In July of 1990, I was privileged to attend the first post-Cold War NATO Summit here in London, 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.” 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 41, as we call him—after the Berlin Wall came down. He was asked what need there was for NATO now that the threat had gone away. I remember how many people discounted his wise answer that a threat did remain, and its name was “uncertainty.”
The intervening years have demonstrated both the promise of that new era and the continuing relevance of NATO not only to help bring that new world into being, but also to deal with the new threats that emerged from the uncertainty of the post-Cold War era. Barely a month after that summit, 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 is 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 Prague Summit is very gratifying to me personally. I recall my own visit to Prague in April of 1991 to attend a remarkable event: The then-Secretary General of NATO, the late Manfred Woerner, and the President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, had invited representatives of all the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries to an unprecedented conference on European security. 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 that Warsaw Pact countries might eventually join NATO.
A year later, I recall being in Moscow for discussions with my counterpart in the Russian Ministry of Defense, 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 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 partnership with an increasingly democratic Russia.
With Prague’s decision to invite another seven new democracies into the North Atlantic Alliance, “the soul of Europe has grown stronger” because, as President Bush put it, “those with fresh memories of tyranny know the value of freedom. Those who have lived through a struggle of good against evil are never neutral between them.”
Indeed, what NATO has succeeded in demonstrating is that an alliance that has never been neutral in its commitment to 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 and 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.
Today, I am fortunate 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 will add, some British leaders have gone on record agreeing that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing”— we knew we owed a great deal to the example of this government as we set up our own. 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 tradition…. 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."
In the two decades since Reagan’s speech, the world has changed dramatically—the menace of Communism has been vanquished, and now a different emergency is upon us once again. But, there are some things that haven’t changed: the British are still standing shoulder to shoulder with America, and they still have their legendary stiff upper lip. Thank goodness for that.
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—couldn’t 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 overestimate how much the fury of September 11th changed America’s outlook on the world. We had grown used to the idea that the oceans that embrace our shores somehow shielded us from the sort of violence that is commonplace elsewhere in the world. We were shocked into a stark reality on that September morning. The very liberty we had come to take for granted—going where we wanted, doing what we wanted, when we wanted, living free from the fear of attack—has been curtailed in ways that are very real. 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 UK—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.
This 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 our belief in our own way of life.”[1] Indeed, this new war has tested us on all fronts, and we have responded on all fronts. Immediately following the attacks, President Bush defined the scope of our response: “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 -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network. “[2]
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—as some may never have envisioned, because of an attack on the United States. NATO AWACS, developed to counter a Soviet attack on Western Europe, instead were deployed to the U.S. to monitor our airspace and help prevent further terrorist attacks.
The momentous events of the last year have demonstrated that our transatlantic ties are far from obsolete. Indeed, they are essential.
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 $116 million dollars.
Seventeen nations contributed some 6,000 troops to Operation Enduring Freedom and to the International Security Force in Kabul, led first by the U.K. NATO members and partners played a key role in the progress of the last 14 months in which the Afghan people have been liberated; the Taliban regime has been removed from power, al Qaeda has lost its sanctuary in Afghanistan, and large numbers have been killed or captured or are dispersed and on the run. 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 against terrorism. As President Bush said recently at the NATO Summit, “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, in President Bush’s words, “the unique and the urgent threat posed by Iraq.”
Peaceful Resolution of the Iraq Problem
Let me here say a few words about the problem of 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 to convincing the current Iraqi regime that this time the world is serious. As the world makes common cause for peace, 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.
What the world must not forget is that 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 part of the second.
The current Iraqi regime has used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and even against its own people. It has produced chemical and biological weapons, and it has a vigorous nuclear weapons development program. And intelligence indicates that these programs have been accelerated in the four years since UNSCOM inspections ended.
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 inch of Iraq. It cannot be their responsibility to search out and find every illegal weapon or program. That would be a task beyond their means. Nor is it the responsibility of the inspectors to disarm Iraq. That is the responsibility of the Iraqi regime itself. What inspectors can do is give us some confidence that the regime has, in fact, assumed that responsibility, that it has declared every weapon of mass destruction and every development program that exists and that these weapons have been destroyed and those programs have been dismantled.
The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein and his regime must fundamentally change their attitude and finally implement a disarmament that they agreed to over a decade ago. This change in attitude is not something that inspectors can bring about. All they can do is to help verify such a change if it happens. 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, I want to 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.”
Eleven years of stubborn defiance of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, make it clear that 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 WMD programs. Eleven years of Iraqi missiles firing at American and British pilots suggest that the current regime will not easily give up its dangerous pattern of defiance.
The UN has passed another resolution. But that is no reason to assume the Iraqi regime will pass up the deadly weapons it should not have in the first place. 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, 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, our only hope, and let me emphasize—our only hope—of achieving that peaceful outcome is if we 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 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 crisis would not have been possible.
As Prime Minister Blair has reminded us recently, given the ongoing threats we face, we must remain vigilant.[3] 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 the time, “neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” the late president said 40 years ago, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security to constitute maximum peril.”
If that was true 40 years ago facing a threat that was comparatively easy to observe, 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. Just 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. 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 Iraq situation, we recognize that we would never have succeeded in the UN 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 many others. In fact, a growing number of countries have indicated that they would participate in a coalition if Iraq refuses to give up its weapons of mass destruction. They see, as we do, that our hope for peace rests with the credible threat of force.
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 won’t play the game that Secretary of State Powell characterized as “rope-a-dope in the desert”; the routine the Iraqi regime has been 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 UK and around the world, they will have made a big mistake.
Turkey as a Member of 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.
Indeed, the war on terrorism requires more than defeating and capturing terrorists, more than breaking up terrorist networks and eliminating state support of terrorism, even though those tasks are 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 we must support 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 Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment.”
Tomorrow, I’ll be traveling from London 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. Playing a strategic role at the crossroads between East and West, Turkey is a key element for building a Europe that is undivided, democratic and free and that helps to bridge the gap between the West and the Muslim world.
It is the great good fortune of NATO and the West, indeed 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 entire world 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 Europe’s to make, of course. But history suggests that a European Union that welcomes Turkey will be even stronger, safer, even 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 acknowledge 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 this 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 union agenda. As the UN plan proposes, final agreements can be completed by February 28, 2003. However, firm commitments to a solution need to be made right now.
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. Today, Operation Northern Watch continues from Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, helping coalition forces to protect the people of Northern Iraq from Baghdad’s repression.
When international terrorism struck the United States in 2001, 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. As the UK understands perhaps better than most, ISAF has been key to ensuring Afghanistan’s successful transition to a more stable, longer-term authority in Afghanistan’s successful transition to a more stable, longer-term authority. Under the highly professional leadership of Major General Hilmi Zorlu—the Turks have sustained and strengthened ISAF.
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 going. 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 reforms across a broad range of criteria. 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 the Southeast. Turks knows that there is more to do, but I am confident that they will do it. The European Union can do a lot to encourage them.
Turks have also shown the courage to correct the structural weaknesses in their economy. Reforms to ensure effectiveness and transparency in regulations concerning foreign investment and settlement of investment disputes will make Turkey even more attractive to direct foreign investment; this will help create prosperity in an enormous market that possesses a young, healthy and dynamic work force. As a result, there have been encouraging signs that the economy has begun to turn the corner toward growth. The United States has a strategic interest in the economic success of Turkey, and we are committed to continuing to help Turkey in taking steps to recovery from its 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, 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 religion and state.
Modern Turkey demonstrates that a democratic system is indeed compatible with Islam, a Muslim understanding Ataturk once expressed, when he said: Islam ahLAK deMEKtir. “Islam means morals and values.” And in upholding Islam’s morals and values, there can be a separation of religion from the state—a separation that is completely compatible with personal piety. As we understand in the UK and the US, and as Ataturk captured it: 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. Indeed, the values of freedom and democracy, as we have seen time and again, are universal values.
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 can 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 from 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 no independent Kurdish state will be created in Northern Iraq. That is also our 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 Iraq is maintained. A democratic Iraq will stimulate economic growth with neighbors like Turkey and will 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 Iraq. Once freed from Saddam Hussein’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 other systems of government are turning, in their own way, to freedom and democracy.
In this century, we may well hope to see the institutions of liberty and democracy open to everyone. When they are, we will all benefit. But, we must do our part to help those nations and those people who aspire to those values and those institutions. It is in our strategic interest, as well as our moral interest, to do so.
As Copenhagen approaches, Turkey hopes eagerly to receive a firm date to begin accession talks, even while recognizing that it will take some time to officially 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 with the West.
And as Europe’s leaders stand by Turkey, they will be making a great contribution to ending the on terror war and building, as President Bush has said, “a better world beyond.”
Conclusion
In May, 1945, not far from here, from a balcony in Whitehall, England’s prime minister 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.”
Churchill 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 a leader’s 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 terrorists. The future belongs to those who work to achieve the oldest and noblest dream of all, the dream of peace and freedom.
---------------------------------------
[1] The Journal, Nov. 12, 2002. Quoted from speech to Lord Mayor’s banquet in London
[2] Address to Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001
[3] Lord Mayor’s banquet, as reported in The Journal.
