'A Forward Strategy Of Freedom'

Remarks by the US President at Whitehall Palace Royal Banqueting House, Whitehall Palace, London,England

It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling overthe Thames. A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me. I thank Her Majesty the Queenfor interceding. We're honored to be staying at her house.

Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've beenhere only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech -- exercised with enthusiasm -- isalive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.

The people of Great Britain also might see some familiar traits in Americans. We're sometimes faulted for anaive faith that liberty can change the world. If that's an error it began with reading too much John Lockeand Adam Smith. Americans have, on occasion, been called moralists who often speak in terms of right andwrong. That zeal has been inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless compassion of Lord Shaftesbury,the righteous courage of Wilberforce, and the firm determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fightand end the trade in slaves.

It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people. That's, in part, because the "Good News"was translated by Tyndale, preached by Wesley, lived out in the example of William Booth. At times, Americansare even said to have a puritan streak -- where might that have come from? Well, we can start with thePuritans.

To this fine heritage, Americans have added a few traits of our own: the good influence of our immigrants,the spirit of the frontier. Yet, there remains a bit of England in every American. So much of our nationalcharacter comes from you, and we're glad for it.

The fellowship of generations is the cause of common beliefs. We believe in open societies ordered by moralconviction. We believe in private markets, humanized by compassionate government. We believe in economies thatreward effort, communities that protect the weak, and the duty of nations to respect the dignity and therights of all. And whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in West Texas, they instill mutualrespect and they inspire common purpose.

More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British and American peoples have an alliance ofvalues. And, today, this old and tested alliance is very strong.

The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign policy. We value our own civil rights,so we stand for the human rights of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so we are movedto action by poverty and oppression and famine and disease. The United States and Great Britain share amission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance offreedom and the peace that freedom brings. Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this highgoal in a distant land at this very hour. And America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons anddaughters of Britain.

The last President to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist, without question. At a dinner hosted byKing George V, in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical American understatement, he vowed thatright and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world.

President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 Points for Peace. Many complimented him on his vision; yetsome were dubious. Take, for example, the Prime Minister of France. He complained that God, himself, had only10 commandments. Sounds familiar.

At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short generation from Munich and Auschwitz andthe Blitz. Looking back, we see the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility and will,collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators. Free nations failed to recognize, much less confront, theaggressive evil in plain sight. And so dictators went about their business, feeding resentments andanti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in this city and across the world, and filling the lastcentury with violence and genocide.

Through world war and cold war, we learned that idealism, if it is to do any good in this world, requirescommon purpose and national strength, moral courage and patience in difficult tasks. And now our generationhas need of these qualities.

On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of murder on my country, and took the lives of 67British citizens. With the passing of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a quiet lifeand to put that day behind us, as if waking from a dark dream. The hope that danger has passed is comforting,is understanding, and it is false. The attacks that followed -- on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay,Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. They're part of the globalcampaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and demoralize all who oppose them.

These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the thousands. And they would, if they gain theweapons they seek, kill by the millions and not be finished. The greatest threat of our age is nuclear,chemical, or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them. The evil is inplain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the greatdemocracies. We will face these threats with open eyes, and we will defeat them.

The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars: First, international organizations mustbe equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation.

Like 11 Presidents before me, I believe in the international institutions and alliances that America helpedto form and helps to lead. The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to help make the UnitedNations what it is supposed to be -- an effective instrument of our collective security. In recent months,we've sought and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq -- Resolutions 1441, 1483 and 1511 -- preciselybecause the global danger of terror demands a global response. The United Nations has no more compellingadvocate than your Prime Minister, who at every turn has championed its ideals and appealed to its authority.He understands, as well, that the credibility of the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word and to actwhen action is required.

America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations fromsolemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations. It's not enough to meetthe dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.

In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish more together than apart. For 54 years, America hasstood with our partners in NATO, the most effective multilateral institution in history. We're committed tothis great democratic alliance, and we believe it must have the will and the capacity to act beyond Europewhere threats emerge.

My nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe, and the world needs America and the European Union to workin common purpose for the advance of security and justice. America is cooperating with four other nations tomeet the dangers posed by North Korea. America believes the IAEA must be true to its purpose and hold Iran toits obligations.

Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work with other responsible governments. We understand,as well, that the success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of theprocess, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.

The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the lastresort arrives, to retain {sic} aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to the use offorce in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views.

Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty todefend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, themeasured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.

Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that kind of world. Yet in some countries, the memoriesare recent: The victims of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those who survived the rapists and the deathsquads, have few qualms when NATO applied force to help end those crimes. The women of Afghanistan, imprisonedin their homes and beaten in the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not reproach us for routingthe Taliban. The inhabitants of Iraq's Baathist hell, with its lavish palaces and its torture chambers, withits massive statues and its mass graves, do not miss their fugitive dictator. They rejoiced at his fall.

In all these cases, military action was proceeded [Does he mean preceded? A Freudian slip? -- Ed] bydiplomatic initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and final chances until the final moment. In Iraq,year after year, the dictator was given the chance to account for his weapons programs, and end the nightmarefor his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced.

And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the worldwas safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous withoutMullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world. And Europe, too, is plainly better off withMilosevic answering for his crimes, instead of committing more.

It's been said that those who live near a police station find it hard to believe in the triumph ofviolence, in the same way free peoples might be tempted to take for granted the orderly societies we have cometo know. Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great achievements of the last half-century. And becauseEuropean countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumptionthat the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved -- byallied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in aworld where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and securitystill need defenders.

The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global expansion of democracy, and the hope andprogress it brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively onmilitary power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.

In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers;they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terroristcamps or attack their peaceful neighbors; they honor the aspirations and dignity of their own people. In ourconflict with terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot be resisted, and that isthe appeal of freedom to all mankind.

As global powers, both our nations serve the cause of freedom in many ways, in many places. By promotingdevelopment, and fighting famine and AIDS and other diseases, we're fulfilling our moral duties, as well asencouraging stability and building a firmer basis for democratic institutions. By working for justice inBurma, in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people and improve the chances for stabilityand progress. By extending the reach of trade we foster prosperity and the habits of liberty. And by advancingfreedom in the greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism that brings millions ofpeople to misery and brings danger to our own people.

The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does notflourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the ruinsof two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and way of life. If the greater Middle East joinsthe democratic revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region will bebettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its source.

The movement of history will not come about quickly. Because of our own democratic development -- the factthat it was gradual and, at times, turbulent -- we must be patient with others. And the Middle East countrieshave some distance to travel.

Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated whole nations from the progress of our time.The essentials of social and material progress -- limited government, equal justice under law, religious andeconomic liberty, political participation, free press, and respect for the rights of women -- have been scarceacross the region. Yet that has begun to change. In an arc of reform from Morocco to Jordan to Qatar, we areseeing elections and new protections for women and the stirring of political pluralism. Many governments arerealizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to national greatness; they end in national ruin. Theyare finding, as others will find, that national progress and dignity are achieved when governments are justand people are free.

The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not imposed from abroad, and neither will thegreater progress we hope to see. Freedom, by definition, must be chosen, and defended by those who choose it.Our part, as free nations, is to ally ourselves with reform, wherever it occurs.

Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking. In the West, there's been acertain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. We'retold that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslimsare today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested that the poor, in their dailystruggles, care little for self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy to defendthemselves against corrupt elites.

Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility, and a need forfreedom as deep as our own. It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; itis pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it.

We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have beenwilling to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us tooverlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merelybought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.

As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not inour own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny isnever benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We willconsistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higherstandard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq byfinishing the work of democracy we have begun.

There were good-faith disagreements in your country and mine over the course and timing of military actionin Iraq. Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word, or to break our word. Thefailure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terroristswho wish to destroy us. Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm, our word is good, andthe Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom.

Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A newIraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now incirculation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free ofpropaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of anew army, representative local governments, and a Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for nationalsovereignty. This is substantial progress. And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germanyand Japan after World War II.

Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious. And it comes from Baathist holdouts and Jihadistsfrom other countries, and terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent bloodshed. It is the nature ofterrorism and the cruelty of a few to try to bring grief in the loss to many. The armed forces of both ourcountries have taken losses, felt deeply by our citizens. Some families now live with a burden of greatsorrow. We cannot take the pain away. But these families can know they are not alone. We pray for theirstrength; we pray for their comfort; and we will never forget the courage of the ones they loved.

The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty. They view the rise of democracy in Iraq as apowerful threat to their ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror against ourcoalition, against international aid workers and against innocent Iraqis, will make us recoil and retreat. Inthis, they are mistaken.