there can be
a separation of religion from state-a separation that is completely
compatible with personal piety. As we understand in the UK and the US,
and as Ataturk captured it when he said: [phonetic: Din inSAN ilay
Allah arasinDAbir ishtir], "Religion is a matter between man and God."
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 values as
well.
Europe now has a strategic opportunity-by helping Turkey realize its
aspirations to join the EU, Europe would contribute to the progress of
a country that has the potential to be a model for the Muslim world.
Turkey's success could demonstrate to the world's 1.2 billion Muslims
that there is a far better path than the path of destruction and
despair offered by the terrorists and demonstrate that the benefits of
free and prosperous and open societies are available equally to
Muslims as to everyone.
Turkey's democratic model can also serve as an inspiration to Iraq.
During my meetings tomorrow with Turkish officials, I look forward to
hearing what they have to say concerning the future of Iraq. As its
neighbor to the north, Turkey has large and legitimate interests in
Iraq, and it has suffered economically from Iraq's international
isolation since the time of the Gulf War. Turkey is naturally
interested in the fate of Iraq's Turcomans, who, like the rest of the
Iraqi people, have suffered grievously under tyrannical rule. Turkey
reasonably wishes to be assured that events in Iraq won't have a
negative impact on its own security, in particular that the
territorial integrity of Iraq will be preserved and that no
independent Kurdish state will be created in the north. That is also
the United States policy.
It is vital to democratic Turkey, and to us, that the people of Iraq
also govern themselves democratically, with full respect for the
rights of all its citizens, and that the territorial integrity of the
country be maintained. A democratic Iraq can stimulate economic growth
with neighbors like Turkey and stabilize the region.
Beyond the reach of Baghdad for a decade, Iraqis of the north -
predominately Kurds, but Arabs and Turcomans as well - have
demonstrated an impressive ability to manage longstanding differences
and even develop relatively free and prospering societies. They have
done this even though they labor under the same economic sanctions
that have applied to the rest of that country. Once freed from
Saddam's tyranny, it is reasonable to expect that the rest of Iraq's
educated, industrious population of 23 million could rapidly build a
modern society that would be a source of prosperity, rather than
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 democracy. It was a great British
Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who once said, "Democracy is the
worst form of government, except for all of the other systems of
government which have been tried." In our time, more and more people
who have tried those other systems of government are turning, in their
own different ways, to freedom and democracy.
As Copenhagen approaches, Turkey hopes eagerly to receive a firm date
to begin accession talks, even while recognizing that it will take
some time for Turkey actually to enter the EU. This should involve a
commitment, not only from Turkey to stay the course of reform, but
also a commitment from Europe's leaders to stand by Turkey. In other
words, a mutual commitment to finally complete the process of Turkey's
integration into the West.
I might note the strong leadership that the government of this country
has given to that cause and, in fact, the Foreign Secretary, I
believe, is in Turkey now or on his way to Turkey and I hope, during
my visit there, to have some time to exchange views with him.
As Europe's leaders stand by Turkey, they will be making a great
contribution to the war on terror and to building what President Bush
called "a better world beyond."
In May, 1945, not far from here, from a balcony in Whitehall,
Churchill spoke to the people who had accepted his call to victory -
"victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however
long and hard the road may be."
He told his countrymen who'd walked that long road with him, "This is
your victory.... Neither the long years nor the dangers, nor the
fierce attacks of the enemy, have in any way weakened the independent
resolve of the British nation."
We may make the same declaration today. Despite the terror and no
matter how long and hard the road may be, Britain and America
together, along with free peoples throughout the world, will once
again heed the call to victory.
The friendship our nations have long enjoyed remains a powerful force
against terror and for freedom.
For people who cherish freedom and seek peace, these are difficult
times. But, such times can deepen our understanding of the truth. And
this truth we know: the single greatest threat to peace and freedom in
our time is terrorism. So this truth we affirm: the future does not
belong to the terrorists. The future belongs to those who work to
dream the oldest and noblest dream of all, the dream of peace and
freedom.
Q: Paul, I think the applause you just heard is a good indication of
the manner in which your speech has been received. I was struck, if I
may make a comment in using the privilege of the chair for a moment,
to put to you a question. I was struck by the fact that as Deputy
Secretary of Defense you spent about, in terms of time, close to one
third, one half of your time talking about relations between Turkey
and Europe which is indeed an extraordinarily important topic, and it
was also interesting for me as a European, to hear that there was
something out there which only Europe could do and not the United
States of America. And that the United States of America was strongly
supportive of multi-lateralism, that is, at least, the
multi-lateralism which we are practicing in Europe.
But let me put a question to you. You mentioned the Cuban Missile
crisis and I think it is a very exquisite comparison to make vis a vis
the crisis which we are undergoing presently. At one stage during that
crisis and my recollection here is that Bob Kennedy, the President's
brother at the time, had a discussion with the Soviet ambassador in
Washington, indicating that a de facto quid pro quo between the Soviet
Union and the United States existed, while the Soviets would withdraw
their weapons of mass destruction from Cuba, but that the United
States would not invade Cuba. Some have suggested that a similar
message be conveyed to Saddam Hussein. Is that something you would
consider or not?
WOLFOWITZ: First, if I could just comment briefly on the amount of
time I spent on Turkey. It really is impossible for saying how
decisive this period is and how remarkable this confluence of events
is, including this Turkish election. Who would have predicted a year
or two ago that we might be on the edge of a Cypress settlement
because a 'quote' Muslim party had been elected in Turkey. But
certainly everything that this election has done is moved in the
direction of making it easier for that more likely that that outcome
might be achieved and I think also the great efforts this new
government has made to make clear its support for Turkey's integration
in Europe.
It's a remarkable series of developments, it's a decisive couple of
weeks and it is of huge strategic importance and strategic in many
senses of the word. But I would say most important in that larger
strategic sense, which goes to the heart of the matter, that one of
the reasons this is going to be a long struggle is because it's not
simply a matter of containing enemies, it's a matter of demonstrating
to those who might be recruited to their cause that there's a better
way, a better alternative and so I think reform in the Muslim world is
a fundamental strategic objective. And I hope that as people wrestle
with all of the very, sometimes understandably parochial issues that
come on the table to realize that the stakes here are huge for all of
us, for a European role or an American role, but we are going to cheer
as hard from the sidelines as we possibly can.
The question that you asked me is clearly one that ultimately policy
is going to be decided by the President of the United States. But I
think what he has made clear is that his determination to use force if
necessary comes because of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. And implicit in that, I believe clearly, if that threat
can be removed peacefully then the need to use force goes away. But
the abhorrence of the regime does not go away; and I think people in
this country are more familiar than even the Americans are with the
whole history of the Balkans. The fact that the alliance concluded
that it was appropriate to use force to end ethnic cleansing and
genocide in Kosovo, but when that ended, the use of force ended, our
concerns about Milosovic did not end. And, indeed, he is now sitting
in The Hague facing a war crimes trial. I'm not saying that analogies
are only suggestive rather than conclusive but I think it has been
useful.
Q: The intent of getting rid of the key Iraqi weapons systems is
obviously very strong and you've repeated it forcefully. But could you
say a little more about why you think doing so is also instrumental in
helping to suppress further acts of Al Qaeda international terrorism,
such as bombing Mombassa or for that matter somewhere like Lebanon?
A second question, if I may, would you comment on certain speculation
in the media that some of the key Iraqi weapons capabilities may have
already been relocated outside of Iraq?
WOLFOWITZ: I think our concern, our principle concern of Iraq and the
concern that leads us to contemplate actions as serious as the ones we
are contemplating, was the concern that President Bush expressed very
clearly in the State of the Union message and that is the danger that
weapons of mass destruction could some day be put in the hands of
terrorists.
I think it goes back to some, an understanding, of just how profoundly
the events of September 11th changed America's understanding of the
risk and the stakes. I think indeed if we had understood that it was
possible for 3,000 Americans to die in a single day, and have the
graphic experience of what that entailed, we would probably would have
taken much more forceful against Afghanistan long before. But we can't
wait until 30,000 Americans or 300,000 or even possible 3000,000 die
as a result of an attack by weapons of mass destruction to deal with
the threat posed by countries that have the weapons and develop them
and support and work with terrorists. That is the heart of the issue.
We still don't know who was behind the attacks in Mombassa, so it's
pretty hard to say how any particular action is going to affect that.
But the notion that we can't do more than one thing at a time, that we
can't pursue this war on many fronts is not only wrong, but it seems
to me quite inconsistent to suggest that we are working very hard in
different ways with the government of Indonesia, which is very
cooperative with the government of Pakistan, the government of
Pakistan, which is very cooperative but has some real limitations on
what it can do in certain parts of the country, with the governor of
Yemen which has been largely cooperative, to eliminate sanctuaries for
terrorists.
Clearly, allowing sanctuary for terrorists in Iraq is not going to
help us in fighting against Al Qaeda. But let me come back to the main
point, in saying over and over again since the State of the Union
message last January, is this danger that instead of losing 3,000
people in a single day, it could be 10 or 100 or even 1000 times as
much, and that is not a threat we want to continue living with
indefinitely.
Q: Mr. Deputy Secretary, on this side of the Atlantic it would be fair
to say that you have the reputation of a hawk. I wonder whether in
defense of that virtue you would confirm that your advice after the
September 11th was to bomb Baghdad, and I wonder if you could confirm
what role the British Prime Minister may have had in dissuading your
administration in taking that course. And secondly, whether you have
any evidence at all to link Saddam Hussein or any aspect of Iraq with
events of September 11th?
WOLFOWITZ: You know we have, I think, one of the most impressive
national security teams perhaps any president has ever assembled.
Indeed, I don't know why it didn't strike me until a few days ago that
the Vice President, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense
have all been seriously considered as Presidential candidates at one
time or another. I'm not sure if that's ever happened before. I think
you would have to go back to Dean Acheson and George Marshall to find
a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense as formidable as the two
we have now.
This is a President who loves to debate an argument. If people aren't
arguing he will stimulate them to argue because he learns from that.
He gets a clear idea of what the alternatives are and he also is very
comfortable making decisions after he's heard an argument. And another
thing about this team which, in a way, is in some respects all the
more impressive since they are such strong willed people in it but
totally unsurprising when you think about how much experience they all
have, is that when the President makes a decision that is the policy
of the United States. We don't think along with two or three
independent separate competing policies, it's not a good way to do
business.
So, we've had lots of debates and discussions. I would say finally
that most of them are essentially about tactics. The basic strategy,
the strategic role is a clear one and as I said it is not only to deal
with Al Qaeda and terrorist networks and state support for terrorism,
but it is this much larger goal of dealing with fundamental causes.
And I can't resist saying that I don't think that most fundamental
cause is poverty, as much as I would support all kinds of efforts to
reduce poverty. Bin Laden obviously wasn't driven to this by poverty.
By I do think the sense of failure in the Muslim world is a serious
part of that problem. And I believe that issues we are talking about
involving Turkey speak to that larger issue. I know I'm saying it
again, but it really does bear repeating, that encouraging Turkey in
its aspiration to be part of the West is a major part of achieving
that larger strategic goal which really has to be our goal.
Q: Do you think that the publication today by the British government,
a dossier detailing Iraqi torture is part of a coordinated effort to
establish the reasons of war against Iraq even were Saddam to fulfill
his obligations?
WOLFOWITZ: I think that if you want to ask that question, it might go
to a British spokesman. But there's been broad agreement that there
are three problems, perhaps more, but three principle problems, which
that regime presents us with.
One is its weapons of mass destruction, a second its support for
terrorism, and the third its terrorizing of its own people. I'm struck
at how often people will say, well we all know how bad Saddam Hussein
is, and the truth is I don't think we all do know how bad Saddam
Hussein is.
We all knew how bad Milosovic is. Well Milosovic is a Sunday school
teacher compared to Saddam Hussein. Scott Ritter, who's earned a
reputation recently as a major defender of the Iraqi regime, or at
least a critic of American policy, said not long ago that he didn't
like to talk about these things because it would encourage those
people who want to wage war, and he is waging peace now. But he did
see a prison in Iraq which was truly horrible and because he's waging
peace he said he didn't want to explain quite how horrible it was.
I can tell you what he did say was that the stench of human excrement
and vomit was everywhere, that the prisoners were howling and crying
and clearly deprived of food and water and the oldest prisoner was
twelve and the youngest was a toddler. This was a prison for children
who had been political enemies of the Iraqi regime. I think only North
Korea is a place where you could find such horrors in the world today
and there are obviously a lot of pretty bad governments. So, I think
that that is a relevant fact. It becomes particularly relevant should
it become necessary to use force to resolve the first problem, the
problem of weapons of mass destruction, because I think it does mean
that this is not a regime that enjoys more popular support even if
they produced a 100% vote in the last election. And I think when the
Iraqi people no longer have to fear Saddam he and his clique will
certainly have to fear them.
So it is relevant, but let me repeat what I said earlier. The reason
why the President of the United States concluded that it is worth
confronting the very considerable risks that are involved, first of
all to the men and women who serve under his command, but secondly the
risk to the neighborhood, to the world of resolving this problem as
necessary to the use of force, is the problem of Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
The focus of the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is to achieve the
disarmament of those weapons. That doesn't remove all of the problems
posed by the Iraqi regime, but it is our principle concern and it is
the risk that makes in the President's judgment and the judgment of
his advisors, it is that risk which makes it worth considering the
risk of action, which we believe at the end of the day, smaller than
the risk of inaction.
Q: You mentioned earlier that it would be impossible for inspectors to
scour everywhere in Iraq. There is already considerable evidence,
apparently from intelligence services, that Iraq is hiding weapons of
mass destruction in places where the inspectors will not go, how long
will America wait before it takes action?
WOLFOWITZ: We're talking about if it comes to the use of force we're
talking about the gravest decision a country can make. And it is
clearly a decision in our system that only the President can make and
he has made it very clear that his goal is to try if possible to
achieve a peaceful resolution on this issue. I think that one of the
important tests is coming on December 8th when Iraq is required to
make a full, what is it, full, final and complete declaration of what
it has, and we won't know definitely whether they are telling the
truth at that point, but we presumably would have a reasonably good
idea. The best possible outcome would be for them to give us the names
and addresses of all those houses where they are hiding things. We
know they are hiding things and if they want to convince us that they
really have turned a new leaf, then they are going to have to be
transparent, open and forthcoming, because that is the real test.
Q: You've been fulsome in your praise for Tony Blair Mr. Wolfowitz,
but on Iraq, Tony Blair has appeared to make a connection between Iraq
and Israel and the Palestine problem by saying it's easier to solve or
to tackle Iraq if at same time one kick starts the Middle Eastern
peace process. He has called for a new peace conference on the
Israel-Palestine issue, so far from your administration the answer
comes back none, when, if at all, might there be an answer to Mr.
Blair's calls and others calls from Europe for a peace conference?
WOLFOWITZ: Francois made a comment that here I am from the Defense
Department, talking about diplomacy for the Europeans, so I lost my
safeguard. But quite seriously, I mean I can say some things about our
broad goals, but the tactical issues really are very much State
Department issues, and I don't want to step in to that lane.
But clearly, the United States, and through many administrations
including this one, is strongly supportive in achieving a peaceful
settlement between Arabs and Israelis in the current instance,
particularly between Israelis and Palestinians. It is very damaging to
have these continuing scenes of conflict and bloodshed and we know
it's horrible and hurtful. It's tragic to think how close they came at
the last Camp David meeting during the Clinton administration and what
looked like a viable settlement that would have led to the outcome
that seems inevitable -- of a Palestinian state and an Israeli state
living peacefully side by side. And it is tragic that in the collapse
of those talks, followed some of the worst violence and terror that
we've seen in that area. And I do think that that may be the principle
obstacle to the negotiations coming to an end. There's no question
that negotiated outcome is very much in our interests. I also think
that there's not much question of a negotiated outcome is going to be
the eventual result, but certainly it would be nice if it happened
sooner rather than later.
I think it was 25 years ago last month that Sadat made his historic
trip to Jerusalem, it's amazing to think back at how much that trip,
that speech to the Israeli Knessett was a psychological breakthrough
that changed the whole climate and one hopes desperately that some
great statesman may come forward with a psychological breakthrough of
that kind, but in the meantime we have to keep slogging away, step by
step.
Q: Mr. Wolfowitz, you constantly infer a connection between Saddam
Hussein and terrorism and Iraq and September 11th, and yet you provide
no evidence, is that because there is no evidence?
WOLFOWITZ: Well, first of all I haven't constantly inferred anything
of the kind you say. But the fact is that there are connections if you
go back for example and read George Tenet's unclassified letter to the
Senate Intelligence Committee, I believe it was a Senate Committee,
about 2 months ago which got a lot of attention because of what it
says in the beginning whether he might actually use weapons of mass
destruction, there's a great deal of detail in there that summarizes
on an unclassified basis what our intelligence people have concluded
to date, Iraqi connections to Al Qaeda, and of course, we know about
many other Iraqi connections to terrorists of different kinds
including widely advertised bounties that they provide to the families
of suicide bombers. It's a long record, some of its out in the open.
But it's the nature of state support for terrorism that a great deal
of it is concealed. One sort of sees a tip of an iceberg, but that tip
has been described, and I suggest you go back and read the Tenet
letter if you want a summary.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)