01 June 2001

Rice on Major Foreign Policy Themes

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice says President Bush is concentrating on actively shaping foreign policy on three areas: the Western hemisphere, Africa, and a new approach to strategic deterrence.

Rice said Bush "truly believes that good foreign policy starts with one's own neighborhood." In the Western hemisphere, she said, no country "can be very strong for very long without having strong partners" and the success of the United States "depends on their success," she said June 1 in an address to delegates attending the CNN World Report Conference in Washington.

If the Western hemispheric nations are weak, she said, "they will export their problems, such as drugs. If they are strong they will export their goods and services, and they will purchase ours."

Rice also talked about Secretary of State Colin Powell's May trip to Africa where he visited Mali, South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya. While many challenges, such as terrorism, war and disease face Africa today, she said there are reasons to be hopeful.

For example, she said, 35 nations now have met the eligibility standards set by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed by Congress last year. AGOA "dramatically increased access to U.S. markets for countries that demonstrate continual progress toward an open, market-based economy and an open, pluralistic political system," Rice said.

In Africa, important barriers are crumbling that have historically prevented Africans "individually and collectively, from realizing the fruits of their hard labor and blocked them from sharing an expanding world economy," she said, and the President is determined to foster this process.

Finally, Rice said the President is seeking a security infrastructure that is based "on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us." Americans must be free, she said, "to defend our people, our forces, and our allies with missile defenses. All responsible states should have the right to do so."

Looking ahead, Rice said the United States needs "a comprehensive strategy that includes strengthened non-proliferation and counter-proliferation measures, as well as a new concept of deterrence that includes defenses and a smaller nuclear arsenal."

This means recognizing that "just as peace is not the absence of war, stability is not a balance of terror."

Following is a transcript of Rice's remarks:

As Prepared for Delivery
Remarks by Dr. Condoleezza Rice
CNN World Report Conference
Renaissance Hotel
Washington, D.C.
June 1, 2001

Thank you Judy. It is a great privilege for me to be here. I want to thank Steve Case, Ted Turner, Tom Johnson, and Eason Jordan for the invitation.

It is a great opportunity for us to get better acquainted in a comparatively genteel setting, outside of the rush of everyday news events and crises that sometimes throw us together in unpredictable venues talking about things we never expected to be talking about when we woke up that morning.

When the President came into office, he and the White House exhorted the press and public not to rush to any sweeping judgments and evaluations after some arbitrary time period, such as the first 100 days.

Today, on Day 133, that logic still holds -- especially when it comes to foreign policy. Foreign policy simply cannot be judged by today's headlines about today's victories or defeats. Nonetheless, I accept the proposition that it is not too soon for some observations.

Turning the tables for moment, I have noticed that there seems to be a tenor of surprise to much of the coverage of the administration's foreign policy. And I think it is the surprise of seeing the President so quickly setting forth some new directions.

But I think the surprise is unwarranted.

Every new direction that George W. Bush has set forth as President follows and flows naturally from what George W. Bush the candidate said during the campaign in many different forums, including this one.

These new directions set by the President recognize the degree to which the world is very different place than it was just a few years ago. For me this topic is very personal. Because, like many of you, I cut my teeth on the Cold War world where our entire national security outlook was dominated by the superpower standoff. It was a chilling, but relatively stable world, one where the pace of change seemed glacial.

Well, a lot has changed.

My first book was called, "The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovakian Army." Neither of those states exist anymore.

Today, the forces of technology and science are shrinking the world at a pace that is truly astonishing. Sometimes it feels like we are standing still and the future is rushing towards us at breakneck speed. Everything happens faster and is more interconnected.

Shock waves in one corner of the globe reverberate around the world, sometimes within minutes -- oftentimes via CNN's World Report. Economics and diplomacy are more intertwined than ever. The Cold War is over and so is the unimaginatively named "post-Cold War era."

The global age -- by whatever name -- is in full-swing and many of the old national security paradigms grow more antiquated with each passing day.

I want to focus on three substantive areas where you can see the President's foreign policy not just dealing with the forces of change, but actively shaping them: the Western Hemisphere, Africa, and a new approach to strategic deterrence.

First, the Western Hemisphere. The President truly believes that good foreign policy starts with one's own neighborhood. Even before April's Summit of the Americas in Quebec, he met individually with seven hemispheric heads of state. By the time that summit was over, he had met with all of his hemispheric counterparts -- save one, Fidel Castro, a sad anachronism of another era. This level of engagement with other leaders of the Americas so early in an administration is unprecedented in our history.

In Quebec, 34 nations of the hemisphere declared unequivocally that the Summit of the Americas process is, and shall remain, only for democracies. They also committed themselves to concluding negotiations on the Free Trade Area of the Americas no later than January 2005 and seeking its entry into force no later than December 2005 -- and sooner if we can.

These two commitments -- to freedom for people within borders and to freedom for commerce across borders -- are really what defines this global age. More and more peoples and nations and leaders understand that their future will be defined by the choices they make. That the only way to improve their lives is to open up the economy; root out corruption; eliminate statist subsidies and control; and root out protectionist barriers.

It is equally clear that people who live in open systems develop habits of liberty that foster expectations of democracy. Because you cannot ask people to think on the job, but not at home.

There is no better example than Mexico.

I don't think it is an accident that the political system there opened up following NAFTA (North American Free Trade Act). Now we see President Fox supporting measures to strengthen the judiciary and to promote greater social and economic development. He understands that these moves are not only good in their own right, but also good for helping improve investor confidence . . . which will beget more growth and more prosperity.

Last month, President Fox remarked that his "nation has shown the courage to change and to embrace a new vision for the 21st century." And he asked that our nation change our view of Mexico. Mexico, President Fox said, "will be the next success story of our times and [we] invite you to be part of this success." President Bush is taking him up on that invitation.

These are the central, defining facts and choices of our age. It is less a question of ideology than it is a question of facing reality. As Ken Kesey might have put it, "Are you on the bus or not?" Because it's leaving the station.

And unlike the Cold War, this is not a zero-sum game. Our neighbor's loss is not our gain. No nation can be very strong for very long without having strong partners. Our success -- the success of United States -- depends on their success. If they are weak, they will export their problems, such as drugs. If they are strong they will export their goods and services, and they will purchase ours.

Nowhere is this more true than close to home, here in our own hemisphere.

That is why the President so strongly supports the efforts of President Pastrana and other Andean leaders in their fight against drug trafficking and why he insists we do better at fighting drug demand at home.

The President also understands that to achieve our vision of a hemisphere of liberty and prosperity, there must be Trade Promotion Authority for the U.S. president. The President has forcefully and frequently made the case for why this authority -- enjoyed by each of his predecessors going back to Gerald Ford -- is so critical. Nations can't -- and won't -- negotiate with us twice; once with the administration and again with Congress.

In the global era, this new dynamic of nations making the sometimes difficult choices in favor of open economies and open political systems is not unique to the Americas. It includes Europe, where new democracies such as Poland fully understand this new dynamic and where there is a willingness by the continent to be a force for opening the doors of opportunity for others beyond its boundaries. The new dynamic extends to Asia. And it extends to Africa.

Perhaps no region of the world holds such a dramatically different place in our foreign policy thinking than it did just a few years ago. When I first served at the National Security Council from 1989 to 1991, when African countries made the headlines it was too often for the wrong reasons. And to often Africa was just seen through the prism of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry.

Today, there are many African countries making headlines for the right reasons; because their people and their leaders are making the hard choices to open their economies and open their political systems. Making the choice, in other words, to get on the bus. Secretary (of State) Powell saw the full-range of Africa's potential last week when he visited Mali, South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya.

We do not minimize the challenges facing Africa today. They are many: everything from terrorism to war and disease. But there is much to be hopeful about.

African leaders with vision are opening their economies -- a step that requires real courage because it often hurts entrenched interests and causes short-term economic pain. And it flies in the face of the statist ideologies of the independence generation.

African leaders with vision are also opening their political systems and promoting respect for human rights. The majority of African countries now have elected governments in place. And, like the Summit of the Americas process, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) has stated that no head of state who comes to power by undemocratic means will be allowed to participate in OAU decision-making.

Thirty-five countries have now met the eligibility standards set by the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) passed by the U.S. Congress a year ago last May. This Act dramatically increases access to U.S. markets for countries that demonstrate continual progress toward an open, market-based economy and an open, pluralistic political system.

These are clearly powerful incentives.

Since 1999, Nigeria, for the first time in 15 years, has had three active political parties and an elected civilian government. The press is open and the investment climate is improving.

As recently as 1998, Lesotho was fending off an armed mutiny and rising violence and instability. Today, it is estimated that just four new projects stemming from AGOA will generate $122 million in new investments -- which is more than four times the official development assistance from all sources in 1999.

And in Senegal and Ghana, longtime incumbent parties recently lost elections and the transitions to the new presidents were both seamless and uneventful.

Put all these pieces together and what we see is that in many places important barriers are crumbling -- barriers that historically have prevented Africans, individually and collectively, from realizing the fruits of their hard labor and blocked them from sharing an expanding world economy.

The President is determined to foster this process.

That is why last month he made the United States the first to contribute to the new global fund to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB being sponsored by the Secretary General, the G-8, and others. The United States already provides nearly 50 percent of all international HIV/AIDS funding. This new measure will build on that record.

The President will also ensure that the United States remains a leader on responsible debt relief.

The President has been and will continue to be a forceful advocate for peace, religious freedom, and justice in Sudan.

And finally, the President's desire to promote positive change in Africa is why he sent Colin Powell there for a longer, more extensive -- and earlier -- visit to the continent than any U.S. Secretary of State in history.

Against this backdrop of globalization and the end of the Cold War, many of our old paradigms for how the world works have simply melted away. But there is one to which some seem attached -- the doctrines of strategic deterrence born in the Cold War.

For much of my career, I was a Soviet specialist. More particularly, I was drawn to the hard core material -- the Soviet military and General Staff; nuclear weapons and warheads; nuclear war and how to prevent it.

I was one of the High Priestesses of Arms Control -- a true believer. I believed in the wisdom of the Russian proverb that President Reagan quoted to Gorbachev -- "trust but verify." I had little doubt that sound, verifiable arms agreements were a way the world could avoid the Apocalypse.

Like so many others, I eagerly anticipated those breathtaking moments of summitry where the centerpiece was always the signing of the latest arms control treaty; the toast; the handshake; and, with Brezhnev, the bear hug. For those precious few minutes the world found comfort in seeing the superpowers affirm their peaceful intent. And the scientists would set the clock back a few minutes further away from midnight.

Deep down we knew that arms control was a poor substitute for a real shared agenda based on common aspirations. But it was the best way anyone could think of for regulating the balance of terror.

But along the way to the next summit something happened. History happened. 1989. And what eventually caused the Cold War to thaw was the transforming power of ideas, like freedom and free markets. It was the ability of these ideas to inspire dissidents, workers, and millions of brave citizens from the Baltic to the Black Sea. It was the sheer rottenness of the Soviet system -- its incoherence; its inefficiency; and its brutality. That is what brought down the Iron Curtain.

So while many of us were debating the implications of MIRVs (Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles) on SS-18s and Peacekeepers like so many angels dancing on a warhead, the forces of history were making the old paradigm obsolete.

To be sure, the Cold War arms control regimes we built up for over four decades were useful for their time. Those elements that are worth preserving today, we will keep. And those arms control ideas or treaties that respond to today's reality and build tomorrow's security, we will advance and support.

But as the President has noted, we must deal with today's world and today's threats, including weapons of mass destruction and missiles in the hands of states that would blackmail us from coming to the aid of friends and allies.

We must, in his words, "seek security based on more than the grim premise that we can destroy those who seek to destroy us." And we must be free to defend our people, our forces, and our allies with missile defenses. All responsible states should have the right to do so.

To be sure, there are terrorist threats and other means by which to deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That is why the President has asked the Vice President to oversee a national planning effort to prepare the country to deal with the consequences of a WMD attack. Together with sound intelligence these efforts will help to deter attack.

We need to work together -- with allies and friends and other interested states, including Russia -- to build a new foundation for peace and security in the 21st Century.

We need to protect against today's threats through a comprehensive strategy that includes strengthened nonproliferation and counter proliferation measures, as well as a new concept of deterrence that includes defenses and a smaller nuclear arsenal.

And we need to recognize that just as peace is not the absence of war, stability is not a balance of terror.

That is a tall order -- any day of the week. We may never get there if our relationship with Russia is stuck in the past and continues to be based on official distrust and mutual vulnerability. We need a normal relationship with Russia. We won't always agree -- and that's okay, rarely do two powers see eye to eye on everything.

But the centerpiece of a constructive and realistic relationship with Russia should revolve around the things that matter to both our peoples, such as the potential for trade; fundamental freedoms -- of the press and of religion; the resolution of regional conflicts; and peaceful relations with neighbors.

This is a big shift to wrap one's mind around. But we cannot cling to the old order -- like medieval scholars clinging to a Ptolemaic system even after the Copernican revolution. We must recognize that the strategic world we grew up in has been turned upside down. It's not that everything we believed was wrong, it's that the world has fundamentally changed and that much that used to be true just doesn't apply anymore.

This is the conversation we are having right now; with our friends and allies in Europe and Asia; with Russia; with China; and with the U.S. Congress. And across the board, this conversation is proving to be substantive, respectful, and educational -- for all sides.

In the end, the President has a duty to make certain that we are secure and that we respond to today's realities. And he has great confidence that others will join us to protect our peoples, our forces, and our allies against our common threats.

For my part, I have enjoyed our conversation here today. Or rather, I am about to. Because conversation means two people talking and so far there's been only one, me. I'm going to stop now. And I greatly look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much.