Human dignity is God's endowment to all humanity

I am a Presbyterian ... like Granddaddy Rice, my father was also a minister. And I was born on a Sunday morning and he was literally preaching when I was born. He had been told to go ahead and give his sermon, that child probably wasn't going to be born before he could get back. But he came out of the pulpit and his mother said, "John, you have a little girl." That was my first introduction to the church. And I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the South we have an expression -- We say they grew up in the church. Well, ladies and gentlemen, when I say I grew up in the church, I'm not speaking metaphorically, because for the first three years of my life we literally lived in the back of the church in two little rooms where my father preached. And it was the church that my grandfather founded and I'm very proud of that heritage.

People ask me all the time about my beliefs and I tell them faith has been a journey for me, as I'm sure it has been for each and every one of you. I do pray every day and in times of tragedy and heartbreak, like the passing of my own parents or September 11th, I have found solace and strength in the power of prayer. It's not surprising then that I deeply admire the faith and the traditions and the good works of America's Southern Baptists. Through President Bush's faith-based initiatives, all of you are helping to multiply the compassion of our government. And in my work as Secretary of State, I have seen the contribution to America's mission abroad that is being carried out by Southern Baptists of many nations who are living out the calling of their convictions through countless works of private charity ...

Ladies and gentlemen, President Bush and I share your conviction that America can and must be a force for good in the world. The President and I believe that the United States must remain engaged as a leader in events beyond our borders. We believe this because we are guided by the same enduring principle that gave birth to our own nation: Human dignity is not a government's grant to its citizens nor mankind's gift to one another; it is God's endowment to all humanity. (Applause.)

These are critical and important and even trying times for America, but it is time when we must affirm what we stand for as a nation and what role we must play in the world. And it's that that I'd like to talk to you about here in Greensboro this morning.

We in America are blessed with lives of tremendous liberty: the freedom to govern ourselves and elect our leaders; the freedom to own property; the freedom to educate our children, our boys and our girls; and of course the freedom to think as we please and to worship as we wish. America embodies these liberties but America does not own these liberties. We stand for ideals that are greater than ourselves and we go into the world not to plunder but to protect, not to subjugate but to liberate, not as masters of others but as servants of freedom. (Applause.)

Our world needs America's leadership now more than ever. As we celebrate our freedom here today, our thoughts turn to the many people throughout the world who are not as fortunate as we are. We're mindful that many men and women beyond our shores still live at the mercy of thieves and thugs and petty tyrants. We're mindful that many still suffer from scourges like poverty and disease that are offensive to human dignity. And of course we're mindful that too many people of faith can only whisper to God in the silent sanctuaries of their conscience because they fear persecution for their religious beliefs. These are tragedies. These are tragedies, but they are also threats in the making. For in today's world, we have learned that whenever freedom and tolerance are on the march, we are secure. But when these ideals are in retreat we are vulnerable. As long as governments practice and propagate hatred, as long as half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, as long as entire countries remain sources of rage and stagnation, our world will neither be stable, nor just.

So here, ladies and gentlemen, is the choice before our country, before us as Americans. Will we lead in the world or will we withdraw? Will we rise to the challenges of our time or will we shrink from them? America is a country of vast wealth and power, to be sure. But just as important, we are a nation of great compassion and conscience and democratic principle. So as we consider our future role in the world, we must reflect on some important questions. We must ask ourselves: If not for America, who would rally other nations to conscience to the international defense of religious liberty?

President Bush has made clear that the best relations with the United States are reserved for those governments that respect the beliefs of their people. When you go to a place like China as I have and you sit in a church with Chinese Christians, you cannot help but marvel at their faith and their courage. If America does not rally support for people everywhere who desire to worship in peace and freedom then I ask you: Who will? (Applause.)

You see, religious freedom is an issue that demands moral clarity. And ladies and gentlemen, America's message could not be clearer. Government simply has no right to stand between the individual and the All Mighty. (Applause.) If not for America, who would rally a great coalition and work to end the horrific international crime of human trafficking? Slavery did not end in the 19th century. It remains a tragic reality for thousands of people, mostly women and young girls, who are stolen and beaten and bought and sold like freight.

Under President Bush's leadership, the United States has launched a new abolitionist movement to end the illicit trade in human beings. (Applause.) We are rooting out the perpetrators and helping to care for their victims. We are calling to account any nation that turns a blind eye to human trafficking. And we have made this promise to every person still held captive. So long as America has anything to say about it, slavery will have no place in the modern world. (Applause.)

If not for America, who would rally likeminded countries in the global fights against HIV/AIDS? ... If not for America, who would rally other compassionate countries to support peace and justice in Sudan? ... Finally, ladies and gentlemen, we must consider one further question which is this: If not for America, who would rally freedom-loving nations to defend liberty and democracy in our world?

... Yet, we must do more than just capture or kill individual terrorists and we're doing that. We're striking at the very source of terror itself by summoning a vision of hope that outshines any ideology of hatred. The United States is supporting the democratic aspirations of all people, regardless of their culture or their race or their religion. We are leading the cause of freedom not because we believe that free peoples will always agree with us. They will not. That is their right and America will defend that right. We are doing this because we believe, and because we are seeing our belief confirmed, that all people deserve to and desire to live in freedom ...

You see, human beings share certain basic aspirations. They want to choose those who are going to govern them. They want a good job, an education, protection from injustice, the freedom to worship as they please, the future that will be better for their children. We are standing with people everywhere who desire these fundamental freedoms ...

This mission has been extremely difficult. I know it's been far more difficult than many of us imagined it would be. And I realize how hard it can be to remain hopeful when we hear of death squads and beheadings and sectarian strife in Iraq and when we see the daily devastation of evil people killing the innocent. And it's hard; it's especially hard when we remember our men and women in uniform who have made the ultimate sacrifice ...

The weight of international leadership is not borne easily. But we in America are more than equal to this challenge and we must be. For as we imagine a world without American leadership, we are led inescapably to this solemn conclusion. If America does not serve great purposes, if we do not rally other nations to fight intolerance and to support peace and to defend freedom, and to help give all hope who suffer oppression, then our world will drift toward tragedy. The strong will do what they please. The weak will suffer most of all and inevitably, inevitably, sooner or later the threats of our world will strike once again at the very heart of our nation. So together, let us continue on our present course. Let us reaffirm our belief that in the words of Thomas Jefferson "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."

Let us draw inspiration from impatient patriots in other lands who struggle onward only with their love of freedom and their faith in deliverance. And finally, more than anything, let us resolve to deal with the world as it is, but never to accept that we are powerless to make it better than it is. Not perfect, but better.

America will lead the cause of freedom in our world, not because we think ourselves perfect. To the contrary, we cherish democracy and champion its ideals because we know ourselves to be imperfect. With a long history of failures and false starts that testify to our own fallibility, after all, when our Founding Fathers said "We the people", they didn't mean me. My ancestors in Mr. Jefferson's Constitution were three-fifths of a man. And it's only in my lifetime that America has guaranteed the right to vote for all our citizens. But we have made progress and we are striving toward a more perfect union.

I'll tell you a little fact. If I served to the end of my time as Secretary of State, it will have been 12 years since a white man was Secretary of State of the United States of America. (Applause.) So as we strive -- as we strive to support the freedom of others, we must be patient with the pace of change, but also confident, confident in the power of our democratic ideals, confident that our faith will bolster us for the many challenges ahead and confident in something else.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting, Greensboro Coliseum, North Carolina, USA on 14 June 2006).

Africa has given so much to America

... The United States does not view Africa as the sum of its problems nor as an object of international pity. No. We view the men and women of Africa as authors of their own destiny, as individuals of agency and dignity who have the right to flourish in freedom and who bear responsibility for their own successes. We believe that this success rests in the strength and the spirit of African citizens and we reject what President Bush has called the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

Africa has given so much to America -- more than anyone. It was the stolen sons and daughters of Africa who lifted up the body of America, brick by brick, field by field, city by city. More than anyone, it was the quiet righteousness of African Americans, men and women like my parents and my grandparents, sons and daughters of the American South who helped to redeem America at last from its original sin of slavery.

America will never, America cannot forget the deep historical ties that bind us to the peoples of Africa. And we are committed to building a shared future of hope and opportunity and freedom for all.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the African Growth and Opportunity Forum, Loy Henderson Conference Room, Washington, DC, USA on 6 June 2006).

Education is transformational: it changes lives

I'm honored to be here at Boston College, a place of learning that is respected today not just in America, but throughout all the world. As a student of a Catholic high school, the Sisters of Loretta taught me, I am pleased to be at an institution of higher education with such strong and celebrated Catholic and Jesuit traditions ... I will always remember my undergraduate commencement at the University of Denver. I remember how proud my parents were. I remember the thrill of achieving an important goal. What I don't remember is one word that my commencement speaker said. And chances are that you won't either and I promise not to take it personally ... Instead, all of you in the Class of 2006 will leave Boston College with other, more lasting memories ...

But of all your experiences at Boston College, none is more meaningful, of course, than the education you've received here. You see, education is transformational. It literally changes lives. That is why people work so hard to become educated and that is why education has always been the key to the American Dream, the force that erases arbitrary divisions of race and class and culture and unlocks every person's God-given potential. As John F. Kennedy once said, "All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talents."

The American vision of education inspired the founding of Boston College. For thousands of citizens facing discrimination and disadvantage, Boston College has been a sanctuary and a source of empowerment, a place where hardworking, capable people who just needed opportunity and someone who believed in them.

This college's mission resonates with me on a very personal level, for I've learned in my own life that education is the single greatest force for equality in the world. I first learned about the transformational power of education from stories about my paternal grandfather, a real family hero. You see, Granddaddy was a poor sharecropper's son from Ewtah -- that's E-w-t-a-h -- Alabama. And one day, Granddaddy decided he was going to get book learning so he asked, in the parlance of the day, where a colored man could go to school. And he was told that there was this little Presbyterian college just about 50 miles down the road.

So Granddaddy Rice saved up his cotton to pay for his first year's tuition and he went off to Stillman College. But after his first year, he didn't have any more money and they told him he was going to have to leave school. And Granddaddy said to a college administrator, "Well, how are those boys going to school?" And the administrator said, "Well, you see, they have what's called a scholarship. And if you wanted to be a Presbyterian minister, then you could have a scholarship, too." And Granddaddy Rice said, "You know, that's just what I had in mind," and my family has been college educated and Presbyterian ever since. (Laughter and applause.)

Because of all that my grandfather and others of my ancestors endured, including poverty and segregation, they understood that education was a privilege, but also that privilege confers obligations. And so today, I would like to suggest to you what I think are five important responsibilities of educated people.

The first responsibility is one that you have to yourself, the responsibility to find and follow your passion. I don't mean just any old thing that interests you, not just something that you could or might do, but that one unique calling that you can't do without. As an educated person, you have the opportunity to spend your life doing what you love and you should never forget that many do not enjoy such a rare privilege. As you work to find your passion, you should know that sometimes, your passion just finds you.

That's what happened to me. I was supposed to be a concert pianist. I could read music before I could read. And I started college as a music major. But around the end of my sophomore year, I started encountering prodigies, 12-year-olds who could play from sight what it had taken me all year to learn, and I thought, "I'm going to end up playing piano bar or teaching 13-year-olds to murder Beethoven or maybe playing at Nordstrom, but I'm not going to play Carnegie Hall." And I went to my parents and I decided that I had better find something else to do.

I was lost and confused, but one day, a wonderful thing happened. I wandered into a course on international politics taught by a Czech refugee who specialized in Soviet studies, a man who had a daughter by the name of Madeleine Albright. With that one class, I was hooked. I discovered that my passion was Russia and all things Russian. Needless to say, this was not exactly what young black girls from Birmingham were supposed to do in the early 1970s, but it just shows you that your passion may be hard to spot, so keep an open mind and keep searching.

The second responsibility of an educated person is the commitment to reason. Boston College has prepared you with a true education. You haven't been taught what to think, but rather, how to think, how to ask questions, how to reject assumptions, how to seek knowledge; in short, how to exercise reason. This experience will sustain you for the rest of your lives, but no one should assume that a life of reason is easy; to the contrary. It takes a great deal of courage and honesty. For the only way that you will grow intellectually is by examining your opinions, attacking your prejudices constantly and completely with the force of your reason.

This can be unsettling and it can be tempting instead to opt for the false comfort of a life without questions. Unfortunately, that's easier to do than ever. It's possible today to live in an eco-chamber that serves only to reinforce your own high opinion of yourself and what you think. That is a temptation that educated people have a responsibility to reject. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately. But at those times when you're absolutely sure that you are right, go find somebody who disagrees. Don't allow yourself the easy course of the constant "amen" to everything that you say. (Applause.)

A commitment to reason leads to your third responsibility as an educated person, which is the rejection of false pride. It is natural, especially among the educated, to want to credit your success to your own intelligence and hard work and good judgment. And it is true, of course, that all of you sitting here today are here because you do, in fact, possess these qualities, but it is also true that merit alone did not see you to this day.

There are many people in this country and in this world who are just as intelligent, just as hard working and just as deserving of success as you are. But for whatever reason, maybe a broken home, maybe poverty, maybe just bad luck, these people did not enjoy all of the opportunities that you have had at Boston College. Don't ever forget that. Never assume that your own sense of entitlement has gotten you what you have or that it will get you what you want. Boston College has summoned all of you to the Jesuit ideals of compassion and charity for those less fortunate. Now commencement marks your opportunity, indeed your obligation, to graduate with wisdom and humility. (Applause.)

The fourth responsibility of the educated person is to be optimistic. Too often, cynicism can be the fellow traveler of learning and I understand why. History is full of much cruelty and suffering and darkness and it can be hard sometimes to believe that a brighter future is indeed dawning. But for all of our past failings, for all of our current problems, more people now enjoy lives of hope and opportunity than ever before in all of human history. This progress has been the concerted effort not of cynics but of visionaries and optimists, of impatient patriots who dealt with our world as it was, but who never ever accepted that they were powerless to change that world for the better.

Here in America our own ideals of freedom and equality have been borne through generations by optimists, by people of reason, to be sure, but just as importantly, by people of faith, people who reject the all-too-common assumption that if you can't see something happening and measure it, then it can't possibly be real.

There was a time when the goal of democracy in America seemed impossible, but because people had faith in democracy's promise, today, it seems that it must have always been inevitable. There was also a day in my own lifetime when the hope of liberty and justice for all seemed impossible. But because individuals kept faith with the ideal of America, it seems that it was always inevitable that today, there has been a decade since we last had a white male Secretary of State. (Applause.)

You have been fortunate to study at a college where reason and faith exist together and reinforce one another. But you're headed into a world where optimists are too often told to keep their ideals to themselves. It is your responsibility as educated people to remain optimistic no matter what, but that's not all. You have an obligation to act on those ideals and this, I believe, is the final responsibility to the educated person; really, the most important responsibility of all, to work to advance human progress.

What do I mean by human progress? I believe that all human beings share certain fundamental aspirations. They want protections for their lives and their liberties. They want to think freely and to worship as they wish. They want opportunities to educate their children, boys and girls, and they want to be ruled by the consent of the governed, not by the coercion of the state. So I would define human progress this way. Progress is humankind's ability to view more and more of our differences, whether of race or religion or culture or gender, not as a license to kill or a cause for repression, but as matters of no moral significance whatsoever.

All too often, difference has been used to divide and to dehumanize. I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, the Birmingham of Bull Connor and the Ku Klux Klan, a place that was once quite properly described as the most segregated city in America. I know how it feels to hold aspirations when half your neighbors think that you're incapable or uninterested in anything higher. In my professional life, I've listened with disbelief as it was said that men and women in Asia and Africa and Latin America and Russia and in the Middle East today did not share the basic aspirations of all human beings. Somehow, it was thought, these people were just different and by that, it was meant unworthy, unworthy of what we enjoy.

It is your responsibility as educated people to reject these prejudices and to help close the gaps of justice and opportunity that still divide our nation and our world. I know this mission is very close to the heart of Boston College. The Jesuit ideal of service to others has inspired this class to devote thousands of hours of your own time to help those in need. Most of you have spent a summer break on mission service or worked here at home in impoverished American communities, perhaps in New Orleans after the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Others ventured beyond our shores to assist the needy in countries like Brazil and Jamaica and Mexico.

This experience, I imagine, has taught you that progress never unfolds passively or inevitably. No, the promise of human progress is always carried forward by men and women who serve a cause greater than themselves ...

Read on. (Secretary Rice's Commencement Address at Boston College, Massachusetts, USA on 22 May 2006).

Women's Rights: the unfolding of moral progress

When we talk about respect for women, we are referring to a moral truth. Women are free by nature, equal in dignity and entitled the same rights, the same protections and the same opportunities as men. This is a standard that, quite frankly, we in the United States have fallen short of in our history. It took our country 130 years before we interpreted the phrase "All men are created equal," flexibly enough to let ladies vote.

We Americans are, to be sure, an imperfect people, but we are fortunate to be guided by ideals that summon us to become even nobler and indeed to pursue our perfect union. Those same ideals lead America into the world to combat the dehumanization of women in all its forums, especially the international evil of human trafficking, a modern form of slavery for millions of women.

I know it sounds impossible, slavery in the 21st century, but it's very real. And the stories of young girls preyed upon and smuggled as freight, beaten and bought and sold for sex are stories that are tragic enough to break even the hardest of hearts. And under President Bush's leadership, the United States is leading a new abolitionist movement to eradicate human trafficking worldwide. (Applause.)

In a few weeks, I'm going to release our annual Department of State Report on Human Trafficking and that report probes even the darkest places, calling to account any country, friend or foe, that is not doing enough to combat human trafficking. Though many complain, the power of shame has stirred many to action and sparked unprecedented reforms. Defeating human trafficking is a great moral calling and we will never subjugate it to the narrow demands of the day. This call of conscience also leads us to help the survivors of the genocide in Darfur, many of whom are women. I have visited Darfur. I have spoken with the women in the Abu Shouk refugee camp. They've told me their personal stories of rape, of beatings and of other unspeakable horrors that no human being should have to endure. Many of these women are widows charged with raising their children by themselves, and it is the fate of Darfur's children that moves us most because no boy or girl should live a life in a refugee camp.

The United States is doing more than any nation to help the mothers of Darfur build lives of hope for their children. We provide nearly all the food that now sustains the people of Darfur and we are offering care and counseling to many women who have survived violence and rape. The signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement last week now offers a hope for peace.

Yesterday in New York -- I think it was yesterday -- (laughter) -- I addressed the Security Council and urged them to get UN peacekeepers into Darfur to help implement this agreement. We have a momentous opportunity to bring real peace to the men and women of Darfur and we will not let this pass.

Whether it is assistance to women in Darfur or the fight against human trafficking, the United States champions respect for women because it is morally right. But we also recognize that respect for women is a prerequisite for success of countries in the modern world. In the dynamic 21st century no society can expect to flourish with half its people sitting on the sidelines, with no opportunity to develop their talents, to contribute to their economy or to play an equal part in the lives of their nations.

Last year a group of Kuwaiti suffragettes sent me a T-shirt and it makes that point very well. It says, "Half a democracy is not a democracy." That was the slogan that the women of Kuwait used to demand and to win their right to vote. (Applause.)

In all my travels as Secretary, I've had the opportunity to meet women around the world who are leading in fields of human endeavor. Two that I've met recently are literally leading their nations, Michelle Bachelet of Chile and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the new President of Liberia, the first woman head of state in African history. I was honored to attend both of their inaugurations this year. They are empowering their countries, not just the women of their countries.

And tonight, I would like to talk about some names that perhaps you do not know as well, who are also empowering their countries. In Mexico, I met with women entrepreneurs who are transforming their businesses with US-backed loans. One of these women is a seamstress, named Maria Theresa Rojas.

In years, Maria Theresa could not find a bank to loan her money. She wanted to do more than stitch school uniforms. All that recently changed. As a part of a U.S.-led effort to triple the amount of credit available to small and medium-size businesses, Maria Theresa finally got the loan she needed. And she's investing in new technology and expanding her business and making nicer clothing for profit. This will create jobs in the Mexican economy and make life better for Maria and her family and her village.

In Afghanistan, I met the young players of a girls' soccer team. It was quite a striking contrast from the Afghanistan that just four years ago -- in which four years ago the Taliban turned soccer stadiums given to them by the international community into killing fields and condemned women to death for learning to read.

You know, when they want to suppress people, they always go after the right to read. Slaves were not allowed to read, because if you can read, you know what your horizons are. And so that women in Afghanistan are now being taught to read openly and supported by their government is an amazing fact and shows that Afghanistan is progressing. (Applause.)

Finally, in Iraq, I had the opportunity at the end of last year to meet women political leaders who are active in a group called Ahd al-Iraq, or fittingly, Iraq's future. These women have seized freedom's opportunities and created the first issue-based organization in Iraqi history. They are working to ensure equal rights and equal opportunity for all Iraqis, men and women. The Iraqi people understand the role that women can and must play in their country's future. Iraq's democratic constitution which Iraqis freely wrote and ratified last year, accords women respect and equal rights. The challenge now for the Iraqi people is to build institutions that can protect those rights and make their new democracy effective. At this crucial time in Iraq's history, it is important that there are also courageous Iraqi women who raise their voices for tolerance and for moderation. And I want to thank the International Women's Forum for helping them do that. (Applause.)

When I meet women like Maria Theresa or Afghan soccer girls or the women of Ahd al-Iraq, or for that matter when I see Kuwaiti women gain the right to vote or when a country like Morocco sets an example for its entire region by passing landmark reforms of family law, as it did recently, granting women basic legal rights like the ability to divorce and inherit property.

When I see these kinds of events and meet these kinds of women, I believe we are witnessing something very extraordinary indeed: the unfolding of moral progress. We must not be reluctant to speak of moral progress. I would do so in this way. Progress is humankind's ability to view more and more of our differences, whether of race or religion or ethnicity or agenda, not as a license to kill or as a cause for repression, but as a source of strength. Progress never unfolds in a determined way or on its own accord. It requires human agency, always and everywhere dedicated individuals who are committed to helping others, men and women alike, to secure the basic human rights that define our common human nature.

And it requires something else. It requires optimism and it requires a sense of historical perspective. I know that there are times when we view on our television screens the violence in Iraq or in Afghanistan, or when we read the reports of the trafficking in women or of the camps in Darfur, that it must seem that this world is making no progress at all. But when I have those moments, I think back on other historical times when it must have seemed quite impossible to imagine human progress.

I spent my summer reading the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. They, of course, were quite fortunate, most of them, to have founding mothers alongside them, but of course the biographies have been written mostly of Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton and Washington. And when you read those biographies, you think that there was no earthly reason that the United States of America should ever have come into being. From Washington's failure after failure after failure as a military commander; to the tremendous rivalry between Jefferson and Hamilton that led Jefferson, thinking Washington too influenced by Hamilton, to spread rumors that Washington was indeed senile -- (laughter); to the fact that our Founding Fathers, trying to create a perfect union for We the People, couldn't quite find a way to deal with slavery. And so instead, they left my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man.

But some hundred plus years later, I stand before you as a descendent of those people who were three-fifths of a man and I ask, "Would anybody have thought it possible?" (Applause.) Now, perhaps in some number of years, we will think it just inevitable. Time and time again, historical events -- our own Civil War, World War II, the end of Communism, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the freedom of Eastern Europe -- seemed like impossible dreams. A day when France and Germany would never fight again seemed like an impossible dream. A democratic Japan, a democratic Korea, seemed like impossible dreams. And now, we take them for granted; we think of them as inevitable.

I do believe that with enough moral courage, with enough optimism and with enough human agency by people like those who make up the International Women's Forum that there will come a day when we will look back on Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and troubled spots of the world, and we will ask, "Who could have ever doubted that liberal democracy would take hold there?" Indeed, what sometimes today might seem impossible will seem quite inevitable.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the Independent Women's Forum ipon receiving Woman of Valor award, The Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, Washington, DC, USA on 10 May 2006).

Balancing democratic demands within the limitations of Liberalism

As a professor myself, I like to take every opportunity to put on my academic hat, to reflect broadly on the issues of the day. So this afternoon, I want to talk about an idea -- an idea that has defined the modern era since the dawn of the Enlightenment, an idea that has now captured the imagination of a majority of humanity, and made our world more secure as a result, so that idea is liberal democracy.

What do I mean by "liberal" democracy? Well, first of all, I mean capital "L" in Liberal, as in Liberalism, the theory of politics that took shape in the minds of Englishmen like Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, and even a Scot or two, like Adam Smith. The ideas of Liberalism were, of course, later refined and applied and written into the American Constitution by men like Hamilton, and Jefferson and Madison. And all of these individuals were trying, in their own way, to solve one of history's oldest quandaries: How can individuals with different interests, and different backgrounds, and different religious beliefs, live together peacefully and avoid the evil extremes of politics: civil war and tyranny, or as they would have said, the state of nature or the oppression of the state?

In their answer to this question, the theorists of Liberalism transformed politics forever. They declared that all human beings possessed equal dignity and certain natural rights -- among these, the right to live in liberty, to enjoy security, to own property and to worship as they pleased. These universal rights, established and embodied in institutions and enshrined in law, would then establish the principled limits on state power. But that was not all. They had another equally bold idea: For government to be truly legitimate, they argued, it had to be blessed by the consent of the governed.

Now, those were truly revolutionary ideas, and not surprisingly, they inspired revolutions. You made yours here in Britain in 1688. We made ours, after a few false starts, in 1776 and 1789. And I do not, therefore, mean to imply that there is only one model of liberal democracy. There is not. Even two countries as similar as Britain and the United States embraced liberal democracy on our own terms, according to our own traditions and our cultures and our experiences. That has been the case for every country and every people that has begun the modest quest for justice and freedom -- whether it was France in 1789; or Germany and Japan after World War II; or nations across Asia, and Africa, and Latin America during these past decades; or in countries like Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and Iraq today.

The appeal of liberal democracy is desirable, but its progress has not been even nor inevitable and there's a reason for that. The challenge of liberal democracy is always two-fold: to ensure majority rule and to respect minority rights, to strengthen communities and to liberate individuals, to empower government and to limit that power at the same time. And for societies accustomed to thinking in zero-sum terms, or for diverse communities that have never shared power among themselves, liberal democracy can seem difficult and frustrating and even threatening, and that feeling is entirely understandable.

Too often, we forget how long and hard liberal democracy has been for us. At times in our history and cities like Blackburn and Birmingham for that matter, the challenge of liberal democracy seemed so severe that it would split societies in two.

Once the cotton business moved out of this city, inequality and alienation were so rampant that many thought a revolution was not just likely, but inevitable. In my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, the legacy and the birthmark of slavery persisted for a century in the brutal and dehumanizing form of segregation. I spent the first 13 years of my life without a white classmate. It was when we moved to Denver, Colorado, that I had my first white classmate. And one Sunday morning in 1963, four little girls, including my good friend Denise McNair, were murdered in church by a terrorist bomb.

So even today, we know that we are still wrestling with the two-fold challenges of liberal democracy. Consider, for example, our efforts to strengthen national security and to protect civil liberties at the same time. In the attacks of 9/11 or 7/7 here in Britain, the United States and Britain saw the true threat of global terrorism. No matter of just police work of course, because if we wait for terrorists to attack, then 3,000 people die on one September morning or dozens are murdered on their commute to work. This forces us to think anew about how we will keep our societies both open and safe at the same time and that is no easy task, and we're all finding our own solutions within our own democratic systems ...

I know that there is a lot concern in Britain as well as in Europe and in other parts of the world, that the United States is not adequately guaranteeing both our need for security and our respect for the law. We in America welcome the free exchange of opinions with our allies about this issue, especially here in place like Britain. But I also want to say that no one should ever doubt America’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. President Bush has stated unequivocally, as have I that the United States is a nation of laws and we do not tolerate any American, at home or abroad, engaging in acts of torture. We also have no desire to be the world’s jailer. We want the terrorists that we captured to stand trial for their crimes. But we also recognize that we are fighting a new kind of war, and that our citizens will judge us harshly if we release a captured terrorist before we are absolutely certain that he does not possess information that could prevent a future attack, or even worst, if we meet that terrorist again on the battlefield.

Now, these difficult issues, still for us affirm the value of liberal democracy. But from our present and past experience, we know that liberal democracy is no panacea. It is a living regime, a never-ending conversation, a perpetual struggle to balance democratic demands within the limitations of Liberalism. This is genuine liberal democracy and this is its genius, its flexibility and its dynamism, how it helps diverse societies and diverse peoples reconcile their differences peacefully. Even for mature liberal democracies like ours, with centuries of experience, these balancing acts are often painstaking and time-consuming and frustrating. So when we talk about young democracies, like those emerging in the Broader Middle East today, we must do so with great humility and with great patience and with great sympathy for their historic undertaking.

Too often, I think, we forget this perspective. Recent elections in places like Egypt and the Palestinian territories -- the freest by far in both of those places -- have led some to argue that our policy of supporting democratic change in this region is creating not liberal democracy, but illiberal democracy: elected governments that view no inherent limitations to state power. Some American and European commentators even argue that democracy is impossible in the Middle East, and that perhaps it should not be tried for fear of its consequences in destabilizing the Middle East. Now, this criticism seems to assume that our support for democratic reform in the Middle East is disrupting somehow a stable status quo there. But do we really think that this was the case?

Read on. (Secretary Rice's Remarks at BBC Today-Chatham House Lecture, Ewood Park, Blackburn, United Kingdom on 31 March 2006)

Dr Rice interviewed by RCTI TV Indonesia

RCTI TV: Secretary Rice, first question I would like to ask, there is a perception here from some people that your main agenda here in Indonesia this time is to secure, to make sure that the Cepu oil block in the border of Central and East Java does not fall into the hands of US competitors, meaning that it remains in the hands of energy company ExxonMobil. How do you respond to that?

Dr Rice: Well, this is a private matter. The United States isn't involved in the investment decisions of its companies. The deal is done. It was done before I arrived and I think it shows that Indonesia is open for private investment and that it's an investment climate in which people are investing. But our primary -- my primary goal for being here is to talk about the tremendous partnership that Indonesia and the United States are developing, about Indonesia's extraordinary march to democracy, about the -- a place that I think we feel very comfortable because like Indonesia, the United States is a place of great diversity, cultural, religious, ethnic. And so that's why I'm here and it's been for me an extraordinary trip.

But isn't it true that one of the main pillars of U.S. foreign policy is to secure energy resources from abroad, meaning to ensure that demand for oil in the United States, which continues to grow and I quote a National Energy Policy Development Group report which states that by 2020, you expect U.S. dependence on oil to reach some 66 percent. Doesn't that conclude for some people that you do need to secure those foreign oil resources?

Well, we can't really secure foreign oil resources. It's not how energy markets work. It is a market and people will sell their oil in the market and mark the -- oil will get a certain price, depending on supply and demand. And I think it's really not -- it's not possible and it's a way that sometimes even other countries think about it -- we'll secure that market and we'll secure that market.

The fact that so many US oil companies now operate in Indonesia and really control really major reserves.

Well, Indonesia has had American and other investments for quite a long time and the purpose is to make Indonesian oil fields capable of producing oil, which then benefits Indonesia, but also benefits the global market. Foreign investment in oil is simply for the purpose of getting the best technology, getting the best production out of those fields, because all of the world needs energy resources, not just the United States, but Indonesia, China, India. These are all countries that are growing economically and you need energy resources.

In fact, the President has -- President Bush has made clear that the United States believes that our great task is to actually diversify our energy supply and that is why the United States is spending under the President's new energy plan, resources to try and improve the capability of bio diversity -- of bio energy through ethanol and through the use of grasses to produce bio fuels. We are looking at nuclear energy as a way to diversify our energy supply. So yes, we need oil as everyone needs oil. But we also are diversifying our energy supply. And you -- I just want to repeat, you cannot control an energy supply. Energy is a world market and the price is set by supply and demand.

Okay. Now moving on to the issue of Palestine, you canceled your previously scheduled visit to Indonesia when Prime Minister Sharon was ill. Do you think that sends a message to Indonesians that when it comes to shove and push, the US will ultimately side with Israel when it comes to interest between Palestine and Israel?

Well, in fact, I was unable to come here. I'm here now. And I've been here and enjoyed my visit very much. But sometimes friends need to understand that there are other demands and this time, at that time, the demand was that there were concerns about the Middle East. I've been very actively involved in trying to help to create a two-state solution -- something that President Bush believes very strongly in. In order to do that, we need to work with the Palestinians, we need to work with Israelis. And I think everybody wants the United States to be active in the Middle East peace process. And sometimes when there are problems in the Middle East, it demands the attention of the American Secretary of State and I think people understand that.

In your meeting with Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda yesterday there as a proposal that Indonesians and mainly other Muslim countries have asked that whether the United States would be more willing to receive Hamas as the ruling government in Palestine, if it were to act more realistically. How have you responded to calls like that?

Well, the situation with Hamas is as follows. Hamas was elected in an election for which we congratulated the Palestinian people. But Hamas now needs to make a strategic choice and it's not just the demand of the United States, this is -- these are requirements that were set by the Quartet. The Quartet being the guardian of the roadmap, the United States, the EU, the UN and Russia that you can't have a peace process if one party does not accept the right of the other party to exist. You can't have a peace process if one party is not committed to peace and continues to use violence. And so our appeal would be to any Palestinian government that they would accept those responsibilities of governing.

Everyone knows that for the United States Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization, as it has for the European Union. But were Hamas to make a strategic choice and renounce violence and recognize the right of Israel to exist. I think the responsibility to govern would be easier and they would find an international community ready to support a Palestinian government, so devoted to peace.

Secretary Rice, considering so-called radical Islamic movement in Indonesia, which you would obviously consider as a threat to U.S. interests, as well as Indonesian maybe, how far would the US go in neutralizing these elements that are anti-American in Indonesia?

Well, let me start with -- to whom they're a threat. They are a threat to all of us. But Indonesians have felt that threat most directly in the bombings in Bali and bombings in Jakarta. Indonesians, Muslims around the world have died just as have other innocent people because of this particular extremist element that is determined, we believe, to subvert the peaceful purposes and the peaceful doctrines of Islam. So how far will we go to stop them? I think we all have to be united in making certain that these terrorists cannot take innocent life. But the way that we do that is through cooperation with governments around the world that also want to fight terrorism which is why the United States has such a strong counterterrorism program and such strong counterterrorism work with the Government of Indonesia.

Read on (Jakarta, Indonesia on 15 March 2006)

Our Opportunity With India

The week before last President Bush concluded a historic agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation with India, a rising democratic power in a dynamic Asia. This agreement is a strategic achievement: It will strengthen international security. It will enhance energy security and environmental protection. It will foster economic and technological development. And it will help transform the partnership between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracy.

First, our agreement with India will make our future more secure, by expanding the reach of the international nonproliferation regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency would gain access to India's civilian nuclear program that it currently does not have. Recognizing this, the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has joined leaders in France and the United Kingdom to welcome our agreement. He called it "a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety."

Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique. India is a democracy, where citizens of many ethnicities and faiths cooperate in peace and freedom. India's civilian government functions transparently and accountably. It is fighting terrorism and extremism, and it has a 30-year record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters.

Aspiring proliferators such as North Korea or Iran may seek to draw connections between themselves and India, but their rhetoric rings hollow. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that has violated its own commitments and is defying the international community's efforts to contain its nuclear ambitions. North Korea, the least transparent country in the world, threatens its neighbors and proliferates weapons. There is simply no comparison between the Iranian or North Korean regimes and India.

The world has known for some time that India has nuclear weapons, but our agreement will not enhance its capacity to make more. Under the agreement, India will separate its civilian and military nuclear programs for the first time. It will place two-thirds of its existing reactors, and about 65 percent of its generating power, under permanent safeguards, with international verification -- again, for the first time ever. This same transparent oversight will also apply to all of India's future civilian reactors, both thermal and breeder. Our sale of nuclear material or technology would benefit only India's civilian reactors, which would also be eligible for international cooperation from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Second, our agreement is good for energy security. India, a nation of a billion people, has a massive appetite for energy to meet its growing development needs. Civilian nuclear energy will make it less reliant on unstable sources of oil and gas. Our agreement will allow India to contribute to and share in the advanced technology that is needed for the future development of nuclear energy. And because nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels, our agreement will also benefit the environment. A threefold increase in Indian nuclear capacity by 2015 would reduce India's projected annual CO2emissions by more than 170 million tons, about the current total emissions of the Netherlands.

Third, our agreement is good for American jobs, because it opens the door to civilian nuclear trade and cooperation between our nations. India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If U.S. companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for American workers. We plan to expand our civilian nuclear partnership to research and development, drawing on India's technological expertise to promote a global renaissance in safe and clean nuclear power.

Finally, our civilian nuclear agreement is an essential step toward our goal of transforming America's partnership with India. For too long during the past century, differences over domestic policies and international purposes kept India and the United States estranged. But with the end of the Cold War, the rise of the global economy and changing demographics in both of our countries, new opportunities have arisen for a partnership between our two great democracies. As President Bush said in New Delhi this month, "India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the United States because we are brothers in the cause of human liberty."

Read on. (Secretary Rice's Op-Ed, The Washington Post, USA. 13 March 2006.)

50th year of the Hungarian Revolution

For 12 days in 1956, the Hungarian people caught a fleeting glimpse of their independence. Armed with little more than a love of liberty, the impatient patriots of Hungary rose up against the mighty Soviet empire. They stormed the jails and they freed political prisoners. They took back their country's radio waves and broadcast the censored sounds of Mozart and Beethoven. And they imagined a new future for Hungary, where they and their fellow citizens would determine their own future in freedom without facing foreign oppression or fearing the midnight knock of the secret police.

For 12 days, there was hope, but then came the response and it was terrible and ferocious. Soviet troops and tanks rumbled into Hungary, killing tens of thousands of people and condemning thousands of others to Siberian gulags.

A desperate exodus began. Two hundred thousand Hungarians, men, women and children, fled the land of their birth and sought shelter in the West. The United States opened its doors to the driven sons and daughters of Hungary. In time, these immigrants put down new roots and they started new businesses and they added to the diverse and wonderful character of America.

1956 was a year of unspeakable tragedy for the Hungarian people, but 50 years later, from the vantage point of history, we see that 1956 was also the beginning of something greater, something far more promising. In the Hungarian Revolution, the world saw that hope was alive behind the Iron Curtain. In 12 days of freedom, impatient patriots throughout Eastern Europe drew inspiration for their own struggles and in the stories of oppression that Hungarian refugees told, free nations learned the true character of the Soviet regime and their will to resist it grew stronger.

The hope for independence was never extinguished in the Hungarian people. They resisted Soviet imperialism to the very end and they were the first in their region to make the transition to democracy. Immediately, Hungary's free government began realizing the goals that all Hungarians had longed for during the dark days of communism: liberty and human rights, the rule of law and equal justice, free enterprise and growing wealth.

Today, the nation of Hungary is a model for all the world of the security and the prosperity and the success that come with freedom and democracy. From its earliest years, a young, democratic Hungary also worked for the freedom of others. In 1989, as the Soviet Union tottered beneath the weight of its own contradictions, East German citizens fled their country in large numbers and sought sanctuary in Hungary.

Though the Warsaw Pact required the return of all refugees, the citizens of Hungary refused to be Erich Honecker's border guards. They spurned imperial commands and sheltered East Germans fleeing persecution. Through their actions, the Hungarian people added to the great momentum of freedom that finally swept away the Berlin Wall and helped reunite the German people and ultimately, transformed Europe into a continent, whole, free and at peace.

Hungary's support for the freedom of others now stretches throughout the world, from the Balkans to Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond. In Budapest, the Hungarian Government has created the International Center for Democratic Transitions, which pools the knowledge and experience of democratic nations to help countries across the world navigate their own transitions to democracy. These lessons are accelerating the march of freedom in our time, yet the lessons of Hungary's history also point toward timeless principles that transcend the challenges of today.

In Hungary's journey toward freedom, we see that justice can be delayed, but it cannot be denied. In Hungary's experience of freedom, we see that liberty unlocks the God-given potential of all people to rise as high as their talents will take them. And in the actions of the Hungarian democracy, we see that liberty, once achieved, is not a scarce resource to be hoarded, saved selfishly. It is the universal right of all humanity summoning all free peoples to service and sacrifice on behalf of those still denied that liberty.

The United States values our Hungarian partners and we still have much work to do together. So, let us rededicate ourselves today to a common mission of ensuring freedom at home and defending freedom abroad. The memories of the fallen, the memories of the heroes, the memories of history demand no less of us.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the on the 50th Anniversary Year of the Hungarian Revolution at the Benjamin Franklin Room, Department of State, Washington, DC, USA on 13 February 2006)

Transformational Diplomacy

Almost a year ago today in his second Inaugural Address, President Bush laid out a vision that now leads America into the world. "It is the policy of the United States," the President said, "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." To achieve this bold mission, America needs equally bold diplomacy, a diplomacy that not only reports about the world as it is, but seeks to change the world itself. I and others have called this mission "transformational diplomacy." And today I want to explain what it is in principle and how we are advancing it in practice.

We are living in an extraordinary time, one in which centuries of international precedent are being overturned. The prospect of violent conflict among great powers is more remote than ever. States are increasingly competing and cooperating in peace, not preparing for war. Peoples in China and India, in South Africa and Indonesia and Brazil are lifting their countries into new prominence. Reform -- democratic reform -- has begun and is spreading in the Middle East. And the United States is working with our many partners, particularly our partners who share our values in Europe and in Asia and in other parts of the world to build a true form of global stability, a balance of power that favors freedom.

At the same time, other challenges have assumed a new urgency. Since its creation more than 350 years ago, the modern state system has rested on the concept of sovereignty. It was always assumed that every state could control and direct the threats emerging from its territory. It was also assumed that weak and poorly governed states were merely a burden to their people, or at most, an international humanitarian concern but never a true security threat.

Today, however, these old assumptions no longer hold. Technology is collapsing the distance that once clearly separated right here from over there. And the greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them. The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power. In this world it is impossible to draw neat, clear lines between our security interests, our development efforts and our democratic ideals. American diplomacy must integrate and advance all of these goals together.

So, I would define the objective of transformational diplomacy this way: to work with our many partners around the world, to build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.

Let me be clear, transformational diplomacy is rooted in partnership; not in paternalism. In doing things with people, not for them; we seek to use America's diplomatic power to help foreign citizens better their own lives and to build their own nations and to transform their own futures.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at Georgetown School of Foreign Service, Gorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA on 18 January 2006)

International Support for Iraqi Democracy

Two days from now, the Iraqi people will go to the polls for the third time since January. And they will elect a parliament to govern their nation for the next four years. All across Iraq today, representatives from some 300 political parties are staging rallies, they're holding televised debates, they're hanging campaign posters, and they're taking their case to the Iraqi people. They are asking for the consent of the governed.

As this historic moment approaches, we in America are engaging in our own historic debate. Many Americans have asked questions about our nation’s role in Iraq. And in recent weeks, President Bush has responded by clearly describing our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

The American people want to know who we and the Iraqis are fighting and that we can win. And President Bush has answered, explaining the nature of the enemy that we face and why failure is not an option. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists miss the unjust status they have lost. But we believe that some of them can be convinced to join a democratic Iraq that is strong enough to protect minority rights. The Saddamists are loyal to the old regime and think that they can regain power by inciting undemocratic sentiment. But as the Iraqi people become more able to defend their democracy, we believe that they will increasingly be marginalized.

The final enemy we face, the terrorists, are a small but deadly group, motivated by the global ideology of hatred that fuels al-Qaida, and they will stop at nothing to make Iraq the heart of a totalitarian empire that encompasses the entire Islamic world. If we quit now, we will give the terrorists exactly what they want. We will desert Iraq’s democrats at their time of greatest need. We will embolden every enemy of liberty across the Middle East. We will destroy any chance that the people of this region have of building a future of hope and decency. And most of all, we will make America more vulnerable.

In abandoning future generations in the Middle East to despair and terror, we also condemn future generations in the United States to insecurity and fear. And President Bush has made clear that on his watch, America will not retreat from a fight that we can and must win ...

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, USA, on the eve of the Iraqi Elections, 13 December 2005).

Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise

World AIDS Day is an occasion for the community of nations and citizens all across the globe to join together and turn our thoughts to the more than 40 million people worldwide who are living with HIV/AIDS, over two million of whom are children. But our observance cannot end with remembrance. This is a day to rededicate ourselves to action. All who have the power to ease suffering and to save lives also have a moral responsibility to do so.

The theme of this year’s World AIDS Day is "Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise." Nearly three years ago, President Bush made a promise to all who are afflicted with or affected by this disease. He pledged that America would do more to help and he launched a five-year, $15 billion effort -- the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- which represents the largest international initiative ever by one nation to combat a single disease.

Today, we are keeping President Bush’s historic promise. Under the President’s Emergency Plan, America is leading the fight against HIV/AIDS in 123 countries. The Emergency Plan includes both bilateral programs under American direction and support for multilateral efforts, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

We are focusing especially on the 15 hardest-hit nations in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean -- nations that together account for over half of the world’s infected people. In these nations, the Emergency Plan is helping us to meet our five-year strategic goal of preventing seven million new infections, treating two million individuals who are living with AIDS, and caring for ten million people who are afflicted with and affected by the disease, including orphaned children.

On this World AIDS Day, Americans should celebrate all the successes that we and our partners are achieving in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. But today, we must also remind ourselves how much hard work lies ahead. We will not defeat this disease in a month or a year. But if we sustain our commitment -- if we match our compassion with action -- we will one day bring hope to all who are living in the shadow of HIV/AIDS.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's message for World AIDS Day, Washington, DC, USA, 30 November 2005).

How we assure victory in Iraq

I would like to deliver this in full. It's my first opportunity to talk to you specifically about Iraq. I've spoken many times about why we are there, but I would like to talk about how we assure victory.

In short, with the Iraqi Government, our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold, and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions.

In 2003, enforcing UN resolutions, we overthrew a brutal dictator and liberated a nation. Our strategy then emphasized the military defeat of the regime’s forces and the creation of a temporary government with the Coalition Provisional Authority and an Iraqi Governing Council.
In 2004, President Bush outlined a five-step plan to end the occupation: transferring sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government, rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure, getting more international support, preparing for Iraq’s first national election this past January, and helping to establish security. Our soldiers and marines fought major battles, major battles, against the insurgency in places like Najaf and Sadr City and Fallujah.

In 2005, we emphasized transition: a security transition to greater reliance on Iraqi forces and a political transition to a permanent, constitutional democracy. The just-concluded referendum was a landmark in that process.

And now we are preparing for 2006. First we must help Iraqis as they hold another vital election in December. Well over 9 million Iraqis voted on Sunday. Whether Iraqis voted yes or no, they were voting for an Iraqi nation, and for Iraqi democracy.

And all their voices, pro and con, will be heard again in December. If the referendum passes, those who voted no this time will realize that their chosen representatives can then participate in the review of the constitution that was agreed upon last week.

This process will ultimately lead to Iraqis selecting a lasting government, for a four year term. We must then have a decisive strategy to help that government set a path toward democracy, stability, and prosperity.

Our nation – our servicemen and women – are fighting in Iraq at a pivotal time in world history. We must succeed. And I look forward to working together with you on winning.

We know our objectives. We and the Iraqi Government will succeed if together we can:

* Break the back of the insurgency so that Iraqis can finish it off without large-scale military help from the United States.

* Keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven from which Islamic extremists can terrorize the region or the world.

* Demonstrate positive potential for democratic change and free expression in the Arab and Muslim worlds, even under the most difficult conditions.

* And turn the corner financially and economically, so there is a sense of hope and a visible path toward self-reliance.

Now, of course, to achieve this, we must know who we are fighting. Some of these people are creatures of a deposed tyrant, others a small number of home-grown and imported Islamist extremists. They feed on a portion of the population that is overwhelmed by feelings of fear, resentment, and despair.

As I have said, our strategy is to clear, hold, and build. The enemy’s strategy is to infect, terrorize, and pull down.

They want to spread more fear, resentment, and despair -- inciting sectarian violence as they did 2 weeks ago in Hillah, when they blew up devout worshippers in a mosque, and committed this atrocity during the holy month of Ramadan. They attack infrastructure, like electricity and water, so that average Iraqis will lose hope.

They target foreigners. The enemy forces have never won even a platoon-size battle against our soldiers and marines. But their ultimate target is the coalition’s center of gravity: the will of America, of Britain, and of other coalition members. Let us say it plainly: The terrorists want us to get discouraged and quit. They believe we do not have the will to see this through. They talk openly about this in their writings on their websites.

And they attack the Iraqi Government, targeting the most dedicated public servants of the new Iraq. Mayors and physicians and teachers and policemen, soldiers – none are exempt. Millions of Iraqis are putting their lives on the line every single day to build a new nation and the insurgents want most to strike at them.

Sadly, this strategy has some short-term advantages because it is easier to pull down than to build up. It is easier to sow fear than to grow hope.

But the enemy strategy has a fatal flaw. The enemy has no positive vision for the future of Iraq. They offer no alternative that could unite Iraqi as a nation. And that is why most Iraqis despise the insurgents.

The enemy leaders know their movement is unpopular. Zawahiri’s July letter to Zarqawi reveals that he is "extremely concerned" that, deprived of popular support, the insurgents will "be crushed in the shadows." "We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the Taliban," he warned, whose regime "collapsed in days, because the people were passive or hostile."

Knowing how unpopular they are, the enemy leaders also hate the idea of democracy. They will never let themselves or their ideas face the test of democratic choice.

Let me now turn to our political-military strategy. We are moving from a stage of transition toward the strategy to prepare a permanent Iraqi government for a decisive victory.

The strategy that is being carried out has profited from the insights of strategic thinkers, civilian and military, inside and outside of government, who have reflected on our experience and on insurgencies in other periods of history.

We know what we must do. With our Iraqi allies, we are working to:

* Clear the toughest places – no sanctuaries to the enemy – and to disrupt foreign support for the insurgents.

* We are working to hold and steadily enlarge the secure areas, integrating political and economic outreach with our military operations.

* We are working to build truly national institutions by working with more capable provincial and local authorities. We are challenging them to embody a national compact – not tools of a particular sect or ethnic group. These Iraqi institutions must sustain security forces, bring rule of law, visibly deliver essential services, and offer the Iraqi people hope for a better economic future.

None of these elements, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, can be achieved by military action alone. None are purely civilian either. This requires an integrated civil-military partnership. And let me briefly review that partnership.

Clear the toughest places -- no sanctuaries. As we enlarge security in major urban areas and as insurgents retreat, they should find no large area where they can reorganize and operate freely. Recently our forces have gone on the offensive. In Tall Afar, near the Syrian border, and in the west along the Euphrates valley in places like Al Qaim, Haditha, and Hit, American and Iraqi forces are clearing away insurgents.

As one terrorist wrote to another: "[I]f the government extends its control over the country, we will have to pack our bags and break camp."

Syria and Iran allow fighters and military assistance to reach insurgents in Iraq. In the case of Syria, we are concerned about cross-border infiltration, about unconstrained travel networks, and about the suspicious young men who are being waved through Damascus International Airport.

As a part of our strategy, we have taken military steps, as with our offensive in Tal Afar, to cut off the flow of people or supplies near that border. And we are also taking new diplomatic steps to convey the seriousness of our concerns. Syria and indeed Iran must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war or with the cause of peace.

Secondly, to hold and enlarge secure areas. In the past our problem was that once an area was clear militarily, the Iraqi security forces were unable to hold it. Now, Iraqi units are more capable.

* In August 2004, five Iraqi regular army battalions were in combat. Today, 91 Iraqi regular army battalions are in combat.

* A year ago, no American advisors were embedded with these battalions. Now all of these battalions have American advisors.

With more capable Iraqi forces, we can implement this element of the strategy, holding secure areas – neighborhood by neighborhood. And this process has already begun.

* Compare the situation a year ago in places like Haifa Street in Baghdad, or Baghdad’s Sadr City, or downtown Mosul, or Najaf, or Fallujah, with the situation today.

* Security along the once notorious airport road in Baghdad has measurably improved. Najaf, where American forces fought a major battle last year, is now entirely under independent Iraqi military control.

As this strategy is being implemented, the military side recedes and the civilian part – like police stations and civic leaders and economic development -- move into the foreground. Our transition strategy emphasized the building of the Iraqi army. Now our police training efforts are receiving new levels of attention.

Third, we must build truly national institutions. The institutions of Saddam Hussein’s government were violent and corrupt, tearing apart the ties that ordinarily bind communities together. The last two years have seen three temporary governments govern Iraq, making it extremely difficult to build national institutions even under the best of circumstances. The new government that will come can finally set down real roots.

To be effective, that government must bridge sects and ethnic groups. And its institutions must not become the tools of a particular sect or group.

Let me assure you, the United States will not try to pick winners. We will support parties and politicians in every community who are dedicated to peaceful participation in the future of a democratic Iraq.

The national institutions must also sustain the security forces and bring rule of law to Iraq.

The national institutions must also visibly deliver essential services. Thanks to you and other members of Congress, the United States has already invested billions of dollars to keep electricity and fuel flowing across Iraq. In the transition phase, we concentrated on capital investment, adding capacity to a system that had deteriorated to the point of collapse. But, with freedom, the demand for electricity has gone up by 50% and the capability we have added is not being fully utilized because of constant insurgent attacks. We are with the Iraqis developing new ways to add security to this battered but vital system. And the Iraqis must reform their energy policies and pricing in order to make the system sustainable.

The national institutions must also offer the Iraqi people hope for a better economic future.

Millions of farmers, small businessmen, and investors need a government that encourages growth rather than fostering dependence on handouts from the ruler. The government, the next government, will need to make some difficult but necessary decisions about economic reform.

In sum, we and the Iraqis must seize the vital opportunity provided by the establishment of a permanent government.

Well, what is required?

First, Iraqis must continue to come together in order to build their nation. The state of Iraq was constructed across the fault lines of ancient civilizations, among Arabs and Kurds, Sunni and Shi’a, Muslims and Christians. No one can solve this problem for them. For years these differences were dealt with through violence and repression. Now Iraqis are using compromise and politics.

Second, the Iraqi Government must forge more effective partnerships with foreign governments, particularly in building their ministries and governmental capacity.

* On our side of this partnership, the United States should sustain a maximum effort to help the Iraqi government succeed, tying it more clearly to our immediate political-military objectives.

* On Iraq’s side, the government must show us and other assisting countries that critical funds are being well spent – whatever their source. They must show commitment to the

professionalization of their government and bureaucracy. And they must demonstrate the willingness to take tough decisions.

Third, Iraq must forge stronger partnerships with the international community beyond the United States.

The Iraqis have made it clear that they want the multinational military coalition to remain. Among many contributors, the soldiers and civilians of the United Kingdom deserve special gratitude for their resolve, their skill, and their sacrifices.

Now the military support from the coalition must be matched by diplomatic, economic, and political support from the entire international community. Earlier this year, in Brussels and Amman, scores of nations gathered to offer more support. NATO has opened a training mission near Baghdad. And now, as Iraq chooses a permanent, constitutional government, it is time for Iraq’s neighbors to do more to help.

* The major oil producing states of the Gulf have gained tens of billions of dollars of additional revenue from rising oil prices. They are considering how to invest these gains for the future.

* These governments must be partners in shaping the region’s future.

* We understand that across the region, there are needs and multilateral programs in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as well as Iraq. Rather than consider them in a disjointed way, they together form part of a broad regional effort in transforming the Arab and Muslim world. We hope the governments of the region, as well as others in Europe and Asia, will examine these needs and then invest decisively, on an unprecedented scale, to become continuing stakeholders in the future of Iraq and of the region.

Finally, the U.S. Government must deepen and strengthen the integration of our civilian and military activities.

* At the top in Iraq, we have established an effective partnership between the Embassy and Ambassador Khalilzad on the one hand, and the Multinational Forces command and General Casey on the other.

* To be sure, civilian agencies have already made an enormous effort. Hundreds of civilian employees and contractors have lost their lives in Iraq. But more can be done to mobilize the civilian agencies of our government, especially to get more people in the field, outside of Baghdad’s International Zone, to follow up when the fighting stops.

* We will embed our diplomats, police trainers, and aid workers more fully on military bases, traveling with our soldiers and marines.

* To execute our strategy we will restructure a portion of the U.S. mission in Iraq. Learning from successful precedents used in Afghanistan, we will deploy Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in key parts of the country. These will be civil-military teams, working in concert with each of the major subordinate commands, training police, setting up courts, and helping local governments with essential services like sewage treatment or irrigation. The first of these new PRTs will take the field next month.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, to succeed, we need most your help and your support, and that of the American people. We seek support across the aisle, from both Democrats and Republicans.

And I know that we all, as Americans, know the importance of success in this mission. It is hard. It is hard to imagine decisive victory when violent men continue their attacks on Iraqi civilians and security forces and on American and coalition soldiers and marines. And we honor the sacrifice because every individual has life stories and friends and families – and incalculable sorrow that has been left behind.

But of course, there is a great deal at stake. A free Iraq will be at the heart of a different kind of Middle East. We must defeat the ideology of hatred, the ideology that forms the roots of the extremist threat that we face. Iraq’s struggle – the region’s struggle – is to show that there is a better way, a freer way, to lasting peace


Secretary Condoleezza Rice's Opening Remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC, USA on 19 October 2005. Original text here.

Diplomacy in the service of the "civilised interest"

I am honored to be here today at Princeton. From George Kennan and John Foster Dulles, to George Shultz and James Baker, and of course, Woodrow Wilson, many renowned American statesmen have worn the orange and black.

I am especially honored to help all of you celebrate this historic 75th anniversary of the Woodrow Wilson School. As a professor myself, I understand how important it is to root the practice of statecraft in the study of statecraft in the systematic examination of politics and history and culture that the Wilson School offers to its students.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Seventy-five years ago, when this school was founded, it was a difficult time when the world's democracies were like islands in a raging sea. Adolph Hitler was planning his ascent to power in Germany and plotting his conquest of Europe. And Joseph Stalin was consolidating his rule and building a Soviet Union that would threaten the entire free world.

Today, however, democracies are emerging wherever and whenever the tides of oppression recede. As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Now, to forge realistic policies from these idealistic principles, we must recognize that statecraft can assume two fundamentally different forms. In ordinary times, when existing ideas and institutions and alliances are adequate to the challenges of the day, the purpose of statecraft is to manage and sustain the established international order. But in extraordinary times, when the very terrain of history shifts beneath our feet and decades of human effort collapse into irrelevance, the mission of statecraft is to transform our institutions and partnerships to realize new purposes on the basis of enduring values.

One such extraordinary moment began in 1945 in the wreckage of one of the great cataclysms in human history. World War II thoroughly consumed the old international system. And it fell to a group of American statesmen -- individuals like Truman and Acheson and Vandenburg -- to assume the roles of architects and builders of a better world.

The solutions to those challenges seem perfectly clear now with half a century of hindsight. But it was anything but clear for the men and women who lived and worked in those unprecedented change. Long after he was present at the creation, Dean Acheson remembered the early years of the Cold War as cloudy, and puzzling, and perilous. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was shrouded in ambiguity and we hesitated long before grasping what now seems obvious."

But despite the extraordinary nature of their time, the statesmen of that era succeeded brilliantly. They conceived doctrines and created the alliances and built the institutions that formed the foundation of a new international system, one organized to defend freedom from the spread of communism.

The ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union initiated a new moment of transformation. This was a glorious revolution, a cause for celebration throughout Russia and Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact countries became the new heart of NATO, and we transformed that alliance into one that Truman and Acheson would never have recognized, but would certainly have applauded. Some even thought that the engine of globalization might just make the possibility of conflict remote.

But lurking below the surface, old hatreds were gaining new power. And on a warm September morning, America encountered the darker demons of our new world.

People still differ about what the September 11th calls us to do. And in a democratic society, that debate is healthy and just and right. If you focus only on the attacks themselves and believe they were caused by 19 hijackers, supported by a network called al-Qaida, and operating from a failed state -- Afghanistan -- then our response can be limited. The course of action presumes that we are still living in an ordinary time.

But if you believe, as I do and as President Bush does, that the root cause of September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East, then we must speak to remove the source of this terror by transforming that troubled region. If you believe as we do, then it cannot be denied that we are standing at an extraordinary moment in history.

Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security. This is not the case. A regional order that produced an ideology of hatred so savage as the one we now confront is not serving any civilized interest.

For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the only guarantees of true stability and lasting security.

There are those who worry that greater freedom of choice in the Middle East will only liberate and empower extremism. In fact, the opposite is true: A political culture of transparency and openness is not one in which extremist beliefs can ultimately thrive. Extremism is most dangerous when it lurks in the dark and hides underground. When there is no political space for individuals to advance their interests and redress their grievances, then they retreat into the shadows to grow ever more radical and divorced from reality. We saw the result of that on September 11th and now we must work to advance democratic reform throughout the greater Middle East.

Now, to support democratic aspirations, we must be serious about the universal appeal of certain basic rights. When given a truly free choice, human beings will choose liberty over oppression; the right to own property over random search and seizure. Human beings will choose the natural right to life over the constant fear of death. And human beings will choose to be ruled by the consent of the governed, not by the coercion of the state; by the rule of law, not the whim of rulers. These principles should be the source of justice in every society and the basis for peace between all states.

To support democratic aspirations, we must also promote democratic institutions that function transparently and accountably. We must help all young democracies to protect minority rights, to enforce the rule of law, and to build the foundations of good governance, from a thriving economy and a vibrant civil society, to a free media and opportunities for learning and for health for their people.

To support the democratic aspirations, we must recognize that liberty still faces opponents in our world. Some will never support the free choices of their citizens because they stand to lose arbitrary powers and unjust privileges. Others know that the ideology of hatred they espouse can only thrive in a political culture of oppression and poverty and hopelessness. In a world where evil is still very real, democratic principles must be backed with power in all its forms: political, and economic, and cultural, and moral, and yes, sometimes, military. Any champion of democracy who promotes principle without power can make no real difference in the lives of oppressed people.

There are those who falsely characterize the support of democracy as "exporting" democracy, as if democracy were somehow a product that only America manufactures. These critics say that we are arrogantly imposing our principles on an unwilling people. But it is the very height of arrogance to believe that political liberty and democratic aspirations and freedom of speech and rights for women somehow belong only to us. All people deserve these rights and they choose them freely. It is not liberty and democracy that must be imposed. It is tyranny and silence that are forced upon people at gunpoint.

We know that the march of democracy is not easy. We know that coming to terms with the provision of these rights takes time. We know because of our own history in which imperfect people put together institutions that allowed us to strive everyday toward a more perfect union. But of course, in our 250 years, we are still striving and as we look at others who are still striving, we owe them our respect and our confidence that they, too, can achieve their aspirations.

For years, the entire world talked about ending the Taliban’s tyranny in Afghanistan. But it was finally the United States, leading a coalition of willing nations and brave Afghans that finally put an end to that regime’s persecution of its people. Although many challenges remain, Afghanistan has amazed the world with its rapid progress toward democracy even as many people begin to take it for granted.

For years, the entire world also talked about ending Syria’s occupation of Lebanon. But it was the United States and France, leading a broad international coalition, with a UN Security Council mandate that together with Lebanese patriots finally achieved the withdrawal of Syrian forces after the brutal murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Since then, the Lebanese people have held their first free elections in decades. And we are now supporting them in the hard work of democratic reform that will continue long into the future.

For years, the entire world sought to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, while overlooking the corrupt nature and terrorist links of Yasser Arafat’s rule. But President Bush refused to deal with Arafat and encouraged the Palestinian people to undertake the democratic reforms they so justly deserved. Since Arafat’s death, the Palestinian people have elected a president who calls for peace with Israel and recognizes the need to fight terrorism. Now, if both Palestinians and Israelis meet their obligations, there is a true opportunity for a lasting peace.

For years, the topic of reform was not even a part of our dialogue with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But President Bush insisted on having these difficult discussions with our two oldest friends, in private and in public. Both countries are now taking steps to greater political openness. Saudi Arabia held imperfect municipal elections earlier this year because women did not vote. But they have promised that they will vote in the future. Egypt held flawed but landmark presidential election this summer in which there was, at least, vigorous debate of the options before Egyptians. And they will turn to parliamentary elections next year. Democracy, however, is more than a matter of holding elections. And we therefore expect both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to begin reforming the political institutions that are the key to lasting success for any democracy.

And of course, for many years, the entire world talked about ending the tyranny in Baathists Iraq. Despite 17 Security Council resolutions demanding that Saddam Hussein stop oppressing his people, refrain from threatening his neighbors and cease the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, he remained in power. The United States and a large coalition of nations finally removed Saddam Hussein. By any moral standards, the liberation of the Iraqi people was long overdue.

Now, it was only two and a half years ago that Saddam Hussein was still in control of Iraq. He was torturing his political opponents and he was plundering the Oil-for-Food program and using the money to corrupt individuals and institutions worldwide, while Iraqi children died of malnutrition and lack of medicine. He was forcing male dissenters to witness the rape of their wives and daughters. And he was shoveling the stale dirt of mass graves onto the latest of his 300,000 innocent victims. A monster like Saddam Hussein could not be a part of anyone's vision for a better Middle East.

Now, Saddam Hussein is gone and the Iraqi people have a more hopeful future. To be sure, Iraqis still face a long, hard path to that hopeful future. Historical changes of the scope and magnitude of this one are bound to be difficult. And this is a country that rests on the major fault lines of religion and ethnicity in the Middle East. It was held together for most of its history through coercion and repression. Now, despite having known little but tyranny, the Iraqi people are trying to govern themselves through politics, not violence; through compromise, not conflict. Millions of Iraqis risked their lives to vote last January. And their free representatives have drafted a constitution that enshrines the principles of democracy and the equality of all Iraqis before the law.

The United Nations having increased its presence in Iraq tenfold in just the past year is helping to organize its constitutional referendum as well as the elections that will follow at the end of the year. In both of these important votes, American and coalition soldiers will join Iraq's security forces to defend the Iraqi people's freedom of choice, whatever course of action they favor.

There is a path to success and Iraqis are progressing along it. But they must themselves maintain their commitment to the democratic political process and to a life of cooperation and compromise rather than violence. We must help them to fully develop their own security forces and they must build institutions that sustain accountability and provides public services. For their part, Iraq's neighbors must provide greater financial support and stronger diplomatic support. And the international community must continue to stand firmly at Iraq's side.

Now, clearly, the path is made more difficult by the brutal insurgency that Iraqis face. Iraq's security forces are fighting its enemies vigorously, coalition forces are helping and America's men and women in uniform are performing heroically. Nearly 2,000 American servicemen and women have given their lives to this mission. And our nation will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

So let us be very clear about exactly who they and we are fighting. Some of the insurgency is fueled by the same thugs and henchman who enforced Saddam Hussein’s tyranny for decades. They fight now to regain the unjust privileges they once had. There are many others, however, foreign terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who seek to ignite the very civil war that ordinary Iraqis are trying so hard to prevent.

These terrorists target Iraqi children receiving candy from American soldiers. They line up schoolteachers and execute them in their classrooms. They murder hospital workers caring for the wounded. And they massacre innocent Muslims who want to serve as policemen and soldiers and government officials in the new Iraq. This is not some grassroots coalition of national resistance. These are merciless killers who want to provoke nothing less than a full-scale civil war among Muslims across the entire Middle East. And having done so, they would build an empire of terror and oppression.

The choice we face in Iraq is, thus, stark. If we quit now, we will abandon Iraq’s democrats at their time of greatest need. We will embolden every enemy of liberty and democracy across the Middle East. We will destroy any chance that the people of this region have of building a future of hope and opportunity. And we will make America more vulnerable. If we abandon future generations in the Middle East to despair and terror, we also condemn future generations in the United States to insecurity and fear.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We have set out to help the people of the Middle East transform their societies. Now is not the time to falter or fade.

Only four years ago, the democrats of the Arab world were hiding in silence or languishing in prison or fearing for their very lives. Now, from Cairo and Ramallah, to Beirut and Baghdad, men and women are finding new spaces of freedom to assemble and debate and build a better world for themselves and their children. They most certainly have determined enemies. But they also have determined defenders. And it is possible to envision a future Middle East where democracy is thriving, where human rights are secure, and where hope and opportunity are within the reach of these people.

I know that this vision can seem very distant at times, especially when we see so many tragic images of death, of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, and of course, Americans dying overseas. There are legitimate differences about the war we are now fighting in Iraq and in a great democracy like ours, everyone has the right to express those views freely.

But I hope that we can all step back and look at other extraordinary times and though they are not perfectly parallel, they can help us to gain a perspective on the challenges we face.

In 1989, I was lucky enough to be the White House Soviet specialist at the end of the Cold War. It doesn't get any better than that. I was there for the liberation of Eastern Europe; the unification of Germany; and for the beginnings of the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union itself. I saw things that I never thought possible. And one day, they seemed impossible; and several days later, they seemed inevitable. That is the nature of extraordinary times.

But as I look back now on those times, I realized that I was only harvesting the good decisions that had been taken in 1947, in 1948, and in 1949. And sometimes, I wonder how in the course of events, the course of the moment, people like Acheson and Truman and Marshall and Vandenberg saw a path ahead. After all, in 1946, the Germany Reconstruction was still failing and Germans were still starving. Japan lay prostrate. In 1947, there was a civil war in Greece. In 1948, Germany was permanently divided by the Berlin Crisis; Czechoslovakia was lost to a communist coup. And in 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule; and the Chinese communists won their war. In 1950, a brutal war broke on the Korean Peninsula.

These were not just tactical setbacks for the forward march of democracy. Indeed, it must have seemed quite impossible, that we would one day, stand at a juncture where Eastern Europe would be liberated, Russia would emerge, and Europe would be whole and free and at peace. If we think back on those days, we recognize that extraordinary times are turbulent and they are hard. And it is very often hard to see a clear path. But if you are -- as those great architects of the post-Cold War victory were -- if you are true to your values, if you are certain of your values, and if you act upon them with confidence and with strength, it is possible to have an outcome where democracy spreads and peace and liberty reign.

Because of the work that they did, it is hard to imagine war in Europe again. So it shall be also for the Middle East.


Secretary Condoleezza Rice at Princeton University's Celebration of the 75th Anniversary Of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, New Jersey, USA on 30 September 2005. Original text here.

Dr Rice interviewed by Andrea Mitchell of NBC

Ms Mitchell: There are indications now that the Administration may be shifting its position on Iran. Senator Biden told us yesterday that he is hearing from the White House that the Administration is prepared to work with the Europeans, and perhaps provide incentives to Iran to reinforce the European strategy. Is there a shift here, or is there an intention to give Iran some incentive to cooperate?

Dr Rice: Well since the President’s visit to Europe last week, he has been, with his national security principals, examining how we might best support the European negotiations that are underway. He had discussions when he was here with his colleagues. We talked about a common purpose and a common front with Iran, that Iran would get a common message. But no decisions have been made about how that might be done, but he’s definitely talking with people about what we might be able to do to support the Europeans. We’ve said we support the diplomacy, that this issue can be resolved diplomatically if there is a common front and that is what the President is looking at.

While we understand that no decisions have been made, what about giving WTO (World Trade Organization) membership to Iran? Might that be the kind of incentive that would motivate them in the right direction?

Well there have been a number of possibilities on the table in order to support the European negotiations. The most important thing though is that the Iranians need time to understand that they are the ones that need to perform. This is not really an issue of what the United States does, or what Europe does. The Europeans have given the Iranians a path to a different kind of relationship with the international community, in which they establish confidence that they are not trying to build a nuclear weapon under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. So, the real issue is what are the Iranians prepared to do. But, of course, the United States wants very much to support what the Europeans are doing.

How could the United States support what the Europeans are doing?

Well we are looking at that. We’ve given a lot of verbal support to it, a lot of political support. I think simply saying to the Iranians that there is currently no other course for them but to take the chance, the opportunity, that the Europeans are giving them to come into line with their international obligations.

But are there some carrots there? Could you give some examples without decisions having been made?

Well, I don’t want to get into speculating on this. We are talking to our European colleagues. There has been plenty of speculation about the kinds of things that might be possible.

Airplane parts, WTA’s …?

Plenty of speculation about what might be possible. But the most important element here is that the President came to Europe, he listened to his European colleagues. He’s gone home now, I’ve had further discussions with my European colleagues, and we are designing, I think, an important common strategy with Europe so that Iran knows that there is no other way.

On Syria, you have suggested that the Syrians had advance knowledge of the planning of the attack on Tel Aviv. Can you tell us how firm the evidence is?

Let me be very specific. The issue is that Palestinian Islamic Jihad, operating in Syria, had advance knowledge of the attacks in Tel Aviv. I think none of us know the extent of Syrian involvement, and we want to be very careful not to get outside the limits of the information that we have. But one has to say, that this is a direct result of Syria allowing these kinds of groups to operate on its territory. Many times in the past, when former Secretary Powell went to Syria, when Assistant Secretary Burns went to Syria, when Rich Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State, went to Syria, always said to the Syrians, close down these terrorist organizations, these rejectionist organizations that are operating on your territory.

But you seem to be taking a step back, though, from saying that Syria itself had advance knowledge and involvement in planning?

I believe that what we’ve said is that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, operating in Syria, had advance knowledge, indeed probably engaged in the planning, of the attacks in Tel Aviv. We will see, I don’t think that we know the degree of Syrian complicity. I will note that Syria is a pretty controlled society and this is one reason that saying to the Syrians, don’t allow these groups to operate on your territory. And by the way, it’s not just Palestinian rejectionist groups, its insurgent groups that are causing havoc in Iraq, causing the death of innocent civilians as they did perhaps today. This is the kind of activity that is taking place on Syrian territory. The Syrians either need to get control of that activity, expel these organizations, close down their operations, close down their offices, or the Syrians are going to continue to have to answer for what’s going in their territory.

What more can be done to Syria, they are already under sanction?

The Syrians are beginning to get a very unified message from the international community that this kind of behavior is not tolerable.

But at the same time as you say the message is unified and the pressure certainly has been escalated verbally in the last few days, General John Abizaid was testifying to the Senate Arms Services Committee that the Syrians have tried to be more helpful against the insurgency along the border. Isn’t that a mixed message?

Well perhaps the Syrians are starting to get the message. But they need to do more than just be helpful along the border.

And also in the capture of Saddam Hussein’s half brother?

Well, I can’t go into that issue. But I can say, that what we need from the Syrians is maximum effort, not a little bit here and a little bit there. Not help a little bit here and hold back a little bit there. The Syrians now need to make a maximum effort. They need to make a maximum effort on the Iraqi insurgency, they need to make a maximum effort to get these Palestinian rejectionists groups out of their territory and they need to make a maximum effort to conform with the requirements of Resolution 1559, which requires the withdrawal from Lebanon.

If they were to withdraw from Lebanon, couldn’t that create a power vacuum which would then be filled immediately by Syrian intelligence services, Hezbollah and other terror groups?

Well, the point is that the Syrians need to get their intelligence services out of Lebanon too. Because, you rightly point out, that it is not just Syrian military forces but Syrian intelligence services that operate in Lebanon. But a lot has happened since 1983 in Lebanon and the horrible events there. The international community has called for the Syrian withdrawal. I believe, and am certain, that the international community will want to discuss what can be done to help the Lebanese in any transition.

What could be done? Do you think that the UN force that is already on the ground there could be redeployed, expanded? What security could you provide -- the international community provide -- so that we don’t have more chaos in Lebanon after a Syrian withdrawal?

It is important not to get ahead of ourselves. The first is to make certain that the Syrians are serious about conforming with 1559. We should have discussions about what the Lebanese want and what the Lebanese will need. But the first focus has to be to get free and fair elections, that are carried out without foreign interference, and we have the opportunity to do that over the next several months.

We have very good international cooperation on this matter, and not only did I have the opportunity to talk with my French counterpart, cosponsor of 1559, but also with the Secretary General Annan and with other colleagues here. There is a lot of interest in trying to help a democratic Lebanon be born.

Read on. (NBC. 2 March 2005)

Dr Rice interviewed by Arab Journalists

Question: I would like to ask you about your views of the political reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. You have come to visit the region this week. The G-8-Arab League meeting was canceled as well. How do you view the reforms there and are you willing to back your demands for these reforms by action? Will cutting down the aid will be an option, or what?

Dr Rice: Let me start by saying that there was to be a G-8 meeting, G-8-Arab League meeting, and when that meeting was postponed I thought it better to postpone my trip at this point, and then I'll go back to the region when I can have an opportunity to do a variety of things. And I look forward to that and I hope that will be fairly soon.

As to the specific circumstances in Egypt, I do think that the move by President Mubarak is a positive one. It begins to change the conditions of the Egyptian political circumstances. It begins to give to people a sense that they can start to compete in politics, which is ultimately one of the most important elements of a road to democracy. And we welcome that. There obviously will have to be follow-on steps, but I'm sure that the Egyptian people will begin to take advantage of the changed circumstances.

I think this is a time when we are -- the President is challenging friends to do their best to begin to enshrine democratic principles and to allow democracy to flourish. The President in his speech called on Egypt, which really has led the way to peace, to also lead the way to democracy in the Middle East. And I hope that there will be more of this. Conditions are not such that right now I would go to Egypt because we have a variety of things that we're dealing with and I want to make sure that we have the chance to deal with them all when I get there. For instance, I will see Egyptian counterparts here on the Palestinian-Israeli issues. I would expect at some point to go to Egypt to talk about that but it's unnecessary, meeting here -- since we're meeting here.

Also we will be working, I'm sure, on the security aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli problem and I look forward to getting General Ward out to the region again to do that.

So we have a broad and important agenda with Egypt, including reform, and I look forward to continuing it.

There was like three demonstrations in Cairo last week basically calling for President Mubarak not to run for at least -- the opposition think that it's impossible to have a fair election with the Emergency Law in place and political prisoners still there, including Ayman Nour, who you asked for his release. Do you have a position in that?

Well, we certainly don't have a position about who should run or not run in the Egyptian election. But I do think that the opening up of the political system, the ability for others to compete, the ability for others to access media, for instance, so that they can compete -- Egypt is a big country, people need to be able, through the media, to get to know a variety of candidates–. Those are all important elements of a developing open political system, and I think that's what we would encourage. It's really not the business of the United States to determine who runs in an election.

Concerning democracy, are you still running your Middle East -- big Middle East project or --

Oh, the Broader Middle East project?

Yes.

Yes, absolutely.

You changed the name or --

No, no. The name has not been changed: Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative. But the name is not important. What is important is that you have a number of countries that have themselves gone through already a democratic change, some of them a long time ago like the United States, or even longer ago Great Britain, and some who are really new to the democratic enterprise who are gathered together to try and give support to the beginnings of a more open and democratic process in the Middle East.

The basis for this is the President's very strong belief that there is no place in the world in which the universal values of liberty and freedom should be excluded. No place in the world. For too long the West, and indeed the United States, assumed that it could turn a blind eye to what the Arab intellectuals called the freedom deficit in the Middle East and that that would be all right. We did that for almost 60 years. And we were doing it in the name of stability, but of course we got neither stability nor democratic change; and instead, it is our belief that we instead got a kind of malignancy underneath which produced al-Qaida and the extremist philosophies and that the only way to fight those extremist ideologies is to spread freedom.

And it is not -- and I want to emphasize -- it is not for the United States or Europe to spread freedom, to determine the course of freedom. It is for those countries to speak out for those values, to encourage the development of democracy in the Middle East, to engage the heroes of democracy who are emerging in the Middle East and to help give voice to them. But every single democratic development, every single democratic revolution, if you will, will have an indigenous character.

Do you consider Ayman Nour as a hero of democracy?

Well, there are people who have certainly suffered for their views, who have refused to remain silent, and that is the way that democratic development begins. And I think it's clear that we've been concerned about that case. We've raised it with the Egyptian Government. We hope it will be resolved soon.

I would like to ask about Syria, actually. Yesterday the President Assad, Bashir al-Assad of Syria, said that America is aiming at, hitting at Syria. And now Syria is under extreme pressure. And the feeling there, maybe, in the Arab world is that, you know, United States taking the Arab Muslim countries one after another. Yesterday it was Iraq, today it is Syria. To what extent this pressure might lead to such a scenario, especially the scenario now is exactly the scenario that was before the Iraq war?

Iraq was a special circumstance. We had been through a war with Iraq in 1991. This was, after all, a regime that had used weapons of mass destruction on its own people and on its neighbors. We had had 17 resolutions calling on Saddam Hussein to disarm. He defied one more time the international community, defied a unanimous resolution, Resolution 1441. Iraq is a special circumstance.

But it is important that Syria respond to the just demands of the international community. There is a United Nations Security Council Resolution -- 1559 -- that calls on the Syrians to withdraw their forces from Lebanon, that calls on the Syrians not to be involved in trying to interfere in the Lebanese elections that will come up. It is a very important resolution. And you'll notice that it's not just the United States that has backed that resolution; it was introduced by France and the United States.

The Syrians also need to be responsive on questions of their support for -- their support or the support of their territory -- for insurgents who are fighting in Iraq to deny the Iraqi people a better future. Let's be very clear about what the insurgents are doing. Yes, we are concerned about the American and other coalition soldiers who are in danger, but the insurgents yesterday killed more than a hundred innocent Iraqis because they are determined that they are going to take Iraq back to the days when Saddam Hussein raped and murdered and tortured people. That's what the insurgency -- and if Syria wishes to support an insurgency against the Iraqi people, it needs to be exposed as a problem. And so the Syrians need to respond to that and the Syrians need to stop supporting terrorism of the kind that is attempting to deny to the Palestinian people a better future with a two-state solution in a Palestinian territory so that you can have Israel and Palestine living side by side.

So the Syrians shouldn't try to change the subject here. This is about what Syria is doing to destabilize the Middle East, to deny the Lebanese people, the Iraqi people and the Palestinian people a better future. And they cannot change the subject and say this is about the United States and Syria; this is about what Syria is doing in the region.

Do I conclude for a fact that Syria is not under a direct threat from the United States? Because it's doing now its best to please at least the Americans; it's ready to withdraw from Lebanon and now Jihad offices are closed in Damascus and they're trying to do its best to please. Is that enough for you?

The Syrians know what they need to do and we have spent the last four years listening to Syrian promises about what they were prepared to do. They were prepared to close this office or they were prepared to stop this set of terrorists. And it is always not -- it's always the minimum that Syria can do, not the maximum that Syria can do.

Syria has to make a strategic choice and that strategic choice is: Is it going to continue to be a destabilizing and negative factor in a Middle East that is changing very rapidly and where people in the Middle East are beginning to assert their right to a more democratic and prosperous life? And Syria needs to stop being a barrier to that.

But when you were asked about Iran, at least (inaudible) about Iran, you said that anybody who assumes that Iran will be attacked by the U.S. or by Israel, it is a silly assumption. Here --

Let me not para --

And I see strong words, stronger than your situation regarding Iraq.

No, let me -- the President of the United States always retains his options. Now, what the President said was that the diplomatic track with Iran has plenty of time. He believes that the diplomatic track can succeed, particularly because when we were here just a few days ago, when we were in Europe a few days ago, the President had very good discussions with his European counterparts that suggested that there is a united front that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And we are supportive of what the Europeans are trying to do to get Iran to live up to its international obligations.

As to Syria, Syria has before it demands from the international system. It ought to comply. So I just would emphasize again that this is not a matter of the United States and Syria; this is a matter of the international community calling on the Syrians to get out of the way of people who want to have a better life.

And you would note that the Iraqi Government has said that the Syrians are supporting insurgency and you would note -- you should note that the Lebanese in the streets are concerned about Syrian interference, and so on and so on. So this is not the United States and Syria; this is Syria against people who are -- people in the Middle East -- who are trying to have a better life.

How high is Syria figuring in your policy and is the regime change part of your strategy?

Well, Syria figures in the policy because Syria is an impediment to change in the Middle East and it's increasingly being exposed as an impediment to change in the Middle East.

The Syrian regime is out of step with what is going on in the rest of the region. We were talking about some potential openings in Egypt. There have been some potential -- admittedly modest -- but changes in Saudi Arabia. Regimes need to change in accordance with a Middle East that is changing very rapidly.

You talked about Iran. Now, how far are you prepared to go to stop the Iranians obtaining nuclear weapons?

The first and most important condition is that the international community be united about what it's demanding of Iran, and there I think we have unity of purpose and unity of message that the Iranians should not use the cover of civilian nuclear programs to build a nuclear weapon.

The Europeans have engaged on a set of negotiations, set of discussions, with the Iranians that give them an opportunity to show that they are prepared to live up to their international obligations. They ought to take the opportunity that the Europeans are giving them.

The United States has made no secret of the fact that we believe that the international community also has the possibility of taking Iran to the Security Council and that is a possibility that remains on the table.

Are you adopting a more European approach with regards to Iran now?

Well, we've been in constant discussions with the Iranian -- I'm sorry, with the Europeans about their Iran policy and the efforts that they're making. It's been very close contact. The President had extensive discussions with the European leaders when he was here and I'm going to continue those discussions with my counterparts while I'm here.

But we've said all along that if the Europeans can convince the Iranians to verifiably cease their enrichment activities so that the world can be sure that they are not trying to build a nuclear weapon under cover of civilian nuclear power, then we would be supportive of that.

I want to stick to the issue of democracy because I believe this is a really growing issue for the region now. Everybody there is talking about it. I want to ask you about Saudi Arabia. Give me what you’d like for answer. The next days is seen to be less clear the Saudi people, will have what in their future, than it is with the Lebanese people, with the Iraqi people, with other people in the Middle East and the same may go to Egypt as well. There is no election, proper elections, in Saudi Arabia. I was looking at the United States Department of State report of human rights was issued yesterday critically looked at human rights situation there. You are not seen to be doing anything about it.

Well, we are certainly -- first of all, the President of the United States has put this on the agenda. And let's step back for a moment. We are talking about something that really began less than two years ago. And you're seeing very, very rapid change in this region. And it does show what can happen when the President of the United States and others who have been fortunate enough to enjoy freedom and liberty begin to really speak out for it and to declare that it is no longer acceptable to deny it to people. So the first thing I would encourage is that we just step back and look at how far we've come. Elections in Afghanistan. Elections in Iraq. Elections in the Palestinian territories. Now the events in Lebanon and the move by the Egyptian President.

In that context, it is true that the Saudi municipal elections are a modest step, but they are at least a step and the goal will be to encourage those steps to develop, to become larger over time. This is not going to move at the same speed everywhere. Traditions and history and circumstances are going to be different. But when the President said that we expect a lot of our friends, he meant all of our friends, not just some of our friends. And those are discussions that I think we can have with governments with whom we have good relations and long historic relations.

So I will say that the Saudis are doing some things, for instance, in the war on terrorism that they were not doing before, which is recognizing, for instance, the role of al-Qaida inside the Kingdom and going after that. That, too, opens up opportunities.

So I understand fully the impatience of people who have been denied because in every historic circumstance it has to be driven forward by impatient people, and that's a good thing. But if we stand back and look at where we are in history, this has been a remarkable two months and within the scope of about -- a remarkable 18 months, let's say.

But would you rule out sanctions to push forward reforms in the region generally, particularly, I mean, in Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Well, part of the goal of moving with history is to know when trends are starting to develop that way and how we encourage them. And sanctions are not always the best way to encourage positive trends. If you engage negative trends, that's a different matter. You know, we've had sanctions on Iran. We imposed some limited sanctions on Syria. But when you see that there are openings and governments that are starting to recognize that there is a need for chance, you need first to look for ways to encourage that, and I think we will be looking for ways to encourage it.

And going back to the Broader Middle East project, the Forum for the Future I would hope would gain new energy because civil society in these countries will lead these changes, not the United States, not Great Britain, not France, but civil society in these countries. And what the Forum for the Future does is to give civil society groups in those countries an opportunity to engage civil society outside of those countries. And so I think you will see us trying to energize more the Forum for the Future. This will not all come from what governments decide to do. Civil society will be a very important part of this.

If you please, I would like to go back to Syria.

Yes.

And I have two questions. First is if we don't work really by changing regime (inaudible), so why you don't a balanced, more balanced, political proposal with Syria, for example, allowing Israel and Syria to go back to the negotiation? Second question. To which extent you can go support the Lebanese position because now I think we have a big fight opposite. Are you really change your political attitude towards Lebanon?

Well, the internal developments in Lebanon will, of course, be up to the Lebanese. The United States is not going to try to choose governments for the Lebanese. That's for the Lebanese people to do.

What we and France and others will try to do is to create conditions in which they can make those choices by bringing pressure to bear on Syria to withdraw its forces and to cease its pressure on those governments to -- on the Lebanese Government to do -- to act in a particular way. And when I say Syrian forces, I mean Syrian military forces and Syrian security forces.

So that is the way in which we can help the Lebanese people. Obviously, there is the matter of perhaps helping with the election monitoring, trying to help create conditions in which the elections will really be free and fair. Those are the types of things that the international community can do. The international community cannot choose the government, but it can help create conditions in which those choices are free choices.

As to the Syrians, the Syrians need to stop making excuses and stop trying to place conditions on what the world is seeing and what the world is telling them to do. I just want to repeat that what is now being exposed is that Syria is an impediment and has chosen to be a barrier to change in the Middle East that is now being demanded by the people of the Middle East.

That means when Syria supports terrorists who undermine Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority as they are trying to create a decent government and to negotiate a peace with the Israelis, the Syrians don't undermine just Israel, they undermine the Palestinians. When the Syrians have their forces, security forces and their military forces, in Lebanon, we have now seen Lebanese opposition in the streets saying that Syria is the problem. When the Syrians allow their territory to be used for Iraqi insurgents, it is the Iraqi people who are undermined by Syria.

So it's now time to call this as the world sees it. It is not Syria sitting out here somehow being pressured by the international community because Syria is just sitting there. The pressure is coming because Syria is engaged in policies that are very destructive to a Middle East that is finally beginning to make some progress.

The situation in Iraq. Did the elections produce a more complex result than you anticipated?

Well, democracy is always complex and it certainly produced -- well, there's two things. First of all, it produced a very clear signal from the Iraqi people that they see their future in a democratic political process and that they want to engage that democratic process despite the dangers and despite the insurgent and terrorist threats against them. That's the first thing that it produced.

Secondly, it produced normal politics. The Iraqis are now trying to develop an interim government, a transitional government that balances the interests of all of the different parties in Iraq, that is representative and respectful of all of the different parties in Iraq. We need to remember, again, it's a matter of time frame. We need to remember that many of these divisions were exploited by Saddam Hussein. When you look at the oppression of the Shia, 60 percent of the country just brutally repressed, it is quite remarkable to see the Shia, when given their freedoms, saying, no, this has to be an Iraq for all people. They are not talking now about trying to repress the others. They are talking about building an Iraq for all people.

So this is a hopeful process but it's going to be complicated. It's going to be complex. It's going to be difficult. And we need -- those of us who are watching it -- and if I may say so, especially people who have to write a story every day on a deadline -- we have to watch a tendency to be up and down every day because the politics will be up and down. I can guarantee you that there will be times when it seems they will never come to a solution. There will be times as they write the constitution when somebody will walk out. In the United States we almost lost the Rhode Island delegation one time and the New York delegation the other time during the writing of our Constitution in 1789. So that's normal politics and it is exciting to see normal politics taking place in Iraq after many decades of the brutality of Saddam Hussein. I think it's tremendous testament to the Iraqi people that they are capable of engaging each other in this way.

About London Conference, what do you expect from it?

From the London conference I would expect, and I think we all expect -- first of all, let me just say we appreciate Prime Minister Blair doing this. I think it's an important signal.

The Palestinian people have a substantial road ahead of them, a difficult road ahead of them, in reforming their political institutions, reforming their economy, in reforming their security services, and I see this conference as an opportunity for the international community to say we support reform and we will be there financially, in terms of technical assistance, in terms of political support, to help those reforms.

Read on. (London, United Kingdom. 1 March 2005)

Dr Rice interviewed by Jonathan Karl of ABC News

Mr Karl: It's been an incredible few days in Lebanon. They've had thousands of people in the streets, the resignation of the government, the suggestion Syria may withdraw. Are we seeing the beginning of a democratic revolution in Lebanon?

Dr Rice: Well, if we just step back a little bit, it's been an incredible couple of months in the Middle East with the Iraqi elections, Palestinian elections, and now events in Lebanon. And it certainly should be the beginning of a true democracy in Lebanon because the Syrians should live up to the obligations under 1559 to withdraw their military forces, their security forces, and allow the Lebanese people to have a process that is not contaminated by foreign influence.

President Assad just gave an interview where he said he would love to withdraw from Lebanon and it's very costly to Syria. He's worried about security, though. He wants peace with Israel first. What about an interim step? Would the U.S. tolerate Syria withdrawing, say, to the Bekaa Valley?

The call in 1559 is for a Syria withdrawal. We also need to focus on the elections and giving the Lebanese people an opportunity to have free and fair elections in which there is not a presence -- a dominating foreign presence -- which clearly would have a way of changing the nature of those elections. And I do not think that President Assad is in any position to start setting conditions for meeting the requirements of 1559.

Is there any evidence that the U.S. or anybody else has that Syria was involved in any way in the assassination of Hariri?

We do not know the facts surrounding the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri. That is why there needs to be an investigation, an international investigation in which people can have confidence. It is why we've called upon the Lebanese Government to completely cooperate with that investigation. And we will see. But there is no doubt that in setting certain conditions in Lebanon, the Syrian presence there has contributed to a destabilized environment in which that type of thing can happen.

Well, Syria says they're worried about civil war, Assad says, if the Syrian troops withdraw. Would you consider an international peacekeeping force to move in once the Syrians have moved out?

Well, it's important not to get ahead of ourselves. Resolution 1559 calls on the Syrians to withdraw. They should do that. We should have free and fair elections; and I'm quite certain that if the Lebanese people wish to have it, they can have international assistance with those elections so that those elections can meet international standards.

A lot has happened in Lebanon in the last two or three days; and what the Lebanese people should know is that the international community stands with them in their desire and aspirations for free and fair elections that can lead to Lebanon being governed by the Lebanese.

Now, you have also raised repeatedly the issue of Syrian support for terrorism. The Israelis are concerned about that. Would the United States tolerate an Israeli attack on Syria, a unilateral attack?

What we need is for Syria to take its obligations not to support it. We're starting to see a picture of a Syria that really is a block -- a blockage to a different kind of Middle East. When you think about it, you have the territory of Syria being used to support an insurgency in Iraq, for Iraq, that is clearly standing in the way of a better life for the Iraqi people who voted overwhelmingly for that better life. When you think about what Syria is doing in Lebanon, you have Lebanese in the streets telling the Syrians to go home so that Lebanon can control its own future.

And in the Palestinian territories where today, here in London, we have had a major conference to generate support for the Palestinian Authority, you have Syria continuing to support Palestinian rejectionist groups. There is evidence that the Palestinian Islamic Jihad headquartered in Syria was, in fact, involved with the planning of those attacks in Tel Aviv.

And so the Syrians have a lot to answer for. We don't know the degree of Syrian involvement; but certainly, what is happening on the territory of Syria, in and around Damascus, is clearly threatening to the different kind of Middle East that we're trying to build.

So what is the evidence?

Well, there is firm evidence that Palestinian Islamic Jihad, sitting in Damascus, not only knew about these attacks but was involved in the planning. And we will be prepared to talk with others, with the Israelis, with the Palestinians, with others in the region about this. Again, no one knows the extent of Syria's involvement; but when you have this sort of thing happening on the territory of Syria, Syria needs to be more accountable and more active in fighting Palestinian rejectionists if, indeed, they want to support the peace process, as they say they do.

So back to my question then. Would the U.S. tolerate a unilateral Israeli strike on Syria?

I don't think that's a question that we should even consider. At this point, there is a lot of pressure on Syria to live up to its obligations under 1559 concerning Lebanon, to be active in confronting the Iraqi insurgents who are operating out of Syria and to be active in closing down the activities of Palestinian rejectionist groups that are operating in Syria.

So would you caution the Israelis not to do such a thing?

I'm not going to get into this. The Israelis have made their concerns known about what the Syrians are doing. We have made our concerns known about what the Syrians are doing. Indeed, the international community needs to be concerned about what the Syrians are doing. The Syrians know what they need to do.

President Assad said that he contacted the State Department, he contacted the Pentagon, he asked for assistance in controlling the Iraqi-Syrian border, and he says he has still not had a response. That was back in October. He wanted some night-vision goggles. He wanted to work with the United States on controlling the border. That's what he says. Is that right?

Well, President Assad has the capability to deal with insurgents who are using Syrian territory to plot and plan and perhaps even support more actively insurgents operating in Iraq. Syria is a very controlled state; and I'm quite certain that if the Syrians wish to get more serious about dealing with the insurgents that there is plenty of opportunity for them to talk with those who are responsible and, for us perhaps more importantly, with Iraqi authorities who are trying to control that border. Prime Minister Allawi went to Syria to talk to them about it. I'm quite certain if the Syrians really want to be active in dealing with the insurgency that people will be prepared to talk about it.

You mentioned the rumblings of democracy that we're hearing and seeing throughout the Middle East. Has Iraq been the catalyst that some thought it would be, some argued it would be before the war? Is it really -- has Iraq helped to kind of create this ripple effect?

I can't help but think of the image of 8-plus million Iraqis in the heart of the Arab world going to exercise their democratic franchise, Iraqis voting in Iraq for a free election, for an Interim Iraqi Government; for that matter, Afghans voting in Iraq, and Iraqis voting in Syria for an Iraqi government. I do think it's having an effect, because people are looking and they're saying, "Why not us? Why should it be the case that Iraqis have the chance to exercise their voice, a voice that contributes to a feeling of human dignity, of pride in one's individual rights? Why shouldn't that be the franchise of the people of the Middle East?" Yes, I think it's having an effect.

Don't you have to be careful what you wish for though in countries like Saudi Arabia and even Egypt? If you had full democratic elections tomorrow, you could end up with governments that are more radically Islamic and more anti-American than you have now.

Jonathan, I have always heard dire predictions about what would happen if you let people choose their future; and it's very rare that those dire predictions actually come to fruition. Very often it's said, well, these people are not ready because they're extremists, or these people are not ready because they can't govern themselves.

And if we've learned anything, it's that the practice of democracy, in fact, has a sobering effect on people. If you look at the Iraqis, where Saddam Hussein exploited differences between Shia and Sunnis and Kurds and others for decades, and what are you seeing from the Shia who were oppressed horribly over decades? You're seeing a reaching out to Sunnis and Kurds as a part of the democratic process.

I think democracy has a very sobering effect on people and it has an effect of bringing people together around their differences. That doesn't mean that there aren't difficult times ahead for all of these fledgling attempts at democracy. But it does mean that having some faith in values that have worked to bring human dignity and pride to so many parts of the world is something that America also should be willing to stand for.

Read on. (ABC News. 1 March 2005)

Dr Rice interviewed by Trevor McDonald of ITV

Mr McDonald: Secretary of State, doesn't the latest suicide attack in Israel show that despite all the outward signs, that a genuine settlement in the Middle East might still be a very long way off?

Dr Rice: We're certainly in a period of hope and opportunity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but of course, it is going to be a process that will have its ups and downs. Had this been easy, we would have resolved it many, many years ago.

But the important step here was that we saw from the Palestinian leadership is a clear statement about the effect of terrorism on the aspirations of the Palestinian people that are heartening and give some hope that the Palestinians can reform their security services, that they can be a good partner for Israel in terms of dealing with terrorism. But the Palestinian leadership will have to deal with the terrorists. It cannot ignore this.

Yes, the Israelis call on the Palestinians to round up the militants and put them behind bars. Can Mahmoud Abbas actually deliver on that? Can he do that?

Well, there are certainly some things that the Palestinians can do. They can arrest people who are engaged in this. They can begin to dismantle some of the infrastructure of terrorism: bomb-making factories, tunnels, and the like. And there is, I believe, a will on the part of the Palestinian Authority this time to create better conditions on the security front.

Now, there is still hard work to do in making the Palestinian security forces capable and making them part of the solution, not part of the problem. And we in the United States and others are prepared to help the Palestinians in that regard, but I do believe that this is something the Palestinian leadership wants to do.

But he is caught, Abbas is caught, in this both delicate and potentially dangerous position. He must listen to the Israeli calls to try to round up these people; at the same time, he must produce tangible evidence to his own people that Israel is prepared to make genuine concessions of peace.

Well, I think that the Palestinian leadership certainly needs to show the Palestinian people that under the leadership of this Palestinian Authority they will have a better life. And one of the reasons for the London conference is to demonstrate to the Palestinians that if they are prepared to reform, the international community is really prepared to help them, to help them financially, to help them politically, to help them with technical assistance.

And we have called on the Israelis to be certain that they are living up to their obligations so that there can be a peaceful Palestinian state. And that, of course, is buttressed by the Israeli decision to withdraw from the Gaza and the four settlements in the West Bank, which will begin to dismantle settlements and to show that Israel can be committed to a two-state solution.

And yet, some Palestinians fear that Prime Minister Sharon is sacrificing Gaza to, in fact, annex part of the West Bank. That's not in the roadmap, is it?

Well, the roadmap is still the reliable guide to getting to a two-state solution and Prime Minister Sharon has made clear, and indeed the United States has asked that Israel make clear, that the Gaza withdrawal is not separate from the roadmap but consistent with the roadmap. We eventually will have to get back onto the roadmap where the parties are taking the necessary steps on the way to the two-state solution, but we also need Palestinian reform; we need a peaceful Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza, a coordinated withdrawal from the Gaza, which the Israelis now appear ready to do; the Israelis and the Palestinians need to engage in security cooperation so that when there are terrorist events -- and there will be terrorist events -- when there are these events, that they can work together to keep the talks on course and to make certain that the perpetrators are arrested and dealt with.

But it won't help that the Israelis are talking about building more homes in the West Bank?

Well, we have been very clear with the Israelis that we believe that it is incumbent on Israel to do nothing that prejudges a final status outcome. And we --

But building homes is a bit provocative, isn't it?

Well, when there is a final status outcome, I would certainly believe that the Israelis understand that the United States believes that they have prejudged nothing, and the Israelis do need to get out of the Gaza and the four settlements in the West Bank peacefully. I believe if we see that and we see Palestinian reform over the next several months, then not only will we be ready to be back on the roadmap, but we will see an accelerated move on the roadmap.

How much pressure is the American Secretary of State prepared to put on Syria to stop meddling in Lebanese affairs?

Well, the United States, along with France, has pressured the Syrians through Resolution 1559. There is an international UN Security Council Resolution telling the Syrians to get their forces, their troops, the troops --

But they've ignored that, haven't they?

Well, they're having a hard time ignoring what's going on in Lebanon right now. What is being exposed is that Syria is a barrier. Syrian policies and Syrian behavior are barriers to a better life and a more democratic future for the people of the Middle East.

When the Syrian support insurgents or allow their territory to be used for insurgents, they are frustrating the aspirations of the Iraqi people. When the Syrians allow their troops and their security forces to operate in Lebanon, they are frustrating the aspirations of those Lebanese people who are in the streets of Lebanon. When the Syrians support, from their territory and with their activities, terrorist groups who carry out bombings in the Holy Land, they are frustrating the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

So the Syrians should not be allowed to change the subject. This is not about Syria and the United States. This is Syria frustrating the aspirations of people of the Middle East for a better and more democratic life.

But it's tough talk from you, the Secretary of State, and tough talk from the United States. What are you prepared to do about it?

Well, the United States already, of course, has some sanctions on Syria. But let's remember that the kind of pressure that the Security Council and the international community can bring to bear is very important for the Syrians, who I do not believe want to be as isolated as they are now. They are very isolated.

And the French and the United States went to the Security Council. We got a resolution. The Syrians fought it, fought it gravely, to try and avoid 1559. The United States, of course, pulled its Ambassador from Syria as a signal to the Syrians. But the Syrians have managed to isolate themselves and they're having to answer for their policies, not the United States for its policies.

So you talk about the resolutions. So you let diplomacy, it seems, take its course. I wonder, though, would you be prepared to countenance an Israeli attack on Syria? The Israelis have been making very tough noises about Syria, too.

Well, the Syrians should recognize that they are a destabilizing factor right now in the Middle East and they're isolated. I think we're doing, actually, very well with the international community bringing the kind of pressure on Syria that --

What about the Israeli attack -- steps that they should take?

Well, the region needs not to have destabilizing events, but the Syrians need to recognize that this is not a question about other people's policies. This is a question about Syria's policies.

What is the Administration prepared to do about the fact that two days ago the Russians agreed to supply spent nuclear fuel for an Iranian nuclear reactor, in clear contradiction, it seems to me, of what American policy is?

Well, the United States has been skeptical of Iranian claims that they need civilian nuclear power, given their huge energy reserves. But we've also talked frequently over the last year with the Russians about their Bushehr nuclear reactor and we recognize that the Russians have gone some way to try and put in place with the Iranians measures that would mitigate proliferation risks.

Now, I don't know enough about the final arrangements that the Iranians and the Russians have made, but I would note that the Russians have talked about an additional protocol for verification measures, I would note that the Russians have talked about a fuel take-back so that the Iranians can not have the full fuel cycle which would increase proliferation risk. And so there are some --

So you've got a -- you're relaxed about that?

Well, we can't be relaxed about Iran. Iran is a state that has everybody nervous about its attempts to, under civilian nuclear power development, potentially create a nuclear weapon. That's why the Russians have been insistent on certain anti-proliferation measures. That's why the EU-3 are engaged with the Iranians in the talks that they are. That's why the IAEA continues to call on the Iranians for further cooperation.

So no one should be relaxed about the Iranians, but we are forming, increasingly, a united front with unity of purpose, unity of message to the Iranians, that they should not try and build a nuclear weapon.

Do the Americans now categorically rule out an attack on Iran?

The President of the United States never categorically rules out anything, but we are in a state in which the diplomacy has time to work and which we have many other diplomatic arrows in our quiver. The United States has been clear that we are supportive of what the Europeans are trying to do in giving the Iranians an opportunity to show the world that they're prepared to live up to their obligations, and of course, we retain the possibility of referral to the Security Council.

What about the disagreement with the Europeans about breaking the arms embargo on China? What are the Americans prepared to do about that?

We had very good discussions when the President was here with our European counterparts so that they could understand better our concerns. This is a problem. It's a problem because the United States was a (inaudible) power and we are concerned about the military balance, and perhaps it was important that that be fully understood in ways that I think it had not been fully understood. It's a human rights problem in that the 2,000 or so people who were arrested for Tiananmen Square, to my knowledge, are still arrested and are still behind bars in China.

So, for those reasons, we've been very clear that the breaking of -- the lifting of the embargo would not be a welcome step and that it could have unfortunate implications for the military balance and for human rights and for China's reading of what the Europeans are saying about human rights.

But the good thing is we've had open and candid discussions about it and we believe that the Europeans will at least listen to our concerns. We will see what happens.

Secretary of State, after the bombings out in Baghdad yesterday, more than a hundred people were killed. It looks as though the Americans are getting sucked more and more into this insurgency. Do you have a clear exit strategy for getting out of Iraq?

We don't talk about exit strategies. We talk about --

I know you don't talk about it --

We develop --

but I wonder whether you do have one.

No, we don't talk about them or think about them. We think about success strategies. We think about what we went there to do, which was to remove one of the worst dictators in the region, to remove a dictator who had been a destabilizing factor in the region, so much so that we had fought a war against him and were at a low level of hostility continuing to fight him with no-fly zones, where our military were shooting at his -- where he was shooting at our military aircraft patrolling his territory, a terrible dictator who was subverting UN sanctions so that the regime put in place to contain him was breaking down, and giving then an opportunity for a different kind of Iraq, which I think you can see is now starting to have an effect on the Middle East more broadly.

But more people are being killed in Iraq every day.

But the Iraq -- the insurgency in Iraq is brutal. The insurgency in Iraq is ruthless. But the insurgency in Iraq has no political future because the Iraqi people have demonstrated, by going to the polls in huge numbers, that they believe their political future is in the process that will culminate in December of 2005 with free and fair elections.

There is real politics going on in Iraq where you're trying to form a government that will be representative of and respectful of all Iraqis. The insurgents have no answer to that. We are training Iraqi security forces who will increasingly be able to take over more of the obligation and the work --

Even the Iraqi interim prime minister the other day acknowledged that this process is terribly, painfully slow.

It is difficult and we are training people who are having to take on very dangerous and difficult roles. But if you look at how the Iraqis performed in support of their own elections, you can see that they are beginning to be effective. General Casey has said that there were no -- to his knowledge, no cases in which the coalition had to step in for Iraqi security forces. And Iraqi security personnel -- a person -- actually threw himself on a suicide bomber to save his fellow Iraqis.

This is a difficult task in Iraq because of the decades of repression there. It is going to be hard for some time to come. But it is a positive development that the Iraqis have taken to the politics this way and that they're moving their country toward a more democratic future. And that will have an effect on the rest of the region. The circle -- the symbolism of Iraqis voting in Iran for a free Iraqi government -- of Iraqis voting -- of Afghans voting (inaudible) for a free Afghanistan, the symbolism of what is happening in Lebanon, of moves in Egypt, and the like; Iraq is having an effect on the region.

Can I finally ask you, Secretary of State, what is America's ultimate sanction against North Korea?

Well, it's not America's sanction against North Korea. It's North Korea's neighbors. The one thing that we have not permitted the North Koreans to do is to make this a contest between the United States and North Korea. North Korea is hearing from its neighbors, including from its most supportive neighbor, China, that there must be a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula and that North Korea has no entry into a better relationship with the international community but to give up its nuclear weapons. And so if the North Koreans want to end their isolation, they have one course and one course only.

Read on. (ITV, London, United Kingdom. 1 March 2005)

Ramallah is buzzing these days

A revised Palestinian Basic Law is serving well as an interim constitution. A new electoral law is being discussed in the Palestinian Legislative Council. And just last week, this Council approved a dynamic new cabinet of ministers who are committed to strengthening the cause of reform.

Ramallah is buzzing these days with vigorous debates and even the occasional shouting match. These are the sounds of democracy. And they are a true joy to hear ... The Palestinian people are writing the opening chapter of a more hopeful national story. And their brave efforts deserve our utmost support -- for there is still much work to do.

Good governance requires the establishment of the rule of law, reform of the judiciary, an end to official corruption, and an overhaul of the pension and civil service systems. We must also help the Palestinian Authority build its capacity to deliver basic services like education and health care to its citizens. Political reform must be accompanied by social and economic development that prepares the Palestinian people for the challenges of a 21st-century world.

Advancing reform is urgent work that cannot be deferred. It will come to nothing if terrorist groups, like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, continue to attack Israelis and to deny the Palestinian people the better life they deserve. Therefore, all nations committed to peace must now join together to help the Palestinians prevent terrorists, and the states that support them, from killing this hopeful moment.

The Palestinian Authority needs to reform its security institutions in order to fight terrorism and lawlessness effectively. The United States is prepared to work with partners in the region and around the world to realize this essential goal. General Ward, who is here with me today, will soon relocate to the region to lead our efforts. We commend those neighbors, especially Egypt and Jordan, who have made specific commitments to help the Palestinians create honest and accountable security services.

Peace must be nurtured by many hands if it is to flourish. We all have important roles to play. The Israeli government will soon take a historic step to disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Israel must also take no actions that prejudice a final settlement, and must help ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable. A state of scattered territories will not work.

Arab states must end incitement in their media, cut off all funding for terrorism, stop their support for extremist education, and establish normal relations with Israel. We in the international community must share our expertise in all areas of democratic governance … and offer our full financial assistance.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the London Meeting Supporting the Palestinian Authority, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Center, London, United Kingdom. 1 March 2005)

Bombing in Tel Aviv

I condemn in the strongest possible terms today’s bombing in Tel Aviv. I offer our deepest sympathy to the victims of this terrorist attack, their families, and the Israeli people and hope for a speedy recovery to those injured. We have been in contact with Israeli officials to convey our condolences and our support against terrorism.

Terrorist attacks, such as today’s bombing in Tel Aviv, not only kill innocent civilians, but also undermine the aspirations and hopes of the Palestinian people.

It is essential that Palestinian leaders take immediate, credible steps to find those responsible for this terrorist attack and bring them to justice. We understand that the Palestinian leadership has condemned the attack. We now must see actions that send a clear message that terror will not be tolerated.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's statement, Washington, DC. 25 February 2005)

Rodale to publish Condoleezza Rice biography

Rodale Executive Editor Leigh Haber has acquired North American rights to an important new biography of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by Newsweek Senior Editor and Chief of Correspondents Marcus Mabry. The deal was negotiated with literary agent Charlotte Sheedy. The author is expected to complete the manuscript in 18 months, and the book will be published soon thereafter.

The biography is to be titled TWICE AS GOOD: The Souls of Condoleezza Rice.

In an effort to understand Rice's historic ascension to Secretary of State, her politics and her policies -- and her chances of reaching an even higher office -- Mabry will look to her childhood in Alabama as well as her terms as Provost at Stanford and as National Security Advisor in the Bush Administration, examining the pivotal role she has played in shaping the most aggressive and controversial American foreign policy in a generation.

Mabry is an African American who shares Rice's status as a former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; and, coincidentally, both concentrated their studies at Stanford on the Soviet Union. It is from this uniquely shared perspective that he will write a biography that not only tells the story of the most powerful African American woman in the history of U.S. politics but also examines the larger questions of identity, race, class and politics that her story poses for blacks, whites and both political parties.

As a former foreign correspondent and the author of White Bucks and Black-eyed Peas, a memoir on race and class in America, renown for his balanced reportage and analysis, Mabry will explore the price Rice has paid for her ambition in terms of her sometimes contradictory status in the African American community as well as the political and policy choices that Rice has made -- and will make as Secretary of State -- and there ramifications for America and the world.

Principles will guide impatient patriots

I just want to reflect for a few minutes on the African American experience in America and the essence of that experience. And each and every one of us, of course, experiences being African American in some different way. But when I talk to African Americans around the country, from all walks of life, from all kinds of backgrounds, a few things seem to unite us in our experiences: What has made this African American community prosper and thrive despite the tremendous, tremendous obstacles since Africans first landed here in America.

I would say it's a story of faith. It's a story of faith that was very powerfully brought forth in the song that was just performed by Morgan State. It's a story of family, the importance of family ties that hold us together. And you know, it's not just your mom and your dad and grandmother and your grandfather, it's your aunts and your uncles and your cousins and your cousins' cousins and your aunt and uncles' cousins' cousins. (Laughter.) You know that when we talk about family, we mean extended family in the African American experience.

And, of course, it's valuing education. And indeed, I'm so pleased that Morgan State is here and that the elementary school is here because that shows how African Americans have prospered and survived. It's because we've cared about the education of our children that this has mattered.

Now, my experience is an experience of faith and family and education, all brought together in one story that I'd like to tell you. I was born to parents who were college-educated. My parents were teachers. My father was a guidance counselor; eventually, he was the university administrator at the University of Denver. But he got there, and my mother got there, because they had parents who cared about education. And the first one in my family to really care about education was my paternal grandfather. And I want to tell you how faith and family and education came together in Granddaddy Rice.

Granddaddy Rice was a poor, sharecropper's son in Ewtah -- that's E-w-t-a-h -- Alabama. (Laughter.) And one day he decided that he wanted to get book learning. Nobody quite understands why Granddaddy Rice figured he wanted to get book learning, but he did. So he asked people who were coming through, in the parlance of the day, how a colored man could go to college. And they said, well, if you get some money together and you go about 60 miles down the road, there is Stillman College, a historically black college, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and they educate young colored men.

So he got his cotton together and he took off for Stillman College to go college. And after the first year, having paid for his college with cotton, they said to him, "Okay, well, how are you going to pay for a second year?" And he said, "Well, I used my cotton. I don't have any more." They said, "Well, you'll have to leave."

And he said, "Well, how are those boys going to college?" And they said, "Well, you see, they have what's called a scholarship, and if you wanted to be a Presbyterian minister you could have a scholarship, too." (Laughter.) And my grandfather said, "That's exactly what I had in mind." (Laughter and applause.) And my family has been Presbyterian and college-educated ever since. (Laughter.)

So black Americans, African Americans, have always depended on faith and family and education. In the most hostile times, in the most difficult times, that's what saw us through.

But something else saw us through, and that was a belief in America and its values and its principles, even when America didn't believe in us. It was a belief that was so strong that Frederick Douglass didn't appeal outside of America's principles and values, he appealed to America's principles and values for America to be true to itself. It was such that Martin Luther King didn't appeal outside of America's values, he appealed to America to be true to itself in progressing for black Americans. It was true that people like Dr. Dorothy Height, the only woman among the Big Six, appealed not outside of America's values, but to America's values, to challenge America to be true to itself.

That should remind us, each and every one of us, African American, European American, whatever we are, that the important thing that the founders left to us was not a perfect America by any means, but an America that had principles that allowed impatient patriots to appeal to those principles and to tell America to be true to itself.

And now, as we talk about the spread of freedom and liberty to places where it has not yet been known, we need to remember that human beings are by their very nature imperfect, and therefore human institutions will be imperfect. But if we have principles of human dignity and liberty and freedom, those principles will guide impatient patriots to appeal not outside of those principles, but to those principles, to challenge their leaders and their countries to be true to themselves.

That's the story of African Americans in America who, in appealing to America to be true to itself, in challenging America to be what America needed to be, participated in the second founding of America, an America in which the great Civil Rights leaders and those before them gave us the foundation that we have today that allows for somebody like me to emerge as America's Secretary of State.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at African American History Month Celebration, Washington, DC. 18 February 2005)

Peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region

The Cross-Straits issue is an issue of concern in the Asia Pacific. The policy of the United States is very clear. We have a One China policy we recognize on the basis of three communiqués. We also have responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act. And we have cautioned all parties that there should be no attempt to change the status quo unilaterally; that means no attempt by China to change the status quo unilaterally, no attempt by Taiwan to change the status quo unilaterally, and our efforts to maintain stability in the region count very much on American adherence and that of our allies, which Japan is certainly an ally, that the Cross-Straits problem would be resolved peacefully.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks with Dutch Foreign Minister Bot after their meeting, Washington, DC. 18 February 2005)

USA-EU: Closing the book on past differences

The path of democratic reform in the Middle East will be difficult and uneven. The spread of freedom is the work of generations, but it is also urgent work that cannot be deferred.

From Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain, we are seeing elections and new protections for women and minorities, and the beginnings of political pluralism. In support of these hopeful trends, the FY 2006 budget request proposes enhanced funding for diplomatic and assistance activities in the Middle East, North Africa and other majority Muslim countries. The request includes $120 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative for reform, $40 million for the National Endowment for Democracy to support the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative, $180 million for Muslim outreach through educational and cultural exchanges, and increases for a wide range of other public diplomacy and broadcasting initiatives geared toward Muslim publics, particularly populations not typically reached by other programs including women and young people. The success of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq will give strength to reformers throughout the region, and accelerate the pace of reforms already underway.

Every leader in Europe I spoke to understands our common interest in building on recent successes and stabilizing and advancing democratic progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. For our part, to build on the momentum in Afghanistan following last October’s elections, President Bush has requested nearly $1.1 billion. This money will be used to invest in health, education, clean water and free market infrastructure that create conditions for sustained growth and stability. The $1.1 billion includes funds for operations to continue the fight against drugs. The FY 2005 supplemental seeks $2 billion for expanding police and counter-narcotics programs and accelerating reconstruction and democracy and governance activities. The supplemental also includes $60 million for Embassy security and operational costs.

The European leaders I spoke with agree that it is time to close the book on our past differences over Iraq, and time for all of us to help the Iraqi people write a new book –the history of a democratic Iraq. To help the advance of democracy in Iraq, President Bush has requested $360 million for economic assistance to continue work already begun under the IRRF and targeted towards helping the Iraqi government to create a functioning democracy and a justice system governed by the rule of law, to deliver basic services to its people, to collect revenues, to generate jobs and to develop a free market system capable of joining the global economy. The FY 2005 supplemental includes $690 million to continue U.S. mission operations and $658 million to construct a new embassy compound in Baghdad.

Of course, the process of reform in the Muslim world is not detached from the resolution of important political issues. In my recent travels I found no difference of view, at all, between the United States and Europe on the goal of an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel.

We all support the process of reform in the Palestinian Authority. The successful Palestinian elections of January 9, and the Israeli withdrawal plan for Gaza and parts of the West Bank, have created a new climate that is propitious for movement back to the Roadmap.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's prepared remarks on the 2006 International Affairs Budget Request before the USA House International Relations Committee, Washington, DC. 17 February 2005)

Death of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri

The United States expresses its deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and to the others who were killed and wounded in the brutal terrorist attack in Beirut today. We state our unequivocal condemnation of this act of terrorism. We call on all parties to maintain calm and avoid further violence.

Prime Minister Hariri was a statesman who was committed to the restoration and renewal of Lebanon after the ravages of that country’s tragic civil war. His vision of a prosperous Lebanon, living in peace with its neighbors, sent a powerful message of hope to the people of Lebanon and the region.

In its Resolution 1566, the United Nations condemned “in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism” and called upon States “to cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism.”

All of those responsible for this terrible crime must be brought to justice immediately. The United States, together with the international community, will follow closely to ensure that this happens.

In its Resolution 1559, the United Nations Security Council called for “all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently” in “the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon.” It called for the Government of Lebanon to extend its control over all Lebanese territory.

The United States takes this opportunity to once again call for the immediate implementation of Resolution 1559, including the withdrawal of all Syrian forces, the disbanding and disarmament of all militias, and an end to foreign interference in the political independence of Lebanon. The Lebanese people must be free to exercise their political choices without intimidation or the threat of violence.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's statement, Washington, DC. 14 February 2005)

Opportunities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

We began by affirming our history, which is a history of shared values; which is a history that goes back to the end of World War II, when the United States was one of the strongest supporters of the idea of European integration and European unity, believing that if Europe could be unified around democratic values that the chances for war in what was, at that time, a war-torn Europe, would be diminished and, indeed, eliminated. And I think that this great European Commission and the European Union are a testament to the wisdom of that vision.

We look forward to continuing to work with a strong and united Europe. We talked about the importance of the United States and Europe taking on, now, the agenda of the common challenges before us: the importance of a Europe that is the -- one of the two pillars of a strong transatlantic relationship, NATO, where I was earlier, and the European Union; and the work that we have done together to, after the end of the Cold War, bring together a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. We still have a great deal of work to do in that regard, but this has been a remarkable period of the last 15-or-so years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We then talked about the many issues on the European … EU-US agenda: the fact that the President will have an opportunity to talk about Afghanistan, about Iraq and about the broader Middle East. And we spent a good deal of time talking about the challenges and the opportunities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ...

We were remarking at how impressed we were with the fact that both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas seemed to understand the historic opportunity before them, that this is a moment for optimism in what has been a longstanding and long-simmering conflict, but recognizing that we have not been able and the parties have not been able in the past to seize opportunities that have been before them.

We have pledged to work to redouble our efforts this time to see if we can bring about the conditions that will allow this to succeed. That includes the work that we will do at the London conference, at which the EU will be represented at that conference to help the Palestinians build the institutions of democracy, build the security institutions that can be a reliable security force for the Palestinian Authority, and, of course, work on the reconstruction of the Palestinian territories, most especially, first, Gaza, but also the West Bank, and to do that in a way that helps to ensure a peaceful and effective withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza and the four settlements in the West Bank, as the Israelis have, in their historic decision, decided to do.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner after their meeting at Berlaymount Building, Brussels, Belgium, 9 February 2005)

The common purpose the Iraqi people have given us

We had a very good discussion of Iraq, and I have to say that it is the best discussion of Iraq that we have had as an alliance since the Saddam Hussein regime fell, and, in fact, well before that, because it was clearly a unified alliance; unified because we know what the work is to do -- to be done ahead; unified also because the Iraqi people, in going to the polls in large numbers despite the threats of terrorists to literally take their lives, was reminiscent for this alliance of what many around that table had gone through, their countries where people had died to be able to have the simple benefits of liberty and freedom, and recognizing that the Iraqi people had taken many of those same risks.

And I think there was a kind of coming together of the common purpose that the Iraqi people have given us to support their historic turn for the better.

Read On. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. 9 February 2005).

The real test of a democratic state

The spreading of rights around the world, of course, is not just a long tradition and concern of the United States, but a long tradition and concern of the entire transatlantic alliance. The only reason that Europe is whole free and at peace is because this alliance was united in its ability to face down imperial communism, to stand by the patriots of places like Poland and Czechoslovakia, who never lost their thirst for freedom; for a divided Germany that was able to overcome that. So, this is not an American project. This is a joint desire to see people who have been denied those aspirations finally achieve them, and I should also just say that one does not impose democracy and freedom; one imposes tyranny.

You have seen in Ukraine, in Georgia, in the Palestinian territories, in Afghanistan and Iraq, what the people will sacrifice to gain freedom. This is not something that is imposed from the outside, it is desired from within.

As to the American standing to do this, I think it is well understood that America is a country of laws – that is, America is a country that was built on values and continues to practice those values. The fact that one is a democracy does not mean that bad things will not happen. Bad things do happen. Bad things happened at Abu Ghraib. Things happened at Abu Ghraib that have made us really, as the President said, sick to our stomachs that such could happen. But the real test of a democratic state as opposed to a dictatorship or totalitarian state, is how one deals with those circumstances. And that is why the multiple investigations that have taken place of reports of prisoner abuse, wherever they might have taken place -- that is why the fact that people have already been punished for anything that might have happened in those places.

Having been given their due course, or their due process rights, the people are being held accountable for what happened. That’s what separates countries that adhere to the rule of law from countries that do not. I just want to repeat being a democracy does not mean that bad things will not happen, but being a democracy means that you will be transparent and open and investigate and punish any such activities.

Read On. (Secretary Rice's remarks with Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini, Rome, Italy. 8 February 2005)

Europe's role in the Middle East peace process

Europe already has a role in the Middle East peace process through the Quartet, through the EU membership in the Quartet, the Quartet, of course, the United States, Russia, the UN and the European Union; of course, European countries have a role. The foreign minister was just there speaking with President Abbas and giving, I think -- and with Prime Minister Sharon -- and so there is obviously a role. We are going to need everyone's help. The parties are going to need everyone's help to take advantage of this very fragile opportunity to move forward.

We have had many opportunities in the past that did not end in peace, and if we are going to seize the opportunity this time, we will have to mobilize ourselves to support the democratization of the Palestinian territories, as President Abbas wishes to do, to rebuild the Palestinian security forces, to give reconstruction assistance to the Palestinians. The President just recently said that the United States will devote $350 million to trying to help with reconstruction.

The European Union has been a major contributor. The Gulf States need to pay their -- the pledges that they've made so that reconstruction can go forward. We need to support the Israeli disengagement plan from the Gaza because if you -- the Gaza and the four settlements in the West Bank -- because if you think of it, what is different now is that the parties have made some fundamentally difficult choices. The Palestinian leadership today talked about an end to the armed Intifadah, talked about the need to live in peace with Israel. The Israelis recognize that they cannot stay in all of the territories that they have occupied, and you have now a new dynamic with the new Palestinian leadership and with the Israelis having made some pretty fundamental choices on disengagement. So this is a time that everybody should be involved.

Lebanon is a situation in which there is the potential for a very fragile democratic situation to be stabilized and supported by us. And that's why France and the United States sponsored Resolution 1559. There should be a very clear message to the Syrians that it is out of step with where the rest of the region is going to interfere in the democratic processes in Lebanon, and that those elections should go forward. The 1559 speaks to these issues and it should be followed.

The Syrians also, of course, need to stop supporting from Lebanon the rejectionist groups that are a threat to the very peace process that we all want to see go forward. The United States has already used the Syrian Accountability Act to levy sanctions against Syria. We are constantly looking at what more needs to be done in that regard. Because it is just not acceptable that Syria would continue to be a place from which terrorists are funded and helped to destroy the very fragile peace process in the Middle East or to change the dynamic of events in Lebanon.

Read on. (Remarks with French Minister of Foreign Affairs Michel Barnier after their meeting, Paris, France. 8 February 2005).

Dignity is embodied in the free choice of individuals

Standing up for liberty is as old as our country. It was our very first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Now the American founders realized that they, like all human beings, are flawed creatures, and that any government established by man would be imperfect. Even the great authors of our liberty sometimes fell short of liberty's promise – even Jefferson, himself, a slave owner.

So we are fortunate that our founders established a democratic system of, by, and for the people that contained within it a way for citizens -- especially for impatient patriots -- to correct even its most serious flaws. Human imperfections do not discredit democratic ideals; they make them more precious, and they make impatient patriots of our own time work harder to achieve them.

Men and women, both great and humble, have shown us the power of human agency in this work. In my own experience, a black woman named Rosa Parks was just tired one day of being told to sit in the back of a bus, so she refused to move. And she touched off a revolution of freedom across the American South.

In Poland, Lech Walesa had had enough of the lies and the exploitation, so he climbed a wall and he joined a strike for his rights; and Poland was transformed.

In Afghanistan just a few months ago, men and women, once oppressed by the Taliban, walked miles, forded streams and stood hours in the snow just to cast a ballot for their first vote as a free people.

And just a few days ago in Iraq, millions of Iraqi men and women defied the terrorist threats and delivered a clarion call for freedom. Individual Iraqis risked their lives. One policeman threw his body on a suicide bomber to preserve the right of his fellow citizens to vote. They cast their free votes, and they began their nation's new history.

These examples demonstrate a basic truth -- the truth that human dignity is embodied in the free choice of individuals ...

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris - Sciences Po, France. 8 February 2005)

Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace

The Palestinian people have a right to be very proud of the elections that they’ve just held and I wish them well as they continue this year with municipal and legislative elections.

Palestinians voted last month for a president who ran on a platform of democratic reform, a negotiated settlement to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and an end to violence. That in our view is the right approach, and we’re pleased that President Abbas is following through on his mandate to take concrete steps on security and to restore law and order. We are also pleased that security coordination has begun taking place directly between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that other constructive contacts have resumed. This is indeed the way forward ...

The United States will do its part. We will be active in this process with our partners. We will help with the consolidation of security and the rebuilding of the Palestinian security forces. We will work with our friends in the international community and here in the region to revive the Palestinian economy and to assist Palestinian efforts to build and strengthen democratic institutions. And we will work hard to remind all parties – the Israelis, the Palestinians and the regional states – that they all have obligations to make certain that we can realize the vision of two states living side by side in peace ...

This is a time of hope, a time when we can hope for a better day for the Palestinian and the Israeli people both. As we move forward, I would like to underscore to everyone what I know that President Bush’s commitment is, and that is to pursing and achieving the vision of a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace ...

We recognize the very important steps that the Palestinians must take for a secure environment, to make certain that violence cannot take place, that there is, as the president, says, one authority and one law and one gun, that the security forces are united and that they are able to fight terrorism. The Israelis have obligations, too, and I said to them that in addition to the obligation to do everything possible to help the emergence of a democratic state, that it is especially important that there not be unilateral steps, unilateral changes to the status quo.

Read on. (Secretary Rice's remarks with Palestinian President Abbas after their meeting at the Muqata, Ramallah, Palestine Authority. 7 February 2005).

Dr Rice interviewed by Israel TV Channel One

I really do believe, and President Bush believes, that the disengagement plan is potentially of historic proportion, and that it is in fact one of the things that will help us to get back on to the Roadmap, perhaps even in a much accelerated fashion because the decision, I know very difficult decision, to disengage, to dismantle settlements in the Gaza and in the four West Bank cities creates a new dynamic on the ground. It gives to the Palestinians an opportunity to govern areas in which Israelis will no longer be. And so, we believe that the disengagement plan is actually helpful to moving forward on the Roadmap and ultimately then to the two-state solution. Read on. (Jerusalem, Israel. 6 February 2005).

Remarks with Turkish Foreign Minister Gul

I reiterated the commitment of the United States to a unified Iraq, the territorial integrity of Iraq, to an Iraq which is at peace with its neighbors, an Iraq in which all Iraqis regardless of religious or ethnic background -- Sunnis, Shia, Turkmen, Kurds and other minorities -- are all welcome and respected. I also wanted to talk to the Minister, and we had a good opportunity to talk about America’s commitment that Iraq’s territory should never be a place from which terrorism can be committed against its neighbors. That is what it means to be at peace with your neighbors, and indeed, from the American point of view, whatever terrorist organizations wish to perpetrate crimes against populations have to be treated the same. Whether it is the al-Qaeda, or the PKK, or the Palestinian rejectionists, terrorism is simply not an acceptable tool in the modern world. I wanted to be certain that the Minister and his colleagues knew of America’s commitment to rid the region of terrorism, including terrorism that might take place from the territory of Iraq. Read on. (Enseboga Airport Lounge, Ankara, Turkey. 6 February 2005).

Remarks with German Chancellor Schroeder

The Iranians, to date, have not, I think, demonstrated that they are prepared to live up to their international obligations. There are concerns. These are not just the concerns of the United States. These are concerns that have been raised by the IAEA, they have been raised by colleagues around the world. It is one of the reasons that the EU-3 is engaged in these discussions with the Iranians, because there are concerns about what is being done under cover of civilian nuclear power development. And so, there is…diplomacy can work in this case if there is unity of purpose and unity of message to the Iranians that the international community expects them to live up to their obligations. I said earlier, and I will repeat it - the European 3: the British, the Germans, the French - have given the … are giving the Iranians an opportunity to demonstrate that they are prepared to live up to their international obligations, that they are prepared to address the concerns of the international community about their activities. And I really do hope that the Iranians will take the opportunity that is being presented to them. Read on. (Chancellery, Berlin, Germany. 4 February 2005).

A world where the aspirations for freedom triumph

Concluding remarks by President George W. Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice following the swearing-in ceremony of Dr Rice as USA Secretary of the Department of State, today in Washington, DC:

President Bush: Thank you all for coming. Laura and I are honored to be here. Over the past four years, America has benefited from the wise counsel of Dr. Condoleezza Rice and our family has been enriched by our friendship with this remarkable person. We love her - I don't know if you're supposed to say that about the Secretary of State. (Laughter.)

Condi's appointment and confirmation of Secretary of State marks a remarkable transition in what is already a career of outstanding service and accomplishment.

Today also marks an opportunity to honor another career defined by service and accomplishment. Throughout a lifetime spent in public service, Colin Powell has asked nothing in return. For over four decades, millions at home and abroad have benefited from his bravery, his dignity and his integrity. He's left our nation a better place than it was when he began his career in public service as a second lieutenant in the United States Army. His magnificent wife, Alma, I am certain is pleased that a grateful nation is giving back her husband --(laughter) - and all of us admire and appreciate the service of Colin Powell. (Applause.)

I appreciate the fact that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg administered the oath. It was neighborly of her to do that. (Laughter.) I want to thank Congresswoman Jane Harman from California for joining us, as well as Juanita Millender-McDonald from California. We're honored you both are here. Thanks for taking time to honor your fellow Californian, Condi Rice. (Applause.)

I see sitting between you two is a fine American in Andrew Young. Welcome, Andy. Thank you for coming. I shouldn't start going around the room, heralding all the - (laughter) - accomplished souls who are here. I do want to thank members of the diplomatic corps for coming. I appreciate Your Excellencies taking time to honor Condi. I want to thank the distinguished guests and members - folks who work at the State Department for joining us, as well. It's a good thing to come and honor your new boss. (Laughter.) Good diplomacy. (Laughter.)

Colin Powell leaves big shoes to fill at the State Department, but Condi Rice is the right person to fill them. As National Security Advisor, she has led during a time when events not of our choosing have forced America to the leading edge of history. Condi has an abiding belief in the power of democracy to secure justice and liberty, and the inclusion of men and women of all races and religions in the courses that free nations chart for themselves.

A few days from now, these convictions will be confirmed by the Iraqi people, when they cast their ballots in Iraq's first free elections in generations. Sunday's election is the first step in a process that will allow Iraqis to write and pass a constitution that enshrines self-government and the rule of law. This history is changing the world, because the advent of democracy in Iraq will serve as a powerful example to reformers throughout the entire Middle East. On Sunday, the Iraqi people will be joining millions in others parts of the world who now decide their future through free votes.

In Afghanistan, the people have voted in the first free presidential elections in that nation's 5,000-year history. The people of Ukraine have made clear their own desire for democracy. The Palestinians have just elected a new President who has repudiated violence. Freedom is on the march, and the world is better for it. (Applause.) Widespread hatred and radicalism cannot survive the advent of freedom and self-government. Our nation will be more secure, the world will be more peaceful, as freedom advances. Condi Rice understands that.

And the terrorists understand that, as well. And that is why they are now attacking Iraqi civilians in an effort to sabotage elections. We applaud the courage of ordinary Iraqis for their refusal to surrender their future to these killers.

No nation can build a safer and better world alone. The men and women of the State Department are doing a fine job of working with other nations to build on the momentum of freedom. I know our nation will be really well served when the good folks at the State Department join with Condi Rice to face the many challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. In the coming months and years, we must stop the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials. We must safeguard and expand the freedom of international marketplace and free trade. We must advance justice and fundamental human rights. We must fight HIV/AIDS and other diseases and reduce poverty.

Each task will require good relations with nations around the world, and each will require a Secretary who will lead by character and conviction and wisdom. To meet these times and tasks, America has its best in Dr. Condoleezza Rice, now Secretary Condoleezza Rice, our 66th Secretary of State. (Applause.)

Secretary Rice: Thank you, Mr President, for those wonderful remarks. I want to thank also First Lady Laura Bush. The President and Mrs Bush have been really a strong support system for me here and good friends, and I want to thank you for that.

I want to thank the members of my family and my friends who are here -- a number are here from Birmingham, Alabama, and they represent generations of Rices and Rays, who believed that a day like this might somehow be possible.

I'm honored by your confidence in me, Mr President, and I'm deeply grateful for the opportunity you've given me to serve as this country's 66th Secretary of State.

Let me say, too, in echoing the President's comments, that I'm, indeed, fortunate to succeed a man of the character and quality of Colin Powell, who served with such distinction, who's done so much to strengthen the State Department, so much to carry forward America's message and goals and so much to help me, personally, in so many ways.

In the past four years, America has seen great trials and great opportunities. Under your leadership, Mr President, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our time, fighting tyranny and terror and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation.

Now it's time to build on those achievements to make the world safer and even more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power that favors freedom. The time for diplomacy is now. Standing for the cause of liberty is as old as our country itself. Indeed, it was our very first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who said, "The God who gave us live, gave us liberty at the same time."

America's story is the story of men and women ceaselessly striving to ensure that we as a nation live up to the ideals set forth by our forefathers. Our founders realized that they, like all human beings, were flawed creatures, and that any government created by man would not be perfect. Even the great authors of our liberty sometimes fell short of their ideals -- even Thomas Jefferson, himself.

Yet, our forebears established a democratic system of, by and for the people that contained within it the means for citizens and -- of conviction and of courage to correct its flaws.

The enduring principles enshrined in our Constitution made it possible for impatient patriots -- like Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King -- to move us ever closer to our founding ideals. And so it is only natural that through the decades America would associate itself with those around the world who also strive to secure freedom for themselves and for their children.

September 11, 2001, made us see more clearly than ever how our values and our interests are linked and joined across the globe. That day of fire made us see that the best way to secure a world of peace and hope is to build a world of freedom. We do not simply seek the absence of terrorism. We seek a world where the aspirations for freedom of men and women triumph.

Today, it is more fitting than ever that our nation should pursue a foreign policy that is grounded in democratic principles and aligns itself with the efforts of all those around the globe who share our love of liberty.

In all that lies ahead, the primary instrument of American diplomacy will be the Department of State, and the dedicated men and women of its foreign and civil services and our foreign service nationals. More than half a century ago, Dean Acheson and his officers stood present at the creation, in helping President Truman secure a world half free, while hoping that there would one day be a world fully free.

Mr President, here with us today are some of the newest members of the State Department. The young officers here today are present at the transformation. And they will carry forward long into the future the work that we are undertaking to realize your vision of a world where all people live in freedom.

Under your leadership, Mr President, we at the Department of State will conduct a foreign policy that sees the world clearly as it is. But, Mr. President, we will not accept that today's reality has to be tomorrow's. We will work in partnership with allies and reformers across the globe, putting the tools of diplomacy to work to unite, strengthen and widen the community of democracies.

We fully recognize that the hard work of freedom is the task of generations. Yet, it is also the urgent work that cannot be deferred. And, ultimately, the impatient souls all around the world who struggle and stumble and rise again to take up freedom's cause will succeed -- for the great mover of history is the power of the human spirit.

Mr President, you have given us our mission, and we are ready to serve our great country and the cause of freedom for which it stands.

Thank you. (Applause.)

History is calling us

The welcoming remarks to staff of the USA Department of State by new Secretary, Dr Condoleezza Rice, at the C Street lobby, today in Washington, DC:

(Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, this is a little different welcome than the first time that I came to work at the State Department. Now, that may surprise some of you, but I was, in 1977, an intern in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (Laughter and applause.) Now, there's a lesson in that: Be good to your interns. (Laughter.)

I want to thank you for this really, really warm welcome. I first want to start by just saying how much I admire and appreciate the leadership of Secretary Colin Powell over the last four years. I've just spoken with him to tell him that. (Applause.)

We've got a lot of challenges ahead of us. This is a really remarkable time in our country's history. The President has set forth a really bold agenda for American foreign policy and the State Department has got to be in the lead in this period in which diplomacy will be so important to solidifying the gains of the last few years and to pressing forward an agenda for a freer and more prosperous world.

I can't think of a better call than to say that America will stand for freedom and for liberty, that America will stand with those who want their aspirations met for liberty and freedom. And I'm going to look and the President's going to look to this Department to lead that effort, and not just to implement policy, but we're going to need ideas, intellectual capital. I need your ideas. My door will be open. Please, understand that this is a time when the history is calling us. And I just look forward to working with each and every one of you toward that end.

The President has laid out a bold agenda and he expects a lot of us. I want you to know, too, that I'm going to be committed to you, the men and women of the Foreign Service, the Civil Service and our Foreign Service Nationals abroad; and you, in turn, will be committed, and we, in turn, will be committed, to carrying out that bold agenda.

I know that this is a profession that demands a lot. It demands a lot from your families, it demands a lot from you, and sometimes it demands the ultimate sacrifice. And I want to start by recognizing that I know that there are memorial plaques here in this hall that commemorate those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and we'll always remember what they did for this country as we go about trying to carry out this extraordinary agenda before us.

I want you to know, too, that I will be committed to making certain that we have the tools that we need to carry out this agenda. I believe in training and I believe in education, continuing education, of this diplomatic corps. And I hope to see over the next several years an even more diverse diplomatic corps, because one of the wonderful things about America is that we are one America made up of people from all backgrounds and all ethnicities and all religions. It's an extraordinary thing that we really have forged one out of many, and we are going to be a diplomatic corps that embodies that diversity, because it's an extremely important lesson in a world where difference is still a license to kill.

This is a great time for America. It's a great time for the international system. We have allies who we need to unite in this great cause ahead of us, and I look forward to working with you to do that.

Now, I want to close with a kind of personal recollection as I start here, and that is that the last time I was in government was actually 1989 to 1991. And that, too, was an extraordinary time. I was lucky enough to be the White House Soviet Specialist at the end of the Cold War. It doesn't get much better than that. And I got to participate in German unification and the liberation of Eastern Europe and the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union.

But, you know, I realized that I was just harvesting good decisions that had been made in 1946 and 1947 and 1948, a lot of those decisions spurred by good work done by this building, the men and women of the State Department. And those were days when it must have seemed that freedom's march was not assured. You think about it. In 1947, civil wars in Greece and Turkey; and in 1948, the permanent division of Germany, thanks to the Berlin crisis; and in 1949, the Soviet Union explodes a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule and the Chinese communists win.

It must not have looked like freedom's march was assured, but they somehow pulled themselves together, people like Truman and Acheson and Marshall and, of course, on Capitol Hill, Senator Vandenberg. And they created a policy and a set of institutions that gave us a lasting peace. While no one might have been able, at that time, to imagine a democratic Germany or a democratic Japan, when President Bush now sits across from Chancellor Schroeder or from Prime Minister Koizumi, he sits across not just from a friend, but a democratic friend.

I know that there are those who wonder whether democracy can take hold in the rocky soil of the West Bank or in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I believe that we, as Americans, who know how hard the path to democracy is, have to believe that it can. And we have to make it so that we work with those who want to achieve those aspirations so that, one day, a future President is sitting across from the democratic president or prime minister of many a Middle Eastern country, of many a country that has not yet known democracy.

That's our charge. That's our calling. I know that you will work hard on behalf of it and so will I. And now, I'll go try to find my office, if you don't mind. Thank you. (Laughter.)

(Applause.)

Spread freedom and prosperity around the globe

The opening statement of Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush's nominee to be secretary of state, at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in Washington, DC:

Thank you Chairman Lugar, Senator Biden, and Members of the Committee. And let me also thank Senator Dianne Feinstein who, as a fellow Californian, I have long admired as a leader on behalf of our state and our nation.

Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, it is an honor to be nominated to lead the State Department at this critical time a time of challenge and hope and opportunity for America, and for the entire world.

September 11, 2001 was a defining moment for our nation and the world. Under the vision and leadership of President Bush, our nation has risen to meet the challenges of our time: fighting tyranny and terror, and securing the blessings of freedom and prosperity for a new generation. The work that America and our allies have undertaken, and the sacrifices we have made, have been difficult and necessary and right. Now is the time to build on these achievements to make the world safer, and to make the world more free. We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the time for diplomacy is now.

I am humbled by President Bushs confidence in me to undertake the great work of leading American diplomacy at such a moment in history. If confirmed, I will work with members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, to build a strong bipartisan consensus behind Americas foreign policy. I will seek to strengthen our alliances, to support our friends, and to make the world safer, and better. I will enlist the great talents of the men and women of the State Department, the Foreign and Civil Services and our Foreign Service Nationals. And if I am confirmed, I will be especially honored to succeed a man I so admire my friend and mentor, Colin Powell.

Four years ago, Secretary Powell addressed this committee for the same purpose I do now. Then as now, it was the same week that America celebrates the life and legacy of Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. It is a time to reflect on the legacy of that great man, on the sacrifices he made, on the courage of the people he led, and on the progress our nation has made in the decades since. I am especially indebted to those who fought and sacrificed in the Civil Rights movement so that I could be here today.

For me, this is a time to remember other heroes as well. I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama the old Birmingham of Bull Connor, church bombings, and voter intimidation the Birmingham where Dr. King was thrown in jail for demonstrating without a permit. Yet there was another Birmingham, the city where my parents John and Angelena Rice and their friends built a thriving community in the midst of the most terrible segregation in the country. It would have been so easy for them to give in to despair, and to send that message of hopelessness to their children. But they refused to allow the limits and injustices of their time to limit our horizons. My friends and I were raised to believe that we could do or become anything that the only limits to our aspirations came from within. We were taught not to listen to those who said to us, "No, you cant."

The story of Birminghams parents and teachers and children is a story of the triumph of universal values over adversity. And those values a belief in democracy, and liberty, and the dignity of every life, and the rights of every individual unite Americans of all backgrounds, all faiths, and all colors.

They provide us a common cause in all times, a rallying point in difficult times, and a source of hope to men and women across the globe who cherish freedom and work to advance freedoms cause. And in these extraordinary times, it is the duty of all of us legislators, diplomats, civil servants, and citizens to uphold and advance the values that are the core of the American identity, and that have lifted the lives of millions around the world.

One of historys clearest lessons is that America is safer, and the world is more secure, whenever and wherever freedom prevails. It is neither an accident nor a coincidence that the greatest threats of the last century emerged from totalitarian movements. Fascism and Communism differed in many ways, but they shared an implacable hatred of freedom, a fanatical assurance that their way was the only way, and a supreme confidence that history was on their side.

At certain moments, it almost seemed to be so. During the first half of the 20th century much of the democratic and economic progress of earlier decades looked to be swept away by the march of ruthless ideologies armed with terrible military and technological power. Even after the allied victory in World War II, many feared that Europe, and perhaps the world, would be forced to permanently endure half enslaved and half free.

The cause of freedom suffered a series of major strategic setbacks: Communism imposed in Eastern Europe Soviet power dominant in East Germany the coup in Czechoslovakia ... the victory of the Chinese Communists ... the Soviet nuclear test five years before we predicted ... to name just a few. In those early years, the prospect of a united democratic Germany and a democratic Japan seemed far-fetched.

Yet America and our allies were blessed with visionary leaders who did not lose their way. They created the great NATO alliance to contain and eventually erode Soviet power. They helped to establish the United Nations and created the international legal framework for this and other institutions that have served the world well for more than 50 years. They provided billions in aid to rebuild Europe and much of Asia. They built an international economic system based on free trade and free markets to spread prosperity to every corner of the globe. And they confronted the ideology and propaganda of our enemies with a message of hope, and with the truth. And in the end though the end was long in coming their vision prevailed.

The challenges we face today are no less daunting. America and the free world are once again engaged in a long-term struggle against an ideology of tyranny and terror, and against hatred and hopelessness. And we must confront these challenges with the same vision, courage and boldness of thought demonstrated by our post-World War Two leaders.

In these momentous times, American diplomacy has three great tasks. First, we will unite the community of democracies in building an international system that is based on our shared values and the rule of law. Second, we will strengthen the community of democracies to fight the threats to our common security and alleviate the hopelessness that feeds terror. And third, we will spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe. That is the mission that President Bush has set for America in the world ... and the great mission of American diplomacy today.

Let me address each of the three tasks I just mentioned. Every nation that benefits from living on the right side of the freedom divide has an obligation to share freedoms blessings. Our first challenge, then, is to inspire the American people, and the people of all free nations, to unite in common cause to solve common problems.

NATO and the European Union and our democratic allies in East Asia and around the world will be our strongest partners in this vital work. The United States will also continue to work to support and uphold the system of international rules and treaties that allow us to take advantage of our freedom, to build our economies, and to keep us safe and secure.

We must remain united in insisting that Iran and North Korea abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions, and choose instead the path of peace. New forums that emerge from the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative offer the ideal venues to encourage economic, social and democratic reform in the Islamic world.

Implementing the Doha Development Agenda and reducing trade barriers will create jobs and reduce poverty in dozens of nations. And by standing with the free peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, we will continue to bring hope to millions, and democracy to a part of the world where it is sorely lacking.

As President Bush said in our National Security Strategy, America "is guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations." If I am confirmed, that core conviction will guide my actions. Yet when judging a course of action, I will never forget that the true measure of its worth is whether it is effective.

Our second great task is to strengthen the community of democracies, so that all free nations are equal to the work before us. Free peoples everywhere are heartened by the success of democracy around the globe. Together, we must build on that success.

We face many challenges. In some parts of the world, an extremist few threaten the very existence of political liberty. Disease and poverty have the potential to destabilize whole nations and regions. Corruption can sap the foundations of democracy. And some elected leaders have taken illiberal steps that, if not corrected, could undermine hard-won democratic progress.

We must do all we can to ensure that nations which make the hard choices and do the hard work to join the free world deliver on the high hopes of their citizens for a better life. From the Philippines to Colombia to the nations of Africa, we are strengthening counterterrorism cooperation with nations that have the will to fight terror, but need help with the means. We are spending billions to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases, to alleviate suffering for millions and help end public health crises.

America has always been generous in helping countries recover from natural disasters and today we are providing money and personnel to ease the suffering of millions afflicted by the tsunami, and to help nations rebuild their infrastructure. We are joining with developing nations to fight corruption, instill the rule of law, and create a culture of transparency. In much of Africa and Latin America, we face the twin challenges of helping to bolster democratic ideals and institutions, and alleviating poverty.

We will work with reformers in those regions who are committed to increasing opportunity for their peoples. And we will insist that leaders who are elected democratically have an obligation to govern democratically.

Our third great task is to spread democracy and freedom throughout the world. I spoke earlier of the grave setbacks to democracy in the first half of the 20th century. The second half of the century saw an advance of democracy that was far more dramatic. In the last quarter of that century, the number of democracies in the world tripled. And in the last six months of this new century alone, we have witnessed the peaceful, democratic transfer of power in Malaysia, a majority Muslim nation, and in Indonesia, the country with the world's largest Muslim population. We have seen men and women wait in line for hours to vote in Afghanistan's first ever free and fair presidential election.

We and I know you Mr. Chairman -- were heartened by the refusal of the people of Ukraine to accept a flawed election, and their insistence that their democratic will be honored. We have watched as the people of the Palestinian Territories turned out to vote in an orderly and fair election. And soon the people of Iraq will exercise their right to choose their leaders, and set the course of their nation's future. No less than were the last decades of the 20th century, the first decades of this new century can be an era of liberty. And we in America must do everything we can to make it so.

To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the "town square test": if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom.

In the Middle East, President Bush has broken with six decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the hope of purchasing stability at the price of liberty. The stakes could not be higher. As long as the broader Middle East remains a region of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce extremists and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends.

But there are hopeful signs that freedom is on the march. Afghanistan and Iraq are struggling to put dark and terrible pasts behind them and are choosing the path of progress. Just months ago, Afghanistan held a free and fair election, and chose a president who is committed to the success of democracy and to the fight against terror. In Iraq, the people will soon take the next step in their journey toward full, genuine democracy. All Iraqis, whatever their faith or ethnicity from Shias to Sunnis to Kurds must build a common future together. The election later this month will be an important first step as the people of Iraq prepare to draft a constitution and hold the next round of elections elections that will create a permanent government.

The success of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq will give strength and hope to reformers throughout the region, and accelerate the pace of reforms already under way. From Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain, we are seeing elections and new protections for women and minorities, and the beginnings of political pluralism. Political, civil, and business leaders have issued stirring calls for political, economic and social change. Increasingly, the people are speaking, and their message is clear: the future of the region is to live in liberty.

And the establishment of a Palestinian democracy will help to bring an end to the conflict in the Holy Land. Much has changed since June 24th, 2002, when President Bush outlined a new approach for America in the quest for peace in the Middle East, and spoke the truth about what will be required to end this conflict. Now we have reached a moment of opportunity and we must seize it.

We take great encouragement from the elections just held for a new Palestinian leader. And Senators Biden and Sununu, I want to thank you for representing the United States at these historic elections. America seeks justice and dignity and a viable, independent, and democratic state for the Palestinian people. We seek security and peace for the State of Israel. Israel must do its part to improve the conditions under which Palestinians live and seek to build a better future. Arab states must join to help and deny any help or solace to those who take the path of violence.

I look forward to personally working with the Palestinian and Israeli leaders, and bringing American diplomacy to bear on this difficult but crucial issue. Peace can only come if all parties choose to do the difficult work, and choose to meet their responsibilities. And the time to choose peace is now.

Building a world of hope, prosperity and peace is difficult. As we move forward, America's relations with the world's global powers will be critical. In Russia, we see that the path to democracy is uneven and that its success is not yet assured. Yet recent history shows that we can work closely with Russia on common problems. And as we do so, we will continue to press the case for democracy, and we will continue to make clear that the protection of democracy in Russia is vital to the future of US-Russia relations.

In Asia, we have moved beyond the false assumption that it is impossible to have good relations with all of Asia's powers. Our Asian alliances have never been stronger and we will use that strength to help secure the peace and prosperity of the region. Japan, South Korea, and Australia are key partners in our efforts to deter common threats and spur economic growth.

We are building a candid, cooperative and constructive relationship with China that embraces our common interests but still recognizes our considerable differences about values. The United States is cooperating with India, the world's largest democracy, across a range of economic and security issues. This, even as we embrace Pakistan as a vital ally in the war on terror, and a state in transition towards a more moderate and democratic future.

In our own neighborhood, we are cooperating closely with Canada and Mexico, and working to realize the vision of a fully democratic hemisphere, bound by common values and free trade.

We also must realize that America and all free nations are facing a generational struggle against a new and deadly ideology of hatred that we cannot ignore. We need to do much more to confront hateful propaganda, dispel dangerous myths, and get out the truth. We will increase our exchanges with the rest of the world. And Americans should make a serious effort to understand other cultures and learn foreign languages.

Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue. And America must remain open to visitors and workers and students from around the world, without compromising our security standards. If our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot close ourselves off from the world. And if I am confirmed, public diplomacy will be a top priority for me and for the professionals I lead.

In all that lies ahead, the primary instrument of American diplomacy will be the Department of State, and the men and women of its Foreign and Civil Services and Foreign Service Nationals. The time for diplomacy is now and the President and I will expect great things from America's diplomatic corps.

We know from experience how hard they work, the risks they and their families take, and the hardships they endure. We will be asking even more of them, in the service of their country, and of a great cause. They will need to develop new skills, and rise to new challenges. This time of global transformation calls for transformational diplomacy. More than ever, Americas diplomats will need to be active in spreading democracy, fighting terror, reducing poverty, and doing our part to protect the American homeland. I will personally work to ensure that America's diplomats have all the tools they need to do their jobs from training to budgets to mentoring to embassy security.

I also intend to strengthen the recruitment of new personnel, because American diplomacy needs to constantly hire and develop top talent. And I will seek to further diversify the State Department's workforce. This is not just a good cause; it is a necessity. A great strength of our country is our diversity. And the signal sent to the rest of the world when America is represented abroad by people of all cultures, races, and religions is an unsurpassed statement about who we are and what our values mean in practice.

Let me close with a personal recollection. I was in government in Washington in 1989 to 1991. I was the Soviet specialist in the White House at the end of the Cold War. I was lucky to be there, and I knew it. I got to participate in the liberation of Eastern Europe. I got to participate in the unification of Germany and to see the Soviet Union collapse. It was a heady time for us all. But, when I look back, I know that we were merely harvesting the good decisions that had been made in 1947, in 1948, and in 1949, when Truman and Acheson and Vandenberg and Kennan and so many wise and farsighted statesmen in the Executive and Legislative branches recognized that we were not in a limited engagement with communism, we were in the defining struggle of our times.

Democrats and Republicans united around a vision and policies that won the Cold War. The road was not always smooth, but the basic unity of purpose and values was there and that unity was essential to our eventual success. No President, and no Secretary of State, could have effectively protected American interests in such momentous times without strong support from the Congress, and from this Committee. And the same is true today. Our task, and our duty is to unite around a vision and policies that will spread freedom and prosperity around the globe. I have worked directly with many of you. And in this time of great challenge and opportunity, Americas co-equal branches of government must work together to advance freedom and prosperity.

In the preface to his memoirs, published in 1969, Dean Acheson wrote of the post-war period that "those who acted in this drama did not know, nor do any of us yet know, the end." Senators, now we know and many of us here bore witness to that end. The end was a victory for freedom, the liberation of half a continent, the passing of a despotic empire and vindication for the wise and brave decisions made at the beginning.

It is my greatest hope and my deepest conviction that the struggle we face today will some day end in a similar triumph of the human spirit. And working together, we can make it so.

Thank you.

Rice nominated as Secretary of State

The President: I am pleased to announce my nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's Secretary of State ... When confirmed by the Senate, Condoleezza Rice will take office at a critical time for our country ... As a girl in the segregated South, Dr Rice saw the promise of America violated by racial discrimination and by the violence that comes from hate. But she was taught by her mother, Angelina, and her father, the Reverend John Rice, that human dignity is the gift of God, and that the ideals of America would overcome oppression. That early wisdom has guided her through life, and that truth has guided our nation to a better day. Read on. (Nomination by President George W Bush, 16 November 2004)

No Excuses

To achieve permanent victory, we must do more. We must affirm the truth that we have learned the hard way time and again in our history -- in World War I, in the lead to World War II -- we learned that tyranny must always be opposed. We must affirm the truth that when freedom is on the march, America is more secure; and when freedom is in retreat, America is more vulnerable. Read on (Front Page Magazine, 1 November 2004)

US and World Clearly are Safer

None disputes that Saddam Hussein had contacts with and ties to terrorists. None disputes that he possessed weapons of mass destruction, used them against innocents, desired to resume their production and had capabilities that would have let him do so over time. None disputes his 12-year history of deceit, obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections or material breach of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. And no one disputes his failure to prove he had destroyed his WMD stockpiles as required by UN Resolution 1441. Read on. (USA Today, 16 July 2004)

Remarks to Michigan State Uni graduating class

I first learned about the transforming power of education from stories about my paternal grandfather. Granddaddy Rice was a poor farmer’s son in Ewtah, Alabama. One day, he decided to get book-learning. And so he asked, in the language of the day, where a colored man could go to school. They said that a little Presbyterian school, Stillman College, was only about 50 miles away ... Despite all that my grandfather had to endure - including poverty and segregation - he understood that education is a privilege. And with privilege comes responsibility. Read on. (Lansing State Journal, 8 May 2004)

Rice interviewed by Ed Bradley, CBS

On Capitol Hill, a parade of top officials from both the Bush and Clinton administrations testified publicly under oath before the commission investigating the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. But Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security advisor - the person the commission wanted to hear from most - the White House refused to make available citing executive privilege. But while she says she couldn't talk publicly to the commission - Dr Rice did talk to us this morning in Washington. Read On. (CBS News, 28 March 2004)

9/11: For The Record

The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat. Read On. (Washington Post. 22 March 2004)

The Reagan Lecture

Ronald Reagan was President during a pivotal period in the history of our country, and of our world. But unlike most Presidents who face great crises, Ronald Reagan, in some sense, chose his moment ... That vision and determination with which President Reagan pursued these goals sometimes roiled public opinion at the time. It certainly roiled the foreign policy establishment. And I know that because I came from the foreign policy establishment. As an arms control and Soviet specialist just getting started, I remember those debates well. And I sometimes participated in them. I remember one particular one ... Read on. (The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, 26 February 2004)

Our Asia Strategy

There was a time in the 1990s when our friends in Asia began to doubt America's commitment to the region. Today, President Bush returns home from his six-nation visit having sent a clear signal: Not only are we in Asia to stay, we are working with our allies and partners across the region to advance alliances, promote open trade and investment, and bolster the forces of democratic change and tolerance in ways that seemed unachievable only a few years ago. Read On. (Wall Street Journal, 24 October 2003)

On the Middle East and Iran

Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas recognized at Aqaba that terrorism is not a means to a Palestinian state, but a deadly obstacle to it. He pledged to use his full efforts to end the armed intifada and to work without compromise for the end of violence and terror. He also pledged to make Palestinian institutions, including security services, more democratic and accountable. Read on. (Town Hall/Global Viewpoint, 12 June 2003)

New Visions

Sundays in my family meant church. It was the center of our lives. In segregated black Birmingham of the late 1950s and early 1960s, the church was not just a place of worship; it was the social and civic center of our community. Throughout my life I have never doubted the existence of God, but, like most people, I have had some ups and downs in practicing my faith. After I moved to California in 1981, there were a lot of years when I was not attending church regularly. Then something happened that I will always remember. Read on. (National Center for Public Policy Research, 23 April 2003)

Our Coalition

The coalition that is currently engaged in the hard, dangerous work to disarm Iraq is strong, broad and diverse. Nearly 50 nations are committed to ridding Saddam Hussein's regime of all its deadly, destructive and illegal weapons ... These countries are from every continent on the globe, representing every major race, religion, and ethnicity in the world. Read On. (Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2003)

Why We Know Iraq Is Lying

Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Councilunanimously passed a resolution demanding — yet again — that Iraqdisclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weaponsprograms, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clearand resounding no. Read on. (New York Times, 23 January 2003)

A Balance of Power that Favors Freedom

President Bush's new National Security Strategy offers a bold vision for protecting our nation that captures today's new realities and new opportunities. It calls on America to use our position of unparalleled strength and influence to create a balance of power that favors freedom. As the president says in the cover letter: we seek to create the 'conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty'. Read on. (US National Security Strategy: A New Era, December 2002)

Shared Values, Interests of US and Allies

There is an old argument between the so-called "realistic" school of foreign affairs and the "idealistic" school. To oversimplify, realists downplay the importance of values while emphasizing the balance of power as the key to stability and peace. Idealists emphasize the primacy of values and the character of societies as crucial to states' behavior toward other nations. While this may make for interesting academic debate, in real life, power and values are inextricably linked. Great powers can influence millions of lives and change history. And the values of great powers matter. If the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, the world would be a very different place today. Read on. (Washington File, 15 october 2002)

Rice interviewed by Al Jazeera TV

The President has been very active in asking both sides to do what they can to make certain that we get into the Mitchell Process. He has asked Chairman Arafat to make 100 percent effort to arrest and deal with terrorism and violence toward Israel. He has asked Prime Minister Sharon to do nothing to make the situation worse and, indeed, to -- the Israelis pulled out of Hebron. Read on. (Al Jazeera TV, recorded 16 October 2001)

Foreign Policy Priorities and Challenges

In his first extended foreign trip since taking office, President Bush sees an important opportunity to advance our common goals with Europe and to discuss our common challenges. This trip takes place against a backdrop of conversation -- in the media, in academia, and in diplomatic circles -- that speaks of a "values gap" between America and Europe. Read on. (National Conference of Council On Foreign Relations, New York, 7 June 2001)

Exercising Power Without Arrogance

The United States has found it exceedingly difficult to define its "national interest" in the absence of Soviet power. That we do not know how to think about what follows the U.S.-Soviet confrontation is clear from the continued references to the "post-Cold War period." Yet such periods of transition are very important because they offer strategic opportunities. During these fluid times, one can affect the shape of the world to come. The enormity of the moment is obvious. Read On. (The Chicago Tribune, 31 December 2000)

Russian to Judgment

Panelists: Condoleezza Rice (Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution), David Holloway (Senior Fellow, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University) and Gail Lapidus (Senior Fellow, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University). Compere Peter Robinson: “Conde, you are advising a presidential candidate, George W. Bush. What would you tell him, what do you tell him to do differently toward Russia from what President Clinton and his administration do towards Russia?” Read on. (Uncommon Knowledge, filmed 15 April 2000)

How to Pursue the National Interest

The United States faces a rare opportunity to promote its values around the world. A foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice explains how to grasp the moment. Read on. (Hoover Digest No 2/2000, February 2000)

Condi Rice can't lose

By Romesh Ratnesar: George W. Bush's foreign-policy adviser is a future superstar: It was December 1989, and George Bush had arrived for a summit with Mikhail Gorbachev on the stormy waters off Malta in the Mediterranean. He introduced the Soviet President to his advisers, stopping near a reed-thin, 35-year-old African-American woman. "This is Condoleezza Rice," Bush told Gorbachev. "She tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union." Read on. (Time, 20 September 1999)