For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
January 24, 2004
Remarks by the Vice President to the World Economic Forum
Congress Center
Davos, Switzerland
10:15 A.M. (Local)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Professor Schwab.
I'm honored to join all of you this morning, and to be in such
distinguished company.
I am grateful to the World Economic Forum and to the Swiss
government for hosting this important forum over the years. I see some
old friends here, and many good friends of the United States. To all
of you, I bring the best wishes and the best wishes of the American
people and President George W. Bush this morning.
As we came into the valley yesterday, the setting reminded me of
the Mountain West, the part of America that I call home. This is the
best kind of place to come when you want to draw back from the daily
rush of events and focus on matters of large and long-term consequence
-- the calm deliberation is the spirit of this conference to see beyond
the political pressures of the moment, and to take the long view.
Recent events give us many reasons for optimism. The capture of
Saddam Hussein, the adoption of a new democratic constitution in
Afghanistan, Libya's decision to abandon its pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, the recent warming between India and Pakistan, and the
return to robust growth in the United States and Asia; these all point
toward a future that is more hopeful than many people believed possible
just a year ago.
And think what has happened in Europe in recent years -- progress
and cooperation that could not have been imagined just a few
generations ago. In the living memory of some in this room, Europe was
a source of constant violence, and threats that reached beyond the
continent. Today, in every direction from this city, Europe is united
and peaceful, and this continent now stands as an example to all
nations of economic success and democratic stability.
The success of modern Europe is one of the great stories of human
experience. It is also the story of a great and enduring alliance
among free peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. Through six decades
and 12 American Presidents, the United States and Europe have faced
monumental challenges and have overcome them together.
Because transatlantic ties held strong -- against the forces of
fascism and imperial communism -- our nations have been able to thrive
in the pursuit of peace. The subjects we talk about at gatherings like
this -- economic growth, the expansion of trade, new opportunities for
our people -- all reflect the confidence of free societies. And the
confidence rests on the basic architecture of security we have created
together.
Today's generation of leaders has no greater responsibility than to
protect our peoples against new dangers. On September 11th, 2001, we
saw the face of danger in our era with terrible clarity. On that
morning, in the space of three hours, 19 men, carrying only box cutters
and airplane tickets, inflicted suffering and death on some 3,000
innocent men, women and children. This was a tragic loss for my
nation. But among the casualties that day were also citizens of more
than 50 other countries. And yet for all the destruction and grief it
caused, September 11th gave us the merest glimpse of the threat that
international terrorism poses to us all.
There have always been small groups willing to use random murder to
shock and intimidate. Yet in crucial respects, 21st century terrorism
threat presents a new and far greater peril. Today, we face a
sophisticated global network of terrorists who are opposed to the
values of liberty, tolerance and openness that form the basis of our
societies. Their hatred and sense of grievance are not directed at any
one government or nation or religion, but against all governments,
nations and people that stand in their way. And so we have seen
further atrocities committed since 9/11 in Bali, Jakarta, Najaf,
Jerusalem, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Istanbul, Baghdad and
elsewhere.
Today's terrorists send young men and women on missions of suicide
and murder and call it martyrdom. They would as readily kill 300,000
innocents as they killed 3,000, and they are seeking the means to do
exactly that. From materials seized by coalition forces in
Afghanistan, and interrogations of captured terrorists, we know they
are doing everything they can to develop or acquire chemical,
biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons.
Were they to gain those weapons -- either by their own efforts or
with the help of an outlaw regime -- no appeal to reason or mortality
would prevent them from committing the worst of terrors. In the words
of the recently published EU Security Strategy, the terrorists are,
"willing to use unlimited violence to cause massive casualties."
We must act with all urgency that this danger demands. Civilized
people must do everything in our power to defeat terrorism and to stop
he spread of weapons of mass destruction.
These tasks that we face are tasks that we'll face far into the
future. And our success will depend on meeting three fundamental
responsibilities. First, we must confront the ideologies of violence
at the source, by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle
East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together.
Cooperation among our governments, and effective international
institutions, are even more important today than they have been in the
past. Third, when diplomacy fails, we must be prepared to face our
responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary. Direct
threats require decisive action.
Let me begin with the first of these -- the defeat of violence
through the advance of freedom.
The theme of this conference states that, "There can be no
prosperity without security, and security cannot be achieved in the
absence of prosperity." But while we know that security and prosperity
are mutually dependent, we must go a step further and ask how they are
best achieved. And the answer lies in the values of freedom, justice
and democracy. We know from experience that the institutions of self
government turn the energies of human beings away from violence, to the
peaceful work of building better lives. Democracies do not breed the
anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies or export
violence. Terrorists do not find fertile recruiting grounds in
societies where young people have the right to guide their own
destinies and to choose their on leaders.
For the best illustration of these truths, we need not look far.
By the middle of the 20th century, generations of conflict had led some
to conclude that permanent tension was a fact of life in Europe, and
that some European cultures were incapable of sustaining democratic
values. We now know that this pessimistic view was false. The true
sources of conflict were despotic and anti-democratic regimes.
The defeat of fascism and the spread of democracy after World War
II was the precondition for peace and prosperity in Western Europe.
Only when both had become stable democracies could Germany and France
be at peace. And that reconciliation, as much as any other event,
helped bring about the European community we know today. Likewise, the
defeat of Soviet communism and the spread of democracy in Eastern
Europe made possible a continent whole and free -- and increasingly
stable and prosperous.
What was once said about Europe has been said at various times
about Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and is often said today about
the greater Middle East. We are told that the culture and the beliefs
of the Islamic people are somehow incompatible with the values and the
aspirations of freedom and democracy. These claims are condescending,
and they are false. Many of the world's Muslims today live in
democratic societies. Turkey is perhaps the premier example. That is
why it has recently been the target of terrorist violence. Turkey
deserves our support, including for its European aspirations.
Millions of other Muslims live and flourish as democratic citizens
in Europe, Asia and the United States. The desire for freedom is not
just America or Western, it is universal. Whenever ordinary people are
given the chance to choose, they choose freedom, democracy and the rule
of law, not slavery, tyranny and the heavy tread of the secret police.
In the years of the Cold War, we learned that we could not safely
put a border on freedom. Security was not divisible in Europe; it is
not divisible in the world. Our choice is not between a unipolar world
and a multipolar world. Our choice is for a just, free and a
democratic world. That requires the insights, the sacrifices and the
resources of all democratic nations. And it requires the courage,
sacrifice and the dedication of those now denied their basic freedoms.
It's clear that reform has many advocates in the Muslim world.
Arab intellectuals have spoken of a freedom deficit, and of the
imperative of internal reform, greater political participation, the
rule of law, economic openness and wider trade.
As some at this conference can attest, we have seen movement toward
reform in the greater Middle East. In Morocco, King Mohammed recently
called for greater protection of women's rights. In Jordan, elections
have been held and the government is taking steps to reduce state
control of the press. In Bahrain, elections were held last year and
women were able to run for office for the first time. In Egypt, the
ruling National Democratic Party has called for increased economic
reform and expanded political participation. In Saudi Arabia, Crown
Prince Abdullah has issued an Arab Charter for reform and called for
the holding of municipal elections. These changes demonstrate what we
all know -- that true reform and democracy must come from brave and
forward-looking people in each country. And those of us who are
privileged to live in freedom have a responsibility to support these
historic steps.
The rulers of Iran must follow the example being set by others
throughout the greater Middle East. In that great nation, there is a
growing call for true democracy and human rights. Europe and America
must stand as one in calling for the regime to honor the legitimate
demands of the Iranian people. They ask nothing more than to enjoy
their God-given right to live their lives as free men and women.
Of course, the most dramatic recent examples of democratic progress
are to be seen in the liberated countries of Afghanistan and Iraq. In
Afghanistan, two years after the overthrow of the brutal Taliban
regime, the Loya Jirga has approved a constitution that reflects the
values of tolerance and equal rights for women. Under President
Karzai's leadership, and with the help of democratic countries around
the world, the Afghan people are building a decent, just and free
society -- and a nation that will never again be a safe haven for
terror.
In Iraq, too, after decades of Baathist rule, democracy is
beginning to take hold. Less than a year ago, the people of that
country lived under the absolute power of one man and his apparatus of
intimidation and torture. Today the former dictator sits in captivity,
while the people of Iraq prepare for full self government. Saddam
Hussein can no longer harbor and support terrorists, and his long
efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction are finally at an end.
A new Iraqi police force now protects the people instead of
bullying them. Hundreds of Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation,
with no Baathist enforcers telling them what to print. A coalition of
nations led by the United States is working with Iraq's new Governing
Council to prepare the way for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty
by the end of June. Iraqis are preparing a fundamental law, which will
guarantee certain basic rights. Month by month, Iraqis are assuming
more responsibility for their own security and their own future. The
United States and our coalition partners will stand with them, and
continue to sacrifice to ensure their safety until that work is done.
We urge all democratic nations and the United Nations to answer the
Iraqi Governing Council's call for support for the people of Iraq in
making the transition to democracy. We urge all nations holding Iraqi
debt to be generous in forgiving it.
Our forward strategy for freedom commits us to support those who
work and sacrifice for reform across the greater Middle East. We call
upon our democratic friends and allies everywhere, and in Europe in
particular, to join us in this effort. Europeans know that their great
experiment in building peace, unity and prosperity cannot survive as a
privileged enclave, surrounded on its outskirts by breeding grounds of
hatred and fanaticism. The days of looking the other way while
despotic regimes trample human rights, rob their nations' wealth, and
then excuse their failings by feeding their people a steady diet of
anti-Western hatred are over. Nations fail their people if they
compromise their values in the hope of achieving stability. Instead,
we must seek a higher standard, one that will apply to our friends in
the region no less than to our adversaries.
Just as democratic reform is the key to the future that the people
of the Middle East deserve, so it is also essential to a peaceful
resolution of the long-standing Arab-Israeli dispute. We seek
recognition and security for Israel. And we support a viable,
independent Palestinian state. But peace will not be achieved by
Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate and profit from
corruption and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The best hope for a
lasting peace depends on true democracy. And a true Palestinian
democracy requires leaders who understand that terror has in fact been
the worst enemy of the Palestinian people and are prepared to remove it
from their midst. Israel, too, must redouble its efforts by
alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian people and by avoiding
actions that undermine the long-term viability of a two-state
solution.
Encouraging the spread of freedom and democracy is the right thing
to do, and it is also very much in our collective self-interest.
Helping the people of the greater Middle East overcome the freedom
deficit is, ultimately, the key to winning the broader war on terror.
It is one of the great tasks of our time, and it will require resolve
and resources for a generation or more.
This is work for many hands. And here we see our second great
responsibility: To keep our alliances and international partnerships
strong and to cooperate on every front as we meet common dangers.
We have made much progress in the past two years. Not long ago,
terrorists lived with impunity in cities across Europe and obtained
official American visas, exploiting the openness of our societies and
using it against us. Today, our intelligence and law enforcement
services are cooperating to tighten the noose around terrorists, to
choke off their sources of funding, to prevent them from moving freely
across our borders and to apprehend them before they strike again.
We have created new tools to strengthen our efforts, like the
recently signed U.S.-EU Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance
treaties. And each of us bears a responsibility to ensure these
treaties are enforced to the fullest. By these means we are safer, but
we are not yet safe. Each of us bears responsibility to close the
holes in our common effort against terror and weapons of mass
destruction.
Our military actions have also been carried out with the help of
many allies and partners on this continent and around the world. It is
no surprise to President Bush and me that 21 of the 34 countries
keeping peace with us in Iraq today are NATO allies and partners.
Along with Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands have
all made substantial contributions, with Poland taking command of a
multinational division and Spain making a major troop commitment.
Thirty-eight countries have forces in Afghanistan, 28 from the European
continent as well as others from the Middle East, East Asia and North
America. In Afghanistan, Germany has taken a leading role in providing
forces and in expanding the role of NATO.
NATO itself is undergoing the most dramatic and important
transformation in its history. It's expanding its membership, creating
a rapid response force, leading the International Security Assistance
Force in Kabul while widening its role in Afghanistan, and supporting
the Polish-led division in Iraq. These deployments -- hundreds and
sometimes thousands of miles from the European heartland -- speak to
our common understand that today's threats must be met where they are,
or those threats will come to us.
But we have much more work to do. As Lord Robertson, NATO's former
Secretary General, has said, "NATO's credibility is in its capability."
Today Europe and Canada have 1.4 million soldiers under arms, but only
55,000 deployed, and many European militaries still maintain they are
overstretched. We have spoken before, since I was Secretary of
Defense, about the need for more deployable European forces -- and
today that need is critical -- and Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer
has made this a priority.
Another priority is greater cooperation and burden-sharing between
NATO and the EU. None of us can afford waste, duplication or
competition between the two great institutions in Brussels. America
wants the strongest possible Europe. And just as we must not force you
to choose between your European and transatlantic vocations, you must
not sell yourselves short and settle for less than the military
capability and influence that your people deserve.
We also urge our allies and partners in Asia and Latin America to
strengthen their defense capabilities and to join in our shared efforts
to preserve peace. Among others, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Honduras,
Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic have taken the courageous step of
joining peace efforts in Iraq. They have our respect and gratitude.
The grave problem of proliferation must also be answered with
united action. Different situations will require different
strategies. Along with China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, America
is determined to see that North Korea eliminates its nuclear program.
We are supporting the work of the IAEA to hold the government of Iran
to its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. We must remain
united in demanding that Iraq meet its international commitments.
As we pursue this work, we must look hard at existing multilateral
institutions and treaties to ensure they are up to the challenges of
the 21st century. Existing mechanisms may have slowed the spread of
deadly weapons, but they clearly have not prevented it.
Last year, the U.S. and 10 other nations -- including Australia,
France, Italy, Japan and Spain -- formed the Proliferation Security
Initiative, a joint effort to identify and interdict the most dangerous
weapons and missiles in transit. For too many years, those materials
have crossed oceans and continents without a serious or systematic
effort to stop them.
Today, knowing that terrorists are actively seeking the weapons to
match their ambitions, the risks of inaction are impossible to
overstate. So we must proceed in dead earnest with a broad, effective,
global effort to halt the transfer of those weapons before it is too
late. Each nation should also look within, at laws and business
practices that may have been insufficient to prevent the export of
items that enable the production of weapons of mass destruction.
In all of our actions, the world's democracies must send an
unmistakable message: that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction
only invites isolation and carries great costs. And leaders who
abandon the pursuit of those weapons will find an open path to far
better relations with governments around the world.
That message has already yielded a response in Tripoli. In
December, after nine months of intensive diplomacy, Colonel Ghadafi
voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's
weapons of mass destruction programs. A successful German/Italian
effort to interdict a shipment of centrifuge parts bound for Libya
surely helped crystallize his decision.
Today, with the cooperation of Libya's government, American and
British experts and IAEA inspectors have already examined a sizable
weapons program, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear
weapons. In the months to come, Libya has agreed to provide a full
inventory and inspectors will assist Libya in dismantling its entire
WMD programs and its longer-range missiles. Libya has now ratified the
nuclear test ban treaty, and early next month will become the 159th
country to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Our understanding with Libya came about through quiet diplomacy.
It is the result, however, of policies and principles declared to all.
Over the last two years, we have demonstrated that when we speak of
fighting terrorism and of ending the spread of weapons of mass
destruction, we mean exactly what we say. Our diplomacy with Libya was
successful only because our word was credible.
That kind of credibility can be earned in only one way -- by
keeping commitments, even when they bring difficulty and sacrifice; by
leaving potential adversaries with no doubt that dangerous conduct will
invite certain consequences. And so the third responsibility of free
nations is to be ready, as a last resort, to apply military force.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in successful, strong
democracies are accustomed to the forms of good-faith negotiation and
the peaceful resolution of differences. We observe those forms every
day, in our legislatures, parliaments and legal systems. Following
World War II, the victorious democracies and their newly liberated
partners shared those standards of debate and conduct with the world,
through the United Nations and other international organizations we
together worked to create.
There is a temptation, however, to assume that the good faith that
underlies these institutions will always be returned. Yet as we saw in
the case of Iraq, after 12 years and more than a dozen Security Council
resolutions -- the last one vowing serious consequences -- there comes
a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At
that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted. At that
point, we must show that beyond our resolutions is actual resolve. As
President Bush has said, "Our people have given us the duty to defend
them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of
violent men."
Inaction can bring its own serious consequences. Had we not acted,
Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and there is little question he
would still be defying the United Nations and making a mockery of its
mission.
Because we acted, 25 million people live free of Saddam's tyranny.
Never again will they have to fear the arbitrary rule of the dictator
and his sons -- the torture chambers, the mass graves, the whole
apparatus of terror that sustained their power. The people of Iraq
have been delivered from a nightmare. And every person now engaged in
the work of making Iraq a stable and a democratic nation has
contributed to a just cause and to the peace of the world.
None of the responsibilities I have described this morning are
easily met. Promoting freedom, justice and democracy in areas that
have known generations of despotism is an enormous undertaking.
Working cooperatively against the dangers of a new era will place
demands on us all, and there will be occasional differences, even among
allies who have great respect for one another. And using military
power, when no alternative remains, will always be the most difficult
decision that leaders can make.
We do not shrink from these obligations, because we know from
bitter experience that tragedy can come from division, weakness and
vacillation. We are determined that today's challenges do not become
tomorrow's crises. This will test our diplomacy and our resolve.
Going forward, we can be guided as well by one of the last century's
more hopeful lessons. History has not dealt kindly with dictators and
murderous ideologies. The momentum of history is on the side of human
freedom. And when free people are clear in our purposes, and confident
in our ideals, and united in our defense, no enemy will prevail against
us.
Thank you. (Applause.)
PROFESSOR SCHWAB: Mr. Vice President, this was a comprehensive
presentation of the United States' policies. But it was much more. I
think it was a presentation of our joint responsibilities in the
world. As it is tradition in Davos, the Vice President has agreed to
answer some questions. Who would like -- I see so many, many hands
going up. We will be able only to take some.
Q Thank you for those warm words, which were very much
appreciated, about the Islamic and the Arab world. May we ask, Mr.
Vice President, would you be so kind as to ensure that they are
continued to Secretary Ashcroft and to those who work for him, so that
visitors from our region are treated with greater discretion and
sensitivity when they visit your wonderful country? Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I will certainly be happy to pass on the
messages to my colleague, John Ashcroft. There's no question that what
we have tried, to improve and tighten up our entry and exit procedures
in the United States. We are aware that there are still glitches in
the system, that it is sometimes an onerous process, and we're doing
our best to improve upon it. We just need to continue to improve on
it.
Q This is a chance for me to speak on behalf of the Bosnian
people and to pass their gratitude for what you have done in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Please, Mr. Vice President, if you can convey to the
American people that we will never forget that you came to Bosnia to
help us survive as Muslims in the Balkan Peninsula. We will never
forget that. We didn't have oil, you didn't have an interest to gain.
You came to Bosnia Herzegovina just to show your credibility and your
sense of morality.
Besides this, I would like to say that I like from your speech that
this year we have heard more about freedom than about security. I hope
that in the future that Americans will talk more about freedom around
the world than about the security. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Mr. Vice President, you did not have a chance to address
economic issues in your address, but that is, of course, a central
topic here at Davos. I'd like to ask you one question in that area. I
think it's fair to say there's been enormous admiration expressed to
you this week about the strength of the U.S. economy, particularly the
recovery that is now clearly underway.
But there has been one nagging question about the sustainability of
that recovery, and that relates to the outlook for the U.S. budget
position. In fact, there have been several questions about a comment
made by your former colleague, Paul O'Neill, in his new book.
(Laughter.) When he quotes that famous meeting that he and Chairman
Greenspan had with you, when he recounts you as saying, President
Reagan showed that budget deficits don't matter; could you comment as
to whether that is the philosophy -- (laughter) -- and how you intend
to overcome that concern? (Applause.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I guess the way you could look at that whole
exercise is that I'm not the best personnel officer in the world.
(Laughter.) The President took my advice on the Secretary of the
Treasury. Of course part of that, he put me in charge of the search
for the Vice President. (Laughter.) That came out in unexpected ways,
as well. (Laughter.)
I believe deficits do matter. But I also am a great believer in
the policy we followed. That is to say, that it is very important for
us to reduce the tax burden on the American economy, by way of
stimulating growth. The progress we see today, with respect to our
economy, is directly related to that. Paul did not support the tax
cuts that I favored and that the President obviously ultimately decided
on. That really goes to the heart of the debate.
I do think deficits matter; they matter in the long-term; you do
have to worry about them. Our plan that the President laid out the
other night in the State of the Union speech is to reduce the deficit
in half over the next five years, and I think we'll get there. If you
look at our deficit today, while it's large, it's not that large from a
historic standpoint as a percentage of GDP. We think it is manageable,
especially given the state we're in. We're engaged in military
conflict, we've had to significantly increase defense spending,
inherited a recession which caused a fall-off in government revenues.
And for a lot of reasons, I don't find that surprising -- one, that we
have a deficit.
But in terms of trying to move back to a balanced budget, that
clearly would be our long-term goal and objective. But we would not
now move immediately, for example, to a balanced budget at the cost of
adequately funding our military operations, or having the kind of
pro-growth policies that we think are vital to generating long-term
revenues for the economy.
We think we've got it calibrated about right. I wouldn't believe
everything I believe in Paul O'Neill's book. (Laughter.)
Q I think everybody in the room recognizes you and President
Bush had some very difficult decisions. And there can be a debate on
people in the room agreeing or disagreeing, but I think that each one
has a point each way. And I guess the one that's been bothering I know
myself and a lot of people around the world is, can you explain to us
exactly how people can be picked up anywhere in the world, put in
Guantamano Bay, not be told by their families, not get the right to
trial, not get the right to trial within a reasonable amount of time,
and how you relate that to your comment that compromising values in the
name of security is not a good idea, and how you link that to a
democratic society who believes in the right to free trial, et cetera?
We understand that under military circumstances it is difficult,
but now we're a little ways down the road, and do you see -- can you
give some light to people in the room who may be worried that suddenly
they could be picked up and their families not told exactly, A, the
logic of the Guantanamo Bay story right now, and, B, movements your
government is making to maybe change that and justify it, in terms of
what you've been saying? (Applause.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: These are not people sort of picked up at
random, because we don't run up and down the streets of London or Paris
or Riyadh saying, he's a likely looking prospect, let's put him in
Guantanamo. These are people, primarily, who were picked up on the
battlefield in Afghanistan, trying to kill our troops. They were in
combat, they are treated very humanely. They are not under the
provisions of the Geneva Convention, they don't qualify as prisoners of
war, but they're treated appropriately, in terms of medical care, in
terms of food and the conditions, for example, that exist for them.
We have, in fact, released some as we've been able to go through
the interrogation process and convince ourselves that for one reason or
another, they no longer constitute a threat or they no longer have
intelligence that would be valuable to us in prosecuting the war on
terror.
We also have a number of people there who are -- I would describe
as deadly enemies, who are very open and very direct about wanting to
kill Americans the first chance they get to get back out on the
street. Eventually a number of them -- well, some of them already have
been turned over to their country of their nationality. Some will be
prosecuted and tried. Some, I expect, will be released.
But we'll sort through them. The International Red Cross has
visited there. We've been very -- I think very careful in terms of how
we proceed and how we do treat them. But we are faced with a situation
where the war continues, if you will, where people in some cases have
come into the United States whose only intent is to murder civilians.
And under those circumstances, and given the rules of warfare, we felt
we had no choice but to have a place where we could have a repository
for these folks as long as they constitute a threat and as long as the
conflict continues.
Q You mentioned in your tour of the world, North Korea. And
while dangers have diminished clearly, particularly in Libya and in
other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the
present undiminished. Could you give us your assessment of the
prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear
weapons?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, clearly the jury is still out, with
respect to North Korea. We've worked it very hard with the -- in
particular with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans
and the Russians. The Chinese have become, I think, central to that
effort. We all agree that is it not in the interests of any of us for
the Korean Peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons. The
effort needs to be made -- if we're going to be successful, resolving
this matter peacefully by diplomatic means -- the effort needs to be
made as it is being made to persuade the North Koreans that they have
no choice if they want to have the normal kinds of commercial
relationships with those of us that are involved in the enterprise but
to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.
We've had two meetings in Beijing to far. I would expect there
will be more as we continue to move forward on that basis. The key
here was, as I say, the Chinese and having the other nations engage.
Today, can I predict the outcome? I can't. But we think we're
approaching it on a sensible basis, so that this is the right way to
proceed to try to resolve it diplomatically, by making it clear to the
North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any
kind of normal relations with the rest of us. And they need those
relations, in terms of just feeding their people, maintaining some kind
of viable economy in the North, they absolutely have to have the
support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States.
Q You say the jury is still out on North Korea. I wonder if
you can talk about the jury on Iran? And specifically, how would you
judge the European efforts right now, for the negotiations with Iran?
One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of the, "axis
of evil." Is Iran still a member of that access?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We're hopeful that the effort by the -- our
European friends -- the Germans, the French and the Brits have been
most directly involved, working with the Iranians, to try to get the
Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they've
now done. We'll have to see whether or not that produces the desired
result. We believe that the Iranians have been actively and
aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons. They deny
that, but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to
indicate that, in fact, that's exactly what they have been doing.
It's in everybody's interest, I believe, especially our European
friends and allies, to see to it that the Iranians live up to the
commitments that they have now made. Truly intrusive inspections, a
more robust inspection regime, administered by the IAEA, and they keep
the commitments they made to the British, German and French foreign
ministers. And we'll do everything we can to support that effort.
Q Last night Minister Shimon Peres proposed a four-point
approach to creating peace between Palestinian and Israel. The
thoughts he shared with us were the U.S. would guarantee the security
of a border that those two nations would agree to; second, that the EU
would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine; third, that both
nations would join the Partnership for Peace; and fourth, that they
would commit to fight terrorism. I wonder if you would comment on his
proposals?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to look at them
or study them in detail. The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes
me as sort of a traditional concept for a traditional conflict, and we
haven't really had a traditional conflict there. The problem, of
course, has been, in large part, generated by terrorism, suicide
bombings and so forth. Somehow we've got to find a way, I think, to
take down the structures of terror, which is part of the road map that
was developed by the quartet, if we're going to get to the point where
there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations
to resolve the outstanding conflicts to decide where the border goes
and establish a permanent peace.
Shimon Peres is a man I've known a long time. I've got a lot of
respect for him. I'm sure he's doing everything he can think of to try
to move forward in a very, very difficult area. But I wouldn't -- at
this stage, I wouldn't want to sort of put a stamp of approval on his
proposal. We deal with the Prime Minister and the government in power
in Israel. And they speak for the Israelis and we're always happy to
listen to other ideas and notions, but ultimately in terms of our
interaction with Israel, in particular, clearly the government of Mr.
Sharon is the one that we pay closest attention to at present.
PROFESSOR SCHWAB: Vice President, to conclude, two questions. The
first one, we spoke yesterday a lot about U.N. reform. You hinted to
it in your own speech. Could you share with us what should be done in
order to make the global institution framework more effective. You
used the word, effective. What can we do to make it more effective?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: You mean the United Nations in particular?
PROFESSOR SCHWAB: The United Nations in particular.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I could get in a lot of trouble right here,
I'm sure. (Laughter.)
Well, from time to time, there's been discussion about the need to
sort of modernize and update the U.N. The arrangements were settled on
in San Francisco in 1945, and that was nearly 60 years ago. We've got
certain anomalies, I think, in that the structure of the United
Nations, as it's currently constituted, doesn't necessarily fit the way
the world works these days -- major powers that are not represented as
much -- they don't have as much influence at the U.N. as they might
have if this were 1945 and we were establishing -- I don't want to get
into any more detail than that. I don't want to recommend specific
changes on a national basis. I think those are the kinds of issues
that need to be dealt with internationally. At some point I would
expect there would be proposals made by various members of the United
Nations, to reform and upgrade and modernize the institution. I don't
think I should recommend any here this morning.
PROFESSOR SCHWAB: Vice President Cheney, I may take a quote in
your Christmas card. Actually, you quote, Benjamin Franklin, and he
said, "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it
probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Do you consider the
United States to be an empire? And every empire has something which is
threatening to the people on the street. What can the United States to
be perceived as a non-threatening empire by those who look for freedom,
but as a threatening empire for those who threaten our security?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: First of all, that quote was selected by my
wife. (Laughter.) She should have to explain why it was on the
Christmas card. Secondly, it refers to an incident that occurred in
our Constitutional Convention, when Franklin was speaking about the
importance of some recognition of the importance of the Almighty in the
affairs of man.
And it did not refer, or should not be taken as some kind of
indication that the United States today sees itself as an empire. I
think that there are some fundamental differences between the United
States today, the way we operate, the things we believe in, the way
we've conducted ourselves over the course of our history that
distinguish us, if you will, from what might be identified as an
empire. We do believe very deeply in democratic principles and
practices.
We have had, on occasion in the past, the opportunity to deploy
massive military forces, and to put them in the heart of Europe, in the
heart of Asia, and then, having done that, to create democracies where
previously there had been dictatorships and empires, and then withdraw
to our own shores, without any aggrandizement, in terms of territory or
any of the other trappings of empire, if you will, I guess. And I
think from the standpoint of history, we're unique, in that regard.
So I wouldn't let the Benjamin Franklin quote be misinterpreted as
somehow it's intended now to talk about the United States as an
empire. We don't see ourselves in that light, we don't believe we've
acted that way. I would argue that there are millions of people in the
world today who are free of tyranny and have the opportunity to live in
freedom and under democracies because of past activities of the United
States. I would refer to our friend here from Bosnia as one example.
And if we were to empire, we would currently preside over a much
greater piece of the Earth's surface than we do. That's not the way we
operate. (Applause.)
END 11:13 A.M. (Local)
|