Text 1593, 331 rader
Skriven 2005-10-18 23:33:06 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0510186) for Tue, 2005 Oct 18
====================================================
===========================================================================
Remarks by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley to the Council on
Foreign Relations
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of The Press Secretary
October 18, 2005

Remarks by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley to the Council on
Foreign Relations
Council on Foreign Relations
New York, New York



As Prepared For Delivery

It is an honor to once again have the opportunity tonight to address the
Council on Foreign Relations. I would like to use this occasion to discuss
the nature of the enemy the United States faces in the War on Terror, and
why the President's agenda of freedom and democracy is a vital part of the
War on Terror.

Four and a half years ago, this Administration came into office at a
propitious moment. The great ideological struggles of the 20th century
between democracy and totalitarianism had ended with a decisive victory for
freedom. While there might be differences among them, no great power
conflicts loomed on the horizon. Globalization, and revolutionary
information and communications technologies, were opening up new
opportunities for economic development and the spread of democratic values.
The United States had an opportunity to transform the international system
in ways that would enhance American security, promote our values, and
contribute to prosperity well into the new century.

But the new international environment also brought new security challenges.
Instead of great power conflict, the United States found itself confronted
by a more diffuse array of threats. The attacks on the Homeland on
September 11, 2001, provided a stark demonstration of the most serious
dangers we and our friends and allies face. A terrorist enemy showed it
could attack America and kill thousands of our citizens. This same
terrorist enemy operated out of a national safe haven - Afghanistan - where
it sought to develop weapons of mass destruction and inculcated in its
recruits a murderous ideology.

Since that tragic day, the United States and its allies have waged war
against al Qaeda, its associates and supporters, and the deadly scourge of
terror and intimidation more broadly. An international coalition has taken
the fight to the enemy, targeting its leadership, denying it safe havens,
and disrupting what it needs to support its operations. Together, we have
worked to narrow the space in which terrorists can operate, communicate,
and transit freely. Together, we have worked to cut off the lifeblood of
the terrorists, denying them key funding and recruiting sources.

As we continue these efforts to disrupt, degrade, and ultimately, defeat al
Qaeda and its supporters, we are better able to define the enemy. We are
facing a transnational movement of extremist organizations, networks, and
individuals - as well as their state and non-state supporters - that share
an extremist ideology and pursue a common strategy. We see the outline in
their numerous videos, audiotapes, letters, declarations, and websites. In
a recent letter, Ayman Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's second-in-command, details the
terrorists' strategy.

The first step, in Zawahiri's words, is to "expel the Americans from Iraq."
Zawahiri believes this is possible because previous terrorist attacks on
our forces led to U.S. withdrawals. Zawahiri defines the second stage of
the strategy in these words: to establish "an Islamic authority or amirate,
then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate -
over as much territory as you can - to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in
Sunni areas, in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the
Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt
to fill this void."

In al Qaeda's vision, Iraq would then become the safe haven from which to
launch attacks against non-Islamist governments, including Israel, as well
as Iraq's neighbors. Ultimately, al Qaeda hopes to rally the Muslim masses,
overthrow the moderate governments of the region, and reestablish the
Islamic caliphate that, in our current day, would rule from Spain to
Indonesia and beyond.

The aspirations of these terrorist extremists do not end with the Middle
East. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human
race or we will pass to the eternal life." Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual
leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, the Al Qaeda affiliate responsible for deadly
bombings in Indonesia, recently declared: "If the West wants peace, they'll
have to accept to be governed by Islam." When asked what the United States
can do to stop attacks against its territory, Usama Bin Laden replied in
his 2002 "Letter to America" that in addition to abandoning the Middle
East, America should convert to Islam and end the immorality and
godlessness of its society and culture.

One might wonder how seriously to take such claims. But 9/11 taught us that
we cannot afford to treat these words as idle boasts. That is why the
President has been so steadfast in taking the fight to the enemy. Retreat
may appear tempting to some in the face of the savagery we witness on
television. But withdrawal from the fight - like putting our heads in the
sand - will not make the threat go away.

We would be misguided if we ignored these statements merely because they
seem so extreme or because we cannot comprehend the mindset that would
embrace them. The greater economic, military, and political resources the
terrorists seek make more credible their stated agenda: to destroy Israel,
to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, to develop weapons of
mass destruction, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

From the beginning, the War on Terror has been both a Battle of Arms and a
Battle of Ideas. As the President has said, "We're fighting the terrorists
and we're fighting their murderous ideology." In the short run, we must use
our military forces and other instruments of national power to fight the
terrorists, deny them safe haven, and cut off their sources of support. But
in the long run, to win the War on Terror we must win the Battle of Ideas.
We must counter the grim totalitarian vision of the terrorists with the
positive vision of freedom and democracy. As we make progress in the Battle
of Arms and the terrorist network becomes more decentralized, the need to
present an alternative vision becomes even more critical. For what
increasingly links these groups is not some central chain of command but
their common ideology.

In this Battle of Ideas we must encourage Islamic moderates to dispute the
distorted vision of Islam advanced by the terrorists. A struggle is under
way for the soul of Islam - an ideological struggle for the support and
loyalty of the Muslim world. Winning this struggle will require a direct
challenge to the extremist voices within Islam. This is obviously not
something the American government can do. It is Muslim voices from around
the world that must take up this challenge.

And it is beginning to happen. Muslim clerics and legal scholars in the
United States and elsewhere have issued statements condemning terrorism. We
must champion these efforts and empower other moderate voices throughout
the Muslim world that stand for peace and tolerance.

We have some grounds for optimism in this struggle. While our enemies
conduct and call for the slaughter of innocents, the overwhelming majority
of the Muslim world - along with other civilized peoples everywhere - is
increasingly outraged by the atrocities committed in London and Madrid, in
Bali and Beslan, in Istanbul and Morocco. This can only further erode the
position of the terrorists.

Another source of optimism comes from the statements of our enemy. In his
letter to al Zarqawi, Ayman al-Zawahiri notes how the tactics of Zarqawi's
"Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" have weakened support for the global extremist
movement. Zawahiri tries to dissuade Zarqawi from the mass murder of Shi'a
and from releasing videos of beheadings. Attacking Shi'a mosques, Zawahiri
says, "won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have
tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue." Videotaped
beheadings are "among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace
who love and support you will never find palatable." Even Zawahiri
understands it is very hard to base a lasting popular movement on mass
murder.

In addition to disputing the terrorists' twisted version of Islam, an
alternative vision is needed. As the President noted on October 6th, we
seek "to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and
resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East." We have
the more powerful vision, and we can be confident in its power.

We have seen the vision of the terrorists realized in Afghanistan under the
Taliban. A barbaric regime imposed an artificial conformity that eliminated
individual freedom, enslaved women, destroyed the nation's cultural
history, and ruled by terror. Girls were kept shuttered at home, barred
from attending school. In acts of senseless cultural violence, pre-Islamic
artifacts and the world's tallest Buddhist statues at Bamiyan were
destroyed. Afghans young and old lived in constant fear that their words,
their dress, and their deeds would somehow run afoul of a theocracy that
sought to brutalize and subjugate. The regime was condemned by virtually
the entire civilized world.

To whom would such a regime appeal? What is the attraction of the radical
ideology that produced it? The appeal is not to the world's destitute,
based on their poverty. Muhammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers were
predominantly middle class and well-educated. They and many Islamic
terrorists like them are clearly alienated from their societies. Unable to
visualize a meaningful future within their political systems, they are
susceptible to radical alternatives to it. When people have been denied
their fundamental rights, they have little stake in the existing order.

The terrorists capitalize on this discontent and stoke it with a narrative
of Arab and Muslim grievance and victimization at the hands of the infidel
West and the Zionists. The terrorists offer a radical vision of a
totalitarian system brought about through violence and the killing of
innocents. The terrorists' vision is based on enslavement, and it is
precisely because the people the terrorists seek to enslave are powerless
that they are vulnerable to its siren song. The terrorists' vision is also
based on elitism, in which a privileged few decree what is best for
everyone - and use terror to impose their will.

The antidote to this radical vision is democracy, justice, and the freedom
agenda. This agenda offers empowerment as an alternative to enslavement. It
offers participation in place of exclusion. It offers the marketplace of
ideas instead of the dark world of conspiracy theory. It offers individual
rights and human dignity in place of violence and murder. Fundamentally, it
means people participating in governing themselves, rather than being
governed by others whom they never choose, never change, and never
influence.

We know that freedom and democracy requires more than just elections. It
requires a set of institutions, laws, and patterns of accepted behavior.
But elections are a critical instrument for advancing the cause of freedom
and democracy. As we have seen in the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Cedar
Revolution in Lebanon, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, elections catalyze change and can accelerate the
creation of the institutions, laws, and patterns of behavior on which
freedom and democracy ultimately rest.

We can have confidence that with freedom, justice, and democracy on our
side, we hold the winning hand in the Battle of Ideas. For the current
struggle is reminiscent of struggles in the last century against earlier
totalitarian visions - fascism, communism, and Nazism. Those ideologies
similarly relied on terror to advance their twisted visions and to control
whole populations. They also empowered elites who perceived themselves to
be the vanguard of a utopian future and felt justified in imposing that
vision on others. They too found fertile soil among people who were
powerless, either as victims of corrupt dictatorships, or the multiple
devastations of world wars and economic depravation.

We can take heart from the fact that the vision of democracy and freedom
proved stronger than the false utopian visions of both fascism and
communism. When the captives of these false visions had the opportunity to
choose freely, they chose freedom. And so it will be as we confront the
ideology of the 21st century terrorists.

The advent of democracy and freedom alone will not put an end to terrorism
for all time. The bombings in London this summer show that even developed
democracies are not immune from domestic terrorism. But democracy does seem
to weaken the appeal of the terrorist extremists. As our Indian friends are
quick to point out, India has the second largest Muslim population in the
world. Yet thus far Muslims from India have not been discovered
participating in the global jihad in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Moreover, the violent denunciation of democracy by the extremists
themselves conveys how serious a threat they know it to be. In the book The
Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad, Yussuf
al-Ayyeri, one of Usama Bin Laden's closest associates, wrote: "It is not
the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims.
What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American
democracy." Al-Zarqawi denounced the Iraqi elections in January, declaring:
"The legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, and not God. . .
. That is the very essence of heresy and polytheism and error, as it
contradicts the bases of the faith and monotheism, and because it makes the
weak, ignorant man God's partner in His most central divine prerogative -
namely, ruling and legislating." The terrorists themselves speak so
fearfully about - and so forcefully against -- democracy precisely because
they understand that it is a fundamental threat to their ideology of fear
and oppression.

Our task is to offer the agenda of freedom, justice, and democracy as an
alternative to totalitarian extremism, not to impose it. For democracy
cannot be imposed, it can only be chosen. A people must find their own
freedom - and often they must fight for it. When they do, the result will
reflect their own history, culture, and national experience. Not all
democracies in the Middle East will look the same - and none will look
exactly like those of the United States and Europe. Liberalization and
democratization will happen in differing ways, and at a different pace, in
each country.

We can be an advocate for democracy in the Middle East. We can be catalysts
for reform. We can help create the conditions that foster rather than block
change. But although we can prod history, we cannot dictate it. And despite
the centrality of freedom and democracy, it is not the only item on our
agenda. We still must deal with the pressing problems of fighting
terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, resolving conflicts, and
addressing pressing issues such as building a lasting peace between
Israelis and Palestinians. One of the greatest challenges facing the
President has been to promote democracy and freedom while not forsaking our
ability to address and advance our other goals.

The challenge is particularly acute since some countries that need greater
democracy and freedom are also our allies on the frontlines of the War on
Terror. We must find a way to support their fight against terrorism at the
same time we encourage these states toward liberalization.

Such an approach is not without risk. But we cannot cling to short-term
stability and ignore the long-term costs of such a policy. The events of
9/11 showed us the consequence of failing to address the underlying
hopelessness and despair that made the Middle East fertile ground for the
terrorists.

The experience of the last two years has confirmed the President's
conviction that we can be successful in pursuing both the freedom agenda
and our other goals. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we helped liberate those
countries from regimes that threatened our interests. But rather than
installing a friendly dictatorship, we supported the efforts of the Iraqi
and Afghan people to build governments based on freedom, democracy, and the
rule of law. This dramatically accelerated the pace of democratic change in
these countries. The large voter turnouts in the recent Afghan and Iraqi
elections show that this was a transformation that the people of both
countries desperately wanted. Both are now allies in the war on terror. And
as these young democracies take hold, they will provide an example that
will spur the pace of democratic change in the region. Their example will
be further strengthened as a newly liberated Lebanon - and a Palestinian
Authority now in charge of Gaza and parts of the West Bank - build
democratic institutions while exerting control over the terrorists in their
midst.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt - key allies in the War on Terror - have
also heard and begun to act on the message of change. Saudi Arabia held its
first elections for regional municipal councils. Egypt conducted its first
multi-candidate Presidential election. Change in these countries may not be
fast enough for some. But the President's words and his Administration's
actions are giving the reformers in those countries the necessary cover and
political space to pursue their own freedom agendas. In time, these nations
will find their own way to democracy. As they do, we will continue to work
with them to confront terror.

Whether in the Middle East, Central Asia, or throughout the Islamic world,
we do not need to make an "either/or" choice between promoting democracy
and fighting terror. Indeed, the two causes are mutually reinforcing. In
the short-run, security is needed for democracy to flourish - for elections
to be held, for governments to provide services to their people. And in the
long run, it is freedom, democracy, and justice that are the antidote to
the terrorists' appeal and the true source of security and stability.

We need to be bold in our vision, yet wise in our implementation of the
Freedom Agenda. This project is not the work of three years, nor the work
of eight years. Rather, it has been the work of this country since its
inception. Whether as President Carter's human rights agenda or President
Reagan's bold steps to expand the frontiers of freedom, our nation has long
championed the cause of democracy, justice, and freedom. As President Bush
has said, this effort will be a "generational challenge." But while the
work of generations, it is our responsibility to pursue it diligently
today.

Thank you very much.

###

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051018-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)