|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation Blair and Bush on Bush's forthcoming State visit to Britain, November 10 & 12
'"My friend" - Tony Blair', President Bush on forthcoming State visit to the UK, November 12'Bush Discusses U.S.-UK Ties, Blair, Iraq, Iran, North Korea', Roundtable Interview of the President by British Print Journalists, The Oval Office, November 12, 2003. THE PRESIDENT: ...Just a couple of comments, then we'll answer questions for a while. I am looking forward to the trip. It's going to be a really interesting and fun experience for Laura and me. Obviously, staying at Buckingham Palace is going to be an historic moment. I never dreamt when I was living in Midland, Texas, that I would be staying in Buckingham Palace. Buckingham Palace has got a resonance to it here in America which is pretty grand and pretty magnificent. I've been looking forward to it. I'm really looking forward to spending time with my friend I'll be doing different events. I'll be giving a speech there that I'm working on now, that will confirm my understanding of the importance of this relationship. But I'll talk about other ambitions that we can work on together to promote freedom and peace, and a compassion agenda that I think our countries are uniquely suited to work on. So I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be an exciting trip for us and I really thank Her Majesty for opening the invitation. I've got my tails all set out and ready to go. (Laughter.) Had to rent them, but -- (laughter) -- just don't tell anybody. Q: It gets a bit noisy in the palace when the morning papers arrive, so you'll need to -- THE PRESIDENT: They do? Yes. I guess I'll have to go to bed early and wake up early. Anyway, let's go around while we've got time. Q: May I just begin by asking what you hope to take away from the visit? And, in particular, can I ask you what message you will have for families of the British servicemen who have been killed in Iraq? THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Q: Because I gather you'll get to meet. THE PRESIDENT: I am going to meet some. Look, there's two messages. One, the prayers of the American people and the prayers of the President are with them, as they suffer. I believe in prayer. I believe that there is a comforting and healing Almighty, and I'll ask that their souls be comforted. Secondly, that I will tell them that their loved one did not die in vain. The actions we have taken will make the world more secure and the world more peaceful in the long run; that a free Iraq, free of weapons of mass destruction, free of tyranny, is not only good for the long-suffering Iraqi people -- which, in itself, is important -- but is going to be good for the long-term for countries which love freedom. Can you imagine the historic change, the landmark moment that is taking place now, where we've got a free -- a country which is emerging to be free and peaceful in the midst of a part of the world where violence and tyranny and terror have reigned. And I view this as an historic moment, and I will share with them -- just like I share with our own families here -- a deep grief, my sorrow for the sacrifice, but the fact that what is taking place today is a noble cause. Q: Mr. President, to focus it back on Mr. Blair and Britain, here is a guy who has lost two Ministers, who has lost a large part of the Parliamentary party, and who -- it could be said, polls -- has lost the faith of a large part of the country over Iraq. He's still, as you saw the other night in the Lord Mayor's Banquet speech, 100 million percent there -- and this against the great tide of popular opinion. What have you got on him? What's the relationship? And what's the -- THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's just Tony -- Q: And what's the pay-off? (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Freedom and peace. Tony Blair is making decisions for the right reasons. He is a -- in my relationship with him, he is the least political person I've dealt with. And I say that out of respect. He makes decisions based upon what he thinks is right. He's plenty independent. If he thinks -- if he thought the policy that we have both worked on was wrong, he'd tell me. He believes it's in his country's interest that we work for a free and peaceful Iraq. He, as much as any world leader, saw the consequences of September the 11th, 2001. Obviously, there are more -- those consequences and that moment has directly affected my foreign policy. See, it changed the nature of the presidency. It changed the security arrangements of the United States of America. I vowed to the American people I would never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001. And that is, we are no longer protected by oceans. We're vulnerable to attack by terrorists. Tony Blair understands the devastation that terror can bring to a country in a civilized world. He knows the tactics of the terrorists are to create fear and chaos. He knows what they want is for the civilized world to retreat so that their tyranny, and their bloodshed, and their unbelievable barbaric form of government, like the Taliban, will take hold. And he refuses to allow his country to be terrorized, and he refuses to allow peoples to become subjugated to that kind of ideologies. And I respect him greatly for that. And I admire him as a strong leader. He tells you what he thinks, and he does what he says he's going to do. And that's about as high a compliment as I can pay a fellow leader. Q: Mr. President, you're going to find, I think, quite a large number of people on the streets demonstrating during your visit for a variety of reasons, which highlights a rather striking contrast between -- you're still a pretty popular President at home, but you're not a very popular President in various states around the world. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q: Does that -- how do you account for the lack of popularity around the world? And does it matter to you? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I -- it's kind of -- all I can tell you is I went to the Philippines, there was thousands and thousands and thousands of people out there and they were waving with all five fingers. (Laughter.) No, look, I, frankly, haven't paid that much attention to what you just described. But, first, I admire a country which welcomes people to express their opinion. I'm proud of Great Britain's tradition of free speech. I remember going to Hyde Park and seeing Speakers' Corner -- what do they call it, Speaker's Corner? Q: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: People up there expressing their opinion.
And it's kind of Q: Mr. President -- THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish here. Q: Sure. THE PRESIDENT: And I fully understand not everybody is going to agree with the decisions I've made. I don't expect everybody to agree. And I make decisions based upon -- in the foreign policy arena, made decisions based upon a couple of principles. One, how best to secure America? That's my biggest responsibility. See, I was there right after September the 11th. I saw the smoke. I saw the devastation. I heard the grief. I hugged the firefighters whose -- the families of the firefighters who rushed in to save. I saw the heroism. And I vowed right then and there that I would use everything in my power to prevent America from being attacked again. But there's a greater ambition, as well, because I understand that free societies are societies which do not breed terror. And I gave a speech the other day, and in that speech I said the are certain folks who I think don't believe that freedom can take hold in parts of our world. And I reminded them about some of the statements about the post-World War II Japan, that there were some skeptics who said that, well, Japan couldn't possibly be a free society or a democratic society. I thought about that when I was eating dinner with Koizumi, Prime Minister Koizumi, he's a good friend -- thinking about what would happen if we had not done a good job with the peace after World War II? Would America and Japan be able to work together, for example, on the North Korean issue had it not been done right? My point to you is that free societies and democratic societies are transforming societies. And we have a chance to transform by working together, transform in a positive way whole societies and whole regions of the world. And, finally -- and people don't -- I can understand people not liking war, if that's what they're there to protest. I don't like war. War is the last choice a President should make, not the first. And it was the last choice, after endless years of diplomacy took place -- resolution after resolution after resolution after resolution that was put forth in the U.N. condemning the -- and warning the world, frankly, of the dangers of Saddam Hussein, and condemning his programs, and insisting that he disarm. And, finally, in 1141, as you know, by unanimous vote, the world said -- at least the U.N. Security Council said, disarm or there will be serious consequences. And he didn't disarm. He had no intention of disarming. And so then the fundamental question came down to a couple of things. One, the definition of serious consequence. Serious consequence is not another resolution, or another debate inside the U.N. And I understand people loathe war. So do I. And, yet, we are war. That's what September the 11th taught us. It's a different kind of war. And I intend to, so long as I'm the President, wage that war vigorously to protect the American people. And there's all kinds of ways to wage it. And the best way to win, in the long run, though, is the spread of freedom. And that's what's happening. But, sure, I can understand people not agreeing with the decision I made. Q: But it is striking, isn't it, that opinion poll after opinion poll -- THE PRESIDENT: I don't know, I don't read them. Q: -- huge solidarity after 9/11 -- THE PRESIDENT: I just don't pay attention to the polls. If I were trying to be President paying attention on the polls, I'd be running around in circles. It's a great -- that's one of the reasons I've got Winston Churchill's bust here is -- at least from my reading of the history, he pretty much said what he thought, did what he thought was right, and led. He was courageous in his leadership. And you know the interesting thing about Presidents and Prime Ministers is you're never going to be around to judge history, judge the true merit of the history, of the decisions you make. Short-term history is -- it's hard to call it unobjective. It's very subjective, I guess, is the best way to put it. After all, the person who has written the history hasn't had a chance to see the full effects of the decision-making. And in my case, most of the short-term historians probably aren't that thrilled with me being President in the first place, which might color the short-term history. (Laughter.) But my only point is, I think a President must not try to write the legacy of every moment. The President just does what he thinks is right, and try to explain as clearly as I can -- part of the purpose of my visit to your great country is to use the opportunities I've had to speak directly -- like I'm doing right now -- to people about why I made the decisions I made. Go ahead, go ahead. Q: On Iraq, you mentioned you're having intensive consultations these days -- THE PRESIDENT: Constantly. Q: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: With Blair, by the way. Q: Indeed. THE PRESIDENT: Weekly. Q: Seeming to point to the need to hand over -- or a desire to hand over power faster to the Iraqis? Where is this going? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we -- Jerry Bremer is here in town today. I think he just had a press availability. And we discussed all options, and just to make sure we understand where we are relative to the situation on the ground. We want the Iraqis to understand that we believe they're plenty capable of running their own country. See, we're of the school of thought, this administration, and Tony is the same way -- if I could put words in his mouth -- that believe the Iraqi people are plenty capable of running a peaceful country. And, therefore, the sooner the people -- the more the people realize that, I think the more comfortable they'll be with their future. And the sooner that sovereignty is handed over in a way commensurate with a -- with a stable country, the better off it is. That's been our position all along. So we're constantly reviewing the progress. There's been -- obviously, it's tough. We lost Italian police today. These killers are -- they're hard-nosed people. They'll kill because they want to intimidate. They want us to leave. That's their goal. They've got different ambitions. Some would like to see a Taliban-type government, that would be the Mujahedin-type people. Some want to revenge the loss, the defeat in Afghanistan. They would be your al Qaeda-types. And the Baathists, of course, want to get back in power. They represent roughly 18 percent of the people, and they've had 100 percent of the power. And they like that. And, obviously, in a free society, that's not going to be the case, power sharing as opposed to not power sharing. And so there are elements of the Baathists and Saddam holdouts that are desperately trying -- and I use the word "desperate" because they see the progress being made. And there is progress being made. And I certainly don't want to underestimate the security situation. I know how tough it is. I know how tough it is firsthand. And, yet, on the humanitarian side, in seven months we've got a new currency moving through the system, which is pretty remarkable when you think about it. The oil revenues, which belong to the Iraqi people, are now up to 2.1 million barrels. Prior to going in, I think if you were to review some of the writings and speculation, they would have said, well, that's what's going to take place if the oil reserves are destroyed. How is the coalition going to handle that? You might remember there was talk about sectarian violence, that all we would do is create a vacuum and long-standing bitterness and hatred would take hold, and Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds would all be after each other. That hasn't happened. Electricity is up to pre-war levels, although it has dipped this month because of maintenance. My only point to you is that these killers are beginning to see a society begin to emerge, a peaceful society, which is a major defeat for terror. And you bet we're consulting on a regular basis to determine how best to deal with the tactics on the ground. The enemy is changing tactics, and we'll change tactics with them. But I do, I talk to Tony a lot. He's got good wisdom on this subject. Our intelligence services are very close. Our militaries are talking to each other. You've got this -- government officials there amongst the CPA and our relationship is good there. And it's very important for us to continue to discuss these issues closely. And then, of course, I stay in touch with Bremer. And -- sorry. Q: Well -- THE PRESIDENT: Are you trying to dominate? You're doing a fine job. (Laughter.) No, go ahead. Q: No, go -- THE PRESIDENT: We'll make it around, I promise you. I'll wait. Nice try. I call down to these characters all the time for hogging the mike, as we say. He's one of the worst of them. Q: Regarding the nature of the pressure that Prime Minister Blair is under, is that putting pressure on the decision making, your own relationship -- THE PRESIDENT: Not as far as I can tell. Q: Or pressure for change or change of tactic or anything? THE PRESIDENT: Never once has he said to me, ever, gosh, I'm feeling terrible pressure. Our discussions go as you would hope leaders of two allies would go: What can we do to help each other? What can we do to succeed? I have never heard him complain about the polls, or wring his hands. I'm telling you. The relationship is a very good relationship because I admire him, and I admire somebody who stands tough. And I admire somebody who has got a vision which is a vision that is peaceful, and somebody who shares that same deep feeling that freedom is an incredibly important part of changing the world. Free societies do not attack each other. And Tony Blair doesn't hold an elitist view that says, only certain people should be free, or can be free, or capable of freedom. And I admire that in him. And so to answer your question, you say he's -- look, it may be hard for you to believe, and these guys will tell you, I -- and ladies will tell you, excuse me, guys and ladies -- that my style of leadership is to lay out an agenda based upon principle, and lead. And I don't pay that much attention to what is written about me, or polls. And I think they will verify that what I've just told you is true. And it's not to say I don't respect the press. I do respect the press. But sometimes it's hard to be an optimistic leader. A leader must project an optimistic view. It's hard to be optimistic if you read a bunch of stuff about yourself, if you know what I mean. I don't know how much time Tony looks at polls or anything, I'm just telling you from my perspective, my relationship, he is the kind of person with whom I like to consult, a person I'm proud to call friend, because he's willing to make the tough decision and stand by it. And he makes a tough decision based upon what he thinks is right. Q: Mr. President, we've heard -- or heard from the administration emanating the phrase, "No war in '04." THE PRESIDENT: Who said that? Q: Behind the scenes. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. Is that you, Lindlaw? (Laughter.) Q: Well, there you go. It's now in the lexicon. THE PRESIDENT: We're at war. We are at war, see? I don't mean to anticipate your question, but I'm just going to tell you, we're at war now. We're at war with terror. But go ahead. Q: My point is -- THE PRESIDENT: And Iraq is just one of the -- is a front in the war on terror. Q: That's where I'm going. I'm going to Syria and I'm going to Iran. These are countries which, by the criteria of Iraq, you could argue, have the same application. THE PRESIDENT: Not really, because remember, the -- first of all, not every situation needs to be resolved through military action. And I would cite you North Korea and Iran. Secondly, the case in Iraq was unique, is unique, because the world, for over a decade, had spoken. The diplomatic route was tried. No one can argue with that. We tried, I think it was 12 resolutions, if I'm not mistaken, culminating in 1441 which said, disarm or you face serious consequences. I remember going to the U.N. to give that speech. And basically I was looking forward to giving that speech because I wanted the U.N. to understand that they are a vital institution, but their vitality depended upon their willingness to have some meaning to their words. And we're at war. Okay? The war on terror goes on. And the war on terror is going to take awhile. America is vulnerable to attack. So is your country, by the way. And the only way to win this war is to do everything you can to protect your homeland, but to stay on the offensive, which is what we're going to do. And having said that, not every situation requires a military response. As a matter of fact, I would hope very few situations would require a military response. Let me talk about Iran. The Iranians must hear from a unified world that it is unacceptable for them to develop a nuclear weapon. And I want to thank -- I thanked Tony, the other day on our video conference we had, for he and his Foreign Minister Straw and the French Foreign Minister and the German Foreign Minister, delivering a message on behalf of all of us that a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. The IAEA, an international organization, as you know, based out of the United Nations, is now very much involved in this issue. The United States position is, is that we appreciate their focus, and we expect there to be a transparent regime inside of Iran. They admitted they had -- were enriching, that they hadn't disclosed their enrichment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They had made that admission, which says that we need to be on guard. My point to you in regards to your question on war is that there is a way to deal with this issue in an international forum, which we are now doing. There's bilateral pressure, there's trilateral pressure, and there is multilateral pressure, I guess is the best way to put it. And that's the best way to deal with it. Let me talk about North Korea, if you don't mind, right quick, to show you, at least, how I think on foreign policy issues. North Korea is a -- had a bilateral relation with the United States. And the leader would insist that the United States come to the table and provide different aid. And he, the leader, would not -- "he," Kim Jong-il, would not develop a nuclear weapon. And so our country agreed to that. It turns out he was developing highly enriched uranium suitable for a nuclear weapon. The thought of Kim Jong-il having a nuclear weapon is very dangerous, and/or the capacity to export a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists. By the way, terrorist networks who are willing to kill with car bombs are also willing to kill on a massive scale. The idea of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist organizations is a dangerous, dangerous thought for the 21st century. And we've got to deal with it. So I looked at the history and realized that the bilateral relations with Kim Jong-il hadn't worked. There's a real politic here, when somebody says they're going to do something and they don't do it. That should be a warning signal, and it was. So I went and worked with the Chinese and convinced the Chinese through a variety of means of argument that they need to be involved. And they now are involved. They're hosting these talks. So you've got the Chinese and you've got the Americans, and of course, South Korea and Japan, and now Russia, are all involved. So you've got five countries saying the same message to Kim Jong-il: We expect you not to develop a nuclear weapons program. And my point to you is, is that there are ways to rally constituencies and nations toward a common objective, which is precisely what we're doing. That is exactly what the U.N. tried to do, and others tried to do, and the U.N., as far as Iraq went. It's just at the end, some countries decided that serious consequences meant something other than -- something different than what I thought serious consequences meant, I guess is the best way to put it... Q: Just one last question on Iraq and Afghanistan. THE PRESIDENT: Sure. Q: Is it really -- it's inconceivable that you could consider pulling out -- THE PRESIDENT: It is inconceivable. Q: However, bin Laden is at large, and Saddam Hussein. How close are you to finding these people? THE PRESIDENT: No, first of all, I wouldn't -- I think that your -- let me answer your question this way. We will find them. Okay? Yes, we're not pulling out until the job is done. Period. Q: And that includes finding those two? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's part of it. But even bigger is a free and democratic society. That is the mission. And, again, I'd repeat -- I know I'm sounding like a broken record to you, I just want you to get a sense for how strongly I feel for the mission we are on. I gave a speech the other -- I think I might have -- or mentioned it to you. I gave a speech about democracy in the Middle East. I believe a -- first of all, I believe that the Middle Eastern countries are plenty capable of being democratic countries. Their democracy won't be western. We don't expect them to look like America. We expect the governments to be modern, however, and that includes, well, women's rights, and including women into the future of their societies. So the mission in Iraq is a free and peaceful and stable country. It will be a -- this is a transforming mission. It is a milestone, as I said it, a milestone in the history of liberty. And Tony Blair understands that. He looks, and I would hope -- what they would say this of me, I look beyond the signs and the moment to be able to see out -- out in years, out in history. It's an exciting time to be leaders of our two countries. It is
exciting in the sense that working together, we can transform
society in a positive way. And I say, "working together," I mean
with everybody. There's some unbelievable devastation besides
terror going on in the world. And I look forward to reminding the
British people that our country proudly is leading the world when
it comes to the battle of AIDS. I put forth an imitative of $15
billion, $10 billion new money on top of $5 billion we're already
spending over a five year period of time, to help get
anti-retroviral drugs into the hands of the healers and helpers
that are in these ravished countries. Can you imagine living in a
world -- we are living in a world, you don't need to imagine it,
it's happening And I look forward to talking to my good friend about how we can work together. And it's not only the United States working with Britain, it's the United States working with Europe, whole, free, and at peace. Whole, free, and at peace. Today, I was able to present the Medal of Freedom, which is the highest civil award that I give, to Lord George Robertson. I don't know if you all were in there and saw it or not. Were you there? Q: On TV. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm sorry. Well, you know, security risk. (Laughter.) Anyway, it was a -- but the reason I bring that up is that during my tenure here as President, we worked with George and Tony Blair and other countries to expand NATO, and the most significant expansion ever, except for the initial thrust. And we expanded to the Baltics. And by the way, we not only expanded to the Baltics, but at the same -- in the same period of time, got rid of the ABM Treaty, which I felt codified hatred and distrust. And, yet, relations are good. And we're moving forward. NATO is an incredibly important institution. And NATO is an instrument for freedom. Yes, one last. Q: One last question. Can I ask a question about European defense? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Anyway, what I was going to say is, is that the relations with Europe are vital and important. We've got good relations. Obviously, there was some disgruntlement about the decision made on Iraq, but I would remind you that Germany has troops in Afghanistan supporting that mission there, for which we're very grateful. And they're doing a darn good job. Yes, last question. Yes, okay, last two questions, then I've got to go. I'm heading toward television. I'm trying to beam my way into Great Britain. Q: David Frost will wait. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: That's easy for you to say. He gets to ask the questions, not you. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Q: There was a fuss from American officials after Tony Blair met with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder in Berlin, and appeared to take forward the European initiative on defense. I wanted to ask you what your administration was worried about -- whether you could trust Tony Blair to keep the thing -- Atlantic alliance -- THE PRESIDENT: Let me make sure you understand our position. What we believe, that Europe needs to take more of a defense posture and should act independently of NATO if NATO chooses not to take on the mission. We also believe that the European Defense Force -- we agree with Tony Blair that it should not undermine the vitality of the NATO mission. And I trust Tony Blair to make the right decision there. I don't know what chirping you're hearing about it, but at least
in the President's chair, I'm confident that when he says Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov. 'Protest if you will', Tony Blair on the State Visit, November 10'PM's speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet', November 10,
2003. My Lord Mayor, My Late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, My Lord High Chancellor, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen. Tonight I want to re-state the basic tenets of this government's foreign policy. These are that the world today is more interdependent than ever before; that engagement not isolation is therefore essential to further British interests; and that this should be on the basis of a broad agenda pursued with our key allies that seeks both to combat the 21st century security threat of terrorism and unstable states and to bring social justice to the world's poor and oppressed. In particular, I want to re-affirm the twin pillars on which rest Britain's place in the world today: our alliance with America; our membership of the EU. Both are necessary. Both complement each other. Take either away and Britain is weaker for it. At present, I accept, there is a fairly narrow constituency for this view. The Eurosceptics deride the one. Resurgent anti-Americanism corrodes the other. Even objective commentary takes some delight in seeing each pillar becoming detached from the structure it is maintaining, with a Prime Minister caught underneath with rather tired arms. But I am here to tell you, somewhat counter-intuitively, that both are in good shape and with a bit of vision and hard work, will be a more solid foundation than ever before. Let me begin with Iraq. In eight days time, President Bush makes his State Visit to the United Kingdom. For many, the script of the visit has already been written. There will be demonstrations. His friends wonder at the timing. His enemies rub their hands at what they see as the potential embarrassment. I believe this is exactly the right time for him to come. Let us be clear what is happening in Iraq. Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the conflict upon which I admit there can be entirely legitimate disagreement. What is happening now is very simple. It is the battle of seminal importance for the early 21st century. It will define relations between the Muslim world and the West. It will influence profoundly the development of Arab States and the Middle East. It will have far-reaching implications for the future conduct of American and Western diplomacy. It will do this because, above all, it will test the validity of the view of those whose protest goes far wider than merely condemnation of the war in Iraq and extends to the whole of American and UK foreign policy. For this large body of people, the coalition is an army of occupation; its purpose is to suppress the Muslim population of Iraq: we are out to steal Iraq's oil; and, even if they abhor the methods of those causing terror in Iraq, they will say we've brought it on ourselves. Their view is: you should never have been there, and get out now. That is the view of parts of the Arab and Moslem street and a significant part of western opinion and certainly of the developing world. More than that, these people say: the whole episode of Iraq is the epitome of the way the US/UK treat the Arab and Moslem world. It is a form of colonialism, that seeks to impose its culture, its rules and its beliefs on its unwilling victims. What therefore is happening in Iraq? What is happening is that for the first time in forty years, some semblance of broad-based government is being introduced with the aim, as soon as is possible, of moving toward full democracy. Over 40,000 Iraqi police are now on duty. The press is free; over 170 newspapers in circulation; the ban on satellite TV lifted so that Iraqis can hear America abused by Al-Jazeera and others - for having liberated them. Access to the internet is no longer forbidden. Nearly all schools and universities are open, as are hospitals and they are receiving medicine and supplies not on the basis of membership of the Ba'ath Party but on need. The canals are being cleared. The power and water supplies re-built. These supposedly evil Americans have voted $19 billion of their own money in aid: the Madrid Conference under the excellent guidance of Prime Minister Aznar has raised another $13 billion. Not a penny piece of Iraq's oil money has gone anywhere but into an account under the supervision of the IMF and UN. And what is the barrier to progress? Who is trying to bomb the UN and Red Cross out of Baghdad? Or killing Iraqi civilians in terrorist attacks? Or sabotaging the work on electricity cables or oil installations? Not America. Not Britain. Not the coalition. But Saddam's small rump of supporters aided and abetted by foreign terrorists. And why are they doing it? Because they agree with me about this battle's importance. They know that if we give Iraq democracy, set it on a path to prosperity, leave it in the sole charge and sovereignty of the Iraqi people, its oil its own, its citizens free to worship in the way they wish, Muslim and non-Muslim, that means not just the re-birth of Iraq, it means the death of the poisonous propaganda monster about America these extremists have created in the minds of much of the world. What these fanatics are doing now in Iraq is not irrational. It is an entirely rational strategy. Lose the battle in Iraq and they lose their ability to present the Moslem world as victims and they as their champions. And let us offer our deep sympathies to our Saudi friends who yet again have fallen victim to the same terror from the same sources. It is precisely for that reason we must succeed. It is precisely for that reason we must not give up or retreat one inch until Iraq is truly free of this menace. And why this is a task for the whole of the international community. I say to those who will protest when President Bush comes. Protest if you will. That is your democratic right. Attack the decision to go to war, though have the integrity to realise that without it, those Iraqis now tasting freedom would still be under the lash of Saddam, his sons and their henchmen. But accept that the task now is not to argue about what has been, but to make what is happening now, work and work for the very Iraqis we all say we want to help. Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Bosnia and Kosovo, illustrate another lesson. One supremely powerful nation or a small group in concert, can win a war. But it takes many nations to win the peace. And in such an enterprise, there is no sane alternative to America and Europe working together. Germany leads the international security effort today in Afghanistan together with The Netherlands. The Europeans provide the only international military presence in Macedonia. In Iraq, soldiers from five EU countries and seven EU accession states are now in theatre. Whatever the differences, the UN Resolutions 1483 and 1511 on Iraq were agreed by France and Germany as well as the US and the UK. This should astonish no-one. Europe and America share the same values; are bound inextricably by history and culture; and now more than ever, are into each others ribs in business, trade and commerce. Since 1989 US/EU trade has doubled. In 2002, the UK had almost $300 billion of foreign direct investment in the US. But here's the surprise. Germany had almost $150 billion and France almost $200 billion. Just to complete the picture, UK investment in the EU is around $500 billion. In 2001, Brits made ten million more trips to Europe than in 1997 and a million more to the US. We are all of us utterly intertwined. It is at this point my civil service brief said "and you could add that Tottenham even have an American playing in goal". That's the Foreign Office at its best. And actually so do Manchester United and Blackburn. What is it with the US and goalkeeping? But I digress. The blunt conclusion is that like it or not, and I do, the EU and US must work with each other. Start from that point and a number of other things fall into place. Dismiss the illusion that somehow there is an old and a new Europe, the one opposed to the US and on its way out, the other the bright harbinger of the future to come. Yes, if some try to pull Europe apart from the US, others will resist firmly. But Europe has too much in common, too many shared interests, too many solid reasons for co-operation, to have any intention of letting a temporary divergence of view become a permanent rupture. It is true also that there is an antipathy in parts of the French political establishment to America. But don't exaggerate it and don't ignore the large numbers who know perfectly well that modern Gaullism must have a strong transatlantic dimension. And if we in Britain can ask that France overcome its traditional hesitation towards America, they are entitled to ask the same of us towards Europe. I readily confess there is no area of policy in which so many otherwise sensible people urge me to a position so completely self-defeating for the proper interests of Britain. After 6½ years in office, let me express to you the British Prime Minister's European dilemma: do you hope that Europe develops of its own accord in Britain's direction before participating; or do you participate at the outset in the hope of moving Europe in Britain's direction? The risk of the first is that you forfeit influence; of the second, that you are tied to something you don't like. And again on the basis of my experience, my view is clear. You participate. Sometimes, as with the single currency, there may be reasons of economics to hang back. But never do it for the politics of Euro-Scepticism. Two current examples illustrate the point: Europe's new constitution and European defence. On the first, we are urged to refuse to have anything to do with it. Those who advocate a referendum, at least from a sceptic position are being disingenuous. They want one to get a "no" vote and bring European integration to a halt. Fine, but the consequences will be that in the end the rest of Europe, including the 10 new members, will move on without us. Instead, we should fight our corner, secure the outcome we want so that rather than splendid (and futile) isolation we have a common treaty for all 25 member that we can agree to. And, on European defence, I find it odd that some say I am in favour of British participation in order to wreck the NATO alliance. My credentials on the transatlantic alliance, I would hope, after the last 2 years, are reasonably sound. And I would take the dire predictions more seriously were it not for the fact that the naysayers said exactly the same after the Anglo-French summit at St Malo began the process of European defence 5 years ago; since when we have done Kosovo through NATO, Afghanistan through the UN and NATO, Iraq with the US and Sierra Leone on our own. It has not inhibited us one iota from acting exactly as we would wish. Neither will it. The fact is British participation on the right terms, will ensure that European defence does indeed develop in a way fully consistent with NATO. I would not contemplate anything else. By contrast, the absence of Britain would not mean European defence didn't happen. Just that it happened and developed without us. That is not sensible for Britain, for Europe or for that matter, for America. Indeed the irony is that Euroscepticism is vocal just at the very point when it makes least sense in terms of Britain's relations with Europe. The most fundamental change in Europe for decades is taking place: enlargement to a Europe of 25, with Bulgaria and Romania to come in 2007 and Turkey now rightly pressing to enter accession negotiations. Europe is already the largest economic market and political alliance in the world. It will become bigger and the symbolism of Turkey, a Moslem nation and American ally, joining the EU could not be more epochal. But even with the 10 new members joining now, the change is extraordinary, not just in its scope but in its character. For these 10, by and large, share the same outlook, an outlook both familiar and welcome to Britain: in favour of economic reform, wedded, after their history of oppression and struggle, to a Europe of nation states; and for the same reason, unequivocally committed to the transatlantic alliance. They will not just be our political partners but our spiritual allies. The EU itself is for the first time pursuing a robust Security Strategy which recognises the threats we face and advocates the need for European action in partnership with the United States. Now is the very moment for Britain to participate fully in the Europe of the future. Now is the least propitious time for delusions of semi-detachment. None of this denies, incidentally, the need for Europe to change. Euroscepticism in that sense - Europe has too much bureaucracy, is too little focussed on the economic and social concerns of its citizens, too distant - is neither limited to Britain nor wrong in its strictures. But the answer is to get in and change it, not opt out of it. So there it is. I remain committed to our two pillars. Of course, it is difficult. The tensions have strained both. But overcoming them is a far more intelligent course of action than giving up in the face of them. For be in no doubt. If Europe were to let Anti-Americanism define its foreign policy it would be disaster. However tough, Britain needs to be constantly in this debate to turn it back to where it should be: as I said in my speech to Congress, Europe as America's partner not its servant or its rival. The agenda for partnership between Europe and America needs our alliance to be full-blooded and whole-hearted. Terrorism and WMD; MEPP; HIV/AIDS; global poverty; climate change and world trade: the issues are too vast, the interdependence between us too ingrained to let arrogance, jealousy, misunderstanding or even disagreement, cloud our better nature and joint path to the future. The hardest thing in politics is to keep clarity of vision when all around the clatter of political intrigue and day to day policy from the petty to the profound, swirls around you, jostling your footing, confusing your senses and unnerving your courage. Remove it all and the vision is indeed clear and sharp. Europe and America together. Britain in the thick of it. The world, a darn sight safer as a result. Source: 10 Downing Street website, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4803.asp. © 2003 The Acronym Institute. |