George
W. Bush
Address at Whitehall Palace
London, England
November 19, 2003

Thank you very much. Secretary
Straw and Secretary Hoon; Admiral Cobbald 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. (Applause.)
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 are even
said to have a puritan streak -- 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. (Applause.)
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, he vowed that right and justice
would become the predominant and controlling force in the
world.
President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 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 10 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, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem,
Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. They're
part of the 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
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. (Applause.)
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 retain* {sic} 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.
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 Baathist 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 proceeded by diplomatic
initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and final
chances 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. (Applause.)
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 to 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 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 stirring 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. (Applause.)
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. (Applause.)
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. (Applause.)
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.
Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious.
And it comes from Baathist holdouts and Jihadists from
other countries, and terrorists drawn to the prospect of
innocent bloodshed. It is the nature of terrorism and 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. (Applause.)
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. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.) We seek security and
recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in
the shadow of random death for too long. (Applause.) 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,
goodwill 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. (Applause.)
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 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. (Applause.)
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 be "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. (Applause.)

<< Go Back
|