Remarks by Vice President Dick Chaney Before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York Times, 16 February 2002Remarks 
by Vice President Dick Cheney Before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York 
Times, 16 February 2002



Following is the full text of remarks today by Vice President Dick Cheney before 
the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, as distributed by the Federal 
News Service:
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Well, Les, Pete, I want to thank you all for the warm welcome today. I see a lot 
of old friends in the room. And it's good to be back at the Council on Foreign 
Relations. As Pete mentioned, I've been a member for a long time, and was 
actually a director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was 
campaigning for reelection back home in Wyoming -- (laughter) -- but it stood me 
in good stead. I value very much my experience, exposure to the tremendous 
people involved and the involvement and the ideas and the debates on the great 
policy issues of the day.
I also especially want to thank the council, and especially Hank Greenberg, for 
initiating the Center for Geoeconomic Studies. I think it's a great idea. The 
center clearly reflects the generosity and vision of a distinguished member of 
our society. In the years to come, it will add a great deal to the understanding 
of economic issues and their significance in world affairs.
Throughout the time that I've been a member of the council, most of our debates 
were defined by the Cold War. When America's great enemy suddenly disappeared, 
many wondered what new direction our foreign policy would take. We spoke, as 
always, of long-term problems and regional crises throughout the world, but 
there was no single immediate, global threat that any roomful of experts could 
agree upon.
All of that changed five months ago. The threat is known and our role isclear 
now. We face an enemy that is determined to kill Americans by any means on any 
scale and on our soil. We're dealing with a terror network that has cells in 60 
countries. Such a group cannot be held back by deterrence nor reasoned with 
through diplomacy. For this reason, the war against terror will not end in a 
treaty. There will be no summit meeting, no negotiations with terrorists. This 
conflict can only end in their complete and utter destruction.
The attacks of 9/11 confront us with a whole new set of considerations, from our 
ongoing vulnerability to international terrorism, to the possibility that 
terrorists may some day gain access to weapons of mass destruction. In the 
rubble of Afghanistan we found confirmation, if any were needed, that bin Laden 
and the al Qaeda network were seriously interested in nuclear, biological and 
chemical weapons. It's one thing to have that sort of issue discussed in policy 
seminars, it's quite another to have in your hand documents clearly describing 
their aspirations and plans for acquiring for these capabilities so that they 
can use them against the United States or our friends and allies around the 
world.
We have a responsibility to answer that growing threat. With all of the urgency 
that is required, we will work to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from 
threatening America or our friends and allies with chemical, biological or 
nuclear weapons or allowing them to provide those weapons to terrorists.
Many nations throughout the West, in Asia and in the Islamic world are joined 
with us in a broad coalition against terror. The response we've seen is a model 
for diplomatic and military cooperation in the face of common danger and a 
tribute to the leadership of the president of the United States. I've seen 
President Bush bring this coalition together with great steadiness and skill, 
working with old allies, seeking new ones, consulting every day with other 
leaders, laying the groundwork for a sustained, unified and successful campaign. 
America has friends and allies in this cause, but only we can lead it. Only we 
can rally the world in a task of this complexity against an enemy so elusive and 
so resourceful. The United States and only the United States can see this effort 
through to victory.
This responsibility did not come to us by chance. We are in a unique position 
because of our unique assets, because of the character of our people, the 
strength of our ideals, the might of our military and the enormous economy that 
supports it. We cannot take these for granted, and President Bush does not. He 
has proposed, as you know, the largest increase in spending for national 
security in a generation. The skill and bravery of our troops and the power of 
their equipment to protect American and our friends and allies is at stake. The 
precision of our weapons can spare the lives of innocent civilians. Yet modern 
warfare is expensive. In Afghanistan, the effort has cost more than $30 million 
a day. We must also remember that the time frames involved run very long in the 
military. The forces we'll have to defend us 10 or 20 years hence must be 
planned and built today.
At the same time as our defense expenditures increase, we've confronted the 
effects of a serious downturn in the economy. Some presidents have faced sudden 
national emergencies. Others have had to direct wars or dealt with economic 
recession. This president's had to deal with all three in a very short space of 
time.
Before taking your questions today, I wanted to briefly explain the measures the 
president's proposed to get our economy moving again and to set it on a path 
even more rapid growth in the long run.
The first sign of a slowdown appeared in the summer of 2000.
Among the contributing factors were high and unpredictable energy prices, a 
steadily rising tax burden, and a saturation in business investment. The stock 
market signaled trouble as well. By the time the president and I took office, 
business investment growth had halted and the economy had already lost 300,000 
manufacturing jobs. The need for action was clear.
The tax cut enacted last year was intended to ensure the long- term prosperity 
of our economy by stimulating savings and investment and by limiting the total 
amount of our national wealth controlled by the government. It was also 
fortuitous in anticipating the recession and countering the short-term effects 
of the economic downturn.
As Chairman Greenspan noted a few weeks ago, and as the Council of Economic 
Advisers confirmed in an analysis released just today, it did indeed have that 
effect. Without the Tax Relief Act, the third- quarter growth last year would 
have been much worse, contracting by 2- 1/2 percent instead of the reported 
1-1/3 percent. In the fourth quarter, real GDP would have fallen by a percent 
instead of advancing slightly, by two-tenths of a percent.
The Tax Relief Act has raised the prospects of solid recovery in 2002. By the 
end of the year, the tax relief program will have helped the private sector 
generate an additional 800,000 jobs that would not have otherwise occurred.
Even so, nothing could completely offset the terrible economic effects of 
September 11th. Every foreign and domestic flight cancelled for days, some for 
weeks. For a time, many hotels, shopping malls and restaurants were empty. Stock 
trading was at a dead halt for six days, and the confidence of investors deeply 
shaken. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were laid off, many of them still 
looking for work to this day. And overall, as estimated by the Council of 
Economic Advisers, the attacks of September 11th cost the economy approximately 
$120 billion in the last few months of the year alone.
September 11th was also a tipping point for the federal government, out of 
surplus and into deficit. The revenue stream slowed with the economy, while tens 
of billions of dollars were required for recovery, for rebuilding, for new 
emergency measures, for homeland security and for military operations.
There is evidence, however, that the economy is now poised for non-inflationary 
recovery. Orders for durable goods have increased, jobless claims have fallen, 
and consumer sentiment about the future has rebounded. Unemployment may still go 
up for a short time, as it typically does for several months after the recovery 
begins. This still leaves many people in need of help.
The administration supports extending unemployment benefits and direct 
assistance for health care coverage for jobless Americans. And government's 
responsibility only begins there, however. Even with positive signs in the 
economy, we need an insurance policy to make certain that recovery does take 
hold and that it builds momentum through the year.
That's why the president has supported an economic-security plan to secure the 
recovery, to lay the groundwork for sustained long-term growth. The House passed 
a stimulus package again, for the third time, just yesterday. We've been 
disappointed in the Senate's failure to pass the president's plan, which would 
generate an estimated 300,000 new private-sector jobs. For many Americans still 
out of work, the Senate's failure to act simply means the recession will go on a 
while longer.
Where the economy is concerned, the federal government's responsibility is 
rather clear. Outside its own functions, government does not create jobs. Our 
responsibility is to create an environment in which employers want to hire more 
people -- especially among small firms, which are the source of 2/3 of all new 
jobs created in the economy. But there'll be another benefit, as well: As growth 
is restored and jobs are added, the revenues of government will rise. The return 
path to budget surpluses is not higher taxes on the American people. It is 
faster growth in the American economy and fiscal responsibility here in 
Washington.
The president's budget commits most new spending to national security and 
homeland defense and seeks to hold the rest of government to a modest increase 
of no more than 2 percent. Were spending to grow without restraint, more 
billions would be diverted from the private sector, limiting the economy's 
ability to expand and grow in the future.
It's been suggested by some that tax relief might be making matters worse, and 
some urge repeal. But I've yet to hear anyone explain exactly how higher taxes 
will help the economy grow. Economic growth is a direct consequence of millions 
of individual decisions to produce, to save and to invest. Americans will have 
more incentives to do all three when they are left with more of their own 
earnings, when billions of extra dollars remain in the private economy, instead 
of going into the federal Treasury. Any added tax burden today would throw the 
economy back into reverse. To again invoke the wisdom of my friend of 30 years, 
Alan Greenspan, all taxes are a drag on the economy; it's only a question of 
degree.
Far from withdrawing tax relief, we need to speed it up and make it permanent. 
The effects will be strongly felt in the business community. A full phase-in of 
the president's tax cut will reduce taxes on more than 10 million sole 
proprietorships and partnerships. To promote investment, our administration 
supports tax incentives for employers who buy new equipment, a provision that 
was again in the stimulus package passed last night by the House.
Over the long term, we must do more to simplify the tax code, as well. Under the 
president's leadership, we made progress by reducing marginal rates, improving 
tax fairness, and getting rid of the estate tax, one of the most dense and 
confusing sections of the law. The tax code will always have some level of 
complexity, because the economy itself is complex, as are the financial lives of 
individuals and firms. But it's an enormous challenge to understand the code, to 
keep the necessary records and to fill out all the forms. An awful lot of time 
is spent simply planning tax strategy.
Complexity also adds to the likelihood of errors, administrative costs for the 
government, and a number of disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The costs of 
tax compliance run between $70 (billion) and $125 billion a year. Our 
administration, under the leadership of Secretary O'Neill, will investigative 
options for tax simplification.
There are other hindrances to economic growth as well. Long ago both parties 
reached a consensus in favor of reasonable federal regulation, standards of 
workplace and product safety, environmental stewardship, and public health. In 
the case of 401(k)s and private pensions, the president is proposing additional 
protections for individuals.
Yet some regulations serve no good purpose and consume resources that might 
otherwise go to productive uses, particularly for smaller companies. The total 
cost of federal regulation is now estimated at some $8,000 per household per 
year.
We plan to hold every new regulation to a simple test. If it is not based on 
sound science, if it is not economically reasonable, if it does more harm than 
good, then it should not go on the books at all.
One of the most fundamental conditions of long-term growth is energy -- a 
reliable, affordable supply on the fuels that make our economy go. I hardly need 
to explain to this audience the strategic dimensions of energy policy. It's 
enough to say that virtually everything we do, make, sell depends on energy. 
Even the clean, quiet operation of a computer is likely fueled, down the line, 
by burning coal.
I have no doubt that America will one day move beyond fossil fuels. We are 
working toward that goal with research into alternative energy sources to run 
our cars and light our homes. But they are not yet at hand. For the foreseeable 
future, if we are to avoid regular price spikes and chronic shortages, we must 
continue our progress in energy efficiency and conservation, and we must 
increase energy production.
The president has proposed the first comprehensive energy plan in a generation. 
The plan has already passed the House. We hope the Senate will follow the 
president's lead and pass a comprehensive energy plan in coming weeks.
Trade policy, I'm certain, will be a regular concern to the Greenberg Center in 
the decades to come, as it will be a concern for policymakers. That in itself is 
a hopeful sign.
Trade is clearly one of the pursuits of nations at peace, and the expansion of 
commerce can work to the good of all.
For our part, trade already accounts for 26 percent of our economy. Exports 
alone support more than 12 million American jobs, and these tend on average to 
be high-paying positions. The nation's farmers and ranchers receive a quarter of 
their income from sales abroad. One out of every three acres is producing goods 
for export.
To make the case for global trade, we can point to our own history, which 
demonstrates the link between trade liberalization and faster economic growth. 
And we're seeing this today in the success of NAFTA. We believe that the nation 
must strongly support a new round of global trade negotiations. We're also 
working with nations in Central and South America to establish a Free Trade Zone 
in the Americas by January of '05. And we have made great progress toward 
completing a free trade agreement with Chile this year.
Still, out of 130 free trade agreements in the world today, the United States is 
party to only three. All of our efforts to open new markets around the world 
will depend upon trade promotion authority, the ability of the president to 
negotiate a trade agreement on behalf of the United States and subject it to 
Congress for an up or down vote. Once again the House has already given 
approval. It remains only for the Senate to pass trade promotion authority, and 
we hope that that will happen soon.
For the United States, every advance for global trade is an opportunity to 
expand an already great economy and include more people in our nation's 
prosperity. Our nation is still the engine of economic growth for the rest of 
the world. Fortunately, for all the impediments to growth in the United Sates, 
we've managed to resist the more extreme regulatory impulses sometimes seen 
overseas. The OECD has looked into the reason why productivity growth is 
consistently higher in the U.S. than it is in Western Europe. The answer in part 
lies in our higher level of job mobility and entrepreneurship, a well- developed 
market for venture capital, and the quick resolution of bankruptcies. The 
European Commission itself recognizes this, reporting last fall that structural 
rigidities continue to sap the resilience and potential growth of the Euro-area 
economy.
The U.S. economy, on the other hand, remains a model of flexibility, having the 
capacity to generate new and higher-paying jobs. And just as we stand to gain a 
great deal from wider trade, so do our trading partners, especially the 
less-developed nations. For them the stakes are even higher.
Short-term grants and aid can only go so far; in the long-term, open and 
investment can bring the fist real hope for material uplift -- all the more when 
economic reforms are joined with political freedom.
We've seen before how commerce and open institutions can transform a nation in 
Japan, South Korea, Chile and other countries once poor but now stable and 
prosperous. We're seeing it today in the once-captive nations of Eastern Europe 
and the former Soviet Union. For Russia, Estonia, Hungary and others, this past 
decade has not always been easy. But more of their people are prosperous today, 
and their futures are brighter because they are on the path of democracy and 
economic freedom.
Many nations on the same path look to the United States as an example and an 
ally. They rely on our support, our encouragement and our continued leadership 
in the world, and we must always provide it. This is our vision of a world 
beyond the war on terror, where people in every region and culture can see in 
their own lifetimes rising levels of development, education and income; where 
the young can grow up free of the conditions that breed despair, hatred and 
violence. The same vision is shared by people everywhere, and perhaps nowhere by 
those who live under terror, by -- and perhaps nowhere more than by those who 
live under terror and tyranny.
All who seek justice and dignity and the chance to live their own lives will 
have a friend and ally in the United States of America. President Bush has 
called this "a decisive decade in the history of liberty." We are passing 
through dangerous times requiring clear thinking and confident action. These are 
the qualities that our country's leadership has always found in the Council on 
Foreign Relations. I know that I can always rely on you for wise and willing 
counsel, and I have a feeling you'll share it right now, in the form of your 
questions. (Brief, scattered laughter.)
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MODERATOR: Thank you so much, Mr. Vice President.
The usual Council rules: Wait for the microphone after you're recognized. Please 
stand and identify yourself -- name, rank, serial number. Focus on precision 
more than poetry, so that we can get as many questions in as possible.
Let me invite one of our oldest and dearest members to begin the questioning, 
David Rockefeller. And I would say, as David stands to ask his question, that 
David also played a key role in the formation of this geoeconomic center with 
ideas and with his generosity, as well.
David?
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Vice President, I just enjoyed so much your whole speech, but I was 
particularly pleased that you gave such a strong endorsement for the free-trade 
agreement for all the Americas -- (inaudible) -- a subject that has been of 
great concern to me for many years and particularly recently. And I think it's 
absolutely essential for the strength of our economy.
But if I may, I had a question on a different subject, and that relates to Iran. 
During the days of the Shah, even though there were many who, I think 
understandably, felt that he had a very repressive regime, he also did a great 
many good things for the country. And unfortunately, since that time, I think 
many of the good that he did has been undone. At the present time, our 
relations, which, understandably, have deteriorated significantly since the 
departure of the Shah, seem to be getting, if anything, worse, although we've 
been hoping to move forward to a better relationship. I wondered if you could 
tell us a little bit about some of the things that are going on in relation to 
Iran and how you see the prospects for future relations.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you, David.
I -- some of you may remember -- probably don't, because I don't know anybody 
pays attention to private citizens when they're not -- no longer in the 
government. But during the period when I was out of government, in the private 
sector, on a couple of occasions gave speeches, talking about the importance of 
trying to rebuild a relationship with Iran, that after all these years, since 
1979, given the size and importance of Iran and that part of the world, that it 
was long overdue that we begin to rebuild those relationships.
I must say, with my return to government and the problems that I deal with on a 
daily basis, I've been deeply disappointed in the conduct of the government of 
Iran in recent months. There is -- and speaking for myself, I think many of us 
have the view that there is a great yearning on the part of the Iranian people 
to restore and reestablish relationships with the U.S. and the West.
By the same token, the government appears to be committed, for example, to 
trying to destroy the peace process as it relates to the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. And we've seen all too many examples of their active support of 
terrorism and their, as the president said the other night in the State of the 
Union speech, unstinting efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. We 
would hope that they would understand the strength of our feelings about this 
particular set of concerns and that at some point down the road, we could find a 
way to resolve those concerns. But their conduct in recent weeks has not been 
encouraging, if I can state it in those terms.
So it is a problem. Iran is a -- remains a major focus of concern for us.
MODERATOR: A question here, please.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The allies have been very important to us in this 
enterprise.
I would not want, by any means, to understate our appreciation for what they've 
done. You think about NATO, for example; the fact that for the only time in 
history, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty was implemented or invoked when our NATO 
allies came together and agreed in the aftermath of September 11th that that was 
an appropriate course of action to take. And there have been some noteworthy 
developments as some of our allies have played more active roles than ever 
before.
Clearly, Britain has been crucial throughout this whole process. Prime Minister 
Blair has been very much a leader in the enterprise, and the Brits committed 
troops early; took on the responsibility of heading up that international 
security force. And they've played a very significant role, but so have a great 
many others now. The Germans -- for the first time since 1945, we had Germans in 
a combat role in Afghanistan alongside Americans. A long time since that 
happened. And it was interesting that it took place outside NATO in an 
international force designed to restore security and stability in Afghanistan. A 
great many other countries have stepped up -- Turkey has, and Jordan, and the 
Dutch. And so -- I don't want to leave anybody out for fear of offending 
someone.
By the same token, I think what we try to do as an administration, on the one 
hand there's the need to work with allies and to make sure they understand we 
value their advice and their input and their contribution, and on the other 
hand, to provide the leadership that's necessary to defend the United States of 
America. And what happened on September 11th wasn't -- a response, for example, 
of going to the United Nations and getting a U.N. Security Council resolution 
somehow seemed inadequate. And the fact of the matter is, thousands of Americans 
were killed without warning, here at home, by terrorists acting on our soil. And 
just as we were vulnerable, so were -- so is anybody else in the world, in 
effect.
And what was required at that point I think was exactly what the president 
decided that very first afternoon of the crisis on September 11th; that we would 
aggressively pursue and destroy those people who launched that attack against 
us, and who anticipated being able to repeat it at various times in the future. 
And I think it's that aggressive U.S. leadership that was vital in terms of 
achieving the result we've achieved. We've seen nations around the world -- many 
of them might not ordinarily be described as friends of the United States -- 
step up and be very cooperative in terms of sharing intelligence information, or 
working with our law enforcement authorities, or helping us deal with some of 
the financial aspects of the crisis.
And you can't -- you know, on the one hand, alliances are very important, but in 
the final analysis, especially when we're talking about an attack upon the 
homeland of the United States of America, when we're talking about an 
organization now that we know has actively and aggressively pursued nuclear 
weapons and biological weapons and chemical agents, and we know has plans for 
further attacks against the United States, that's not really something you can 
debate in an international fora. Any president has an obligation, first and 
foremost, to look to the defense of the United States, and that's what we've 
done.
MODERATOR: Question over here.
Q: Mr. Vice President, David Ensor of CNN. Do you think the federal government 
is correctly configured for the medium and long term for the war on terrorism? 
I'm thinking specifically, for example, of whether the job now held by Governor 
Ridge needs to have more clout, whether the job now held by George Tenet needs 
to have control of all his troops. And could you just talk to us a little bit 
about whether you think, now that we're in a new era, now the post- -- in the 
post-Cold War era, we know who the enemy is, is the government correctly 
organized for the longer term?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think that -- I guess I would say it depends on which 
piece of it we're talking about. The -- clearly, Tom Ridge's assignment is to 
figure out how we ought to get organized with respect to homeland security. 
That's -- his mission is to develop a national strategy, and there are bound to 
be organizational issues that arise as he does that. Some of those are issues, 
perhaps, within the federal government itself. In other cases, it focuses more 
upon the relationship between the federal government and the role of state and 
local governments. The first responders in these crises are going to be people 
at the local level, emergency rescue crews, law enforcement, fire personnel, as 
we saw in New York. And so we how construct those relationships and who has 
responsibility for what are all the kinds of issues that need to be addressed 
and are being addressed by Governor Ridge.
So I would -- I guess I would withhold judgment there. I don't think we're 
perfectly organized, perhaps. But I don't -- I'll wait and see what the governor 
comes up with in his final set of proposals, in terms of what I think we ought 
to do going forward.
On the intelligence side, that's an age-old debate. And I think it's important 
for us not to -- it's important for us to avoid a situation in which we spend so 
much time moving the boxes around on the chart and redrawing wiring diagrams 
that we lose sight of our basic requirements and mission here.
A couple of unique things about this enterprise, to a greater extent than any of 
these that I've ever been involved in before, and that is the extent to which 
you have to approach this, say, on a multi-dimensional basis if you're going to 
go after terrorists.
It's not just an intelligence operation, although intelligence is absolutely 
crucial, both in terms of trying to protect ourselves against the next attack, 
but also in terms of finding the targets that we have to go take out in terms of 
the offensive side of the operation. It clearly has major -- a major dimension 
for the military, and the military has special intelligence requirements.
One of the key developments with respect to Afghanistan, if you think about it, 
when we first sat down and looked at Afghanistan as a potential target, there's 
not a lot there. You know, they'd been through 20 years of brutal warfare, civil 
war. And at first blush, if you looked at the target list that we were able to 
develop, there wasn't a lot. What was crucial was marrying up our intelligence 
capabilities, and the CIA and their teams on the ground in Afghanistan, 
alongside our Special Forces A Teams from the military, and tie it into the Air 
Force and the Navy aviation. And that combination of things let us generate 
targets that let us achieve a pretty impressive success in a few short weeks. 
And it was blending those together that was crucial.
Now, the only one who can really run that kind of an operation is the president 
himself, working through his National Security Council. And then you fold in the 
State Department and diplomacy, and the role that was played by Colin Powell in 
terms of working with Pakistan and the work that was done to get us access to 
bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and overflight rights a lot of other places. 
And then you fold in Treasury, because at the heart of all of this enterprise 
we've discovered is that the financial network that supports the al Qaeda 
terrorist is embedded in nongovernmental organizations -- charitable foundations 
-- all over the world, and it was important to begin to try to work that 
dimension of it as well, too.
So the only way I know to do that, no matter how you organize those boxes, is 
the president has to sit down around the table on a regular basis with the 
National Security Council and manage that problem and set goals and objectives 
and make decisions as we go forward. And I think that will always be the case, 
however we organize the intelligence community or what kinds of relationships we 
establish there. In the end, you put good people in those jobs, give them clear 
direction and then hold them accountable for their performance, and I think 
that's probably more important than whatever reporting arrangements we have 
inside in the community itself.
MODERATOR: One last, very brief question, please. Over here.
Q: (Name and affiliation off mike.)
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (Rick ?).
Q: I'm surprised that nobody's asked you about Iraq, and there seems to be a 
growing --
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (Chuckles.) I am too! (Laughter.)
Q: There seems to be a growing consensus not only within the administration, but 
throughout the city here, that the time is coming that we will take on Iraq, but 
that consensus really doesn't extend to our allies in Europe or in the Arab 
world.
First of all, does that trouble you? And what can the administration do to build 
greater international support for a more aggressive policy?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Iraq is clearly, as -- again, as the president pointed 
out in his State of the Union speech, very much of concern. And not only do they 
have a robust set of programs to develop their own weapons of mass destruction; 
this is a place that's used it. You know, Saddam used chemical agents on the 
Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, and on his own people when he used them 
against the Kurds in times past. And we know he drove the inspectors out three 
years ago, and we know he has been actively and aggressively doing everything he 
can to enhance his capabilities.
He has in the past had some dealings with terrorists, clearly. Abu Nidal for a 
long time operated out of Baghdad. And so if you were to put together a list of 
-- a list of states given our concern of weapons of mass destruction, states 
that have supported terrorists in the past or have links and ties, clearly 
that's got to be one we focus on.
The prospect of how we deal with sort of what comes next as to where we're going 
from here in terms of the overall war on terror, there are several things, I 
guess, several -- an important point to keep in mind is that it is a 
multifaceted approach. And some of it will be visible and public, as when we 
went into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban; other aspects of it may never see 
the light of day, probably shouldn't. You're clearly going to have to deal in 
the shadows, to some extent, on some of these areas.
And in the pursuit of our objectives, the president's made it clear that this 
will be a priority, that we will use all the means at our disposal -- meaning 
military, diplomatic, intelligence, et cetera -- to address these concerns. And 
I would hope that any nation out there that finds itself contemplating dealing 
with those organizations or developing that kind of capability will think twice 
about whether or not they want to face the possible wrath of the United States 
and the kind of the threat that that would represent.
Q: Fred Bergsten from the Institute for International Economics, Mr. Vice 
President. You mentioned that there are 60 countries now harboring terrorists 
that are a threat to the United States. A lot of those are poor countries, maybe 
as poor as Afghanistan, some even poorer, but many at the low-income end of the 
spectrum. As you contemplate the next stage of the campaign against terror, how 
do you relate the poverty and poor economic conditions in many of those 
countries to the terrorist threat? And what is your strategy for dealing with 
that underlying cause of the difficulties that we do face and, unfortunately, 
will probably continue to face?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: The -- when we talk about some 60 countries that host 
terrorist cells, that's a reasonable estimate, based on the information that's 
available, of cells affiliated with the al Qaeda network, in particular. They -- 
if you look at the capacity of the camps in Afghanistan, the training camps, 
that have now been closed, they clearly were able over a period of years to 
process and provide training to thousands and thousands of would-be terrorists. 
Many of them have now returned to their home countries. Some of them have 
probably gone underground and may stay there for some considerable period of 
time.
We've discovered since the events of 9/11, cells in the United States, 
obviously, that operated or carried out the attacks of 9/1l, but also in Europe, 
in several nations in Europe, in Southeast Asia, and we're continuing every 
week, every month that goes by, to work those leads.
And in terms of how we deal with them, clearly, its going to have to be a 
multifaceted approach. We'll continue to try to wrap them up through cooperation 
with law enforcement agencies, work between intelligence services, trying to put 
a crimp in their financial operations. And we recognize that when we say there 
are 60 nations out there that may have cells in them, that this does not mean 
there are 60 Afghanistans out there.
In many cases, they may be unwitting. In Afghanistan, clearly the government -- 
the Taliban government actively provided support and sanctuary for bin Laden and 
his crew.
The broader, tougher question is the one you mentioned with respect to how did 
we get to this pass, how did we find ourselves in a situation where thousands of 
young men are prepared to put themselves through those training camps and 
undertake the disciplined activity that's necessary to plan and carry out one of 
these attacks, even when it means that they themselves will perish in the act. 
That's a tough question, and I'm not sure that we've got an answer to it. I've 
talked to a great many people myself about it, whose views I have respected over 
the years. There's a debate whether or not poverty contributes to it. Obviously 
there are other important issues that have to be considered here as well, too.
The president addressed in his State of the Union speech the other night the 
importance of the United States aggressively promoting our values around the 
world, standing for those values and principles on which our own society is 
founded. And in the process of dealing with the terrorists, I think we offer 
hope to millions of people, as we found when we liberated Afghanistan, in effect 
-- the great outpouring, if you will, of enthusiasm and thanks from the Afghan 
people for having gotten rid of the Taliban and removed the al Qaeda as a factor 
in Afghanistan. I think we'll find that a lot of other places, too.
But the United States is going to have to be actively engaged not just in 
stamping out the terrorist threat or rolling up the al Qaeda organization. 
Clearly all of these other issues, some of which I touched on today, in terms of 
economic opportunity for people, for nations, promoting freedom and market 
economies, will go a long way towards hopefully dealing with some of that 
threat.
MODERATOR: Question here, please.
Q: Mr. Vice President, Georgie Anne Geyer, Universal Press Syndicate. There's a 
certain level of speculation, sir, in Washington, not necessarily that I 
subscribe to, but that you have been James Bondized. (Chuckles.) We don't know 
where you are. We don't know what you're doing.
I would just like to ask, are you enjoying this? And can you give us -- 
(laughter) -- (chuckles) -- has it changed your personality? And can you give us 
any insights?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I'm just sitting here, thinking about the analogy to 
James Bond. (Laughter.)
(Chuckles.) There are certain features of his lifestyle that I've not been able 
to avail myself of -- (laughter) -- put it in those terms -- (laughter, 
applause) -- although I am hopeful. (Chuckles.) (Laughter.)
But no, it's been an interesting exercise when you sort of back off and think 
about the circumstances that -- practices we've had to adopt now since September 
11th. Clearly, sort of at the front edge of why I am often at undisclosed 
locations is the need to avoid having the senior leadership of the U.S. 
government all in one location on any kind of predictable basis. That doesn't 
mean we don't get together, it just means we try not to be too obvious about it. 
We restrict the number of times where we're at major public events together. And 
it's focused more than anything else on our obligation to protect and preserve 
the continuity of government, the presidential succession, and, therefore, we've 
often -- I've often stayed apart, away from the White House when the president's 
in, and vice versa.
It has to do with the fact that the nature of the threat that you worry about, 
from a security standpoint, is radically different today than it used to be. It 
used to be the prime concern, I think, for the security of the president was the 
individual with a weapon, met with a gun. Now we've had to contemplate a whole 
different kind of threat where we're talking about conspiracies, well-organized 
groups with possibly support from outside the nation able to put together, for 
example, something such as the attack on September 11th.
And I, personally, believe as well, and I think many people do, that the 
attackers of 9/11 clearly planned to do much more damage in Washington than they 
were able to do, and that the people who took down the airliner in Pennsylvania 
had, obviously, a very significant hand in thwarting what would have been a far 
more deadly attack had the hijackers been allowed to carry it out.
So for all those reasons, and focused especially on the continuity of 
government, I'm less visible, if you will; not always around the way most vice 
presidents have been in the past, I guess is the way to put it. But I've been 
fortunate; I've been able to find non-disclosed locations where there were 
pheasant in South Dakota, ducks in Maryland, and so -- (laughter).
Yes?
MODERATOR: Go ahead, all the way back there.
Q: Mr. Vice President, Beverly Lindsey (sp), Penn State. We're much concerned 
with the current crisis that has resulted from the terrorist attacks on Sept. 
11.
But one of the ways that we can try to prevent those in the future is to engage 
in people-to-people diplomacy through educational, cultural and other kinds of 
activities. Could you expand upon the priorities of the administration on the 
people's aspects of diplomacy?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, I think if you look at the president's State of the 
Union address, he feels that that's a very important area for us to work in. As 
-- his call for Americans to get more actively involved in service and doubling 
the size of the Peace Corps, for example, I think goes a long way in that 
direction.
The -- one of the things I've been struck by is the extent of which, when things 
are working well, we're able to build a -- almost a worldwide network of people 
who have been exposed to the United States, to our ideas, have come here for 
education or training -- maybe through military service -- the IMET program, for 
example, where we bring in young officers from overseas -- and the good will 
that builds and the understanding that that builds out around the world.
One of the things we found, for example, is, when we cut those programs off, we 
damage ourselves. If you look -- we had President Musharraf in town this week -- 
a man who, obviously, has stepped up and made some very important and very 
courageous decisions which we're grateful for. We used to have a great 
relationship with Pakistan in years past, and then we went through a period 
where it was strained. And part of that, of course, was a disagreement between 
the United States and the government of Pakistan in terms of their own 
developments -- military developments, in particular.
But one of the byproducts of that was we cut off that flow of personnel coming 
from the Pakistani military to the United States to spend time here, train here, 
further their education here. And so there's a whole generation now of Pakistani 
military leaders sort of in the mid-level who have not had that kind of exposure 
to our -- our ideas, our values and our training. We need to rethink how we deal 
with that. And that was a classic case where we moved to impose a sanction -- in 
this case, shutting off that program. And the only losers from that is the 
United States. So we need to look at all of those kinds of propositions and make 
sure we're -- we are building and enhancing those relationships -- not tearing 
them down.
MODERATOR: Question all the way back here.
Q: (Off mike) -- formerly at the NFC and now at Skadden Arps.
The news this morning of the very gruesome death of the Afghan aviation minister 
kind of confirmed for me the very fragility of the state of Afghanistan, 
obviously, right now. What is and should be the role of the U.S. in 
nation-building, for lack a better term, whatever else we may call it now, 
either in Afghanistan or in other post- conflict situations?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: We clearly have a significant continuing obligation with 
respect to the current situation in Afghanistan. We don't want to walk away now 
and leave Afghanistan in the current circumstances, clearly because that -- if 
for no other reason, because it would likely result ultimately in the breakdown, 
if you will, of order, and the restoration once again of a situation in which 
terrorists might find a home or a base there. So there's a deep self- interest 
in making certain that doesn't happen.
The president's made it clear as well that we will continue our operations in 
Afghanistan as long as required to eliminate the threat. And I think people need 
to understand that the threat is still significant. We still have areas of 
Afghanistan where there are al Qaeda operatives running free, if you will, parts 
of the country that clearly still raise the specter of instability. And we'll 
continue to work that aggressively. The U.S. military will be involved there as 
long as it takes to wrap up that task and that chore.
In the meantime, we've been very supportive of the -- from a security 
standpoint, of the activities of the International Security Force. I think some 
14 countries now have contributed troops. It's focused primarily in Kabul. But 
when Chairman Karzai was here week before last, he's interested in trying to 
expand their mandate to operate in several of the other major cities in 
Afghanistan. That's under consideration.
We think the most important thing we can do -- that is, the United States -- is 
to begin to work aggressively to reestablish an Afghan national army, one that's 
responsive to the central government, that's appropriately trained and equipped, 
to deal with the kinds of security threats or concerns hat still exist. And 
clearly, that's going to take some period of time, but we're committed to 
undertaking those efforts with the Afghans as long as possible.
There also needs to be a major international effort that's financial, economic, 
to be supportive of the political process they've begun but have a long way to 
go yet, to establish a legitimate representative government in Afghanistan. And 
I think we'll be involved there for some considerable period of time.
Q: Let me follow up on that from the standpoint of our relations with our 
allies. As you know, there is unhappiness being expressed about our doing the 
cooking and their doing the dishes. Talk a bit about how the administration sees 
including the allies in policy-making and in the follow-on. How are their 
concerns being deal with?
So, you know, we don't talk about prospective, future actions, but I think if 
aggressive action is required, I would anticipate that there will be the 
appropriate support for that, both from the American people and the 
international community.
MODERATOR: One of the council's few enduring virtues is to end meetings on time. 
It is an honor for any American organization, a great honor, to have the vice 
president of the United States. It's also a great honor to have just Dick 
Cheney.
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information