President Bush Discusses Iraq Policy at Whitehall Palace in London
Remarks by the President at Whitehall Palace
Royal Banqueting House-Whitehall Palace
London, England
1:24 P.M. (Local)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Secretary Straw and Secretary
Hoon; Admiral Cobbald and Dr. Chipman; distinguished guests: I want to
thank you for your very kind welcome that you've given to me and to
Laura. I also thank the groups hosting this event -- The Royal United
Services Institute, and the International Institute for Strategic
Studies. We're honored to be in the United Kingdom, and we bring the
good wishes of the American people.
It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit
London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames. (Laughter.) A
few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me.
(Laughter.) I thank Her Majesty the Queen for interceding.
(Laughter.) We're honored to be staying at her house.
Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to
our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but
I've noticed that the tradition of free speech -- exercised with
enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well here in London. We have
that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.
(Applause.)
The people of Great Britain also might see some familiar traits in
Americans. We're sometimes faulted for a naive faith that liberty can
change the world. If that's an error it began with reading too much
John Locke and Adam Smith. Americans have, on occasion, been called
moralists who often speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has
been inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless compassion of
Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of Wilberforce, and the firm
determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fight and end the
trade in slaves.
It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people. That's, in
part, because the "Good News" was translated by Tyndale, preached by
Wesley, lived out in the example of William Booth. At times, Americans
are even said to have a puritan streak -- where might that have come
from? (Laughter.) Well, we can start with the Puritans.
To this fine heritage, Americans have added a few traits of our
own: the good influence of our immigrants, the spirit of the
frontier. Yet, there remains a bit of England in every American. So
much of our national character comes from you, and we're glad for it.
The fellowship of generations is the cause of common beliefs. We
believe in open societies ordered by moral conviction. We believe in
private markets, humanized by compassionate government. We believe in
economies that reward effort, communities that protect the weak, and
the duty of nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all. And
whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in West Texas, they
instill mutual respect and they inspire common purpose.
More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British and
American peoples have an alliance of values. And, today, this old and
tested alliance is very strong. (Applause.)
The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign
policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand for the human
rights of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so
we are moved to action by poverty and oppression and famine and
disease. The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the
world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest.
We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.
Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this high goal in
a distant land at this very hour. And America honors the idealism and
the bravery of the sons and daughters of Britain.
The last President to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist,
without question. At a dinner hosted by King George V, in 1918,
Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical American understatement, he
vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and
controlling force in the world.
President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 Points for Peace.
Many complimented him on his vision; yet some were dubious. Take, for
example, the Prime Minister of France. He complained that God,
himself, had only 10 commandments. (Laughter.) Sounds familiar.
(Laughter.)
At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short
generation from Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz. Looking back, we
see the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility
and will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators. Free
nations failed to recognize, much less confront, the aggressive evil in
plain sight. And so dictators went about their business, feeding
resentments and anti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in
this city and across the world, and filling the last century with
violence and genocide.
Through world war and cold war, we learned that idealism, if it is
to do any good in this world, requires common purpose and national
strength, moral courage and patience in difficult tasks. And now our
generation has need of these qualities.
On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of murder
on my country, and took the lives of 67 British citizens. With the
passing of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a
quiet life and to put that day behind us, as if waking from a dark
dream. The hope that danger has passed is comforting, is
understanding, and it is false. The attacks that followed -- on Bali,
Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh,
Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. They're part of the global
campaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and demoralize all who
oppose them.
These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the
thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by
the millions and not be finished. The greatest threat of our age is
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists,
and the dictators who aid them. The evil is in plain sight. The
danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once
again to the great democracies. We will face these threats with open
eyes, and we will defeat them. (Applause.)
The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars:
First, international organizations must be equal to the challenges
facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing
proliferation.
Like 11 Presidents before me, I believe in the international
institutions and alliances that America helped to form and helps to
lead. The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to help
make the United Nations what it is supposed to be -- an effective
instrument of our collective security. In recent months, we've sought
and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq -- Resolutions 1441,
1483 and 1511 -- precisely because the global danger of terror demands
a global response. The United Nations has no more compelling advocate
than your Prime Minister, who at every turn has championed its ideals
and appealed to its authority. He understands, as well, that the
credibility of the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word and
to act when action is required.
America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their
power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own
irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations. It's not
enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet
those dangers with resolve.
In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish more
together than apart. For 54 years, America has stood with our partners
in NATO, the most effective multilateral institution in history. We're
committed to this great democratic alliance, and we believe it must
have the will and the capacity to act beyond Europe where threats
emerge.
My nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe, and the world needs
America and the European Union to work in common purpose for the
advance of security and justice. America is cooperating with four
other nations to meet the dangers posed by North Korea. America
believes the IAEA must be true to its purpose and hold Iran to its
obligations.
Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work with other
responsible governments. We understand, as well, that the success of
multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the
tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our
nations secure.
The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the
willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain*
{sic} aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to
the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives
behind these views.
Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good
motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And
that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In
some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a
chaotic world ruled by force.
Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that kind of
world. Yet in some countries, the memories are recent: The victims of
ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those who survived the rapists and the
death squads, have few qualms when NATO applied force to help end those
crimes. The women of Afghanistan, imprisoned in their homes and beaten
in the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not reproach us
for routing the Taliban. The inhabitants of Iraq's Baathist hell, with
its lavish palaces and its torture chambers, with its massive statues
and its mass graves, do not miss their fugitive dictator. They
rejoiced at his fall.
In all these cases, military action was proceeded by diplomatic
initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and final chances until
the final moment. In Iraq, year after year, the dictator was given the
chance to account for his weapons programs, and end the nightmare for
his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced.
And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was
strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power?
Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous
without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world.
And Europe, too, is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his
crimes, instead of committing more.
It's been said that those who live near a police station find it
hard to believe in the triumph of violence, in the same way free
peoples might be tempted to take for granted the orderly societies we
have come to know. Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great
achievements of the last half-century. And because European countries
now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's
sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same
way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved -- by
allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us
never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and
violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom
and security still need defenders. (Applause.)
The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global
expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the
alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely
exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security.
Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.
In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear
allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and
labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not
shelter terrorist camps or attack their peaceful neighbors; they honor
the aspirations and dignity of their own people. In our conflict with
terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot
be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind.
As global powers, both our nations serve the cause of freedom in
many ways, in many places. By promoting development, and fighting
famine and AIDS and other diseases, we're fulfilling our moral duties,
as well as encouraging stability and building a firmer basis for
democratic institutions. By working for justice in Burma, in the Sudan
and in Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people and improve the
chances for stability and progress. By extending the reach of trade we
foster prosperity and the habits of liberty. And by advancing freedom
in the greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and
radicalism that brings millions of people to misery and brings danger
to our own people.
The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the Middle East
remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place
of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the
ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and
way of life. If the greater Middle East joins the democratic
revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in
that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be
ended at its source.
The movement of history will not come about quickly. Because of
our own democratic development -- the fact that it was gradual and, at
times, turbulent -- we must be patient with others. And the Middle
East countries have some distance to travel.
Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated whole
nations from the progress of our time. The essentials of social and
material progress -- limited government, equal justice under law,
religious and economic liberty, political participation, free press,
and respect for the rights of women -- have been scarce across the
region. Yet that has begun to change. In an arc of reform from
Morocco to Jordan to Qatar, we are seeing elections and new protections
for women and the stirring of political pluralism. Many governments
are realizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to national
greatness; they end in national ruin. They are finding, as others will
find, that national progress and dignity are achieved when governments
are just and people are free.
The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not
imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to
see. Freedom, by definition, must be chosen, and defended by those who
choose it. Our part, as free nations, is to ally ourselves with
reform, wherever it occurs.
Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own
thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the
capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for
self-government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a
democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are
today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested
that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for
self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy
to defend themselves against corrupt elites.
Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of
personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It
is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to
liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of
it. (Applause.)
We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East.
Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain,
to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties
often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain
did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while
problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to
oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No
longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily
convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great
democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found. (Applause.)
Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of
freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies
of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher
standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our
responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of
democracy we have begun.
There were good-faith disagreements in your country and mine over
the course and timing of military action in Iraq. Whatever has come
before, we now have only two options: to keep our word, or to break
our word. The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back
into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to
destroy us. Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is
firm, our word is good, and the Iraqi people will not surrender their
freedom. (Applause.)
Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could
hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force
protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi
newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what
they're ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free of propaganda.
Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied. Iraq has a new
currency, the first battalion of a new army, representative local
governments, and a Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for
national sovereignty. This is substantial progress. And much of it
has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after
World War II.
Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious. And it
comes from Baathist holdouts and Jihadists from other countries, and
terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent bloodshed. It is the
nature of terrorism and the cruelty of a few to try to bring grief in
the loss to many. The armed forces of both our countries have taken
losses, felt deeply by our citizens. Some families now live with a
burden of great sorrow. We cannot take the pain away. But these
families can know they are not alone. We pray for their strength; we
pray for their comfort; and we will never forget the courage of the
ones they loved.
The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty. They
view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their
ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of
terror against our coalition, against international aid workers and
against innocent Iraqis, will make us recoil and retreat. In this,
they are mistaken. (Applause.)
We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay
a bitter cost of casualties, and liberate 25 million people, only to
retreat before a band of thugs and assassins. (Applause.) We will
help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in
the heart of the Middle East. And by doing so, we will defend our
people from danger.
The forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. It's a difficult period in a part of the world that has
known many. Yet, our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and
dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian
people, who have been betrayed by others for too long. (Applause.) We
seek security and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived
in the shadow of random death for too long. (Applause.) These are
worthy goals in themselves, and by reaching them we will also remove an
occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in the broader Middle
East.
Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of the shape
of a border. As we work on the details of peace, we must look to the
heart of the matter, which is the need for a viable Palestinian
democracy. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who
intimidate opposition, who tolerate and profit from corruption and
maintain their ties to terrorist groups. These are the methods of the
old elites, who time and again had put their own self-interest above
the interest of the people they claim to serve. The long-suffering
Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders, capable
of creating and governing a Palestinian state.
Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill
and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure
Israel. Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful
means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed
institutions of a stable democracy.
Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle
unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian
people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of
walls and fences.
Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off
public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal
relations with Israel.
Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any
Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause. And
Europe's leaders -- and all leaders -- should strongly oppose
anti-Semitism, which poisons public debates over the future of the
Middle East. (Applause.)
Ladies and gentlemen, we have great objectives before us that make
our Atlantic alliance as vital as it has ever been. We will encourage
the strength and effectiveness of international institutions. We will
use force when necessary in the defense of freedom. And we will raise
up an ideal of democracy in every part of the world. On these three
pillars we will build the peace and security of all free nations in a
time of danger.
So much good has come from our alliance of conviction and might.
So much now depends on the strength of this alliance as we go forward.
America has always found strong partners in London, leaders of good
judgment and blunt counsel and backbone when times are tough. And I
have found all those qualities in your current Prime Minister, who has
my respect and my deepest thanks. (Applause.)
The ties between our nations, however, are deeper than the
relationship between leaders. These ties endure because they are
formed by the experience and responsibilities and adversity we have
shared. And in the memory of our peoples, there will always be one
experience, one central event when the seal was fixed on the friendship
between Britain and the United States: The arrival in Great Britain of
more than 1.5 million American soldiers and airmen in the 1940s was a
turning point in the second world war. For many Britons, it was a
first close look at Americans, other than in the movies. Some of you
here today may still remember the "friendly invasion." Our lads, they
took some getting used to. There was even a saying about what many of
them were up to -- in addition to be "overpaid and over here."
(Laughter.)
At a reunion in North London some years ago, an American pilot who
had settled in England after his military service, said, "Well, I'm
still over here, and probably overpaid. So two out of three isn't
bad." (Laughter.)
In that time of war, the English people did get used to the
Americans. They welcomed soldiers and fliers into their villages and
homes, and took to calling them, "our boys." About 70,000 of those
boys did their part to affirm our special relationship. They returned
home with English brides.
Americans gained a certain image of Britain, as well. We saw an
island threatened on every side, a leader who did not waver, and a
country of the firmest character. And that has not changed. The
British people are the sort of partners you want when serious work
needs doing. The men and women of this Kingdom are kind and steadfast
and generous and brave. And America is fortunate to call this country
our closest friend in the world.