Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

'Above All, The President's Strategy Is A Strategy Of Partnerships': Speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, September 5

'Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell At The Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2003'; US Department of State, http://www.state.gov, Office of the Spokesman, September 5.

Making American foreign policy involves a mix of perspectives and experiences... On the Bush Administration national security team, the diversity of our talents, I believe, forms our strength. We are a strong team, and the President is the leader of that team. It is his foreign policy, driven by his vision of a better world, a better world that we can help shape. It is a vision that is firmly rooted in the values, hopes and principles of the electorate, the people, the American people who brought him to high office.

But a vision isn't enough. The President needs a strategy to design and execute foreign policy. And by strategy, I don't mean 19th century "grand strategy," that classical kind of strategy that used to be characteristic of an imperial sense of the world. And the reason I don't mean that is because the United States does not seek a territorial empire. We have never been imperialists. We seek a world in which liberty, prosperity and peace can become the heritage of all peoples, and not just the exclusive privilege of a few.

And by strategy here, I do mean the translation of the President's vision into policies, policies that are coherent and that will appeal to the needs of the world, the desires of people in need throughout the world. And the translation requires the establishment of priorities, and that's critical because it is through priorities that a foreign policy strategy transforms vision into reality. President Bush has a vision. He has established priorities. His policies are unified by a strategy - which was laid out publicly about a year ago in a document called the National Security Strategy of the United States.

The National Security Strategy gained attention in the aftermath of 9/11 because it made explicit the concept of preemption - and it made it explicit for obvious reasons. As the President says, and as anyone can understand, if you can see a clear and present threat, a danger coming at you, you do not wait for it to arrive. You deal with it. You preempt. You don't wait for it to strike. It is not a new concept, but it took on new meaning in light of the changed world we faced after 9/11.

But the President's National Security Strategy covers far more than just preemption. Above all, the President's strategy is a strategy of partnerships. It strongly affirms the vital role of the partnerships that we have throughout the world - our partnership with NATO, our partnership with the United Nations and with so many other precious alliances that we have created over the last 50 years.

And the President's strategy doesn't rest on old alliances. It calls for new partnerships, new alliances, to meet new challenges.

Some new partnerships are global in scope, and quite different from the old-fashioned security kinds of partnerships. I have in mind here the Global Trust Fund that we helped set up with the United Nations to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS around the world. HIV/AIDS: the greatest killer on the face of the Earth today, the greatest weapon of mass destruction on the face of the Earth today. And the President has made this a centerpiece of his foreign policy strategy.

Other new things we are doing are regional, such as our Middle East Partnership Initiative, which provides assistance for educational, economic and political reform throughout the Arab world, so that we can say to the Arab people of the world and Muslims throughout the world that there is no reason you cannot transform your society in a way consistent with your religion, with your beliefs, but also founded on the individual rights of men and women, founded on democracy and free market concepts. ...

Our efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are also an essential part of the President's strategy. These efforts led this past May to the Proliferation Security Initiative, an 11-nation effort, 11 nations coming together, and more will join, coming together to seize weapons of mass destruction-related materials that are in transit to countries of concern.

President Bush's strategy also demands that we play a role in helping to solve regional conflicts, that we not just sit back behind our oceans and not take note of problems that are out there that we can play a leadership role in solving. Not only do such conflicts cause so much suffering, they can spread. They can spread to envelop societies that are now at peace - and they can stoke the fires of terrorism, as well. And nowhere is the American role in helping to resolve regional conflicts more important than in bringing Israelis and Palestinians to a stable peace settlement. ...

Clearly, then, as you can see from these few examples, the President's vision is far-reaching. His strategy is broad and deep. I have touched on only a few of its major aspects, and many others I have not had a chance to mention at all.

But despite the breadth of our strategy, despite our policy concerns and the accomplishments that I think we've achieved, it is natural that the recent focus of US foreign policy has centered on the global war against terrorism. Terrorism is a problem that has been there for years, but it hit home here on September 11th, 2001, whose second anniversary we will solemnly mark next Thursday. An outraged American people understandably wanted those responsible brought to justice.

And the President set us on the task not just to get the killers of 9/11, but to instead lead a global campaign against all terrorism, against all terrorists. He did this because he understood that terrorism is not just America's problem; it is everyone's problem, it is a problem for the civilized world, and the civilized world had to come together under his leadership to deal with it. Just in recent months, terrorist attacks have made far too many headlines, in far too many places. In a resort in Bali. In a bus full of children in Jerusalem. In a Bombay marketplace. At the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. In front of a sacred mosque in Najaf, Iraq.

Our grief knows no borders. Neither does our determination to put an end to such outrages against innocent people. The war on terrorism is our number one priority, and it will remain so for as long as is necessary.

We are succeeding in the global war on terrorism. We are making progress. The victories of our armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq form part of that success. So do quieter diplomatic victories that you may not hear about, or intelligence victories or legal victories, law enforcement victories, as we go about the world, go around the world, to go every country and encourage them to participate in shutting down funding of terrorists, making sure that we share intelligence and law enforcement information, so we can get to them, root them out, and make sure that they do not have the opportunity to conduct new terrorist attacks.

Our reconstruction and humanitarian efforts translate military victory into lasting political accomplishments, and we are doing that in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our efforts will not cease. They will not falter. We will not fail. Military victory is only part of the solution. It's the reconstruction that comes afterward that leaves us with a lasting peaceful situation. ...

In Iraq...it is impossible to overcome in only a few months obstacles that have been decades in the making. Every day makes clearer how horribly the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. Their national resources were diverted. The oil treasure that they had was wasted as the regime spent the money on weapons, participated in the mass production of fear, repression, and the perverse luxuries of its insatiable elite. The mass graves that are now being opened up for the whole world to see bear witness to Saddam Hussein's brutality. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that we did the right thing, that the world is better off without this despotic regime.

And now the remnants who have been left behind are still acting in character, still acting in a despotic manner, trying to destroy the hopes of the Iraqi people, and destroying water and oil pipelines. They are attacking humanitarian workers in the international community that has come there to help the Iraqi people. They are trying to deny the Iraqi people the fruits of their liberation. But they will fail.

Some foreign terrorists, too, are coming to Iraq to help Iraq's own dead-enders with their destructive work. They will fail, too. Coalition forces are ready for them. We will find them. We will isolate them. And then they will be destroyed.

The forces of destruction, the forces of the tragic past, will not stop us. Together with our allies and, most of all, together with the Iraqi people, we are undoing the disasters of Saddam Hussein's misrule. ... Progress is being made, and because the Coalition is making such progress, far more Iraqis worry about our leaving too soon than about our staying too long. They need not worry, for we will neither leave too soon, nor stay too long.

As you have been reading in your newspapers for the last several days, we have begun consultations with our Security Council colleagues on a new UN resolution concerning Iraq. In this resolution we will invite the Iraqi Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for them to write a constitution, develop political institutions, and conduct free elections. All of this leading to their resumption of sovereignty over their country, over their own people. This is our single goal, our only goal, to allow the Iraqi people to regain sovereignty, but sovereignty based on democracy, sovereignty based on freedom, sovereignty based on peaceful existence with one's neighbors. This has been the President's goal from the very beginning, and this new resolution will move us further along toward that goal.

There are some of my Security Council colleagues who would like to move faster, some who say be a little more careful. We will listen to all of the comments that will be coming in, and we will try to adjust and adapt to those comments, as long as it is consistent with what I have just described as our overall goal.

The resolution would also authorize a United Nations multilateral force, with a US commander. There's nothing unusual about this. With a force this size and with the majority of that force coming from one country, that country is the provider of the commander. And we have seen this model work on many occasions in the past and we are confident it will work now - keeping in mind there are already 30 nations standing side by side with us in Iraq, and we hope with this new resolution more nations will be encouraged to become a part of this noble effort.

The resolution would also permit the United Nations to play a more comprehensive and active role in the transition back to Iraqi sovereignty. We are receiving suggestions, as I said, and I look forward to working with our 14 partners on the Security Council to produce a new resolution as quickly as possible. ...

Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict have absorbed much of our energy in recent months. But by no means all. Less well appreciated and less visible in the daily headlines is the other work that we are at, other work that we are succeeding at, in other important domains of US foreign policy. Not least among these is the focus we have placed on better relations with the world's major powers.

The world is much changed since I was a soldier in Germany, Vietnam and later in Korea, or even when I was a soldier here at GW. The world changed profoundly in November of 1989, when the Berlin Wall was breached, never to be repaired. That date marked the end of the Cold War and, before long, of the Soviet Union itself.

Those events ended the epoch of intense and dangerous struggle between liberty and totalitarianism that had shaped most of the 20th century. For most of the 20th century, it was fascism versus democracy, communism versus democracy. The potential of more world wars, in addition to the two world wars that we saw.

All that has changed. All that is complete different. The President fully understands the essence of what this means. As he wrote in his National Security Strategy, "Today the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers find themselves on the same side."

This is good news. For too many years, too many centuries, the imperial habits of great powers squandered untold resources and talent and lives jousting for real estate, glory and gold. Instead of wasting lives and treasure opposing each other as in the past, today's powers can pull in the same direction to solve problems common to all. If we do pull together, we will begin to redeem history from so much human folly.

One of those common problems, of course, is terrorism. We do not see the war against terrorism and the nurturing of constructive relations with the major powers as competing tasks. They are complementary. We conduct the war on terrorism with an eye toward greater major power cooperation. And we seek enhanced great power cooperation with an eye turned toward success in the war on terrorism.

The logic of this approach rests in the fact that terrorism threatens world order itself. But by so doing, it creates a common interest in defeating terrorism among all the powers of the world that value peace, prosperity and respect the rule of law. That common interest is one source of a rare and remarkable opportunity: America's chance to enjoy for the first time in a hundred years excellent relations with all the world's major powers simultaneously.

Of course, we have a head start in this, for America is blessed with many enduring great power friendships. None of these are more important than those great power relationships represented in NATO. Some observers predicted when I was here as a student that NATO would wither after the Cold War, and that the United States and the European Union would end up on a collision course. It has not been so, and will not be so. I remember when I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on my last occasion here, people were saying, well, you know, "Why do we still need a NATO?" Some of my Russian general friends were saying, "Look, if the Warsaw Pact goes away," they were saying in the early '90s, "why do you still need NATO? No Warsaw Pact, no Soviet Union, no NATO." And my answer was, "It's hard to close a club where people are still asking for membership applications." And so rather than withering, NATO has thrived. It's grown, gone from 16 to 19, now to 26 nations this coming year. And as for our relations with the European Union, never has our common agenda been so large and mutually beneficial - from advancing free trade to counter-proliferation efforts.

And so let there be no doubt that the partnership we have with our European friends is a strong partnership. Yes, it is true that we have differences with some of our oldest and most valued NATO allies. But these are differences among friends. The Transatlantic partnership is based so firmly on common interests and values that neither feuding personalities nor divergent perceptions can derail it. We have new friends and old friends alike in Europe. They are all, in the end, friends, best friends.

That is why the President continues to talk about partnerships, not about polarities. Some authorities suggest that we must move to a multipolar world. But there need be no poles among nations that share basic values. We have no desire to create such poles, either. Indeed, we must work to overcome differences, not to polarize them.

We work hard to have the best relations with nations large and small, old and new. But it is important that we concentrate on those major powers, and especially on those with which we have had different and difficult relations over the years.

Our relationship with Russia and China and India fall into this category. And just look at where we are now. Our relationship with Russia has been dramatically transformed - for the better - since that November evening in 1989. Americans and Russians no longer point growing arsenals of strategic missiles at one another. Indeed, thanks to President Bush and President Putin's leadership, we are now radically reducing our strategic weapons' arsenals. In Moscow, we have a committed partner in fighting terrorism and in combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction worldwide. ...

We do not agree on everything. Earlier this year, we had hoped for a more supportive Russian attitude toward our Iraq policy. We still hope for more change in Russia's attitude toward the Iranian nuclear program. And we differ over aspects of Russian policy in Chechnya. But the relationship as a whole is no longer locked in knee-jerk antagonism. That's what is important. We now have the necessary level of trust required to solve even the most difficult issues that exist between us.

While Russia is still developing its democracy, India's democracy dates from its independence in 1947. And with recent economic reforms setting institutional roots, India is developing into a mature market economy. We want to work with India. We want to help India overcome its challenges, and we want to help ourselves through a closer association with one of the world's richest and most ancient cultures. We have therefore worked very hard to deepen our relationship with India. The two largest democracies on earth are no longer estranged, as they had been for many years. At the same time, we have done this in a way that also allowed us to improve our relationship with Pakistan, a country with domestic challenges of its own.

Aside from their domestic challenges, India and Pakistan live with the legacy of their dispute over Kashmir. About 15 months ago, you will all recall, we were fearful of a major war breaking out on the subcontinent, possibly a nuclear war. A distinct possibility. So, once again, with our partners, we came together, and working with India and Pakistan we defused that crisis, and now we see the situation improving as they reach out to one another. And we look forward to helping them in every way that we can.

What the United States has done in South Asia is an example of "turning adversity into opportunity" - to quote President Bush. In a different way, we have done the same thing with the other major power I'd like to touch on, China.

Sino-American relations didn't get off on the best foot in this administration. You will remember in April of 2001 there was an incident where we lost one of our airplanes in a collision with a Chinese plane and it landed on the island. We had a crisis on our hands. We got through that crisis in a two-week period, and every since then our relationship has been on the upswing, constantly going up. And today, I would submit US relations with China are the best they have been since President Nixon's first visit.

This is not just because the 9/11 attacks led us to shuffle priorities. It's not just because we championed Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization. It's not just because a new generation of leadership is taking the Chinese ship of state in hand. It is certainly not because we've ignored basic differences we have with China on their human rights practices or their proliferation activities or the reluctance of China's leadership to match political reform to economic reform. We have not ignored these differences.

The relationship has improved for a reason that transcends all these particulars. It is that neither we nor the Chinese leadership anymore believe that there is anything inevitable about our relationship - either inevitably bad or inevitably good.

We believe that it is up to us, together, to take responsibility for our common future. And we do not conceive that future in zero-sum terms. The National Security Strategy puts it directly: "We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful and prosperous China." And we seek a constructive relationship with that China. Indeed, we welcome a global role for China, so long as China assumes the responsibilities commensurate with that role.

Chinese leaders know all this. Neither false fear about the future nor the overhang of Cold War enmity prevents us from cooperating where our interests coincide. And a case in point concerns the Korean Peninsula.

American and Chinese interests in Korea may not overlap completely, but they do so considerably. Neither side wishes to see nuclear weapons developed and deployed by the North Koreans on the Peninsula. Neither side enjoys the specter of the chronicled debacle that is the North Korean economy. Neither side has any interest in a worsening refugee crisis on China's border. Neither side relishes a North Korean regime that runs drugs and weapons, and that counterfeits currencies, or that engages in the periodic extortion of its neighbors though brinksmanship military conduct. Neither side, to be sure, has any interest in another Korean war.

We have worked to transform our common interests with China into solid and productive cooperation over the challenges posed by North Korea. We are doing so, as well, in conjunction with Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

Our agenda is ambitious, but it is succeeding. The fact that we now have a six-party framework for talks over North Korea's nuclear program stands as testimony. Once again, we worked with partners. We found nations with like interests to ours with respect to Korea to come together and form this six-party grouping with includes the North Koreans. A very multilateral approach to diplomacy. And we very much appreciate the leadership role that the Chinese have played in trying to find a solution to this problem.

We still have a long way to go before we achieve success in dealing with North Korea's dangerous nuclear weapons program. We have no intention of invading or attacking North Korea, and we have told our partners and the North Koreans that. We have stated our intentions, openly and honestly: we want peace, not war; we want security, not fear, to envelop Korea and its neighbors. But we will not yield to threats and blackmail. We will not take any options off the table. Now is the time for North Korea to alter its behavior, to end its nuclear program in a verifiable manner.

I believe strongly that a diplomatic solution can be achieved, and when it has been achieved, we will have demonstrated that American diplomacy is designed to satisfy not only American national interests, but the interests of international security as well. We will show that the equities of other powers can be best advanced along with American ones, not in opposition to them. ...

Ladies and gentlemen, our relations among the major nations of the world will remain a key structural element that will shape the future of international security. We must not take the present peace among the major powers for granted. That peace will not just take care of itself as time passes. We have to work at it, and we will. We will remain engaged. ...

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2003 The Acronym Institute.