American Security Policy

Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to speak to you today. I would like to take this opportunity to address several issues that I believe to be of great importance to the people of both your country and mine. I will speak about the new strategic era in which we live and its implications for U.S. foreign policy and I will focus my marks in particular on the situation in Iraq.

End of an era

Ladies and gentlemen, we are at the beginning of a new strategic era. The great global conflicts and strategic challenges of the twentieth century were brought to a close with the twin summits at Prague and Copenhagen last year. Those twin summits mark the true closing of the Cold War era. They mark the victory of freedom in a century long struggle in Europe.

Several key elements emerged:

1)The only successful model for national success is one that is based on free people and free markets;

2) for a variety of reasons -- many of them having nothing to do with U.S. policy -- the U.S. emerged into this new era as the only nation with the full range of political, military, economic and cultural power able to operate on a global scale; and

3) changes in the international environment have created new vulnerabilities for the U.S.

This last point is a dark side to the story of this new strategic era. At the moment of the triumph of freedom a new challenge has emerged and it has emerged in a form uniquely adapted to put us at risk. Ironically, at the moment of its greatest power, the United States today is at the greatest moment of vulnerability.

The new strategic era opened for the American people, therefore, not with the Prague summit but with the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11. The threat we faced on September 11 was that of a sub-national terrorist movement with global capability. The threat we fear is the combination of that capability with weapons of mass destruction that could be obtained from nations with records of supporting terrorism.

As is always the case at such moments of strategic change, this new environment is putting the existing international structures under serious strain. My government believes it is urgent, most urgent, to prevent forces fundamentally hostile to our civilian populations and to our societies from gaining the means and the opportunity to engage in terrorist attacks on us with weapons of mass destruction.

Ladies and gentlemen, my country does believe and has direct experience to confirm that global terrorists are a direct and immediate risk. We have learned at the cost of three thousand lives in three separate attacks on September 11, 2001 that inaction and denial in the face of state support of such terrorists will be paid for with the lives of our civilians.

The War in Iraq

It is in the face of this new strategic reality that the United States went to war with Iraq. We went to war very reluctantly, having exhausted other means and having run out of time to prevent our worst fears from materializing. For 12 years, the United States sought a peaceful solution to this crisis within the framework of the United Nations.

Following the first war in the Gulf, in which the United States fought under a Security Council mandate, the conflict was never brought to a close. A cease-fire was imposed on Iraq by the Security Council. Iraq almost immediately began to violate the terms of the cease-fire. The U.S. turned again and again to the United Nations to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, to protect the rights of Iraqi citizens, and to deal with the fate of Kuwaitis who were victims of Iraq.

This process took twelve years and 17 Security Council resolutions, the most recent one a unanimous expression of Iraq's failure to comply with the UN's demands. The words of this last effort cannot be misunderstood.

The resolution said:

1)Iraq was in "material breach" of its cease-fire obligations;

2) This was Iraq's final opportunity to comply; and

3) if it did not, Iraq would face "serious consequences."

President Bush made clear last September what those consequences would be.

Very sadly, we came to the conclusion that while we were serious about what we said, others were not. Ladies and gentlemen, we are a serious people engaged in a serious business. When we say that Iraq is in violation of its cease-fire agreement, we mean it. When we vote in the Security Council to declare that Iraq has a final opportunity to comply peacefully with its obligations, that is what we mean. And when we say that if Iraq faces serious consequences if it fails to comply, again, this is precisely what we mean.

Everyone who voted for Resolution 1441 knew exactly what was meant when the resolution spoke of "serious consequences" for Iraq if Iraq chose not to comply. Therefore, we were deeply saddened to see that while we meant what we said when we approved Resolution 1441, others on the Security Council clearly did not.

The United States had turned to the United Nations, hoping desperately that the UN would act to bring Iraq in compliance with the UN's own resolutions. President Bush emphasized repeatedly that this was a vital national interest for the United States. The President, with the utmost clarity, said that if the international community would not act, then the United States would be forced to act to protect its citizens.

He was making clear to everyone that we felt our security was so threatened that our nation was prepared to take the issue to the final court in international security: the court of war. This is a frightful venue. The fee for entrance is blood and suffering. No president goes to that court happily because he knows some of our finest people will not come back from the effort.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the background for how this war began.

At the end of my talk, I will be happy to take questions you might have on the course of the war, but neither I nor anyone else can predict with certainty what this middle portion will look like or how long it will last. It is very important to recognize that we are in a unique situation in terms of media coverage of this war.

When we turn on the television, we see civilian correspondents who are reporting in live time from the front in Iraq. We must keep in mind that they are reporting from their own localized, narrow perspective but will attempt to draw conclusions on the course of the war based on what they see occurring in one location. As a result, we will see many reports that will be misleading and some that turn out to be simply wrong.

I can speak to you with much greater certainty, however, about how the conflict in Iraq will be resolved. Saddam Hussein's regime will be removed from power. Our forces will obtain Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- some of these weapons may even be used against our own troops -- and then we will destroy these weapons. Throughout this process, our forces will work to ensure that civilian casualties are as few as possible and that Iraq's civilian infrastructure is preserved.

In the same way that the United States was clear about the commitment it made when it voted in support of Resolution 1441, we also mean what we say when we speak of our objectives for the war and for a post-conflict Iraq. Many people in Europe and around the world have been attributing nefarious reasons to the United States' decision to go to war with Iraq. The United States, however, has no hidden agenda in its efforts in Iraq.

This is not a war to steal oil or to build empire, nor is it a war against Islam or the United Nations. It is certainly not a war that will benefit the U.S. economy. The United States, as it has said, seeks to remove a dictator who is threatening our society by possessing weapons of mass destruction, and to return the country of Iraq to its own people.

After the conflict is over, the United States will work with a broad collection of Iraqis from all ethnic groups and faiths, from both within and outside of Iraq, to create an interim civil administration that will operate, we hope, in cooperation with and endorsed by United Nations.

Then, as quickly as possible, the Iraqi people will choose their own government. Our only demands of this new Iraqi government will be that it does not posses weapons of mass destruction and that it lives at peace with its neighbors. And, ladies and gentlemen, we intend to achieve this end as quickly as is humanly possible. When we do, we will leave.

The Day After Iraq

It is ironic that this difficult and divisive discussion is taking place at a moment of triumph in this part of the world. Europe is free and at peace, ladies and gentlemen, thanks in part to the blood and treasure of three generations of Europeans and Americans.

We have an opportunity to build on this historic victory for freedom. We have an opportunity to adapt the great institutional products of the last century, NATO, the EU and the UN to the demands of a world thirsting for the freedom, prosperity and peace Europe has achieved. But, that opportunity will pass if we allow emotions on both sides of the Atlantic to carry on as they have.

There will be a day after our disagreements over Iraq. Will that day dawn to a NATO and EU committed to fulfilling the promises that they made just a few short months ago in Prague and Copenhagen? These institutions have already been put too much at risk. I am not personally attracted to the New versus Old Europe discussion. I am a "free Europe" man myself.

Let me be clear about the dangers here. A trans-Atlantic relationship based on emotion, spite and silly caricatures will fatally damage everyone. If we are foolish enough to do this, we will not be debating "New Europe versus Old Europe." We will not have time to discuss who are true Europeans and who are faithful U.S. allies. We will be wondering -- and very quickly -- how Europe's new-found peace and freedom slipped so quickly from our grasp.

We will be wondering how the world slipped so quickly out of control into one crisis after another in which the two sides of the Atlantic wasted their energies blocking each other instead acting against our real enemies. Many will enjoy the finger-pointing and fault-finding that will ensue.

Some, I expect, think Europe will profit from a more hostile political relationship with the U.S., but I assure you ladies and gentlemen, history and our children will not spare us for our folly. We have fifty years of positive experience about the benefits of a positive trans-Atlantic relationship. We also have fifty years of experience of what American absence produced in this part of the world.

I am from a family that has invested its last three generations in the peace and freedom of Europe. My grandfather lost the use of his legs in France as an officer in the U.S. Army in World War I. The man after whom I am named lies in a World War II soldier's grave in Belgium. I have invested much of my professional life in freeing this half of Europe from Soviet domination. We investors strongly suggest free Europeans and Americans think about how we maintain our investment the day after Iraq.

Thank you for your attention.