Madeleine Albright - February 12, 2004
MEDALLION SPEAKER ADDRESS
Madeleine Albright
Former U.S. Secretary of State
I'm very, very pleased to be back at The Commonwealth Club, now in your 101st year. I remember well my visit in 1997 as secretary of state. I gave a speech about Hong Kong and was asked about every aspect of American foreign policy, from human rights in China to the economic embargo against Cuba. Now that I'm out of office, I may actually be able to answer those questions. This Club is a bastion of free speech, but as a secretary of state who speaks too freely, you can often get into trouble. Although I tried as much as possible to tell it like it was, there were times when the choice I faced seemed to boil down to saying absolutely nothing very briefly or saying absolutely nothing at great length. Now I'm liberated and able to speak my mind, though I naturally still do so in a very diplomatic way.
I'm also liberated from my computer, having finally finished my memoir, Madame Secretary, and I'm excited and relieved that the book is done. It was a much harder job than I had expected - sort of like a pregnancy that lasted two and a half years. And I learned a lot about others and myself in the process; I also learned a lot about the publishing industry and the business of promoting your books. My first experience, actually, was at a booksellers convention some months ago in Arizona. I was really excited about the opportunity of talking to people who had come a long way just to hear about my book, and I wanted the mood to be just right. And then I looked at the program, and I found that I was preceded in this exercise by the author of a volume entitled Time to Pee!, a comprehensive manual on the art of potty training. As I listened to the author, I kept trying to think about segues, and I concluded, in fact, that there were many similarities between managing world affairs and negotiating with two-year-olds - the major difference being the magnitude of the consequences when the inevitable mistakes happen.
More recently, I was signing my book at a very wonderful bookstore in London, and a very dapper gentleman came in and asked me to inscribe the book to Gerard Fitzgerald, my sworn enemy. And I said, "Fine." I'm writing it, and I said, "Well, who exactly is Gerard Fitzgerald?" And he said, "Well, I am." And I said, "Well, why exactly are you buying my book? And why are you my sworn enemy?" And he said, "Because I disagree with absolutely everything you stand for, and I think you're a horrible person." I said, "So why are you going to read my book?" He replied, "I said you were a horrible person, not dull. You're like one of those reality shows on television - perfectly dreadful, but strangely entertaining." So that either has to be the worst compliment or the nicest insult that I've ever gotten.
People ask me now what my main concern was when writing the book, and my answer was that I really did want to make it timely. I obviously did have to write about the past, but I didn't want people to think of me as an outdated carton of milk. I say in the last paragraph of the book, when I'm asked how I want to be remembered, "I don't want to be remembered; I am still here." I spend most of my time, looking forward, not back, which brings me to the substance of what I'd like to talk to you about this afternoon.
This is, as you may have heard, an election year. Which means that in Washington 100 percent of everything is political - and this compares to 95 percent in all other years. Gearing up for the fall, President Bush is understandably attempting to show his record in the best possible light, while the Democratic candidates are trying to do just the opposite. In the process, we are presented with two contrasting visions of where America now stands in the world. According to one view, all is proceeding according to plan: the good guys are confident, the bad guys are on the run, and our leaders are strong, smart and getting results. In the other view: everything is going wrong; the good guys are divided; the bad guys are on the march; and all the administration can think to talk about is steroids, marriage and Mars. The truth, of course, is much more complex. We are certainly moving, but, as the Red Queen says in Alice in Wonderland, Sometimes it takes all the running we can do just to stay in the same place.
Consider, for example, our confrontation with international terror. The Bush administration deserves our support, and that of law-abiding people everywhere, in opposing Al Qaeda and other groups that willfully murder innocent people in pursuit of political goals. The terrorists, of course, will tell you that their cause is just. They claim that America is anti-Islam and anti-Arab, that we're intent on monopolizing the world's oil and anxious to exploit the world's poor. There's a diplomatic word for that: balderdash. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are out to corner the market in destruction and hate, and they will fill innocent young minds with poison. They spew lies, while claiming sole ownership of the truth. They pervert the teaching of one of the world's great religions, and they're trying to frighten America into withdrawing into our responsibilities, betraying our allies and retreating from the world. They're going to have a very, very long wait. America's resolve is not in doubt, and neither is our unity in battling terror.
We do, however, have a great deal of work still to do. Osama bin Laden and many of his top associates remain at large, actively stirring the pot. Al Qaeda operatives have carried out attacks in half a dozen countries, and new threats are received daily. In a State of the Union address, President Bush tried to quantify our progress by saying that two thirds of the known leaders of Al Qaeda have been captured or killed. But in a memo last fall, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that we don't really know where we stand, because we have no way of knowing whether we are catching more terrorists than are being recruited and trained. Rumsfeld asks in his memo whether there is a case of "the harder we work, the behinder we get."
And that certainly seems to be the situation in Afghanistan. The president is right to take credit for ousting the Taliban, but three years later, attacks on civilians in that country are on the increase; heroin poppy production has risen 1,800 percent, and both the Taliban and Al Qaeda are making a comeback. Clearly, the fanaticism that exploded on September 11th did not arise overnight and will not go away soon. Like the foundations of communism, it must be made to crumble as its central fallacies are exposed, its leaders discredited and its foot soldiers defeated. As during the Cold War, America will do best if our alliances are strong, our example of democratic leadership is unblemished, our commitment to peace is understood and our courage in opposing those who murder innocent people is unquestioned.
Meanwhile, we also have to find a solution to the situation in Iraq. People ask me all the time whether I was for or against the war. The answer is that I had serious questions about the timing, because I didn't want anything to distract from the fight against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. It was, after all, they, not the Iraqis, who had attacked America. And I was concerned about the risks of starting a second war before the first one was won, and at the same time, I fully shared the administration's desire to help Saddam Hussein make a permanent career move. In eight years as UN ambassador and secretary of state, I probably made more speeches than any other American denouncing the failure of the Iraqi regime to meet its legal obligations. In fact, I was picketed constantly because of my effort to prevent business as usual with Saddam Hussein. And when Saddam complained about the treatment he was receiving, I said he reminded me of the schoolboy who arrived home one day with his face bruised and his clothes torn. And his mother asked him how the fight started; he answered, It started when the other guy hit me back.
Today Mr. Hussein is a prisoner of war, and that is indeed good news. The bad news is that the transition to a democratic and stable Iraq has been far more dangerous, costly and difficult than the administration had predicted. A big reason is that Iraq has always been a divided nation. It was not brought together until 1920, when the British created it out of what had previously been three separate provinces, one Kurdish and two Arab, with the Arabs split between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. For the Iraqi transition to succeed, the three factions must submerge their rivalries in service to the common good. The major wrangle now concerns the U.S. plans to install an interim government by June 30th. The White House has wanted that government to be selected through regional caucuses, sort of like an Iraqi version of what we saw last month in Iowa (although without the dramatic concession speeches). But the Iraqi Shiites want the new government chosen through open elections, and that is because they have most of the votes. That is also why the Kurds and Sunnis prefer the caucus approach, except that the Kurds want to control the northern oil fields and be able to retain their own armies. The other factions are not happy with either of those demands, and neither is the United States. President Bush made it clear from the outset that he wanted to be the one who decided what happened in Iraq. But he is not getting his wish. He has been forced to go the United Nations for help in trying to persuade the Shiites that the elections are premature. And he has had to go to our allies and to Arab countries for help in easing Iraq's foreign debt. And he depends upon the goodwill of the local factions, any one of which could trigger a civil war.
Abraham Lincoln said once that the secret to effective leadership is not to give anyone everything they wanted, but to give everybody more than they could get from anyone else. That is the balancing act we now face in Iraq. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites cannot truly expect to get everything they want, but each must have the confidence that they will get more by cooperating than by obstructing.
Despite the many setbacks, I believe that we will eventually succeed in helping Iraq to become reasonably democratic, moderately stable and more or less united. My optimism is based less on military power than on the power of democratic ideals. Because while the extremists are peddling tyranny, poverty and terror, we are selling liberty, prosperity and peace. And, given the chance, most Iraqis will make the right choice, but success will not come inevitably or easily, cheaply or soon. Election year or not, we must stay the course. Because although the war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity, winning the peace is a necessity, not a choice.
One way to improve the odds in Iraq is to change the equation in the Middle East. A decade has passed since Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn. During his years in office, President Clinton exhausted himself and everyone around him trying to build on that handshake and bring into being a new and stable Middle East. He didn't succeed, and some faulted him for trying too hard. Given what we've seen since, I don't believe it's possible to have tried too hard. During my years as secretary of state, there were half a dozen suicide bombings on Israeli soil, and each one was an occasion for shock, capturing the world's sympathy as families mourned and victims were buried. And I thought it was horrible. But it was nothing compared to the anguish we have felt since, as the obscene has become routine, and new bombings and killings are reported nearly every week. Many people say now that there is no hope and that the Israelis and Palestinians can never live together unless one side is crushed or the other pushed into the sea. I don't believe that. And we should not accept it, because there is nothing inevitable about murder and mayhem in the Middle East. To seize the sword instead of the olive branch - that's a choice. To teach children to hate is a choice. To glorify murderers as martyrs is a choice. To dehumanize and disrespect the dignity of others is a choice. These are all choices. And while people have the capacity to choose, they have the ability to change. We can't make the choices for those who live in the Middle East, but we can try to persuade both sides that the only way out of the mess they're in is to think clearly about how they got there in the first place. If the Palestinians had firmly and decisively rejected terror when the peace process began, they would have their state today, and they would have their seat in the United Nations and their airport and the ability to travel freely and reason to look forward to the future with hope. Nothing has done more to discredit Palestinian aspirations than terror. At the same time, nothing has done more to fuel Palestinian terrorism than Israel's decision to continue building and expanding settlements in areas previously inhabited by Arabs.
I look forward to how Prime Minister Sharon's suggestions on evacuating the settlements in the Gaza will work, but it has been a long time in coming, and we don't know the results, because the truth is we are witnessing a massive failure of leadership in the Middle East. Unlike Yitzhak Rabin and Jordan's late King Hussein, there are no regional leaders with stature who understand that current modes of thinking on both sides have to change - not to benefit one or the other, but to realize the core aspirations of both.
The general shape of a possible peace between Israel and the Palestinians is no mystery. It is contained in the famous Middle East "road map" that has never really been taken out of the glove compartment. And it is similar to the offer made by Israel to the Palestinians three years ago. There can be no solution for either side through violence, and there will be no progress towards a solution without the active, creative and persistent involvement of the United States. A few high-level visits and a couple of speeches are not enough. Our leaders must work with both sides on a daily basis to turn the killing grounds into common ground, to halt the shooting and resume the talking, because we are the only ones who can, because it's in our interest, and because it reflects the kind of people that we are, and because it's just plain right.
Today America is at the height of our power. We have a president who is determined to assert and use that power, and yet, if you look around the world, you have to wonder just how much control over events we actually have. In Iraq, we are dependent on the UN, our allies and various internal factions. In fighting terror, we rely heavily on the help of two individuals - the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of whom have recently been the target of assassination attempts. In Asia, we are counting on - of all nations - China to put pressure on North Korea not to build nuclear weapons. Economically, we depend increasingly on the willingness of Tokyo and Beijing to purchase our skyrocketing debt. And in Europe, when I was secretary of state and for the previous 50 years, the U.S. met regularly with France, Germany and England in a group known as the Quad. Now it's a trio as the prime ministers from Paris, Berlin and London get together increasingly to coordinate their policies without us.
The issue obviously is not whether America is strong. The issue is whether we have been using our strength in a smart way. Have we been careful to preserve a balance between our ambition and our capabilities? Have we made use of all the foreign-policy tools that are available, or relied too heavily on the blunt instrument of force? Have we preserved our credibility by being honest about our intentions, careful with the facts, and willing, when necessary, to admit mistakes? Above all, have we understood that if we want other people to care about the dangers that threaten us, we need to be concerned about the problems that threaten them? After all, poverty, disease and ignorance kill many more people each year than terrorists and do much more to cause suffering and extinguish hope.
Although I don't agree with all the decisions they've made, I do have much personal sympathy for our leaders. I know that managing U.S. foreign policy is hard, the responsibilities endless and the spotlight sometimes quite harsh. When I was in office, I had a lot of really good days, but there were also times I faced a lot of criticism, and I was accused of being indifferent to the human impact of Iraq's sanctions, and people threw stones at me in the Balkans, and most everyone in the media thought that they could do my job better than I could. And when our campaign to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo began badly, first because of the weather, and then because we accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy, everyone started calling it "Madeleine's war." That was not supposed to be flattering. This was about the time that I started telling friends that the reason I looked fatter was that I had grown a thicker skin. After a while, you learn to cope, and there's no question that I loved my job, and when my time was up I thought they'd have to drag me out. It was an incredible honor to fly into capitals around the world on an airplane that read "The United States of America." As you know, I wasn't born in this country. Because of my parents' love for democracy, we came to America after having been driven twice from our home in Czechoslovakia, first by Hitler and then by Stalin. Because of this nation's kindness, we were given refuge, and I had the opportunity to live my life among the most generous and courageous people on earth. Ultimately, I was given the chance to serve in the world's best job. And for that I will always be grateful to President Clinton, who named me; to the country that welcomed me; and to the citizens I was so very proud to represent. And now in my current capacity as a liberated private citizen, I want to thank you again very much for the invitation to be here and speak to you.
| George P. Shultz - May 17, 2004
THE CHANGED WORLD
George P. Shultz
Director, Bechtel Group; Former U.S. Secretary of State
In the first program in the George P. Shultz Lecture Series for 2004, the former secretary of state brought his expertise in international affairs to a discussion of the challenges facing the U.S. and the world. His talk touches on the future of the war on terror, the reconstruction of post-war Iraq and the need for the U.S. to focus on energy independence.
I want to ask two questions. What, from a security standpoint, is going on in the world? When we answer that, that's the key to answering the second question; Where do we go from here?
We Are at War
We have struggled with what we have called terrorism for a long time, without quite realizing the nature of the threat. In the Reagan administration, I was a hawk on the subject. I said terrorism was a big problem, a different problem, and we have to take forceful action against it. Fortunately, Ronald Reagan agreed with me, but not many others did.
In those days we focused on how to defend against terrorism. We reinforced our embassies and increased our intelligence effort. We thought we made some progress. We established the legal basis for holding states responsible for using terrorists to attack Americans anywhere. Through intelligence, we did abort many potential terrorist acts. But we really didn't understand what motivated the terrorists or what they were out to do. So we didn't really have the answer to that first question.
In the 1990s, the problem began to appear even more menacing. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were, by that time, well known, but the nature of the threat was not yet comprehended and our efforts to combat it were ineffective. Diplomacy without much force was tried. Terrorism was regarded as a law enforcement problem and terrorists as criminals. Some were arrested and put on trial. Early last year, a judge finally allowed the verdict to stand for one of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ten years! Terrorism is not a matter that can be left to law enforcement alone, with its deliberative process, built-in delays, and safeguards that may let the prisoner go free on procedural grounds.
Today, looking back on the past quarter century of terrorism, we can see that it is the method of choice of an extensive, internationally connected, ideological movement dedicated to the destruction of our international system of cooperation and progress. The movement is not centrally controlled, but is an effectively coordinated loose global network. We can see that the assassination, in 1981, of President Sadat, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 2001 destruction of the Twin Towers and scores of other terrorist attacks in between and in many countries Islamic countries, other kinds of countries were carried out by one part or another of this movement. And the movement is connected to states that develop awesome weaponry, with some of it, or with expertise, for sale.
The intellectual and political leaders of this movement have made their objectives perfectly clear in volumes of materials produced over the decades. The movement's objectives are in four layers or phases: Number one: to drive the international community's people and influences out of the Middle East (the core of the Muslim world). Number two: to overthrow all Arab regimes that are in a working relationship with the international community. Number three: to gain a more entrenched and threatening foothold on the edges of the Muslim world in Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and inside the Western world, most particularly, Europe. And four: eventually to eliminate all vestiges of the international state system from a unified Islamic theocratic rule.
So we see how deadly opposed the Islamic terrorists are to the international state system. Our commitment to that system may account in part for the apparent lack of comprehension within the international community about the nature or even the existence of this war and a reluctance to acknowledge or discuss the religious dimension of what is now going on in the world. The basic assumption of the international state system is that all peoples, organized as states, will be in or want to be in, the system. Conflict and war, it is also assumed, will take place between states in the system like France and Germany, and not against the system itself. So the foundational attitude of our side is not in accord with the current reality.
So what, from a security standpoint, is going on in the world? The international state system is under determined attack by a religiously motivated movement using terrorist attacks of dramatic lethality as its weapon of choice. The war is against this movement, not just their weapon of terror. So that's the way I answer the first question.
What Should We Do?
First and foremost, shore up the state system. The world has worked for three centuries with the sovereign state as the basic operating entity, presumably accountable to its citizens and responsible for their well-being. In this system, states also interact with each other bilaterally or multilaterally to accomplish ends that transcend their borders. They create international organizations to serve their ends, not govern them.
Increasingly, the state system has been eroding. Terrorists have exploited this weakness by burrowing into the state system in order to attack it. While the state system weakens, no replacement is in sight that can perform the essential functions of establishing an orderly and lawful society, protecting essential freedoms, providing a framework for fruitful economic activity, contributing to effective international cooperation and providing for the common defense. These are essential tasks that are essential to our life, and there is no alternative to the state system in serving those ends.
Over the last decade we have seen large areas of the world where there is no longer any state authority at all, an ideal environment for terrorists to plan and train. In the early 1990s we came to realize the significance of a "failed state." Earlier, people allowed themselves to think that, for example, an African colony could gain its independence, be admitted to the UN as a member state and thereafter remain a sovereign state. Then came Somalia. All government disappeared. No more sovereignty, no more state. The same was true in Afghanistan. And who took over? Islamic extremists. They soon made it clear that they regarded the concept of the state as an abomination. To them, the very idea of "the state" is un-Islamic. They talk about reviving traditional forms of pan-Islamic rule with no place for the state. They are fundamentally, and violently, opposed to the way the world works, to the international state system.
The United States launched a military campaign to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda's rule over Afghanistan. Now, we and our allies are trying to help Afghanistan become a real state again and a viable member of the international state system. Yet there are many other parts of the world where state authority has collapsed or, within some states, large areas where the state's authority does not run. That's one area of danger: places where the state has vanished. A second area of danger is found in places where the state has been taken over by criminals, gangsters, or warlords. Saddam Hussein was one example. Kim Jong Il of North Korea is another.
They seize control of state power and use that power to enhance their wealth, consolidate their rule, and develop their weaponry. As they do this, and as they violate the laws and principles of the international state system, they at the same time claim its privileges and immunities, such as the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of a legitimate sovereign state. For decades these thugs have gotten away with it. And the leading nations of the world have let them get away with it. That is why the case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq is so significant, and why the war against Saddam's Iraq was necessary. Above all, and in the long run, the most important aspect of the Iraq war will be what it means for the integrity of the international system and for the effort to deal effectively with terrorism. The stakes are huge and the terrorists know that as well as we do. That is the reason for their tactic of violence in Iraq. And that is why, for us and for our allies, failure is not an option. The message is that the U.S. and others in the world who recognize the need to sustain our international system will no longer quietly acquiesce in the takeover of states by lawless dictators who then carry on their depredations including the development of awesome weapons for threats, use or sale behind the shield of protection that statehood provides. If you are one of those criminals in charge of a state, you no longer should expect to be allowed to be inside the system at the same time that you are a deadly enemy of it.
North Korea is such a case. The circumstances do not parallel those of Iraq, so our approach is adjusted accordingly. China, Japan, Russia and South Korea must man laboring oars. One way or another, that regime will undergo radical change or will come to an end.
Iran is another very different case, being at one and the same time an outlaw state, an Islamist enemy of the international state system, a destabilizing presence in the Gulf region, and a supporter of terrorism to stop a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. In some sense, the future of Iran is tied to the issue of our success in Iraq. The Iraqi Shia inclination to keep its religious hierarchy unsullied by direct involvement in politics and government could be used to draw Iran's theocracy in the same direction. Through deft policy management, the U.S. should stand unambiguously on the side of the Iranian people who want to be rid of their mullah rulers, while pressing the theocrats to abandon their efforts to dictate every aspect of Iranian society. But make no mistake. The crucial battle is now joined in Iraq. Were we to falter or fail in Iraq, the entire Middle East would be severely threatened and war on a world scale would have only begun. So let me turn to the Middle East.
The Middle East
The Middle East is an area where governance has failed. In many countries, oil has produced wealth without the effort that connects people to reality, a problem reinforced in some of them by the fact that the hard physical work is often done by imported labor. The submissive role forced on women has led to a huge population explosion. Generations of young people have grown up in these societies with a surplus of time on their hands and a deficit of productive and honorable occupations. Since they are disconnected from reality, they can live in a world of fantasy. Denied opportunity, many have turned to a destructive, terror-using ideology. Islamism is the name most specialists have settled on. Yet these young people can see on their TV screens that a better life is possible in a great many places in the world. Whether or not they like what they see, their frustration is immense. As a result, the Middle East has produced all too many religious radicals who for years have been waging war against the international state system.
Many Muslim regimes in the Middle East have finally realized that the radical variant of Islam is violently opposed to the modern age, to globalization, to secular governance and to those Muslim regimes themselves, their primary target. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan top the target list. Years ago these regimes and others began a frantic search for ways to deflect the threat. Some tried to co-opt the Islamists into their governments. Some paid extortion money. Some pushed the Islamists into other countries and then subsidized them. Some of them pumped out huge volumes of propaganda to incite the Islamists to turn their attention from the "near enemy," such as Saudi Arabia, to the "far enemy," Israel and the United States. Some of these targeted regimes tried all these defensive tactics in an attempt to buy time.
Since September 11, 2001, some of these Muslim regimes have begun to realize that this approach is a loser; it only strengthens their Islamist enemies, who, in recent months, have begun to turn against them directly.
So increasingly, those regimes in the Arab-Islamic world, however much they may have appeased, bought out, or propagandized the terrorists, have nonetheless now had a reality check. They have recognized that they are members of the international system of states and must find a way to reconcile their Islamic beliefs and practices to it. Saudi Arabia and others in the world of Islam must, in their own interests, recognize their own responsibility to stop the preaching of hate and to reform their societies. Young people must have access to the world of opportunity. Women must be free to play substantial roles in their societies. What else should we be doing?
Use Less Oil
Our strength and our security are vitally affected by our dependence on oil coming from other countries and by the dependence of the world economy on oil from the most unstable part of the world: the Middle East. Presidents from Eisenhower on have called for energy independence. When I was secretary of labor, for some reason President Nixon made me chairman of a cabinet task force on the oil import system. At that time there was a quota system put in by President Eisenhower. He was no stranger to national security issues, you remember. He thought that if we imported more than 20 percent of the oil we used, we were heading for trouble. We are now pushing 60 percent and rising. What would be the impact of a terrorist sabotage of key elements of the Saudi Pipeline infrastructure? Or a takeover by Islamic extremists?
I remember proposals for alternatives to oil from the time of the first big oil crisis in 1973. I was Secretary of the Treasury, and the Treasury sort of inherited the issue, so I worked on it and I looked at these alternatives. Pie in the sky, I thought. But now the situation is different. Hybrid technology is on the road and increases gas mileage by at least 50 percent. You can go out and buy a car. Increased attention to weight and drag can enhance performance even more. The technology is scalable. When you drive your hybrid car I've got one and you come to a traffic light, you stop, what happens? Nothing, the motor is off, nothing. When you press the accelerator, the electric motor pushes you forward. If you're driving in the city, a high proportion of your time is spent stopped in traffic and your motor is running and you're not only using oil, you're polluting, adding to the problems that cities have. So in a hybrid car, it stops.
Sequestration of effluent from use of coal may be possible. There is a lot of good work being done on that. If all of a sudden coal became a benign source of energy, it'd change the world. Maybe coal could be a benign source of hydrogen. Maybe hydrogen could be economically split out of water by electrolysis, perhaps using renewables such as wind power. An economy with a major hydrogen component would do wonders for both our security and our environment. With evident improvements in fuel cells, that combination could amount to a very big deal. Applications include stationary as well as mobile possibilities. And major advances are evident in the effort to turn sunlight into electricity. I know a lot of people are doing this right now. Putting stuff on their roofs and it goes right into electricity, distributed energy. So all this may take time, but work now on the possibilities. We should have urgency here.
Other ideas are in the air. Scientists, technologists and commercial organizations in other countries are hard at work on these issues. The administration is coordinating potentially significant developments. We should not be put off by experts who are forever saying that the possible is improbable. Scientific advance in recent decades is a tribute to and validation of creative possibilities. Bet on them all. Sometimes long odds win.
Now is the time to push hard on research and development with augmented funds directed at identified targets such as sequestration, electrolysis, and fuel cells and other money going to competent scientists with ideas about energy. You never know what bright people will come up with when resources and enthusiasm combine. We can enhance America's security and simultaneously improve our environment.
Israel and the Palestinians
Let me say something that will surprise you about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I have lots of scars on my back on this issue, and one time when I was leaving the area after struggling, I saw a cartoon in The Jerusalem Post. I was holding off blows; there was a piece of paper on the floor "Shultz peace efforts" and there was an Israeli with a club pounding on me, a Jordanian with a club pounding on me and a Palestinian with a club pounding on me. The caption said: "Well at least they agree on something." We must take our long-standing role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a new and deeper level, also because of a renewed recognition of the importance of the state.
In 1979 Egypt and Israel recognized each other as legitimate states and signed a treaty of peace. At that time Egypt took on the role of state negotiator with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians, who did not have a state. This was in recognition that states can make peace only with other states within the context of the international state system. But after Islamists murdered President Sadat all connected Egypt dropped its role as state negotiator. Jordan took up that role but dropped it in 1988. Since that time the negotiations have not made serious progress, despite some apparent high points, because there has been no state partner to sit across the table from the state of Israel. But now the picture has some new possibilities. Of course, optimists stand aside, but we shouldn't be fatalists, we shouldn't give up on this at all. You do not work on probabilities in this area, just possibilities. But work we must and with energy and timing since the issues involved are vital in this dangerous world.
What are the possibilities? There are far more in evidence than is commonly assumed. Security for the state of Israel is clearly essential for fruitful negotiations. So far, nothing has worked. Those who seek to eliminate Israel have regarded efforts at Oslo or Camp David II and elsewhere as proof that terrorism works, and that every Israeli step toward peace is really a sign of weakness.
Now a security barrier is under construction. Israel has stated that its path can be changed in the event of a negotiation. Israel, with all the related turmoil, seems ready to pull back some settlements beyond the new barrier, as in Gaza. If Israel, through these measures, gains security in its land, that will be a major step toward peace. Once again, Israel will have demonstrated that it cannot be beaten militarily, this time by terrorist violence. The confirmation of this fact is essential. And, when Palestinians face the fact that terrorism has become both ineffective and self-destructive, that realization may enable them to take a major step toward peace.
Don't forget that for the first time in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, important Arab states have stated a willingness to promote peace between Israel and Palestine. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are the keystones of this structure. And remember the important initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Under his initiative, in the event that a peace agreement is reached between the state of Israel and a state of Palestine, the Arab League states would recognize Israel as a permanent, legitimate state in the Middle East and in the international state system. That's a big conceptual breakthrough. And there is a "road map" to work from. This document spells out the general directions for progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace. No document since the founding text of the peace process the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 has had such wide, even if tentative, international support. Israelis and Palestinians, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Quartet the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations have all indicated willingness to take this road map as a working paper of the parties to the conflict, and of the leading nations and organizations of the international state system itself. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza should be seen as a major step along the road map.
This approach incorporates a way of fixing the negotiating problems of the past 20 years. It provides for the establishment of a Palestinian state, not at the end of the negotiations, but in the midst of the effort. Of course, there is much more to making a state than an announcement. But a structure of governance can be established and, if the states of Egypt and Jordan will help, violence can be suppressed and the emerging state can control the use of force. Then there would be a Palestinian state partner for the State of Israel to negotiate with. The Palestinians charged with governance will have more leverage, and the Israelis will have more confidence that their negotiating partner can deliver on the deal that is made because it will be a state-to-state deal. Put some projects in the mix, about water, for example, to energize those Palestinians who yearn for peace and a chance for a better life. Help them take the play away from extremists so that their state has a chance for decent governance. Who knows, just maybe, maybe, possibility could become probability and then even a new reality.
Additional Steps
Now here are some additional steps I believe we should be taking; I see our great task as restoring the vitality of the state system within the framework of a world of opportunity and with aspirations for a world of states that recognize accountability for human freedom and dignity. All established states should stand up to their responsibilities in the fight against our common enemy, be a helpful partner in economic and political development, and take care that international organizations work for their member states, not the other way around. When they do, they deserve respect and help to make them work successfully.
International organizations are mechanisms created by the member states historically with the United States in the lead to serve the interests of the states as directed by them. Most notable among these institutions is the United Nations. At present, the UN has not grasped the fact that it, too, is a target of those making war on the international state system. The UN came into Iraq in the summer of 2003 in the belief that its role was to be a neutral facilitator of postwar arrangements to be worked out between the occupying power (the United States) and the defeated Iraqi state. UN leaders had not understood the meaning of the revelation at the time of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, that the UN Secretariat was the terrorists' secondary target. In August 2003, the UN headquarters in Baghdad, basically unguarded at the insistence of the UN, was destroyed. In May 2004, Osama bin Laden offered a reward for the assassination of Secretary General Kofi Annan. How far do you have to go to get the message? The United States should undertake an intensive effort to bring the UN toward a recognition of the new reality, and to work with the UN in Iraq to bolster its efforts to create through elections a re-legitimized Iraq that can qualify for full participation in the international state system.
International law is another pillar of the international system and, once again, a product of American leadership through most of the 20th century. But international law was damaged during the Cold War by the Soviet Union's ideological rejection of it, and by its disparagement by American commentators who felt that U.S. adherence to international law only played into Soviet attempts to manipulate it to our disadvantage.
The post-Cold War decade of the 1990s did further harm to international law by permitting the production of deeply flawed, politicized negotiated texts such as the Kyoto accord on climate change and the International Criminal Court, neither one of which had any chance at all of ratification in the U.S. Senate. None, zero, bi-partisan. The United States was correct in turning away from these documents as the 21st century opened. Now, however, with the international system in jeopardy, the United States should initiate a comprehensive review of the status of international law and begin to work to shore up its foundations, curb its excesses and advance it in responsible, well-grounded ways.
Norms are an essential feature of the international state system and, as enshrined in documents open for signature by states such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention they make up a kind of "standard of civilization" to which members of the system can expect to be held. As with other features of the system, there is the assumption of universal applicability; that everybody either is in, or wants to be in, the international system. The current case of prisoner abuse in Iraq is, in microcosm, an example of the conundrum now facing those responsible for upholding and protecting the international system. The Geneva Conventions are based on the assumption that wars will be waged between two member states of the system, and by professional armed forces. Prisoners taken in battle may be held until the end of the conflict and then returned to the formerly belligerent state parties. During detention the professional soldier prisoners are required only to give only "name, rank and serial number." But those waging war on the international system today are not professional soldiers of a legitimate sovereign state and, if the system is to have integrity, its privileges and immunities should not be given to those who would destroy it. While the ban on prisoner interrogation under the Geneva Conventions should not automatically be provided to "unlawful combatants" who conduct terrorist attacks against civilians as a matter of policy, they nevertheless are clearly covered by conventions involving torture. This situation, however, cannot be left as it is. The United States should inaugurate a review and study of how to handle fundamental incompatibilities that arise when a system designed to regulate itself encounters an enemy dedicated to its destruction.
Just as membership in the international state system entails professional armed services, so also does it require a professional diplomatic and foreign service. Recent decades have revealed a growing imbalance between the two in the role of the United States in the world. The Foreign Service has been allowed to deteriorate. The terms of service have worsened. The structure of the career has been truncated and distorted. The best young people have been told to put off seeking entrance even as the best veterans have been hurried out of the Corps. Political appointees a necessary and welcome part of the service have encroached too far into the most professional sectors. Secretary of State Colin Powell has turned these trends around, but there is much more work to do. In the terrorist war being waged today, diplomacy as is always the case should be our first line of defense, the forward presence where national interest and security and justice for, and within, the international system may be advanced without a wider war. So a professional, well-managed American diplomacy must be a top priority. We need more representation around the globe. Just as, in military terms, there is no substitute for boots on the ground, there is no substitute for eyes and ears to help us understand and deal with global developments.
We need to remind ourselves and our partners of an ancient message: the Great Seal of our republic carries that message, as clear and relevant to these times as to our early days. The central figure is an eagle holding in one talon an olive branch and in the other, 13 arrows. As President Harry Truman insisted at the end of World War II, the eagle will always face the olive branch to show that the United States will always seek peace. But the eagle will forever hold onto the arrows to show that, to be effective in seeking peace, you must have strength and the willingness to use it. Strength and diplomacy, they go together. They are not alternatives; they are complements. Both must be developed at the highest professional level and used in a coordinated fashion.
In 1917, a few months after the United States declared that it would enter the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson organized a group of generalists and specialists knowledgeable across the range of international affairs to prepare an approach for the United States to take when peace was restored. The effort became known as The Inquiry. Now, in the midst of this war, something similar may be needed, suitable for the present situation in which a long war must be fought to preserve the international state system, even as that system must shore itself up from within and build or rebuild institutions for peace even as the conflict continues.
Danger and Opportunity
I cannot emphasize too strongly the danger and extent of the challenge we are facing. We are engaged in a war, a long and bitter war. Our enemies will not simply sit back and watch as we make progress toward prosperity and peace in the world. The civilized world has a common stake in defeating the enemy. We now call this what it is; a war. In war, you act on both offense and defense. The diplomacy of incentives, containment, deterrence and prevention are all made more effective by the demonstrated possibility of forceful preemption. You work diplomacy and strength together on a grand and strategic scale and on an operational and tactical level. This means fighting the war on the ground in Iraq. It means diplomacy around the world and at international organizations. And it means, no less, taking serious steps toward energy independence here at home.
September 11 forced us to comprehend the extent and danger of the challenge. We began to act before our enemy was able to extend and consolidate his network. If we put this in terms of World War II, we are now sometime around 1937. In the 1930s, the world failed to do what it needed to do to head off a world war. Appeasement never works. Today we are in action. We must not flinch. With a powerful interplay of strength and diplomacy, we can win this war.
We and our partners throughout the world can then work and live in a time of immense promise. Scientific and technological advances are breathtaking virtually across the board. The impact on the human condition and human possibilities is profound. New technologies are changing the way we live and work, globalizing access to an extraordinary range of information. People everywhere can see that economic advance has taken place in countries of every size, with great varieties of ethnic, religious and cultural histories. So we should not be surprised as Freedom House, the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal carefully document that open economic and political systems are becoming more common. So, an unprecedented age of opportunity is ahead, especially for low-income countries long in poverty. The United States and our allies can rally people all over the world. Don't let the terrorists take away our opportunities. We have the winning hand. We must play that hand with skill and confidence.
|