    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2003, Book II)]
    [November 19, 2003]
    [Pages 1573-1579]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at Whitehall Palace in London, United Kingdom
    November 19, 2003

        Thank you very much. Secretary Straw and
    Secretary Hoon, Admiral Cobbold and Dr. Chipman,
    distinguished guests: I want to thank you for your very kind welcome
    that you've given to me and to Laura. I also
    thank the groups hosting this event, the Royal United Services Institute
    and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. We're honored to
    be in the United Kingdom, and we bring the good wishes of the American
    people.
        It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the
    Thames. [Laughter] A few might have been happy to provide similar
    arrangements for me. [Laughter] I thank Her Majesty the Queen for interceding. [Laughter] We're honored to be
    staying at her house.
        Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to
    our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've
    noticed that the tradition of free speech, exercised with enthusiasm--
    [laughter]--is alive and well here in London. We have that at home too.
    They now have that right in Baghdad as well.
        The people of Great Britain also might see some familiar traits in
    Americans. We're sometimes faulted for a naive faith that liberty can
    change the world. If that's an error, it began with reading too much
    John Locke and Adam Smith. Americans have, on occasion, been called
    moralists who often speak in terms of right and wrong. That zeal has
    been inspired by examples on this island, by the tireless compassion of
    Lord Shaftesbury, the righteous courage of Wilberforce, and the firm
    determination of the Royal Navy over the decades to fight and end the
    trade in slaves.
        It's rightly said that Americans are a religious people. That's in
    part because the ``Good News'' was translated by Tyndale, preached by
    Wesley, lived out in the example of William Booth. At times, Americans

    [[Page 1574]]

    are even said to have a puritan streak. And where might that have come
    from? [Laughter] Well, we can start with the Puritans.
        To this fine heritage, Americans have added a few traits of our own,
    the good influence of our immigrants, the spirit of the frontier. Yet,
    there remains a bit of England in every American. So much of our
    national character comes from you, and we're glad for it.
        The fellowship of generations is the cause of common beliefs. We
    believe in open societies ordered by moral conviction. We believe in
    private markets humanized by compassionate government. We believe in
    economies that reward effort, communities that protect the weak, and the
    duty of nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all. And
    whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in west Texas, they
    instill mutual respect, and they inspire common purpose.
        More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British and
    American peoples have an alliance of values. And today, this old and
    tested alliance is very strong.
        The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign
    policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand for the human rights
    of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so we are
    moved to action by poverty and oppression and famine and disease. The
    United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the
    balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance
    of freedom and the peace that freedom brings. Together, our nations are
    standing and sacrificing for this high goal in a distant land at this
    very hour, and America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons
    and daughters of Britain.
        The last President to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist,
    without question. At a dinner hosted by King George V in 1918, Woodrow
    Wilson made a pledge. With typical American understatement--[laughter]--
    he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and
    controlling force in the world.
        President Wilson had come to Europe with his Fourteen Points for
    peace. Many complimented him on his vision, yet some were dubious. Take,
    for example, the Prime Minister of France. He complained that God
    himself had only Ten Commandments. [Laughter] Sounds familiar.
    [Laughter]
        At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short
    generation from Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz. Looking back, we see
    the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility and
    will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators. Free nations
    failed to recognize, much less confront, the aggressive evil in plain
    sight. And so dictators went about their business, feeding resentments
    and anti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in this city and
    across the world, and filling the last century with violence and
    genocide.
        Through World War and cold war, we learned that idealism, if it is
    to do any good in this world, requires common purpose and national
    strength, moral courage, and patience in difficult tasks. And now our
    generation has need of these qualities.
        On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of murder on
    my country and took the lives of 67 British citizens. With the passing
    of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a quiet
    life and to put that day behind us, as if waking from a dark dream. The
    hope that danger has passed is comforting, is understanding, and it is
    false. The attacks that followed on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay,
    Mombasa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul were not
    dreams. They're part of a global campaign by terrorist networks to
    intimidate and demoralize all who oppose them.
        These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the
    thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by
    the millions and not be finished. The

    [[Page 1575]]

    greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
    in the hands of terrorists and the dictators who aid them. The evil is
    in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great
    responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face
    these threats with open eyes, and we will defeat them.
        The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars.
    First, international organizations must be equal to the challenges
    facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing
    proliferation. Like 11 Presidents before me, I believe in the
    international institutions and alliances that America helped to form and
    helps to lead. The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to
    help make the United Nations what it is supposed to be, an effective
    instrument of our collective security. In recent months, we've sought
    and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq, Resolutions 1441, 1483,
    and 1511, precisely because the global danger of terror demands a global
    response. The United Nations has no more compelling advocate than your
    Prime Minister, who at every turn has championed
    its ideals and appealed to its authority. He understands as well that
    the credibility of the U.N. depends on a willingness to keep its word
    and to act when action is required.
        America and Great Britain have done and will do all in their power
    to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance
    and inviting the fate of the League of Nations. It's not enough to meet
    the dangers of the world with resolutions. We must meet those dangers
    with resolve.
        In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish more
    together than apart. For 54 years, America has stood with our partners
    in NATO, the most effective multilateral institution in history. We're
    committed to this great democratic Alliance, and we believe it must have
    the will and the capacity to act beyond Europe where threats emerge. My
    Nation welcomes the growing unity of Europe, and the world needs America
    and the European Union to work in common purpose for the advance of
    security and justice. America is cooperating with four other nations to
    meet the dangers posed by North Korea. America believes the IAEA must be
    true to its purpose and hold Iran to its obligations.
        Our first choice and our constant practice is to work with other
    responsible governments. We understand as well that the success of
    multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the
    tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our
    nations secure.
        The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the
    willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to restrain*
    aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to the use
    of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these
    views. Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good
    motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them, and that
    duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some
    cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic
    world ruled by force.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that kind of
    world. Yet in some countries, the memories are recent. The victims of
    ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those who survived the rapists and the
    death squads, have few qualms when NATO applied force to help end those
    crimes. The women of Afghanistan, imprisoned in their homes and beaten
    in the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not reproach us
    for routing the Taliban. The inhabitants of Iraq's Ba'athist hell, with
    its lavish palaces and its torture chambers, with its massive statues
    and its mass graves, do not miss their fugitive dictator. They rejoiced
    at his fall.
        In all these cases, military action was preceded by diplomatic
    initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums and final chances

    [[Page 1576]]

    until the final moment. In Iraq, year after year, the dictator was given
    the chance to account for his weapons programs and end the nightmare for
    his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced.
        And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam
    Hussein was strutting and killing or that the
    world was safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a
    more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world? And
    Europe too is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his crimes instead of committing more.
        It's been said that those who live near a police station find it
    hard to believe in the triumph of violence. In the same way, free
    peoples might be tempted to take for granted the orderly societies we
    have come to know. Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great
    achievements of the last half-century. And because European countries
    now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's
    sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way.
    But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved: by Allied
    armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us never
    forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and
    violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom
    and security still need defenders.
        The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global
    expansion of democracy and the hope and progress it brings as the
    alternative to instability and hatred and terror. We cannot rely
    exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting
    peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.
        In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear
    allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and
    labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not
    shelter terrorist camps or attack their peaceful neighbors; they honor
    the aspirations and dignity of their own people. In our conflict with
    terror and tyranny, we have an unmatched advantage, a power that cannot
    be resisted, and that is the appeal of freedom to all mankind.
        As global powers, both our nations serve the cause of freedom in
    many ways, in many places. By promoting development and fighting famine
    and AIDS and other diseases, we're fulfilling our moral duties as well
    as encouraging stability and building a firmer basis for democratic
    institutions. By working for justice in Burma, in the Sudan, and in
    Zimbabwe, we give hope to suffering people and improve the chances for
    stability and progress. By extending the reach of trade, we foster
    prosperity and the habits of liberty. And by advancing freedom in the
    greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism
    that brings millions of people to misery and brings danger to our own
    people.
        The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the Middle East
    remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place
    of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the
    ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and
    way of life. If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution
    that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region
    will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its
    source.
        The movement of history will not come about quickly. Because of our
    own democratic development--the fact that it was gradual and, at times,
    turbulent--we must be patient with others. And the Middle East countries
    have some distance to travel.
        Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated whole
    nations from the progress of our time. The essentials of social and
    material progress--limited government, equal justice under law,
    religious and economic liberty, political participation, free press, and
    respect for the rights of

    [[Page 1577]]

    women--have been scarce across the region. Yet that has begun to change.
    In an arc of reform from Morocco to Jordan to Qatar, we are seeing
    elections and new protections for women and the stirrings of political
    pluralism. Many governments are realizing that theocracy and
    dictatorship do not lead to national greatness; they end in national
    ruin. They are finding, as others will find, that national progress and
    dignity are achieved when governments are just and people are free.
        The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not
    imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to
    see. Freedom, by definition, must be chosen and defended by those who
    choose it. Our part, as free nations, is to ally ourselves with reform,
    wherever it occurs.
        Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to--change in our own
    thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the
    capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-
    government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a
    democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are today
    contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested that the
    poor, in their daily struggles, care little for self-government. Yet the
    poor especially need the power of democracy to defend themselves against
    corrupt elites.
        Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of
    personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It
    is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to
    liberty. It is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of
    it.
        We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your
    nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to
    tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often
    led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not
    bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time while problems
    festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
        As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to
    oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No
    longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily
    convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great
    democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.
        Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom
    in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform
    and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from
    our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in
    Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have
    begun.
        There were good-faith disagreements in your country and mine over
    the course and timing of military action in Iraq. Whatever has come
    before, we now have only two options: to keep our word or to break our
    word. The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back into
    misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us.
    Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm, our word
    is good, and the Iraqi people will not surrender their freedom.
        Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly
    have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force protects the
    people instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now
    in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered.
    Schools are open with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are
    functioning and are well supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first
    battalion of a new army, representative local governments, and a
    Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty.
    This is substantial progress, and much of it has proceeded faster than
    similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.

    [[Page 1578]]

        Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious, and it
    comes from Ba'athist holdouts and jihadists from other countries and
    terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent bloodshed. It is the nature
    of terrorism, in the cruelty of a few, to try to bring grief in the loss
    to many.
        The Armed Forces of both our countries have taken losses, felt
    deeply by our citizens. Some families now live with a burden of great
    sorrow. We cannot take the pain away, but these families can know they
    are not alone. We pray for their strength. We pray for their comfort,
    and we will never forget the courage of the ones they loved.
        The terrorists have a purpose, a strategy to their cruelty. They
    view the rise of democracy in Iraq as a powerful threat to their
    ambitions. In this, they are correct. They believe their acts of terror
    against our coalition, against international aid workers, and against
    innocent Iraqis will make us recoil and retreat. In this, they are
    mistaken.
        We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a
    bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat
    before a band of thugs and assassins. We will help the Iraqi people
    establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle
    East. And by doing so, we will defend our people from danger.
        The forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli
    conflict. It's a difficult period in a part of the world that has known
    many. Yet, our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and dignity. We
    seek a viable independent state for the Palestinian people, who have
    been betrayed by others for too long. We seek security and recognition
    for the state of Israel, which has lived in a shadow of random death for
    too long. These are worthy goals in themselves, and by reaching them we
    will also remove an occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in the
    broader Middle East.
        Achieving peace in the Holy Land is not just a matter of the shape
    of a border. As we work on the details of peace, we must look to the
    heart of the matter, which is the need for a viable Palestinian
    democracy. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who
    intimidate opposition, who tolerate and profit from corruption, and
    maintain their ties to terrorist groups. These are the methods of the
    old elites, who time and again had put their own self-interest above the
    interest of the people they claim to serve. The long-suffering
    Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of
    creating and governing a Palestinian state.
        Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, good will
    and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel.
    Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful means to
    achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions
    of a stable democracy.
        Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized
    outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not
    prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.
        Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public
    and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with
    Israel.
        Leaders in Europe should withdraw all favor and support from any
    Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause. And
    Europe's leaders and all leaders should strongly oppose anti-Semitism,
    which poisons public debates over the future of the Middle East.
        Ladies and gentlemen, we have great objectives before us that make
    our Atlantic alliance as vital as it has ever been: We will encourage
    the strength and effectiveness of international institutions; we will
    use force when necessary in the defense of freedom; and we will raise up
    an ideal of democracy in every part of the world. On these three pillars
    we will build the

    [[Page 1579]]

    peace and security of all free nations in a time of danger.
        So much good has come from our alliance of conviction and might. So
    much now depends on the strength of this alliance as we go forward.
    America has always found strong partners in London, leaders of good
    judgment and blunt counsel and backbone when times are tough. And I have
    found all those qualities in your current Prime Minister, who has my respect and my deepest thanks.
        The ties between our nations, however, are deeper than the
    relationship between leaders. These ties endure because they are formed
    by the experience and responsibilities and adversity we have shared. And
    in the memory of our peoples, there will always be one experience, one
    central event when the seal was fixed on the friendship between Britain
    and the United States. The arrival in Great Britain of more than 1.5
    million American soldiers and airmen in the 1940s was a turning point in
    the Second World War. For many Britons, it was a first close look at
    Americans, other than in the movies. Some of you here today may still
    remember the ``friendly invasion.''
        ``Our lads,'' they took some getting used to. There was even a
    saying about what many of them were up to--in addition to being
    ``overpaid and over here.'' [Laughter] At a reunion in north London some
    years ago, an American pilot who had settled in England after his
    military service said, ``Well, I'm still over here and probably
    overpaid. So two out of three isn't bad.'' [Laughter]
        In that time of war, the English people did get used to the
    Americans. They welcomed soldiers and fliers into their villages and
    homes and took to calling them ``our boys.'' About 70,000 of those boys
    did their part to affirm our special relationship. They returned home
    with English brides.
        Americans gained a certain image of Britain as well. We saw an
    island threatened on every side, a leader who did not waver, and a
    country of the firmest character. And that has not changed. The British
    people are the sort of partners you want when serious work needs doing.
    The men and women of this Kingdom are kind and steadfast and generous
    and brave. And America is fortunate to call this country our closest
    friend in the world.
        May God bless you all.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:24 p.m. in the Royal Banqueting House. In
    his remarks, he referred to Secretary of State for Foreign and
    Commonwealth Affairs Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Defense Geoffrey
    Hoon, Queen Elizabeth II, and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United
    Kingdom; Rear Adm. Richard Cobbold, director, Royal United Services
    Institute for Defence and Security Studies; John Chipman, director,
    International Institute for Strategic Studies; American magician David
    Blaine, who spent 44 days in isolation suspended above the River Thames;
    former President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Mullah Omar, head of the
    deposed Taliban regime in Afghanistan; and former President Slobodan
    Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
    The Office of the Press Secretary also released a Spanish language
    transcript of these remarks.