Remarks At Center for Strategic and International Studies 40th Anniversary & Advisory Board Conference

(11:45 a.m. EDT)

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Ladies and gentlemen, Brent [Brent Scowcroft, President of the Scowcroft Group], first of all, thank you so much. You've got a reputation for being gracious, but I think you exceeded even your own high standards, and I'm very much in your debt.

To Dr. Hamre [John Hamre, President of the Center for Strategic and International Studies], I want to say that you're kind of like E.F. Hutton for me; when you call, I listen. And you said to come, and here I am. Dr. Brzezinski, nice to be with you and all the other distinguished guests here today.

The other day I was speaking at a luncheon at which a friend just indicated he also attended. I was sporting some war wounds from a basketball game. When asked why I'm playing basketball at this age, it's quite simple: You see, I'm carrying the weight for someone who's about 6'8", and when I get my growth spurt I'm going to be ready for the NBA. (Laughter.) Which I guess shows you that hope springs eternal with me.

Now, you all are aware that last week was a bad week in Afghanistan. There were bombings in Kabul and renewed fighting, although it was generally confined to Khowst, and a failed assassination attempt on President Karzai. To some extent, such spasms of violence are to be expected given the anniversaries of Ahmad Massoud's murder, the devastating attacks in this country. And we are taking precautions -- in Afghanistan, but also with a warning to our missions around the world. And that's why several of our missions -- Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Manama -- are closed in these days and we may close a few more in the next several hours.

These actions serve as a reminder that we have much unfinished business in this war in which we're engaged, and it will take time, patience, hard work and courage to achieve success in the struggle. But remember too that what we saw last week were indeed brutalities, but they don't change the fact that Afghanistan is not the same country today that it was a year ago. We are making steady, sometimes slow, progress in this war. Consider that a year ago, al-Qaida and the Taliban held terrible and total sway over 23 million souls. That is no longer the case.

With our progress in this war, we're seeing a gradual return to normal life in Afghanistan. After all, the markets in Kabul at the time of even those attacks to which I referred, last week, were crowded with shoppers. People are coming back home from hiding places across the region in record numbers, which astound even the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]. They're planting crops and women are back at work and children, 3 million children, are going back to school.

Of course, we also have returned to our normal lives in this country, as our children just went back to school. And yet this nation is not quite the same that it was a year ago. Last year when this young generation of schoolchildren, born into a mild season of peace and unprecedented prosperity, sat down at their desks, they had no way of knowing how much their world was about to change. They had no way of knowing that they’d started a year of war.

But we all learned a new lesson last September. We learned a lesson in a visceral way that a failed state in Central Asia or a curriculum in an obscure school in Pakistan or political repression and poverty half a world away can have a direct and a devastating effect on the security of this nation.

Now, two imperatives have come out of this lesson. The first obviously is going to be let's continue to fight and win the war against terrorism. And the second is that we must be engaged with the world. We don't want to find ourselves fighting this war over again and again. We have to stay engaged on matters where great issues are at stake.

We've got power, we've got prestige, we've got influence and clout beyond that known in the history of the world. We can either use these tools or these gifts wisely and well, or we can use them foolishly and badly. We can walk off the playing field or act simply unilaterally. We can be as irresponsible as indiscriminate intervention when our important equities are at stake.

So today I want to talk to you about how we are waging our battles against terrorism, because if we go about these battles the right way, with the right blend of American leadership and multilateral participation, we will both collaborate on this mutual challenge and establish patterns of cooperation that will help us with all of our other challenges, including some where there is perhaps less common ground.

After all, our focus on terrorism today does not absolve us for dealing with other tough issues such as: how to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; how to calm the violence in the Middle East; how to deal with transnational problems from HIV/AIDS to trafficking in human beings; and of course to make sure that nations see the benefits of a globalized economy. And I believe we have a rare opportunity because in meeting the immediate and the overwhelming threat of terrorism, we can put this nation in a far better position to meet all of these other threats to our security that we will face as we move forward in this 21st century.

We've seen that winning the war against the global reach of terrorism will take American leadership. Indeed, no other nation on the face of the earth could have gone from no war plan on the shelf to such a full spectrum of operations in the short space of weeks. Last fall, we moved thousands of combat forces into the region and a vast array of equipment, everything from carrier battle groups to modern field hospitals.

Now, I recognize, ladies and gentlemen, that hearing about battles fought and won is both satisfying and reassuring. Given the nature of terrorism, we are in a far less satisfying position of measuring some of our success by what has not happened, never mind whether we're defeating them or not. I can tell you that our cooperation with other nations has allowed us to stop many acts of terrorism over the past year, including terrorism here in the United States. Closing our embassies in several locations in Southeast Asia and further on may not sound like much of a victory to you, but the fact that we're able to obtain and assess credible information about the threat to those facilities may well save the lives of our brothers and sisters.

I can also tell you that U.S. forces and forces of two dozen other nations remain actively engaged in military operations throughout Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border and in other nations. And indeed, brave men and brave women continue to root out and capture or kill al-Qaida and its supporters on a daily basis.

Last fall, we also mobilized and continue to utilize assets other than the military in this fight. We're using diplomatic strength. We're working with our allies to sustain a worldwide antiterrorism coalition. That has included negotiating dozens of access rights agreements with nations such as Uzbekistan, where we had very little track record for reaching any sort of agreement at all. And we're using our financial clout to work with other nations to locate and to freeze money trails for some 50 terrorist groups and organizations. We're using intelligence and investigative powers. We're leading a global dragnet. More than 2,400 individuals have been arrested in some 90 countries. In Singapore, for example, officials arrested 13 individuals, 8 of whom were trained in Afghanistan, before they could carry out their planned attack in Singapore on US and other embassies, as well as US business and military interests in the area. Today, we're also using our economic might. We continue to work with partners in the public and the private sectors to provide shelter and emergency supplies to people long starved by war and thirsty from drought.

And what we see in Afghanistan has been even with such a difficult situation, with such difficult solutions, confident, clear-eyed leadership from the United States is one prerequisite for progress.

And leadership is not synonymous with unilateralism. In every case I just mentioned, from military operations to humanitarian relief, we've worked with other nations. There is no question that winning the war against terrorism requires effective multilateral cooperation. In fact, our national tragedy had from the outset international implications, when you consider the fact that al-Qaida networks were active or had cells active in the dark corners of some 60 nations and that the citizens of more than 90 countries perished on September 11th.

It is fitting then that we immediately saw an international agenda for countering terrorism. Days after the attacks, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, the most comprehensive antiterrorism measure ever passed by the United Nations. In the months since, regional organizations from the OAS to ASEAN have adopted similar conventions with similar measures.

But nations have also put their military might and their money behind their rhetoric. Most nations of the world are contributing something to this war, consistent with their capabilities, and many are receiving some kind of assistance, according to their needs. There are 180 nations in this coalition; 122 of them have offered military support; today, 25 are actively engaged in military operations, including Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. At the same time, hundreds of nations have either acted to cut off financing for terrorism or have contributed some other concrete assistance, ranging from humanitarian supplies to the use of airspace to landing rights.

Now, granted, I've been throwing a lot of numbers at you, but what they add up to in total is a loose, informal, global alliance against a common threat. And I would define this threat in the broadest possible sense. It is not just the individuals who hijack the planes or carry out car or truck bombings; it is also the underlying conditions that produce instability and conflict -- poverty, disease, repression, lack of basic human rights, lack of political participation, lack of economic opportunity. Too often, those are the conditions which create opportunities for terrorists, both in terms of new recruits and safe havens in which to hide.

And so in its broadest sense, terrorism and the conditions that sustain it are not just a threat to American interests, but to the interests of any nation with an investment in the rule of law. Now, this commonality of purpose has produced what I believe Kurt Campbell [Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies] and Michele Flourney [Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies] call the "coalition of coalitions." And while we may all be focusing, with a little help from some of our friends in the press, on short-term disagreements over how to bring about change in Iraq, every day this coalition of coalitions is working. And it is an unprecedented engagement, in scope and in scale, and it is improving our ability to work with other nations -- not just in counterterrorism, but to confront other interests and issues and challenges where we may not always have so much in common.

President Bush has said that "in this moment of opportunity, common danger is erasing old rivalries." And that is especially true with the states of the former Soviet Union. In Central Asia, for example, where base rights, base access rights in nations such as Uzbekistan have been absolutely critical to the conduct of this war. But we're also building a baseline for a broader engagement on a cross-section of issues, from economic development to human rights.

Of course, the Russians smoothed the way to some extent in Central Asia, a proposition that would have, of course, been unthinkable a decade ago. And I'm sure most of you are aware President Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Russians have also offered direct military and humanitarian assistance, ranging from overflight rights to search-and-rescue operations and the sharing of intelligence.

The goodwill we have generated in this cooperation is carrying through to a broader agenda. This is even literally the case in the working group I chair with my Russian counterpart – it was the US-Russia Working Group on Afghanistan before 9/11. Now it's the Working Group on Counterterrorism. Our previous narrow focus has widened to include Central Asia, the Caucasus, counternarcotics , law enforcement, intelligence-sharing, counterterrorism efforts across the region, as well as proliferation issues.

Next week, Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld will meet with their Russian counterparts here to discuss the strategic implications of many of these same issues, to include, of course, the implications of Russian assistance to the Iranian nuclear program and, of course, the fact that Iraq thumbs her nose at the United Nations, and particularly the United Nations Security Council.

The new spirit of our bilateral relationship has infused other areas as well, including economic. We have formal dialogues now both on business development and energy issues. That is not to say that areas of significant difference don't still exist, particularly Russian conduct in Chechnya and Georgia. We were hardly able to discuss these subjects before, and now we have a healthy dialogue, which I hope and I trust and I believe will lead to mutually acceptable approaches.

We're seeing this kind of ripple effect across relationships in other areas, as well. As Brent Scowcroft mentioned, I've just returned from a trip to South Asia and Asia during which I met with China's foreign policy leadership to prepare for the upcoming summit in Crawford, Texas.

China has been a key and unheralded player in the war against terrorism. Political support for the coalition has been critical. I would note that their vote for Resolution 1373 marked the first time that the People's Republic of China has voted in favor of a Chapter VII action. They've also contributed their considerable diplomatic influence with nations such as Pakistan. We're working together to stop the money flow to these terrorist groups, including the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which we both recognize as a terrorist organization.

We're also sharing intelligence and law enforcement information, which the People's Republic of China facilitated by allowing the FBI to open an office in Beijing, which is in our relative world, in relative terms a historic first. Moreover, China has agreed to contribute $150 million in direct bilateral assistance to the government of President Karzai.

As I said, these are significant contributions, but the discussions in Beijing went considerably beyond these efforts to include frank exchanges on topics that we have not always been able to engage in. We've always been able to talk about them, but not to engage in so frankly -- such as approaches to regional issues, from our presence in Central Asia to Russia to Taiwan. And the views, our views particularly, of human rights and religious freedom, which was particularly important to discuss in light of the designation of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement as a terrorist organization and the absolute need for China to treat the Uighur minority with respect and with dignity.

We talked about proliferation issues. In fact, immediately before I arrived, the Chinese Government announced new missile-related export controls. That's a long promised and promising step forward on our agenda.

The tragedy of September 11th has reminded both our nations that we do share important interests and share some aspirations. That reminder has not only helped advance our cooperation, but we believe it has opened the door to a more constructive discussion of our differences.

I also visited India and Pakistan, which was the second visit of this summer. We not only discussed the direction for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, and while I'm sure all of you are aware of Pakistan's extensive commitments, both military and humanitarian, to this fight, we also discussed with India the key material contribution that India has been making, particularly in patrolling key sea lanes.

And in each capital we also talked about the overall direction for our emerging strategic and economic relationships. And with India in particular, I think it's fair to say that the issues on which we agree eclipse those on which we do not. Our improved ability to work with these two nations has also helped us to dampen down the temperature, defuse to some extent the tension between them, as, of course, have the good offices of so many partners, such as Great Britain. And also others that haven't always been so inclined to work in concert with us in South Asia, such as Russia, and to some extent, China.

Now, last fall, President Bush said, "In our grief and in our sadness, I see an opportunity to make the world a better place for generations to come." Today in this post-September 11th world we are fighting to protect the security of our homeland. At the same time, we are also building relationships and on-the-ground realities. Now, that will mean we don't have to fight these same fights ad seriatum. That will leave us in a stronger position to face future challenges toward security. In that sense, today we have a rare opportunity to turn a vulnerability into a strength.

So perhaps in a strange way, we've all gained something from the tragedy of September 11th. Those schoolchildren in Afghanistan, some 3 million of them we have now, as I mentioned -- twice as many as we were expecting at this point -- have regained hope for the future. This generation of American schoolchildren has perhaps regained a sense of purpose and a sense of vision, of affection for the things that really matter to us all: our families, our values and our faith in a democratic system. So in winning this war, perhaps we have the opportunity to create not just a more secure nation for these children today, but hopefully a better world for all the children of the 21st century.

Thank you all very much.  (Applause.)

MODERATOR: The Secretary has to go, but he has time for about maybe three questions.

Come on. In this learned group? You are overpowering again. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: That's the way I like it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I'm Alton Frye (Secretary Powell) from the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Secretary, Dr. Brzezinski referred this morning to the important interviews that President Chirac gave the last few days which contemplates a two-step sequence in UN consideration of the Iraqi problem. One, to set a short, two or three week deadline for the return of inspectors, reserving for later action the question of whether failing that, force would be used or some enforcement mechanism approved. Is that two-step sequence compatible with thinking within the administration?

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: Thank you, Dr. Frye. You know, I've got a great instinct for self-survival. (Laughter.) It's served me well in war and peace. And first of all, I'm going to dodge and don't answer your question.

The President's going to speak to this Thursday evening, as we all know. I've seen what he intends to say. I think it will be quite dramatic and quite direct, as you'd expect from our President. And we noted again, and I spoke privately to Dr. Brzezinski about the Chirac interview, which seemed to us to indicate a rather dramatic change in French thinking on the whole question of Iraq. And we haven't in a major way, yet, started to make the case. The President will start making the case on Thursday evening.

But one thing we don't want to go without answering directly whether a one or two-step process is acceptable is into a situation where the burden is entirely on us or on the Security Council, and not on the Iraqis on which it properly rests. And if a two-step or any number step process was one that gave Saddam Hussein and his regime ways and methods to fiddle with us, then it would not be a good thing.

So whichever direction the President decides to go, I'm quite sure it'll be direct, it'll be straightforward, it will be reasonable and fair.   (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: That's self-survival, Dr. Frye.