No. 916Delivered December 13, 2005 December 16, 2005

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: www.heritage.org/research/middleeast/iraq/hl916.cfm

Produced by the Douglas and Sarah AllisonCenter for Foreign Policy Studies

of theKathryn and Shelby Cullom DavisInstitute for International Studies

Published by The Heritage Foundation214 Massachusetts Avenue, NEWashington, DC 20002–4999(202) 546-4400 • heritage.org

Heritage Talking Points• Abandoning future generations in the Mid-

dle East to despair and terror would con-demn future generations in the UnitedStates to insecurity and fear. President Bushhas made clear that on his watch, Americawill not retreat from a fight that we can andmust win.

• As the Iraqi people have inspired the worldby freely embracing democracy, an interna-tional consensus has emerged that securingdemocracy in Iraq is strategically essential.This new consensus is generating interna-tional support that was not fully present inthe earliest days of Iraq’s liberation.

• Victory in Iraq will be the establishment of afree and democratic Iraq that can guaranteethe freedom, meet the needs, and defendthe rights of all its citizens. Victory, likedemocracy itself, will be a steady but defin-able process that will not be won overnight.

International Support for Iraqi DemocracyThe Honorable Condoleezza Rice

Thank you very much, Ed. I’d like to first thank EdFeulner for that kind introduction. We were justremembering outside that we first met at Camp Davidwhen President George H. W. Bush had some peopletogether to talk about the Soviet Union. He was goingoff to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev that Decemberand it seems like a lifetime ago that there was actuallya Soviet Union and that the big challenge was to ridthe continent of Europe of Communism and the tyr-anny therein. And a lot has happened in that very fewyears. But, Ed, thank you for your tremendous leader-ship of this great organization.

I’d also like to recognize Kim Holmes, who I hadthe pleasure of working with at the State Departmentbefore Ed stole him away. It’s great to see you, Kim.And I’d like to thank the Board of Trustees, withwhom I just briefly had a moment to say hello. Theorganization, the Heritage Foundation, is a true bed-rock of our democratic principles, our freedom, ourway of life and a vehicle by which free men and wom-en can debate their future. Thank you very much forthe great work of this organization.

I have come to Heritage today on the cusp of an his-toric event. Two days from now, the Iraqi people will goto the polls for the third time since January. And theywill elect a parliament to govern their nation for thenext four years. All across Iraq today, representativesfrom some 300 political parties are staging rallies,they’re holding televised debates, they’re hanging cam-paign posters, and they’re taking their case to the Iraqipeople. They are asking for the consent of the governed.

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflect-ing the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to

aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

As this historic moment approaches, we inAmerica are engaging in our own historic debate.Many Americans have asked questions about ournation’s role in Iraq. And in recent weeks, PresidentBush has responded by clearly describing ourNational Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

The American people want to know who we andthe Iraqis are fighting and that we can win. AndPresident Bush has answered, explaining the natureof the enemy that we face and why failure is not anoption. The enemy in Iraq is a combination ofrejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists. Therejectionists miss the unjust status they have lost.But we believe that some of them can be convincedto join a democratic Iraq that is strong enough toprotect minority rights. The Saddamists are loyal tothe old regime and think that they can regain pow-er by inciting undemocratic sentiment. But as theIraqi people become more able to defend theirdemocracy, we believe that they will increasingly bemarginalized.

The final enemy we face, the terrorists, are asmall but deadly group, motivated by the globalideology of hatred that fuels al-Qaida, and theywill stop at nothing to make Iraq the heart of atotalitarian empire that encompasses the entireIslamic world. If we quit now, we will give the ter-rorists exactly what they want. We will desertIraq’s democrats at their time of greatest need. Wewill embolden every enemy of liberty across theMiddle East. We will destroy any chance that thepeople of this region have of building a future ofhope and decency. And most of all, we will makeAmerica more vulnerable.

In abandoning future generations in the MiddleEast to despair and terror, we also condemn futuregenerations in the United States to insecurity andfear. And President Bush has made clear that on hiswatch, America will not retreat from a fight that wecan and must win.

The American people also want to know whatvictory means in Iraq. And President Bush hasanswered, defining victory as the establishment of afree and democratic Iraq that can guarantee thefreedom, meet the needs and defend the rights ofall its citizens. As the President has said, victory in

this struggle will not be a singular event, like thesurrender of our enemies on the deck of an Ameri-can battleship. Rather, victory, like democracyitself, will be a steady but definable process thatwill not be won overnight.

Lastly, and most importantly, the American peo-ple want to know how we and our Iraqi partnerswill achieve the victory we seek. And again, Presi-dent Bush has answered, describing a nationalstrategy that is broad and integrated, with threecomplementary tracks: security, economic andpolitical.

On the security track, we are working togetherwith the Iraqis to clear areas from enemy control, tohold the territory controlled by Iraq’s democraticgovernment and to build the capacity of Iraq’s secu-rity forces to defend the rule of law.

On the economic track, we are helping the peo-ple of Iraq to restore their battered infrastructure,to reform their statist economy and to build theinstitutions that sustain economic liberty.

Finally, on the political track, we are helping theIraqi people to isolate incorrigible enemies fromdemocratic supporters, to engage all citizens whowould choose the path of politics over the course ofviolence and to build inclusive democratic institu-tions that protect the interests of all Iraqis.

Ladies and Gentlemen: The President is answer-ing America’s questions about our mission in Iraq.And today, I have come to the Heritage Foundationto address an additional question: What is theinternational community doing to advance thecause of victory in Iraq?

To answer simply: As the Iraqi people haveinspired the world by freely embracing democracy,an international consensus has emerged that secur-ing democracy in Iraq is strategically essential. Thisnew consensus is generating international supportthat, quite frankly, was not fully present in the ear-liest days of Iraq’s liberation. And this support existsalong each of the three tracks that I’ve outlined.

On the security front, our coalition todayremains strong and active. Some 30 nations arecontributing over 22,000 soldiers, who are riskingtheir lives alongside brave Iraqi and brave Ameri-

page 2

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

can troops. Like generations of Americans beforethem, our men and women in uniform are distin-guishing themselves today through selfless service.They are heroically defending the freedom of oth-ers against a determined enemy. And we in Americamourn the loss and honor the sacrifice of our manysons and daughters who have fallen in Iraq andaround the world to protect our way of life.

Our coalition in Iraq includes several partners,both old and new, who are also making historiccontributions. No ally has assumed greater respon-sibility than Great Britain. Japan is maintaining itsfirst significant overseas military deployment in 60years. South Korea has more soldiers in Iraq todaythan any other ally except Great Britain. And even asmall nation like El Salvador is making a largeimpact, sustaining the biggest and most distantdeployment in its nation’s history.

America is grateful to every nation that standswith us in Iraq. Our coalition members have suf-fered nearly 200 dead and 500 wounded. And weespecially note with some pride and some under-standing that some of our strongest partners fromthe very beginning, those whose desire to fight tyr-anny is most fierce and for those with whom thememory of tyranny is most fresh.

Coalition forces today have responsibility forsecurity in nearly 40 percent of Iraq. In southernIraq, Britain and Poland are commanding multina-tional divisions, encompassing 19 nations in total,that are helping to root out terrorists and maintainsecurity. Coalition field hospitals have treated morethan three quarters of a million Iraqis. And smallerdeployments from nations like Kazakhstan andBosnia and Herzegovina are removing thousands oflandmines and old ordnance.

Our coalition partners are also contributing to theimportant work of building effective Iraqi securityforces. NATO is now participating in the training ofIraq’s new military. And Jordan is hosting a majorpolice academy that is preparing thousands of Iraqisevery month to protect and serve their fellow citi-zens. In addition, Hungary has donated dozens oftanks to Iraq’s military. And Japan has provided morethan one thousand vehicles like fire trucks andambulances to Iraq’s police and security forces.

Now, over time, the size and shape of our coali-tion will continue to evolve. In the coming months,some nations will reduce their number of troops incombat, but will continue to assume new securitymissions, including the training and equipping ofIraq’s military. Other countries, however, willextend the mandate for their forces as many havedone in just the past few weeks.

Over time, the role of our coalition will alsoevolve, as Iraqis assume greater responsibility fortheir own security. With every passing day, Iraqisbecome better able to defend their nation andthemselves and this enables us to shift more of ourforces to helping Iraqis build the institutions oftheir new democracy. In the coming months andyears, this will enable America’s men and women inuniform, as well as those of our coalition, to returnhome to their families with the honor that theydeserve.

As the security situation in Iraq improves, so toodoes the prospect for Iraq’s economic reconstruc-tion. It is difficult, however, to overstate the extentof this challenge. For several decades, SaddamHussein robbed his nation to enrich himself,destroying Iraq’s infrastructure and abusing itsmost valuable resource: the talented Iraqi peoplethemselves. In less than three years, however, theincreased generosity of the international communi-ty has begun to build the foundation of a moderneconomy in Iraq and to liberate the entrepreneurialspirit of the Iraqi people.

Two years ago in Madrid, almost 40 countriesand international institutions pledged $13.5 billionin assistance to Iraq. And as Iraq continues itstransformation into a stable democracy, donors aremaking good on their promises. Today, this moneyis providing the Iraqi people access to more cleanwater and better health care, to renovate its schoolswith better teachers and upgraded houses in someof Iraq’s poorest neighborhoods. And Iraqis aremaking the most of this increased opportunity:They have started three times as many businessesin two and a half years of freedom as they did infour whole decades of tyranny.

Iraq’s international partners have also helped toliberate the Iraqi people from much of the crushing

page 3

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

debt with which Saddam burdened the country.Last year, the Paris Club of international creditorsagreed to forgive 80 percent of the $40 billion ofIraqi debt that is held by Club members, one of themost generous forgiveness efforts in the group’s his-tory. This is a positive example that we are encour-aging others to follow.

And in early 2004, the World Bank and the Unit-ed Nations established the International Recon-struction Fund Facility for Iraq. Canada is servingas its co-chair and providing $85 million to theFacility, which has already received over $1 billionin contributions from 25 countries. These funds areenabling millions of Iraqis in cities to enjoy cleandrinking water, improved sanitation in their poor-est neighborhoods, and make a better life. And inthe past year alone, this money has financed therehabilitation and construction of hundreds ofschool buildings and provided 69 million new text-books to children of all ages in nearly all of Iraq’sschools.

The gradual improvement of Iraq’s economy andthe Iraqi government’s increasingly responsible fis-cal leadership are also restoring the confidence ofinternational financial institutions. Recently, theWorld Bank approved $500 million in develop-ment loans for Iraq to modernize its transportation,water, and education systems. And the Internation-al Monetary Fund, having determined that Iraqqualifies for $450 million in emergency assistance,is now working with the Iraqi Government toimplement a long-term program for economicreform.

Now, despite the growing international supportfor Iraq’s reconstruction, more needs to be done.Many nations, especially Japan and South Korea,have distinguished themselves with their generosi-ty. But others, like Iraq’s neighbors, should bedoing a lot more. And for all who have pledgedassistance to the Iraqi people, it is now time todeliver.

Finally, on the political front, the internationalcommunity is increasingly overcoming old divi-sions and supporting Iraq’s transition to democracy.We have now passed four major Security Councilresolutions on Iraq, most of them unanimously,

pledging the UN’s support for everything from aninternational mandate for our coalition forces, to aninternational rejection of terrorism in Iraq, to thegoal of advancing Iraq’s democratic process.

Yet, as welcome as this broad support is, I’m sadto say that the international community has barelydone anything to help Iraq prosecute Saddam Hus-sein. All who expressed their devotion to humanrights and the rule of law have a special obligationto help the Iraqis bring to justice one of the world’smost murderous tyrants. The international com-munity’s effective boycott of Saddam’s trial is onlyharming the Iraqi people, who are now working tosecure the hope of justice and freedom that Saddamlong denied them.

The Iraqi people clearly voiced their desire forfreedom through democratic elections this January.And the sight of eight million free Iraqis, proudlydisplaying their ink-stained fingers, inspired newlevels of international support for the goal ofdemocracy in Iraq. In June, the United States andthe European Union co-hosted an internationalconference in Brussels, at which more than 80countries agreed to a new international partnershipto support Iraq’s freely elected government.

The courage and conviction of the Iraqi peoplehas also inspired new assistance from the UnitedNations, especially in preparation for Thursday’selections. The UN supported Iraq in its successfulconstitutional referendum in October and beforethat in its elections in January, helping the Iraqis doeverything from train election workers, to adminis-tering polling sites, to print and distribute five mil-lion copies of their constitution to their fellowcitizens.

Finally, a new and hopeful change has been thegrowing support that Iraq now receives from itsneighbors. Of course, countries like Jordan andKuwait and Qatar were early supporters of Iraq’sliberation. And Jordan’s King Abdullah has consis-tently championed the emergence of a free Iraq andwelcomed its integration into the region.

But lately, others have joined this course as well.Last year, Egypt hosted an international conferencein Sharm el-Sheikh to support the Iraqi people.And Iraq’s neighbors have welcomed it back into

page 4

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

the Arab League. Many Arab governments now rec-ognize the legitimacy of Iraq’s democratically elect-ed leaders and this newfound support culminatedin the recent Arab League conference in Cairo inwhich states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia encour-aged Iraq’s Sunnis to reject violence and to join thedemocratic process and to participate in Thursday’selections. The process of supporting nationalaccord in Iraq should continue early next yearwhen there will be another international confer-ence hosted by the Arab League.

Now, some of Iraq’s neighbors are showingthemselves to be no friends of the Iraqi people. Syr-ia has still not taken sufficient action to stop the ter-rorists who cross into Iraq from its territory. AndIran continues to meddle in Iraqi affairs and to sup-port violence in Iraqi society.

Nevertheless, the enemies of Iraq are increasing-ly fewer and isolating themselves from the interna-tional community, because today, the world is moreunited than ever in support of a new Iraq. In justtwo days, when Iraqis make history by electing themost democratic leaders in the entire Middle East,they will do so with the moral and financial anddiplomatic backing of an overwhelming majority ofthe world.

This is remarkable when you consider howsharply divided the world was only three years ago.President Bush’s vision of an Iraqi democracy,standing as a tribute to its citizens and serving as aninspiration to its neighbors, was neither graspednor supported by many in the international com-munity. Many believed that despotism was the per-manent political condition of the Middle East. Andthey were prepared to countenance the false stabil-ity of undemocratic governments.

But there were others who knew better. Nationsas different as Ukraine and Australia, Great Britainand South Korea, Poland and Japan, Lithuania andEl Salvador, nations that were united by the sharedconviction that liberty is not a scarce possession tobe selfishly hoarded. Rather, it is a universal rightthat all free peoples must defend.

Today, countries that previously doubted thepromise of democracy in Iraq are rallying to Iraq’sside. The Iraqi people are seizing an unprecedented

opportunity to live at last in peace and in freedom.And their democratic example is inspiring impa-tient patriots in places like Lebanon and Egypt andthe Palestinian territories—courageous men andwomen who are now finding ever more supportersin the international community to champion theiraspirations and defend their dignity.

The lesson, my friends, is clear: When Americaleads with principle in the world, freedom’s causegrows stronger. We saw this when Ronald Reaganspurned friendly dictators and supported freedom’scause in Latin America. We saw this as well whenReagan called out the true character of the SovietUnion and liberated a democratic longing that end-ed the Cold War. And we are seeing this today, asthe world awakens to the promise of a free Iraq.

I would like to thank all of you here at the Heri-tage Foundation for your continued support forAmerica’s principled leadership in the worldbecause without it, the world suffers and Americasuffers, too. Thank you for letting me speak withyou today.

DR. FEULNER: Thank you, Madame Secretary.The Secretary has agreed to take some questions.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, it’s good to see you again.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

QUESTION: I have a great stake at Iraq. My sonserved a tour. He just came back.

I listen to you now and I have listened to youbefore a few times and you have to understand youare empowering a lot of people, especially in SaudiArabia. My question is, as you know and most ofthe people in this room know, that the Saudi poli-cies and their extremist religious institutions pose agreat threat to this country’s values domesticallyand interests internationally.

Recently, you formed—or the Administrationformed six working committees to deal with theAmerican-Saudi relations. None of those committeesis assigned to deal with promoting democracy in Sau-di Arabia. If I am right, why is that not happening?

page 5

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Firstof all, thank you for your son’s service in Iraq andalso the sacrifice that the family had to make inorder for that to take place.

We have indeed formed committees with the Sau-dis, but let me start by saying that when I was in SaudiArabia, both times, I stood next to the Saudi ForeignMinister and I talked about the importance of reformin Saudi Arabia and indeed the empowerment ofwomen, that women need to vote. You’ll notice thatthere is a committee on human development. Thatcommittee has wide range to talk about human devel-opment, to talk about how human beings prosper,and it is very clearly our view and it will therefore beintroduced into the conversation in that group thathuman beings only develop in the context of politicalpluralism and democracy and reform.

Saudi Arabia is a complicated state that is at thebeginning, we hope, of its reform process. We areprepared to start where states are and to move for-ward. But I think we’ve made very clear that—thePresident made very clear in his Second InauguralAddress that his call to have democratic aspirationsof people around the world answered did not stopat the border of the Middle East, nor did it stop atthe border of any of our friends.

We’ve made the mistake in the past, for the last60 years, of assuming that we could have stabilitywithout democracy. And so whether it is Saudi Ara-bia or other friends of ours, we have expectationsabout reform and about democracy, and that will bea part of our dialogue.

QUESTION: As you laid out today, the case forour policies in Iraq is very strong and overwhelm-ing. My question is why did the Administrationwait so long to make the case?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, to be absolutely fair, Ithink we thought we were making the case overthe last period of time. The President has talked alot about it. We’ve been in before Congress.We’ve—all of us—been on—Don and the VicePresident, all of us have been out there talking.

But what the President has done, I think, in thelast few—last couple of weeks, really, is to go to the

American people with a kind of renewed sense ofurgency about what it is we face in Iraq and what itis that we risk in Iraq if we do not succeed.

It is perfectly acceptable, indeed it is natural in ademocracy, to debate policies, no matter howimportant those policies are. But it is also incum-bent upon the President, as he has been doing, tosay to the American people we can have our dis-agreements, we can have our debates, but here arethe risks if we take certain courses of action.

And while I respect and I know the Presidentrespects all of those who have a different viewabout our commitment in Iraq, who had a differentview about the decision to overthrow Saddam Hus-sein after all of those years of his defiance of theinternational system, I do think that the case is veryclear that we cannot fail in Iraq, that we have notjust a tremendous opportunity to have a differentkind of Iraq at the center of a different kind of Mid-dle East, and therefore make ourselves safer, but wealso have a responsibility to recognize that therecould also be a different kind of Iraq and a differentkind of Middle East that would be very bad forAmerican interests and for world stability.

America has always wanted to finish the job. I’vebeen, as of late, talking about the circumstancesafter World War II. And when I look back on thatperiod of time, I can’t imagine what our predeces-sors were going through as they watched strategicdefeat after strategic defeat after strategic defeat,whether it was the communists winning largeminorities in France and Italy in 1946, or in 1947the Greek civil war and the tensions and the strifein Turkey, or in 1948 Germany permanently divid-ed in the Berlin events, or in 1948 the Czechoslo-vak coup, or in 1949 the Soviet Union exploding anuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule andthe Chinese communists winning their civil war.Those weren’t minor setbacks. Those were hugestrategic defeats. And yet they pulled themselvestogether and they laid a foundation for peace to thepoint that today, today, no one can imagine warbetween the great powers of Europe ever again. Itwas not inevitable in 1945 or 1946 that no onecould imagine war between France and Germany. Itwas not inevitable that Japan was going to emergeas a free, democratic state and an ally of the United

page 6

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

States after what we had suffered in Pearl Harborand in the Pacific. Nothing was inevitable aboutany of this and yet now it seems inevitable.

And so I think that what we’ve been trying to doand what the President has been doing is to tellpeople what the stakes are, but also to say if we fol-low through, if we keep our counsel, if we keep oureye on the values that we are espousing, that we’regoing to get to a day 10, 20, 30 years from nowwhen people are going to look back and say: Whatwas all the fuss about? The Middle East is a place ofpeace and democracy and there’s a peaceful Pales-tinian state living side by side with Israel and thepeople of Syria and the people of Iran and the peo-ple of all of these states are living in a democracy,and it will be unimaginable that it could be a regionthat produces an ideology of hatred so great thatpeople fly airplanes into buildings on a fine Sep-tember day.

And so I think what the President is challengingthe American people to do is to look at what couldhappen if we do not finish our job, but also at whatcould happen if we do finish our job. And that hasalways been the role of American leadership tohave a vision of a future that is fundamentally dif-ferent than the present.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, to me you are aninspiration for the achievement of the Americangoals to bring freedom not only to Iraq but to therest of the world, and keeping in mind their cul-ture because that’s very important. We win byunderstanding people. And I think you havebrought that message very well.

My question is, Iraq is going to elections on the15th. The terrorists always manage to surprise uswith the most unexpected surprises at the lastmoment. How well are we prepared to ensure thatpeople will go to vote and stay alive?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. And indeed,there are many, many preparations that have takenplace to provide security during the Iraqi elections.We are a part of that, the coalition forces. And youmay have noticed on television that Iraqi securityforces are voting some two days ahead of time.

Well, that’s because it’s expected that they’re goingto be out protecting their fellow citizens to votewhen the voting actually starts in earnest onThursday. And so the Iraqi security forces havemade a lot of preparations and we have, too.

But it is a sign of how far we’ve come. I can tellyou that back in January, when the elections tookplace, it was principally coalition forces that pro-vided the security and the Iraqis provided somesecurity and indeed they helped a lot, and onething that General Casey was very proud of wasthat they stayed their ground. But there weren’tvery many of them and they didn’t really have asmuch of a lead. These days, they’re able to providea much stronger element of the security. But I canassure you there’s a lot of work that’s gone into it.

I cannot guarantee that the terrorist won’t dosomething. Heaven knows, I think they’ll try.Because as we know from the Zawahiri-Zarqawiexchange, their worst fear is that these electionsand that democracy actually starts to take hold. Imean, Zarqawi has impugned democracy as somekind of foreign idea that only apostates would beinterested in. So democracy is a threat to them. Andevery time there’s a successful election in Iraq, theylose some steam. So of course they will try, butwe’ve made all the preparations we can. And themost important thing is the Iraqi people have dem-onstrated their willingness to take risks in order tohave their democracy.

QUESTION: Thank you for being with us, Secre-tary Rice. My question is, you just returned from asuccessful trip to Europe. Could you give us anupdate on your conversations with our alliesthere?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, it depends on yourdefinition of successful, I guess. But I did havevery good discussions with our European allies.And what I wanted to do—first of all, let me justhighlight a couple of things that didn’t get verymuch press.

We signed a defense agreement with Romaniaand that military access agreement will allow, at anytime, 1500 or so American forces to actually be

page 7

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

deployed in Romania for purposes of training. Andfor somebody like me, kind of an old Warsaw Pactspecialist, that’s really kind of a remarkable break-through. And the Romanians have demonstratedthat they are a firm ally in the war on terrorism.They’ve had their people in Iraq. They right thereon the spot said that they’re re-upping for theefforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. So that was a majorbreakthrough.

At NATO, the NATO allies agreed to expand sig-nificantly their presence in Afghanistan, whichNATO now has responsibility for significant partsof Afghanistan, allowing our troops to really fightterrorists while the International Security Assis-tance Forces, which NATO oversees, are able toprovide security for reconstruction and that kind ofeffort in what are called Provincial ReconstructionTeams. And so they go out to an area. They go outwith military forces to protect, with civilian forcesto build both political and economic institutions.That effort has been expanded by NATO.

What an amazing thing for NATO, an organiza-tion that I can tell you in 1989, 1990, 1991, peoplewere saying, “Is NATO going to survive the end ofthe Cold War?” Well, not only has NATO survivedthe end of the Cold War, but they’re in Afghanistan,they’re training troops in Iraq, and by the way, sup-porting the African Union mission in Darfur. Sothis is a wonderful institution and it was great tosee it do what it’s doing.

I also went to Ukraine. This is a young and insome ways struggling democracy, but what anamazing story of the Ukrainian people having tak-en their fate into their own hands. And we also diddiscuss at some length some of the questions thatwere out there about American practices concern-ing detainees and interrogation. I wanted to makethe point that the United States respects the rule oflaw, that the United States respects human rights.We, indeed, are a leader; that the President wouldnever and has never condoned torture and that werespect U.S. law and international obligations. Ialso wanted to say that within that context, any-thing that is legal; we should be prepared to doanything that is legal to prevent another terroristattack.

I reminded people that terrorism is not like acriminal offense. If you allow the criminal in thiscase to carry out the crime before you prosecutethem, then 3,000 people will be dead in New Yorkand Washington, hundreds will be dead in Madridand in London, scores will be dead in a Palestinianwedding in Jordan.

What is different about this war is that you’retalking about a kind of stateless enemy that is oftenwithin our borders, that is there for the expresspurpose of hurting us, and where the goal is thewanton slaughter of innocents. It’s not collateraldamage, what happened in Jordan. It’s not collater-al damage, what happened in New York. It’s notcollateral damage, what happened in London. Thetarget is men, women, and children going to workon a subway or working in the World Trade Toweror going to a Palestinian wedding in Jordan. Thatwas the target.

So we are always going to respect our obligationsin terms of our own law and in terms of our inter-national obligations. We’re also going to recognizethat this is a different war, and the United StatesPresident, most especially, has an obligation todefend the American people; and much of theintelligence that we have garnered has defendednot only the American people, but populationsaround the world through our intelligence sharing.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, you make a convincingargument that we are moving towards democracyin Iraq. But my question and my concern is thepresence of the insurgency. How do we have ademocracy in a country when we have individualswho don’t believe in a democracy? You talkedabout consent of the governed in the beginning ofyour speech, in the beginning of the introduction.How do you move forward to truly having ademocracy—we know democracy just isn’t elec-tions—when certain individuals just don’t want toplay by the rules of the game? And how do wemove about getting rid of this insurgency?

SECRETARY RICE: It’s a very good question andwe are indeed witnessing simultaneously two setsof events that seem contradictory. On the one

page 8

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

hand, you see Iraqis participating in their politicalprocess, having their political parties, putting upposters, people are campaigning. I can tell you, Italked to Iraqi politicians when I was there andthey’re getting their platforms together and it real-ly—it’s in that sense the political system is matur-ing actually rather rapidly when you consider thatit’s two years ago that Saddam Hussein was actual-ly captured.

On the other hand, you have this track whereyou have violence against the Iraqi people. Thestrong belief is—and there is lots of evidence overhistory in terms of insurgencies—that an insurgen-cy cannot maintain itself without political support,and that as more and more people recognize thattheir future is with the political track, not with vio-lence, they will turn away from these people. By theway, these people have to live among them. Theyhave to live off the land to a certain extent. And tothe degree that people turn them in rather thanturn a blind eye to them, it’s going to be harder.

We’re getting more and more tips about—fromIraqis about activities that are going on over there.And you’re beginning to see as the Sunnis join thepolitical process, more and more people who mighthave been in one way or another associated withinsurgency or supportive or at least turning a blindeye, saying, well, we should end violence and go tothe political process.

The political process has got to demonstrate inIraq that it is capable of advancing the interests ofall Iraqis. That’s why it is important that Sunnisparticipate. It’s why the constitutional processwhich has the possibility of amendment is impor-tant. But I think we sometimes need to just stepback and remember that this is a country that wasdrawn essentially on the kind of fault line betweenShia and Sunni Islam with Kurds thrown into themix and lots of other people as well. It’s not ahomogenous population. It has principally man-aged that fact by violence and/or repression. Andnow they’re trying to manage that fact by consensusbuilding and politics and compromise. And it’shard. It’s really hard. But they are showing amazingresilience to want the process, the political process,to be where they actually do engage in bringing alltheir interests to bear.

I would note that I think there may be violencefor a long time. You know, it’s cowardly but it’s notthat hard to blow up a group of schoolchildren at abus. And what will hopefully, eventually, make thatless likely is that, first of all, the insurgency is splitoff from the people, and secondly that the forces,the security forces, the intelligence forces of Iraqget stronger to be able to deal with that. And wethink that process is underway.

Now, that’s the internal dynamic. But there is—there’s a hardened core of terrorists there who cameto Iraq to fight the same violent so-called jihad thatthey were fighting in Afghanistan and have foughtin other places, and they have to be defeated. Thereis no politics in which they would be involvedbecause their view of the Middle East is 180degrees different than the view of the Middle Eastthat most of the region has. They don’t believe inwomen’s rights. They don’t believe in tolerance ofothers. They don’t believe in consent of the gov-erned. And they are not going to be reformed inany way. And so they have to be defeated and that’swhy you see American and other coalition forceshaving to make these military activities in theEuphrates Valley or places like that.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, thank you very much.How can you stop the Iranian meddling in Iraqwhich you mentioned and how will the democra-cy—success of democracy in Iraq will affectcountries like Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, thank you. And letme say a word about Iran. First of all, we’ve alwayssaid that we expect Iraq to have relations with Iran;it’s their neighbor. As long as there are transparentrelations, from our point of view, it’s only natural.The problem is when Iran somehow is supportingsome of the terrorists. The British, for instance, havetalked about their concerns that the Iranians mightbe providing certain kinds of technology to enhancethe capability of attacks in that region. We knowthat Iran wants to be involved in non-transparentways in the politics of Iraq.

But I think we have a couple things going for us.First is that there really has to be an international

page 9

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

spotlight on that, and I want to return back to thatin a moment.

But secondly, I don’t have any sense that the Ira-qis wish to trade the tyranny of Saddam Husseinfor the tyranny of the mullahs in Iran. Iraqis areproud people. They are a great culture in their ownright. They are a people for whom religious differ-ence has been a source of division and violence, butit doesn’t have to be. The Iraqis will explain to youthat their tribes are intermingled. An Iraqi will sayto you, “Well, I’m married to a Shia. My daughterjust married a Kurd.” The societal fabric I think willsupport something very different.

And so to the degree that Iraq becomes stron-ger, I think Iran will find it harder to do what it’strying to do. But in the short term, the interna-tional community has to draw attention to it andto say to Iran this is not acceptable. Transparentrelations absolutely are acceptable, but this kindof meddling is not.

It speaks to a larger problem with Iran, whichis that it is a state that is out of step with the direc-tion in the Middle East. It is a state that we worrya great deal about its pursuit of nuclear technolo-gy that would lead to a nuclear weapon. I thinkthe international community is united that thatcannot happen. It is a state that supports Palestin-ian rejectionists as well as groups like Hamas andHezbollah, which is continuing to try to causedifficulties in places like Lebanon, at a time whenthe international community is trying to supporta peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinianconflict.

And perhaps most importantly, it is a regimewhere an unelected few frustrate the aspirations ofa great people—the Iranian people. These are apeople who are educated and cultured and scientif-ically in the lead, and they suffer under this terribleregime. Now, the recent comments by their newPresident have, I think, sharpened the contradic-tions and made clearer that this regime is out ofstep with the international community. And I dothink that it has to be said, it has to be spoken, thatIran is a problem for a stable and democratizingMiddle East and the international community willhave to find a way to deal with that.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you forbeing with us this afternoon. My question involvesIndonesia and this is the fourth largest countrypopulation-wise in the world, the largest Muslimpopulation. They just had a rather popular, for-ward-looking leader whose called SBY because ofhis initials. And the question is what is the UnitedStates—how are we cooperating with SBY andIndonesia, at this point, to move them forwardwith us?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, Indonesia is an extreme-ly important country. In fact, we just—the Presi-dent just met with President Yudhoyono when hewas in Korea and I have met with my colleague ona couple of different occasions. Indonesia is a placethat is complicated in its religious and ethnic com-position. It’s spread out as an archipelago and so inmany ways difficult to govern. But we have now inthis new government, as you say, a reformist, agovernment that is forward leaning. One of thethings that they have said is that they want to be avoice for moderate forms of Islam that understandthat democracy, which by the way they wentthrough great elections to get there, that democra-cy and Islam are by no means enemies of oneanother and that people of all ethnic groups andall heritages and religious heritages can live togeth-er. And so we need to support this governmentand we’re trying to do that.

I might just make a point about President Yud-hoyono. He was actually a graduate of our Interna-tional Military Educational Training program,IMET. And it underscores something that I think isvery important. I can’t tell how many times aroundthe world I run into or the President sees leaderswho have studied in the United States or have beena part of our military exchange programs or at thevery least been part of our International VisitorsPrograms. And they have a different perspective onAmerica. They know us better and they are less giv-en to the kind of caricatures and stereotypes aboutthe United States. And so we have a very deepinterest in keeping open to the exchange of peopleas well as the exchange of ideas.

I am always very proud to note they go to univer-sities all over the country. It’s not just Yale or Har-

page 10

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

vard or Stanford. It’s also to places in the middle ofthe country, the University of Iowa, Texas A&M orwherever. And it’s a good thing that they come here.And I think the President of Indonesia is a verygood example of that. We are going to support hisgovernment. We’ve just made it possible for ourmilitary exchanges to be broadened because wethink that’s an important institution. We, of coursewere, I think, quick to respond and it was wel-comed, the response to the tsunami, which isanother way for America to demonstrate that weare fighting a war against terrorists.

This is not a war on Islam. Islam is an honorablereligion. It is one of the world’s great religions. Ithas every possibility to live in peace with other reli-gions. And as we know in our own country as wellas in other democracies, people of Islamic faith aresome of the strongest supporters of democraticdevelopment. And so Indonesia is an importantexample of that.

QUESTION: As an expert on the former SovietUnion, I wondered if you’d comment on wherethose countries are now and also if PresidentBush’s recent comments have improved his publicopinion in Western Europe.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I’ll tell you, on the pub-lic opinion side, the President always makes veryclear that he doesn’t read the polls and he doesn’tintend to. Because I think we can take snapshotsof what people think at any point in time, but Ibelieve that the respect for America and for Ameri-can values and for what America did for that conti-nent is something that’s very deeply ingrained inEurope. You feel it more fully when you’re in theroom with the new united Europe, and I don’tmean the European Union specifically. I mean theUnited Europe as you see at a table at NATO, forinstance, where you sit with not just Germany andFrance and Great Britain, and the Netherlands, butyou sit also with Poland and Hungary and Roma-nia and Lithuania and Latvia and Slovenia.

And you’re reminded that this was not alwaysthe case; that it was not that many year ago—lessthan 20 years ago—that the Soviet Union still dom-

inated Eastern Europe, still sat deep into the heartof Eastern Europe, but Germany was still dividedinto one part free, and one part not. That peoplelike me who had grown up studying the SovietUnion expected that that was the way things weregoing to be for a long time.

Now to be fair, it’s hard. Places like Ukraineare—have just been through their Orange Revolu-tion and they’re struggling with whatever youngrevolutionary government does, which is that theynow really have to provide for their people becausepeople are inspired by the revolution, but they alsowant to know are my kids going to be better edu-cated and then am I going to have a better life. Andso they’re struggling with those things.

If you go to a place like Romania, they’re strug-gling with how to get foreign investment into theircountry. If you go to a place like Hungary, theyactually are very much on the front lines of tryingto provide guidance to other newly democratizingstates. They actually have a center for transition todemocracy in Hungary. But you look back and youthink, what a remarkable evolution this is.

And I just want to return to the point that I madeearlier. In 1989, in 1990 and 1991 when I waslucky enough to be the Soviet specialist at the endof the Cold War. Doesn’t really kind of get betterthan that. I really looked back and I thought, whatwe were really doing was harvesting those gooddecisions that had been taken back in the ‘40s. Andwe were, in effect, harvesting good decisions thatfrankly Ronald Reagan had made in 1982 and ‘83and ‘84 when he held fast and essentially said thatthe Soviet Union was an artifact of history that wasgoing to go away. And I remember people saying,“How undiplomatic. My goodness. How could yousay that about a great power like the Soviet Union?”But you know, it was speaking the truth. And intimes of change, in times of challenge when the tec-tonic plates of the international system are movingaround, you have to know where you want to go.It’s not necessarily that we or I will see the fullembodiment of the Middle East that we’re nowseeking—the full embodiment of a fully democrat-ic Iraq that has taken its full place in the interna-tional system. It takes time.

page 11

No. 916 Delivered December 13, 2005

But there are so many events in history that oneday seemed impossible and now we look back onthem as inevitable. And they weren’t inevitable.They came about because the United States ofAmerica married power and principle together,because the United States understood that its val-ues and its interests were inextricably linked andbecause the United States was willing to speak thetruth, that men and women wherever they are,whoever they are, are endowed by their creator tohave these rights. Now, I know that there are daysin Iraq when it seems very, very hard to imaginethat that is ever going to take place.

But I’ll just end by telling you that somebodyasked me recently what did I read this summer, andI read biographies of the Founding Fathers. I readJefferson and Franklin and Washington and Hamil-ton. And I read them not only because of the idealsthat they espoused but because when you read

those biographies and you are inside their world,there is no earthly reason the United States ofAmerica should have ever come into being. Butthey somehow overcame the challenges that theyhad. They somehow overcame the greatest militarypower of the time, basically on the basis of an idea,and they triumphed.

I think if we stay true to what we are doing inIraq, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, then atsome point in time there is going to be that samesense of triumph. Not our triumph, but the tri-umph of the people of that region that will finallyclaim their place, their rightful place, among thefree peoples of the world.

Thank you very much.

—The Honorable Condoleezza Rice is U.S. Secre-tary of State.

page 12