DOCSLIB.ORG

Josef Raab Lecture 10: the War on Terror 9/11 and the War on Terror 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Josef Raab Lecture 10: the War on Terror 9/11 and the War on Terror 1 Josef Raab Lecture 10: The War on Terror 9/11 and the War on Terror 1. Introduction 2. Leading up to 9/11 3. The Declaration of a War on Terror 4. The “Axis of Evil” 5. Military Operations 6. Criticism of the War on Terror 7. Opinion Polls on the War on Terror 8. Literary Engagements with the War on Terror 9. Conclusion: The War on Terror and National Identity 1. Introduction • Terminology: “War on Terror,” “Global War on Terror,” “War on Terrorism” • Definition: military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom since October 2001 against groups/organizations suspected of terrorism against the U.S.A. and regimes supporting those organizations; originally led against al‐Qaeda; term used especially with reference to militant Islamists. • President George W. Bush in a September 16, 2001 interview: “This crusade –this war on terrorism –is going to take a while.” • Bush’s Sept. 20, 2001 Address to the Nation: “Our ‘war on terror’ begins with al‐Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” • President Barack Obama in his Jan. 20, 2009 Inaugural Address: “Our nation is at war, against a far‐reaching network of violence and hatred.” • The Obama administration has replaced the term “war on terror” by “Overseas Contingency Operation.” 2. Leading up to 9/11 • 1984: The Reagan administration uses the term “war on terrorism” to pass legislation that allows the freezing of assets held in the U.S. by individuals and groups suspected of terrorism • 1996: The Taliban regime seizes power in Afghanistan; al‐ Qaeda establishes a base of operations in Afghanistan • 1998: Osama bin Laden, as the head of al‐Qaeda, signs a fatwā (juristic ruling) and releases a video, declaring war on the West and Israel • 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania • 2000: attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport • Oct. 2000: suicide attack against the United States Navy destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 and injuring 39 American soldiers 3. The Declaration of a War on Terror President George W. Bush’s Address to the Nation, September 20, 2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CSPbzitPL8 •“enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country” •“night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack” •“a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al‐Qaeda,” “murderers” •al‐Qaeda’s “goal is remaking the world” •“Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror,” “to plot evil and destruction” •Taliban rule in Afghanistan as the negation of U.S. ideals: no education for women, no free media, no freedom of religion, no freedom of expression/appearance •demand to the Taliban regime: “hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities” 3. The Declaration of a War on Terror President George W. Bush’s Address to the Nation, September 20, 2001 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CSPbzitPL8 •“Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps so we can make sure they are no longer operating” (U.S. as world police) •“These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.” (U.S. as superpower) •reaching out to Muslims as adherents of a “good and peaceful” Islam •“The terrorists …are trying to hijack Islam itself.” •“Our war on terror begins with al‐Qaeda, but it does not end there.” 4. The “Axis of Evil” President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address, Jan. 29, 2002: What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan’s camps. And so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning. … First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. … Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. 4. The “Axis of Evil” President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address, Jan. 29, 2002: Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. 4. The “Axis of Evil” President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address, Jan. 29, 2002: States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. … Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. We can’t stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight. 4. The “Axis of Evil” • May 6, 2002: Under‐Secretary John R. Bolton adds the the list of “rogue states” the nations of Libya, Syria, and Cuba. • January 2005: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice adds to the “outposts of tyranny” the nations of Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar. • Parody: Will Ferrell on Saturday Night Live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjcbTwUoemE • limited basis for inclusion in the “axis of evil”/ “excess of evil”/“access of evil” • foreign and domestic threats • those critical of the President and his policies are excluded as “evil” (unpatriotic, with the enemy) • appeal to consume and boost the economy • reverse designations of “Washington and its allies” as the “axis of evil,” e.g. by Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who calls Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ecuador, and Bolivia the “axis of good” 5. Military Operations • Operation Active Endeavour: naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea starting in Oct. 2001 • Operation Enduring Freedom: starts Oct. 7, 2001 with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan; continues in the Philippines, Somalia, Iraq • Operation Iraqi Freedom: March 2003 to Dec. 2011 • Operation New Dawn: after the official end of U.S. military operation in Iraq on Sept. 1, 2010 • Pakistan: – 2001: Pakistan allows the U.S. use of three air bases in Pakistan for Operation Enduring Freedom – 2002ff: Pakistani authorities kill or arrest prominent al‐Qaeda members – 2004: Pakistani army seizes control of areas where al‐Qaeda training camps and hideouts are suspected – May 2, 2011: U.S. special forces raid the compound of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and kill him 5. Military Operations 5. Military Operations 5. Military Operations Announcement by Pres. Barack Obama after the death of Osama bin Laden http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYmK19‐ d0U&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL67684DB0BF0E4 DCF •“a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children” •emotional appeal: “heroic citizens” on flight 93, loss of ordinary Americans, “leaving a gaping hole in our hearts” •“our love of community and country. …we were united as one American family” •“We went to war against al‐Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.” •“tireless and heroic work our our military and our counter‐ terrorism professionals” •“I directed Leon Panetta …to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al‐Qaeda.” 5. Military Operations Announcement by President Barack Obama after the death of Osama bin Laden http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNYmK19‐ d0U&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL67684DB0BF0E4DCF •“bring him to justice” •“with extraordinary courage and capability” •“bin Laden was a mass murderer of Muslims. …So his demise should be welcome by all who believe in peace and human dignity.” •“Justice has been done.” •“professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country” •“America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens, our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.” (Exceptionalism) •“one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” (Pledge of Allegiance) 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Con. Res. 441
    IV 110TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 441 Recognizing the threat that the spread of radical Islamist terrorism and Iranian adventurism in Africa poses to the United States, our allies, and interests. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. FORTUN˜O, and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following concur- rent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Recognizing the threat that the spread of radical Islamist terrorism and Iranian adventurism in Africa poses to the United States, our allies, and interests. Whereas nearly 500,000,000 Muslims live in Africa, and Islam reportedly is the fastest growing religion on the continent; Whereas according to the World Bank, Africa hosts the world’s largest proportion of people living on less than $1 per day; Whereas despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Africa practice moderate and tolerant forms of Islam, poverty, corruption, and political marginalization have facilitated the spread of radicalism VerDate Aug 31 2005 02:00 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC441.IH HC441 smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS 2 in a number in areas in Africa, particularly among grow- ing populations of impoverished and disaffected youth; Whereas the spread of radical Islam undermines the histori- cally moderate influence of Islam in Africa, exacerbates existing political and religious tensions within African na- tions, provides
    [Show full text]
  • CPC Outreach Journal #403
    USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Maxwell AFB, Alabama Issue No. 403, 25 January 2005 Articles & Other Documents: Focus On Iran Causes Unease U.S. Alone In Seeking Ouster U.N. Nuclear Experts Inspect Egyptian Laboratory Nukes Are Defensive, U.S. Lawmakers Told Cross-fire on safety at germ labs 1977 Report Foresaw 9/11 Type Of Terrorism Iran Says U.S. Attack Would Be A 'Blunder' Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953- 7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Chapter
    lex rieffel 1 The Moment Change is in the air, although it may reflect hope more than reality. The political landscape of Myanmar has been all but frozen since 1990, when the nationwide election was won by the National League for Democ- racy (NLD) led by Aung San Suu Kyi. The country’s military regime, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), lost no time in repudi- ating the election results and brutally repressing all forms of political dissent. Internally, the next twenty years were marked by a carefully managed par- tial liberalization of the economy, a windfall of foreign exchange from natu- ral gas exports to Thailand, ceasefire agreements with more than a dozen armed ethnic minorities scattered along the country’s borders with Thailand, China, and India, and one of the world’s longest constitutional conventions. Externally, these twenty years saw Myanmar’s membership in the Associa- tion of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), several forms of engagement by its ASEAN partners and other Asian neighbors designed to bring about an end to the internal conflict and put the economy on a high-growth path, escalating sanctions by the United States and Europe to protest the military regime’s well-documented human rights abuses and repressive governance, and the rise of China as a global power. At the beginning of 2008, the landscape began to thaw when Myanmar’s ruling generals, now calling themselves the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), announced a referendum to be held in May on a new con- stitution, with elections to follow in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin Completed by Your Security Personnel
    MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PB 34-05-2 Volume 31 Number 2 April-June 2005 FEATURES Commanding General Major General Barbara G. Fast 7 Significant Characteristics of the Urban Environment Deputy Commanding General, by Michael A. Brake Reserve Component Brigadier General Edward A. Leacock 10 What Do We Mean by Urban Dominance? Deputy Commandant for Futures by Major Michael P. Spears Mr. Jerry V. Proctor Deputy Commander for Training 16 Urban Operations: Defining the Environment COL Kevin C. Peterson by Jack D. Kem (Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired) Director, Directorate of Doctrine COL George J. Franz 22 Counterinsurgency 101 by Captain Brian Gellman and Captain Kyle Teamey MIPB Staff: 31 North Korean National Guerilla Strategies: Strategic Intelligence Managing Editor Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) Using the PMESII Model Sterilla A. Smith by Daniel S. Burgess Design Director SGT Ivan M. Rivera Cover Design: DEPARTMENTS Sharon K. Nieto Issue Photographs: Courtesy of the U.S. Army 2 Always Out Front 58 Intelligence Support to Homeland Security 3 CSM Forum Purpose: The U.S. Army Intelli- (HLS): Languages and gence Center and Fort Huachuca 4 Technical Perspective Cultural Awareness (USAIC&FH) publishes the Military Intelligence Professional Bulle- 42 Proponent Notes 61 CSA’s Focus Area 16: tin quarterly under provisions of AR Actionable Intelligence 25-30. MIPB disseminates mate- 45 Training the Corps rial designed to enhance individu- 63 Professional Reader als’ knowledge of past, current, and 46 MI Corps Hall of Fame emerging concepts, doctrine, materi- 52 Language Action 64 Contact and Article al, training, and professional develop- Submission Information ments in the MI Corps.
    [Show full text]
  • Zimbabwe: Current Issues
    Order Code RL32723 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Zimbabwe: Current Issues Updated March 11, 2005 Jeffrey Townsend Research Associate Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Raymond W. Copson Specialist in International Relations Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Zimbabwe: Current Issues Summary Parliamentary elections are scheduled in Zimbabwe for March 31, 2005, and they will be closely watched by supporters of human rights and democracy. The last parliamentary election, in June 2000, was marred by violence against the opposition and other irregularities. According to the Department of State, the presidential election in March 2002 was “preceded and followed by a government-sanctioned campaign of violence directed towards supporters and potential supporters of the opposition.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has labeled Zimbabwe an “outpost of tyranny,” and the United States has enforced targeted sanctions against top Zimbabwe officials and associates since 2002. Moreover, the Administration has urged South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki to lead a regional effort to promote democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe. Should the 2005 voting again prove violent or manifestly unfair, some may advocate stronger measures. Zimbabwe is a land-locked, primarily agricultural southern African country of 12.7 million people, and has been ruled by its current President, Robert Mugabe, since a majority-rule political system was established — following a long civil war - in 1980. Since the late 1990s, the Mugabe government has pursued a controversial land expropriation policy that has contributed to a sharp and continuing economic decline. GDP declined by 30% from 1998 through 2003, and fell another 5.2% in 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington and Damascus: Between Confrontation and Cooperation
    UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Moshe Ma'oz During the 1990s, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton managed to achieve strategic cooperation with Syrian leader Hafiz al-Asad despite Syria’s sponsorship of terrorism, development of WMD, alliance with Iran, and domination of Lebanon. Almost as soon as Washington and George W. Bush and Hafiz’s son, Bashar, became presidents, however, relations between their countries began to deteriorate significantly. Since then, cooperation has given way to severe confrontation. Damascus This report examines the reasons for this recent change in U.S.-Syrian relations, among them the attacks Between Confrontation and Cooperation of 9/11, Bashar’s vehement opposition to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and George W. Bush’s ideals of freedom and democracy and his embrace of certain conservative ideas. Bush, it seems, has decided to Summary punish Bashar and even, perhaps, to bring about his downfall. Meanwhile, Bashar, who has been influenced • Soon after both men came to power in 2000, relations between U.S. president George by conservative circles within Damascus and has Bush and Syria’s president Bashar al-Asad began to deteriorate significantly. Since publicly embraced pan-Arab ideology, has contributed the Iraq war of 2003, Washington and Damascus have been on a collision course. by both word and deed to Washington’s antagonism. • Washington has resented the indirect assistance provided by Syria to Saddam’s regime The report explores two possible future scenarios— and to his loyalists, both before and after the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • North Korea: Economic Sanctions
    Order Code RL31696 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web North Korea: Economic Sanctions Updated June 16, 2005 Dianne E. Rennack Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress North Korea: Economic Sanctions Summary U.S. economic sanctions are imposed against North Korea for four primary reasons: (1) North Korea is seen as posing a threat to U.S. national security; (2) North Korea is designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor or supporter of international terrorism; (3) North Korea is a Marxist-Leninist state, with a Communist government; and (4) North Korea has been found by the State Department to have engaged in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In accordance with U.S. law, the United States limits some trade, denies trade in dual- use goods and services, limits foreign aid, and opposes entry into or support from international financial institutions. At the President’s discretion, North Korea would also be subject to the economic sanctions pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, under which the administration has identified North Korea as a “country of particular concern” since 2001, and pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, under which the administration has classified North Korea in the category of most severe offender (Tier 3) since 2003. In October 2002, after meetings between high-level U.S. and North Korean government officials, the United States reported that North Korea had confirmed suspicions that it had reactivated its nuclear weapons development program.
    [Show full text]
  • North Korea: Economic Sanctions
    Order Code RL31696 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web North Korea: Economic Sanctions Updated October 17, 2006 Dianne E. Rennack Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress North Korea: Economic Sanctions Summary U.S. economic sanctions are imposed against North Korea for four primary reasons: (1) North Korea is seen as posing a threat to U.S. national security; (2) North Korea is designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor or supporter of international terrorism; (3) North Korea is a Marxist-Leninist state, with a Communist government; and (4) North Korea has been found by the State Department to have engaged in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The United States has also taken steps to isolate the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia for counterfeiting and money-laundering activities, actions North Korea has characterized as attacks against it. In accordance with U.S. law, the United States limits some trade, denies trade in dual-use goods and services, limits foreign aid, and opposes entry into or support from international financial institutions. At the President’s discretion, North Korea would also be subject to the economic sanctions pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, under which the administration has identified North Korea as a “country of particular concern” since 2001, and pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, under which the administration has classified North Korea in the category of most severe offender (Tier 3) since 2003. In October 2002, after meetings between high-level U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Myanmar: Cross-Cutting Governance Challenges
    Myanmar: Cross-Cutting Governance Challenges Since its nascent transition to democratic rule 2010, Myanmar has embarked on economic reforms, and the resolution of multiple longstanding civil conflicts. These transitions coincide with a resource-led economic boom. The paper assesses the current status and performance of governance institutions in comparison to ASEAN and selected other countries. Specifically, the paper discusses outstanding problem areas related to economic governance, particularly in the legal system, the business regulatory framework, and in bureaucratic capacity. It also touches on Myanmar’s initiation into the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) process to strengthen Myanmar’s ongoing reform effort. About the Asian Development Bank ADB’s vision is an Asia and Pacific region free of poverty. Its mission is to help its developing member countries reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people. Despite the region’s many successes, it remains home to approximately two-thirds of the world’s poor: 1.6 billion people who live on less than $2 MyAnMAr: Cross-CuttinG a day, with 733 million struggling on less than $1.25 a day. ADB is committed to reducing poverty through inclusive economic growth, environmentally sustainable growth, and regional integration. GovernAnCe ChAllenGes Based in Manila, ADB is owned by 67 members, including 48 from the region. Its main instruments for helping its developing member countries are policy dialogue, loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and technical assistance. Cullen Hendrix and Marcus Noland no. 428 adb economics march 2015 working paper series AsiAn Development BAnk 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK www.adb.org ADB Economics Working Paper Series Myanmar: Cross-Cutting Governance Challenges Cullen Hendrix and Marcus Noland Cullen Hendrix ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Korbel School of International Studies, No.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting What You Want Miroslav Nincic Positive Inducements in International Relations
    Getting What You Want Getting What You Want Miroslav Nincic Positive Inducements in International Relations This study examines potential uses of positive inducements in dealing with regimes, here referred to as “renegade regimes,”1 that defy core norms of international behavior and that have emerged as a leading challenge to international security. Al- though the problem is international, it is examined here with reference to U.S. foreign policy. Partly, this is because the far-ºung interests of the United States ensure that it cannot remain unaffected by the conduct of such regimes. Partly, too, this is because, as much as the United States has the power to respond co- ercively, it is also in a strong position to offer considerable inducements to those whose behavior it wishes to modify. Finally, it is because President Barack Obama’s administration has expressed more interest in positive en- gagement with adversaries than has generally been the case in the practice of U.S. foreign policy. The article identiªes the circumstances under which posi- tive inducements are likely to modify the behavior of renegade regimes. Following the traditional emphasis of international relations scholarship, and its roots in theories of realpolitik, the bulk of recent literature on renegade regimes addresses responses involving military tools or economic sanctions.2 Even when (as is often the case) authors question the effectiveness of negative Miroslav Nincic is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S7903
    July 1, 2005 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S7903 I was a young woman in my twenties Whatever the name, this operation is In light of this alleged, sustained and serving in the Louisiana State Legisla- horrific. It is appalling. And it must deliberate destruction, I commend Kofi ture when Justice O’Connor was ap- end. Annan’s recent decision to send Ms. pointed to the Supreme Court, and I re- As a State Department spoke Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka as his Spe- member that day very clearly. I always sman affirmed last week—‘‘it’s cial Envoy to Zimbabwe to further in- knew I wanted to serve the people of uncondonable, inexcusable, and we will vestigate and respond to this tragedy. my country, and on that day I realized continue to speak out and act dip- Anna currently serves as the Under- that there was no limit to what one lomatically to achieve justice for those Secretary General and Executive Di- woman could do. who have been so senselessly disadvan- rector of U.N. HABITAT, and is a good And today, 24 years later, I am a taged.’’ That is why I speak today. friend. woman standing on the floor of the The targets of this ongoing campaign This past Sunday, Anna arrived in U.S. Senate while the number of are Zimbabwe’s very poorest citizens— Harare as the head of a seven-member women in the Louisiana State Legisla- individuals who are already suffering delegation to investigate the true im- ture has grown from 2 to 24. We all owe from 80 percent unemployment, 600- pact of Mugabe’s so-called ‘‘cleaning’’ a great debt to pioneering women like percent inflation and widespread food operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmation Hearing Opening Statement (Rice)
    As Prepared for Delivery Opening Statement by Dr. Condoleezza Rice Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 18, 2005 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 11th, 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 Bush’s 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 America’s foreign policy.
    [Show full text]