• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

26 January 2003

Powell Says Iraq Poses Threat to Peace and Security of All Nations

(Discusses North Korea, Middle East, other issues in Davos address)
(7,140)
Secretary of State Colin Powell said that Saddam Hussein has violated
the trust of the international community to such a degree that his
regime poses a grave danger to the peace and security of all nations.
In a wide-ranging address to the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, on January 26, Secretary Powell stressed that U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance to fully
disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and to disarm peacefully and
unconditionally.
Powell said, "1441 is not about inspectors exposing new evidence of
Iraq's established failure to disarm. It is about Iraq disclosing the
entire extent of its illicit biological, chemical, nuclear and missile
activities, and disarming itself of them with the help of inspectors
to verify what Iraq is doing."
Powell also pointed out the Iraq's December weapons declaration to the
U.N. failed utterly to be full, accurate, and complete. "Iraq
attempted to conceal with volume what it lacked in veracity," Powell
stated. "Not one nation in the Security Council rose to defend that
declaration. Not one person in this room could do so."
The world knows what real disarmament looks like, Powell told the
Davos audience, with the experiences of genuine disarmament in
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa.
Regarding the much-anticipated report of weapons inspectors, Powell
said, "We are in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after,
but clearly time is running out. There is no longer an excuse for
Iraqi denial of its obligation. We must have Iraq participate in the
disarmament or be disarmed."
In remarks centered around the theme of trust, Secretary Powell
addressed a number of foreign policy issues, including North Korea's
nuclear program; relations with Russia and China; America's alliances
in Europe and Asia; prospects for trade, development, and economic
growth; and the struggle for peace in the Middle East.
Of North Korea, Powell said, "Let me be clear: The United States
stands ready to build a different kind of relationship with North
Korea once Pyongyang comes into verifiable compliance with its
commitments. The North must be willing to act in a manner that builds
trust."
Powell welcomed progress in integrating Russia and China into the
international economic community. He pledged continuing U.S. efforts,
with its partners, known as the Quartet, to find a path to peace in
the Middle East.
"With intensive effort by all," Powell said, "the creation of a
democratic, viable Palestine is possible in 2005. And the United
States will be engaging fully in this prospect, in this effort, in the
coming months and years."
On the economic front, Powell called upon other nations to join the
United States and support proposals to liberalize trade in agriculture
and industrial goods. He also pointed to the Millennium Challenge
Accounts, which will increase U.S. development assistance by $5
billion every year, "targeting poor countries that govern well, invest
in their people and open their economies to enterprise and
entrepreneurship."
Differences among friends and allies are to be expected, Powell said,
and should not be equated with allegations of American unilateralism
or arrogance.
"When we feel strongly about something, we will lead," Powell said.
"But the United States will always work, will always endeavor, to get
others to join in a consensus. We want to work closely with Europe,
home of our closest friends and partners. We want to work closely with
Europe on challenges inside Europe and beyond, and you can trust us on
that."
Following is the transcript of Secretary Powell's address to the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 26:
(Note: in the following text, one billion equals one thousand million)
(begin transcript)
Remarks at the World Economic Forum
Secretary Colin L. Powell 
Davos, Switzerland 
January 26, 2003
Thank you so very much, Klaus, for a very gracious and warm
introduction. It's a great honor to be here and to see so many
distinguished persons from around the world, and I welcome the
opportunity to share some thoughts with you this morning.
I am especially pleased that the theme of this year's gathering is
"Building Trust," because trust is a crucial commodity, not only in
this but in all eras. I've been here for just over a day, long enough
to speak and meet with a number of you, long enough to hear directly
and from others much of what has been said about the United States
over the last two or three days, about whether America can be trusted
to use its enormous political, economic, and above all, military
power, wisely and fairly.
I believe -- no, I know with all of my heart -- that the United States
can. I believe no less strongly that the United States has earned the
trust of men, women and children around the world. Let's just go to
Afghanistan. Ten thousand American soldiers are in that country,
helping to create conditions of security. A new government, a new
representative government, is in place. We see new roads, new
hospitals, new schools -- where girls can attend and gain the skills
they will need to lead productive, meaningful lives.
Afghanistan is one example of what we have accomplished in the global
war against terrorism. The United States, together with the countries
represented by many of you in this room, is making it more difficult
for terrorists to move about, for them to communicate, for them to
transfer money, for them to acquire weapons to carry out attacks
against innocent people.
We should be very proud of what has been accomplished in Afghanistan
since we met in New York last year. But I want to say one more thing
about Afghanistan which is reflective about the manner in which
America carries out its responsibilities in the world. The American
troops who are there went there in peace, working alongside now
thousands of troops from more than a dozen countries. And they're all
working together to help train Afghan police and military forces that
will take their place, and as soon as our troops are needed no longer,
they will depart.
Afghanistan's leaders and Afghanistan's people know that they can
trust America to do just this, to do the right thing. The people of
Bosnia, the people of Kosovo, of Macedonia -- they too know that they
can trust us to do our jobs and then leave. We seek nothing for
ourselves other than to help bring about security for people that have
already suffered too much. The same holds true for the people of
Kuwait. Twelve years ago, we helped liberate their country, and then
we left. We did not seek any special benefits for ourselves. That is
not the American way.
Trust is also at the core of our ties and our work in Africa, where
the United States is promoting trade and democracy while we struggle
against wars and disease that rob so many Africans of their lives and
of their futures.
In Latin America, where for decades many often questioned our motives,
doubts now are giving way to trust as the Western Hemisphere is bound
by a new Democratic Charter and is being transformed into a zone of
freedom, trade and investment, and relative stability.
More than a half a century ago, the United States helped to rescue
Europe from the tyranny of fascism that had led to World War II. We
stayed to help Europe regain its vitality. We supported and continue
to support a strong, united Europe, and congratulate Europeans on the
recent enlargement of the European Union.
Americans and Europeans together built the greatest political-military
alliance in history. NATO was at the core of our efforts to keep the
peace in Europe for more than four decades. The Cold War ended, and
yet ten nations have joined the Alliance since the Cold War's end. Why
were they so anxious to join? And why do still others wait on the list
to become members of this grand alliance?
The answer, I think, is rather simple. They want to join to be part of
Europe, a Europe whole and free, but they also want to be part of a
body that links the United States and Canada to Europe. They want to
be part of a transatlantic community, a transatlantic community that
at one and the same time promotes peace, prosperity and democratic
values. The power of men and women to choose, to sustain government of
the people.
Now, I'm aware, as everyone in this room is aware, that Americans and
Europeans do not always see things the same way in every instance. I
would quickly point out that this is hardly a new development.
(Laughter.) Henry Kissinger, decades ago, wrote a book on the Atlantic
alliance, and he called it, "The Troubled Partnership." I am told that
later Henry had second doubts about the title when he found that some
bookstores were placing it on the shelf reserved for books about
marriage counseling. (Laughter.) But maybe the bookstore owners knew
what they were doing, because problems with some of our friends across
the Atlantic go back a long time, more than two centuries by my count.
In fact, one or two of our friends we have been in marriage counseling
with for over 225 years nonstop, and yet the marriage is intact,
remains strong, will weather any differences that come along because
of our mutual shared values.
Differences are inevitable, but differences should not be equated with
American unilateralism or American arrogance. Sometimes differences
are just that -- differences. On occasion, our experiences, our
interests, will lead us to see things in a different way. For our
part, we will not join a consensus if we believe it compromises our
core principles. Nor would we expect any other nation to join in a
consensus that would compromise its core principles. When we feel
strongly about something, we will lead. We will act even if others are
not prepared to join us. But the United States will always work, will
always endeavor, to get others to join in a consensus. We want to work
closely with Europe, home of our closest friends and partners. We want
to work closely with Europe on challenges inside Europe and beyond,
and you can trust us on that.
When we talk about trust, let me use that as a bridge to one of the
major issues of the day, Iraq. Let me try to explain why we feel so
strongly about Iraq and why we are determined that the current
situation cannot be allowed to continue. We are where we are today
with Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his regime have repeatedly
violated the trust of the United Nations, his people and his
neighbors, to such an extent as to pose a grave danger to
international peace and security.
The United States Security Council recognized this situation and
unanimously passed Resolution 1441, giving Iraq one last chance to
disarm peacefully after 11 years of defying the world community.
Today, not a single nation, not one, trusts Saddam and his regime. And
those who know him best trust him least: his own citizens, whom he has
terrorized and oppressed; his neighbors, whom he has threatened and
invaded. Citizens and neighbors alike have been killed by his chemical
weapons.
That is why Resolution 1441 was carefully crafted to be far tougher
and far more thorough than the many resolutions that preceded it. 1441
places the burden squarely on Iraq to provide accurate, full and
complete information on its weapons of mass destruction.
1441 is not about inspectors exposing new evidence of Iraq's
established failure to disarm. It is about Iraq disclosing the entire
extent of its illicit biological, chemical, nuclear and missile
activities, and disarming itself of them with the help of inspectors
to verify what Iraq is doing.
This is not about inspectors finding smoking guns. It is about Iraqis
failure -- Iraq's failure to tell the inspectors where to find its
weapons of mass destruction.
The 12,200-page declaration Iraq submitted to the United Nations
Security Council on December 7th utterly failed to meet the
requirements of the resolution, utterly failed to meet the
requirements of being accurate, full and complete. Iraq attempted to
conceal with volume what it lacked in veracity. Not one nation in the
Security Council rose to defend that declaration. Not one person in
this room could do so. The requirement for a declaration was put in as
an early test of Iraq's intent to change its behavior. It failed the
test.
This past week, United Nations Inspector Blix and International Atomic
Energy Agency Inspector El Baradei went to Baghdad to deliver the
message that Iraq's cooperation has been inadequate. Iraq's response
did nothing to alter the fact that Baghdad still is not providing the
inspectors with the information they need to do their job. There is no
indication whatever that Iraq has made the strategic decision to come
clean and to comply with its international obligation to disarm.
The support of U.S. intelligence and the intelligence of other nations
can take the inspectors only so far. Without Iraq's full and active
cooperation, 100 or so inspectors would have to look under every roof
and search the back of every truck in a country the size of California
to find the munitions and programs for which Iraq has failed to
account for.
After six weeks of inspections, the international community still
needs to know the answers to key questions. For example: Where is the
evidence -- where is the evidence -- that Iraq has destroyed the tens
of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum we know it had before
it expelled the previous inspectors? This isn't an American
determination. This is the determination of the previous inspectors.
Where is this material? What happened to it? It's not a trivial
question. We're not talking about aspirin. We're talking about the
most deadly things one can imagine, that can kill thousands, millions
of people. We cannot simply turn away and say, "Well, never mind."
Where is it? Account for it. Let it be verified through the
inspectors.
What happened to nearly 30,000 munitions capable of carrying chemical
agents? The inspectors can only account for only 16 of them. Where are
they? It's not a matter of ignoring the reality of the situation. Just
think, all of these munitions, which perhaps only have a short range
if fired out of an artillery weapon in Iraq, but imagine if one of
these weapons were smuggled out of Iraq and found its way into the
hands of a terrorist organization who could transport it anywhere in
the world. What happened -- please, what happened -- to the three
metric tons of growth material that Iraq imported which can be used
for producing early, in a very rapid fashion, deadly biological
agents?
Where are the mobile vans that are nothing more than biological
weapons laboratories on wheels? Why is Iraq still trying to procure
uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material
for nuclear weapons?
These questions are not academic. They are not trivial. They are
questions of life and death, and they must be answered.
To those who say, "Why not give the inspection process more time?", I
ask: "How much more time does Iraq need to answer those questions? It
is not a matter of time alone, it is a matter of telling the truth,
and so far Saddam Hussein still responds with evasion and with lies.
Saddam should tell the truth, and tell the truth now. The more we
wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to
terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a
weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again.
The nexus of tyrants and terror, of terrorists and weapons of mass
destruction, is the greatest danger of our age. The international
community knows what real disarmament looks like. We saw it in
Kazakhstan. We saw it take place in the Ukraine. We saw it in South
Africa. We see none of the telltale signs of real disarmament, honest
disarmament, in Iraq. Instead of a high-level determination to work
with inspectors, we have continued defiance. Instead of a transparent
disarmament process, we get the same old tactics of deceit and delay,
documents hidden in private homes, denial of reconnaissance flights,
denial of access to people and facilities, the kind of access that
must be unimpeded and unrestricted in order to be successful.
Tomorrow, Chief Inspectors Blix and El Baradei will make their report
to the United Nations Security Council. My government will study their
report carefully, will study it with gravity, and we will exchange
views on its findings that were presented with other members of the
Council.
We are in no great rush to judgment tomorrow or the day after, but
clearly time is running out. There is no longer an excuse for Iraqi
denial of its obligation. We must have Iraq participate in the
disarmament or be disarmed.
We should not underestimate what is at stake here. Saddam Hussein's
hidden weapons of mass destruction are meant to intimidate Iraq's
neighbors. These illegal weapons threaten international peace and
security. These terrible weapons put millions of innocent people at
risk.
It is more than that. Saddam's naked defiance also challenges the
relevance and credibility of the Security Council and the world
community. When all 15 members of the Council voted to pass UN
Resolution 1441, they assumed a heavy responsibility to put their will
behind their words.
Multilateralism cannot become an excuse for inaction. Saddam Hussein
and others of his ilk would like nothing better to see the world
community back away from this resolution, instead of backing it with
their solemn resolve.
We will work through these issues patiently and deliberately with our
friends and with our allies. These are serious matters before us. Let
the Iraqi regime have no doubt, however, if it does not disarm
peacefully at this juncture, it will be disarmed down the road.
The United States believes that time is running out. We will not
shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of
mass destruction.
We continue to reserve our sovereign right to take military action
against Iraq alone or in a coalition of the willing. As the President
has said: "We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the
best. History will judge harshly those who saw a coming danger but
failed to act."
It is our hope, however -- it is our will -- that we can do this
peacefully. It is our hope, if we will it to happen, that Iraq would
participate in its disarmament. If it does not, it is also our hope
that the international community will stand behind the elements of
1441, and as a great coalition, we will deal with this problem once
and for all.
North Korea is another example of a country where trust is at issue.
Over the past nine years, the international community engaged North
Korea in good faith, with nuclear agreements which we now know
Pyongyang violated.
At the same time, North Korea's policies have dragged its people into
a dark, cold, hungry hell.
In a collection of works published in 1978 under the title Alarm and
Hope, the embattled Soviet physicist and Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei
Sakharov, stated: "I am convinced that international trust, mutual
understanding, disarmament, and international security are
inconceivable without an open society."
And so, in consultation with South Korea and Japan, the United States
was ready last summer to pursue a bold approach with Pyongyang. The
approach would have entailed political and economic steps to improve
the lives of the North Korean people and move our relationship with
the North toward normalcy.
It was then that we discovered that the North had been pursuing a
covert uranium enrichment program in egregious violation of its
international obligations. When confronted with the bald facts,
Pyongyang admitted what it had been doing.
The United States is willing to talk to North Korea about how it will
meet its obligations to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons
program. But this is not just a matter between the United States and
North Korea.
Pyongyang's behavior affects the stability of both the immediate
region and of the world. And that's why the IAEA Board of Governors
deplored in the strongest terms North Korea's actions.
Once again, we are working with our allies and others in the region
and across the international community to address through diplomacy
our common concerns over North Korea's programs.
The United States has no intention of attacking North Korea, President
Bush has said that repeatedly, and we are prepared to convey this in a
way that makes it unmistakable for North Korea. At the same time, we
keep all of our options on the table.
Meanwhile, the United States has been the world's biggest donor of
humanitarian assistance to North Korea and we will continue to
contribute to their humanitarian requirements and needs.
Let me be clear: The United States stands ready to build a different
kind of relationship with North Korea once Pyongyang comes into
verifiable compliance with its commitments. The North must be willing
to act in a manner that builds trust.
As an old soldier who came of age during the Cold War, I find it
interesting to take a step back from time to time and note the
important role being played by Russia and China in efforts to resolve
the challenges posed by Iraq and North Korea. They voted along with
the rest of the Security Council members for 1441, for example. Just
imagine how different and how difficult things would be if it were
still the Cold War and our relations with Moscow and Beijing were
marked by intense rivalry, and we looked through every aspect of
international politics through that lens of the Cold War. But gone are
the days of superpower confrontation. The major threats that each of
us faces are shared with others, and so are the solutions. With this
new perspective, Presidents Bush and Putin have established a new
strategic partnership which they are determined to deepen in the years
ahead.
We also support Russia's efforts to become fully integrated into the
international economic community. That include Russia's membership on
commercial terms in the World Trade Organization, as well as full
membership in the G-8 in 2006.
The United States still has important concerns and disagreements with
Russia, and Russia with us, however we are building a relationship
worthy of two great countries with great responsibilities and much to
contribute to the 21st century world we live in.
We have also brought new momentum to our relationship with China. As
President Bush told China's next generation of leaders, the students
at Qinghua University: "China is on a rising path, and America
welcomes the emergence of a strong, peaceful and prosperous China."
China's participation in world affairs is a positive and welcome
development. We look to China to play a responsible role in world
affairs, following international standards on trade, on proliferation,
on human rights, and on international peace and cooperation.
The United States seeks to work with China as it rises so that the
choices that it makes build international confidence instead of
distrust and create hope among the people of China for a better, freer
life.
Another way we are building habits of cooperation with Russia and
China is by working with them to help parties in war-torn regions
bring peaceful ends to conflicts. A good example of this is how we are
working together in South Asia and in the Middle East.
From the outset, the Bush Administration has viewed both India and
Pakistan as countries with which we wished to pursue expanded agendas.
From the outset, we were determined not to have a policy toward
India-hyphen-Pakistan, but to seek productive relationships with each
in its own right.
And we believe that our improved relationships with India and Pakistan
were significant in helping the international community ease them back
from the brink of war last year.
No American "Hidden Hand," however, can remove the distrust between
India and Pakistan. This they must do themselves. The United States
has extended a helping hand to both India and Pakistan and we stand
ready to do so again. But it is crucial that they both take risks for
peace, risks for peace on that great Subcontinent, and that they work
to normalize their relations.
The situation in the Middle East is proving to be among our most
challenging, based however on the President's vision, President Bush's
vision of two states, living side-by-side, in peace and security. And
with the help of the international community, we and our Quartet
partners have drawn up a roadmap that shows the way to a lasting
peace.
To achieve this vision, the Palestinians must build trust by
establishing a new and different leadership and new institutions and
by putting an end to all terror, all violence. Israel also will be
required to build trust by easing the economic plight of ordinary
Palestinians and by putting an end to settlement construction.
With intensive effort by all, the creation of a democratic, viable
Palestine is possible in 2005. And the United States will be engaging
fully in this prospect, in this effort, in the coming months and
years.
With respect to the broader Middle East, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah
is right: Arab governments must introduce meaningful political and
economic reforms if their people are to realize their potential.
Indeed, all of us must work with citizens and governments of the
region to close what Jordan's Queen Rania eloquently calls the "Hope
Gap."
That is why my government has launched a new US-Middle East
Partnership Initiative. The Initiative supports public-private efforts
in the political, economic and educational spheres to help create
conditions under which the young men and women of the Middle East feel
they have a stake in rejecting terror and supporting a comprehensive
peace.
Once again, what is missing here, what must be created, is trust. If
trust between states is crucial, so is trust between ordinary people
and their governments.
New democracies created with high hopes can founder if ordinary
citizens do not see direct improvements in their lives. Transitions
can be chaotic and wrenching. Democratic systems take time to develop
and to deliver.
Meanwhile, autocrats will sing siren songs of stability. Corruption
will squander a nation's treasure. Extremists will feed on frustration
and fears. Populists will pander and make false promises of fairness.
By strengthening civil society, independent media, democratic
institutions and the rule of law, we can build confidence among
citizens to stay on the difficult course of reform.
And governments striving to do right must have good reason to count on
other members of the world community to help them through the rough
times to the point where democracy and development are stable and
self-sustaining.
The global economic engine needs to operate on all cylinders if
developing countries are to achieve growth rates high enough to halve
the proportion of people in the world living in poverty by 2015. A
dynamic US economy will continue to be a prime mover of those
cylinders.
President Bush fully recognizes that economic growth is not as strong
as it should be in the United States. And it is for that reason he
announced a growth and jobs plan that will promote investment at home
and abroad, encourage consumer spending, and deliver critical help to
unemployed Americans.
A growing U.S. economic, however, will not suffice to expand the
global market to the extent needed for dramatic strides in
development. Japan should quickly implement Prime Minister Koizumi's
reform program, notably with regard to non-performing loans, and start
growing its domestic economy. Europe needs to put into action a
"pro-growth" agenda that involves labor-market and regulatory reforms.
And China needs to implement fully its market opening commitments to
the WTO.
Concluding the Doha Development Round by the end of 2004 also will
deliver a much-needed boost to global growth. According to the World
Bank, free trade in all goods, including agriculture, would result in
a gain in world income of some $830 billion; 65 percent would flow to
developing countries, helping an estimated 300 million people escape
from poverty.
The United States has already stepped forward with bold and sweeping
proposals to liberalize trade in both agriculture and in industrial
goods. Now other major players must join us. Governments must resist
the temptation to erect new barriers such as those blocking trade in
agriculture and biotechnology which have the effect of reducing trade
while depriving food assistance, for example, to hungry -- nay,
starving people.
To be sure, only substantial and rapidly expanding trade and
investment can generate economic growth on the scale needed to lift
entire nations out of misery. But wisely channeled foreign assistance
can play an important part in creating conditions that attract trade
and investment in the first place.
Last Spring, at the Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey,
Mexico, donors and developing countries reached a consensus on mutual
responsibilities: for donor nations, a new commitment to development
assistance of the kind needed to open more markets; for developing
countries, a new commitment to create the political and economic
conditions needed to use assistance in ways that attract investment
and empower its citizens.
At the same time, President Bush proposed the groundbreaking
Millennium Challenge Account. When approved by Congress, the
Millennium Challenge Account will dramatically increase our
development assistance, ramping up to an additional $5 billion every
year, and we'll get that ramp up over the next three years, targeting
poor countries that govern well, invest in their people and open their
economies to enterprise and entrepreneurship. This new program has the
potential to fundamentally change the situation in so many developing
countries.
And last September in Johannesburg, at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, the world community deepened and extended the Monterrey
consensus by setting development goals and recognizing the critical
role that public-private partnerships play in helping countries
achieve these goals, especially in the areas of energy, water and
health.
Indeed, building trust is not just a job for governments. In a
globalized world, states confront problems of such complexity and such
scale that they cannot hope to address them without help from
non-governmental actors, such as are assembled here, so many of them,
today.
We in government bear the responsibility foremost for providing a
secure environment in which confidence, well-being and freedom can
grow and spread. We need your help to set high standards of
accountability and habits of integrity throughout society. We need you
to use your positions of leadership to foster tolerance, promote
democratic principles, stem the HIV/AIDS pandemic. We need your
innovations and investments to expand the global economic, sustain
development and eradicate poverty. We need you to use your vast
resources, your vast networks, to link the least of God's children
living in the farthest corners of the Earth with the knowledge that
they need to succeed.
A good number of opinion leaders here today from the corporate world
and the NGO community already are making greater contributions to
international well-being than many governments are. Some of you even
conduct your own foreign policies. Welcome to the club. (Laughter.)
Certainly, certainly, all of us gathered here in Davos have great
opportunities to build trust in a better future. The United States
looks forward to working with you in this endeavor. We understand full
well that whatever we can do, whatever we can do as one nation, is
nothing compared to what we call can do if we unite, if we become part
of a great partnership of freedom-loving nations, nations that are
committed not only to our own development, but nations that are
committed to the hungriest, most desperate people anywhere in the
world.
If all of us can use meetings such as this to once again revitalize
our commitment once again, to remember that our obligation to
ourselves, to our nations and to our world is to make sure that as we
generate wealth, as we create wealth, we recognize that ultimately the
purpose of that wealth has to be to touch the lives of every one of
God's children.
Let that be our solemn obligation and let that be our charge for
today. And in that great crusade, the United States is aligned with
each and every country and institution represented in this room.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MR. SCHWAB: Mr. Secretary, you really brought us a message of
responsible globality, and I am sure your words will so much
contribute to the theme of our meeting, "Building Trust." Not only
your words, but the following actions of all of us here in this room.
We have 50 minutes time, as the Secretary graciously retarded his
departure, and we have some possibility to interact. In view of the
short time, I would like to ask you to be very short with your
comment, if any, and your question, and please indicate your name and
your affiliation to give the Secretary an opportunity to see that here
in the room we have really a multi-stakeholder, probably the foremost
multi-stakeholder platform in the world.
So let me see who would like to ask a question. I see here -- oh,
let's start with the lady. Let's start with the lady.
QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary of State, I am Irene Khan,
Secretary General of Amnesty International, a global human rights
movement. I would like to thank you for coming to speak to us. And I
have a question for you which I know is troubling many civil society
groups around the world, including many of us who are represented here
today.
My question is: Do you believe that the threat which Iraq poses today
is so great, so grave and so imminent, that it justifies provoking a
massive human rights and humanitarian crisis?
I say this because the humanitarian situation in Iraq is very fragile
and military action could easily precipitate, in our view would
certainly precipitate, a huge humanitarian disaster. We have seen --
we remember in 1991 -- the millions of refugees who were trapped on
the border. There could be a bloodbath inside, a ripple effect as
well.
And my question is: How does one balance the human rights and
humanitarian concerns with that military action, the threat, the
military action both with the humanitarian concern? Thank you.
SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you very much. (Applause.)
We do believe the threat is great and the Security Council believes
the threat is great, and it's reflected in the 15-0 vote on 1441. Iraq
must be disarmed.
We are sensitive to the plight of the Iraqi people, not only in the
case of a conflict, but their plight right now. The Iraqi leadership
has more than enough money to take care of the needs of the Iraqi
people if the money would be spent in the right way, as opposed to
being used to punish the Iraqi people by withholding aid.
And perhaps if a conflict were necessary -- and once again, we are
hoping it will not be necessary -- but if it is necessary, the
contingency planning that we are doing in the United States includes
actions directly related to ensuring that the humanitarian needs of
the Iraqi people would be taken care of, and perhaps with a regime
that is more responsive to the needs of its people and more interested
in using the wealth of the Iraqi people for the benefit of the Iraqi
people, and not for weapons of mass destruction and not wasting the
money on armies that invaded Kuwait, armies that invaded Iran.
Perhaps not only would the Iraqi people be better off in the aftermath
of such a conflict, but so would the whole region.
MR. SCHWAB: Thank you. I saw another question here.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary of State, I'm George Carey, the former
Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm now happily retired and here at the
World Economic Forum. And I thank you very much indeed for your
address and for all that you are personally doing to improve the state
of the world.
Mr. Secretary of State, at this conference, among the language that
has been used has been a phrase, the difference between hard power and
soft power: hard power and military power, and perhaps expressed in
America as the only superpower with a grave responsibility to create
and help to forward the cause of peace in the world; and then soft
power, soft power which binds us all, which has something to do with
values, human values and all the things that you and I passionately
believe in.
Here at WEF, we are thinking of creating a Council of 100 which
includes business leaders, politicians, religious leaders -- trying to
cross all of the boundaries of media and so on. That may be something
that you may wish to give your support to in the days ahead.
But I've got two questions, if I may. The first one: Do you feel that
in the present situation, and I'm following on my colleague who just
spoke, and regarding Iraq but also Palestine as well, that we are
doing enough in drawing upon the common values expressed by soft power
in uniting what is called West and the Middle East in Islam and
Christianity, in Judaism and other religions?
And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the
United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger
of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building
the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our
family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is
reached, is what makes human life valuable? (Applause.)
SECRETARY POWELL: The United States believes strongly in what you call
soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic
system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to
pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they
were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world.
That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy
within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these
great international organizations.
There is nothing in American experience or in American political life
or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we
have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power --
and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes
you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.
I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power.
And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States
ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came
in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their
weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations
rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.
So our record of living our values and letting our values be an
inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have
anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what
America has done for the world. (Applause.)
SECRETARY POWELL: (In progress) -- power or talking with evil will not
work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works. We
have seen these sorts of evil leaders before. We have seen them
throughout history. And they are still alive today. There are still
leaders around who will say, "You do not have the will to prevail over
my evil." And I think we are facing one of those times now.
We have done everything. President Bush carefully analyzed the
situation with respect to Iraq. We have felt strongly for years that
they must be disarmed. The previous administration felt just as
strongly. This isn't something that just arrived when the Bush
Administration came in. The previous administration had the same
concerns. It's been a problem for us for the last 11 years, for the
international community.
And so finally, we decided it is time to deal with it. And we rallied
the international community. President Bush came before the Security
Council on the 12th of September and put down a powerful indictment. I
worked very hard, I can assure you, seven weeks, to satisfy the
concerns that people had about what kind of a resolution should be put
forward.
A resolution was put forward. It's a resolution that puts the burden
on Iraq, not on the inspectors. And it is not the United States, it is
not the international community, it is not the United Nations that is
the source of the problem. The source of the problem is Saddam Hussein
and the Iraqi regime and their use of the treasures of the Iraqi
people to develop weapons of mass destruction.
And let there be no doubt that the intent to do so is still there, as
the inspectors are trying to do their job.
My heart grieves when I think about the situation in the Middle East.
I've worked very hard on this for two years, and for years before
that. But trust is broken down. We have to do everything we can in our
power -- all of us, the United States, the European Union, any other
nation that has the ability to influence the situation in the Middle
East -- to work with the Palestinians to put in place a leadership
that is responsible, with representative institutions of government
that will clamp down on terrorism, that will say to its people,
"Terrorism is not getting us anywhere. It is not producing what we
want: a Palestinian state. It is keeping us away from a Palestinian
state."
And we also have to say to our Israeli friends that you have to do
more to deal with the humanitarian concerns of the Palestinian people,
and you have to understand that a Palestinian state, when it's
created, must be a real state, not a phony state that's diced into a
thousand different pieces.
And that's what we're going to be concentrating on in the months ahead
with the roadmap that's been created. (Applause.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)