||[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
|Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: Rumsfeld Urges Diplomacy in Iran Dispute
|Rumsfeld Urges Diplomacy in Iran Dispute
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago
MUNICH, Germany - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld urged the world Saturday to find a diplomatic solution to halt Iran's nuclear program, but Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) only hours later said that military action could not be ruled out.
Rumsfeld told an international security conference that the United States stands "with the Iranian people, the women, the young people, who want a peaceful, democratic future," and he accused Tehran of sponsoring terrorism.
"The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism," he said. "The world does not want, and must work together to avoid, a nuclear Iran."
Despite Rumsfeld's call for diplomacy, McCain said military action could not be ruled out if diplomatic efforts fail to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
"Every option must remain on the table," McCain told the security conference after Rumsfeld spoke. "There's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
The Arizona Republican later added that military action is "totally undesirable" and could be considered only after all other options were exhausted.
Rumsfeld spoke just before the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted in Vienna, Austria, to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council in a resolution expressing concern that Tehran's nuclear program may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes."
Tehran responded by saying it would "immediately" prepare to restart full-scale uranium enrichment and curtail the U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspecting powers.
European governments have shied away from any talk of military action while diplomat efforts continue. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, in response to a question on McCain's comments, said a military option wasn't on NATO's radar screen.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged China and Russia to join the United States, Germany and other European nations in pressuring Iran to return to negotiations.
"The broader this is, the more significant it will be for Iran," she said.
Merkel told the conference that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and she said Germany's Nazi past meant it could never tolerate derogatory comments about Israel and the Holocaust by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Iran Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said after Merkel's speech that "Iran has never been seeking nuclear weapons" but warned that Security Council referral was an "escalation" of the dispute and could affect regional stability.
"I hope that Europe doesn't choose this line of confrontation," he told the conference. "You know our role in Afghanistan and our role to stabilize Iraq, but threats against us are always ignored."
In response to Rumsfeld's speech calling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, Tehran called U.S. leaders "terrorists" and said the White House, not Iran, represents the "axis of evil" in the world, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
Rumsfeld also appealed to allies to increase military spending to defeat a "global extremist empire" that threatens Europe as much as the United States. He said Islamic militants are on the move and must be checked.
"They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent," he said. "They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist empire."
Rumsfeld painted a stark picture of a lengthy war against terrorism, saying terrorists hope to use Iraq as the "central front" by turning it into a training and recruitment area like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
He warned that "a war has been declared on all of our nations" and said their "futures depend on determination and unity in the face of the terrorist threat."
Rumsfeld and Merkel spoke on the second day of the 42nd annual Munich security conference, a gathering that defense experts and policy-makers traditionally use for frank exchanges.
This year's conference is focused on the trans-Atlantic relationship between the United States and Europe.
Likening the war on terror to the Cold War, Rumsfeld said it could be won if nations persevered.
"Freedom prevailed because our free nations showed resolve when retreat would have been easier, showed courage when concession seemed simpler and more attractive," he said.
Still, he pointed out that the United States spends 3.7 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense while 19 of the 25 other NATO nations spend less than 2 percent.
Germany, which spends 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense, has been under pressure to step up its funding.
"It's always easier for all of us to use our scarce tax dollars to meet some of the desires and appetites we have at home," Rumsfeld said. "But unless we invest in our defense and security, our homelands will be at risk."
Merkel said Germany was willing to be more active on the international stage but warned that budget restraints would continue to limit her country's defense spending.
French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie backed Rumsfeld's call for more defense spending, calling it "indispensable."
"Everyone has to be aware that they have to take their responsibility," she said.
Last edited by cyrus on Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject:
US-Senator (Republican), Arizona; Chairman, US Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.
United States of America
NATO's Future Role in International Peace Keeping
Nearly a century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote that, "There can be no nobler cause for which to work than the peace of righteousness." With this and other eloquent turns of phrase, Roosevelt touched on a question of international politics no less salient in our time than his: how does a state achieve at once both peace and righteousness?
The question goes beyond the armed strife to which America's 26th president referred. How today should the transatlantic democracies use their national influence in various circumstances - from Iran to the Balkans to Russia to the completion of a free Europe? Our gathering today addresses NATO's mission, and so this question has particular importance. For our alliance exists not solely to defend members from outside threats. NATO is the very embodiment of the transatlantic community, a partnership built on shared values, bountiful resources, and democratic legitimacy. It has transformed the world and, limited only by the imagination and will of its leaders, can continue to do so.
Those who argue that the vanished Soviet threat undermines NATO's very rationale should look at the western Balkans. By deploying peacekeepers in 1995, the transatlantic partners staunched the bloodshed in Bosnia. Working together, we stopped further killing in Kosovo and then averted civil war in Macedonia. There are important final status issues to be resolved this year, about which I will say more in a few moments, but the story in that region is one of unmitigated NATO success. Today the democratic aspirations of Balkan peoples have become a reality - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Albania are on a path to full membership in Euro-Atlantic institutions, a prospect unimaginable in the days of Srebrenica and the siege of Sarajevo.
To those who say that disagreements over the war in Iraq strained the alliance irreparably, I again dissent. Even at the peak of Iraq-related tensions, NATO was engaged in successful operations in Afghanistan, and since then has expanded its role throughout the country. In December, NATO committed to send an additional 6,000 troops to Afghanistan, a contribution that is vital to maintaining stability there. The 37 countries active in Afghanistan are faced off against terrorists who believe they can apply lessons from Iraq to undermine President Karzai and Afghanistan's democratic government. We cannot let them do that. Operations there are costly and they are dangerous, but they are necessary to preventing the reemergence of a pre-9/11 failed state.
NATO is continuing its internal transformation as well, evolving from a territorial defense mission to an expeditionary alliance. As Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer has detailed, this means investments in new capabilities, including strategic airlift, special operations forces, and intelligence.
In short, the transatlantic partnership has accomplished things that no other alliance has. We will need to maintain this solidarity throughout 2006 and into the future, as we face a number of very challenging issues.
Foremost on many minds is, of course, Iran. The world's chief state sponsor of international terrorism, the Iranian regime defines itself by hostility to the United States and Israel - a point made shockingly apparent by President Ahmadinejad's recent comments about Israel and the Holocaust. Tehran has repeatedly used violence to undermine the Middle East peace process and governments friendly to the United States, and it has sponsored at least one direct attack against the United States.
Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons plainly poses an unacceptable risk to the international community. Protected by a nuclear deterrent, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that regime obsolete, and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others to reassess their defense posture and arsenals. And the world would live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Iran already possesses ballistic missiles capable of reaching major European capitals. The threat, to Europe, the United States, and countries beyond, is clear.
In facing down this problem, the EU3 has made great diplomatic efforts, but Iranian intransigence has resulted in failure. Europe has outlined one potential endgame if Tehran abandons its nuclear programs: an Iran with far reaching economic incentives, external support for a civilian nuclear energy program, and integration into the international community. But Tehran has rejected this offer and instead removed IAEA seals. Now the international community must stand together as we present Iran with a different set of incentives.
Immediate UN Security Council action is required to impose multilateral sanctions, including a prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists. It is in the interest of Russia and China to support these moves, notwithstanding their business interests. Surely they do not wish to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, an end to the NPT, and a more malicious Iranian foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere. But should Russia and China decline to join our peaceful efforts to resolve the nuclear issue, we should seek willing partners to impose these sanctions outside the UN framework. The countries of Europe, with their close economic ties to Iran and diplomatic leadership on the nuclear issue, will have a special responsibility in this regard.
And every option must remain on the table. There is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran. The regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world. Should diplomacy fail, the responsible members of the international community - and the transatlantic partners especially - need to stay unified to answer this grave challenge.
While we do so, we need to reassure the reformers and the millions of Iranians who aspire to self-determination that we support their longing for freedom and democracy. The talented and educated Iranian people are stifled by a corrupt and repressive elite. Hungry for reform and an end to their country's international isolation, they have voted for change time and again - only to discover that their votes count for little with the ruling regime. The mullahs provide neither the jobs, nor the freedom, nor the basic human rights that their people want so badly. The regime cynically uses the nuclear issue to rally its people, hoping they will forget the everyday difficulties under clerical rule. The countries of Europe are particularly well placed to support democratic forces in Iran through democracy programs, broadcasting, and by lending political support to dissidents. After decades of difficult relations with Iran, it is important that we remain on the right side of history, supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people.
The Iranian nuclear issue will be an obvious test of our relations with Russia, which I hope will support swift Security Council action. With the G8 summit in St. Petersburg five months away, it is clear that Moscow wishes to be seen as a great power. That possibility remains, because there is much that the U.S. and Europe could do together with Russia. We could stand up to Iran's threats, end the frozen conflicts in Europe's east, ensure Ukraine becomes an oasis of stability and prosperity instead of a Cold War-style battleground, and help to transform Central Asia.
The Kremlin, however, shows no interest in such a relationship. Instead, it continues to pursue foreign and domestic policies strongly at odds with our interests and values. Even after Iran rejected the EU3 talks and removed nuclear seals, Moscow indicated that it would proceed with a $1 billion deal to sell short range missiles to Iran. In recent weeks Moscow has used its natural gas supplies as a weapon, punishing democratic Ukraine and Georgia while providing cut-rate gas to the dictatorship in Minsk. It continues to prosecute a brutal war in Chechnya that has killed as many as 200,000, radicalizing the Muslim population, and it actively supports dictatorships in Central Asia. As one journalist recently catalogued, the broadcast media are Kremlin-controlled, as are parliament, provincial governors, and the judiciary. All of these were free and independent when Mr. Putin took office. Andrei Illarionov, Mr. Putin's former economics advisor, said upon resigning, "It is one thing to work in a partly free country, which Russia was six years ago. It is quite another when the country has ceased to be politically free."
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the West invested resources, political capital, and above all hope in Russia. We wanted to see a reformist, democratic, capitalist Russia acting in partnership with the West. But let's be honest with ourselves - everything we see today indicates that the Russian government has chosen its path, and it is not ours. The Kremlin seems to prefer the pursuit of autocracy at home and abroad, to prefer blocking concerted action against rogue states, to prefer weakening what it views as democratic adversaries. This is a Soviet mindset, not a post-Cold War one. Under Mr. Putin, Russia today is neither a democracy nor one of the world's leading economies, and I seriously question whether the G8 leaders should attend the St. Petersburg summit.
Russia is not the only issue on Europe's borderlands that will face us this year. Ukraine's political development will have reverberations throughout the region, and the March 26 parliamentary elections will illustrate the degree to which Ukraine has made the shift to a competitive democratic political system. As Ukraine moves further down the road to reform and orientation toward the West, the transatlantic partners must respond by extending tangible benefits. NATO can take a first step this year by endorsing a Membership Action Plan at the June Ministerial.
It should do the same for Georgia. Since the Rose Revolution, Georgia has implemented far-reaching political, economic, and military reforms, and has presented a viable peace plan for South Ossetia. By integrating reformist democracies like Georgia and Ukraine into transatlantic institutions, we can meet their aspirations for a secure partnership in a community of values - and extend the zone of democratic peace into regions of vital interest to Western security. Just as NATO enlargement stabilized Europe's north and center, so too will it stabilize Europe's east.
2006 will be a critical year not just for the countries in Europe's east, but also on its south. The international community needs to ensure that old tensions in the Balkans do not flare up in this period of transition, when Montenegro will conduct is referendum and the future status of Kosovo is determined. It seems clear that, while the timing remains uncertain, Kosovo will eventually become independent, and that with this independence will come domestic and international responsibilities. The government in Pristina will be expected to protect minorities, address crime, root out corruption, and conduct its foreign policy responsibly - and how it approaches each of these issues will affect the timing of independence. At the same time, the EU should smooth the way for a future status decision this year by putting Serbia on a fast track to membership, and by moving ahead with visa and market access agreements. In so doing, Europe can ensure that the Serbian people are anchored firmly in Europe. If we can accomplish these goals, the transatlantic allies can, in 2006, successfully conclude their greatest European democracy project since the end of the Cold War.
In speaking of the countries on NATO's periphery, we return to the future of international peacekeeping. For in each of the enlargement debates, the question arose: Will the new members be contributors or consumers of alliance security? A look at NATO's current operations answers this definitively. Every member of the latest round of expansion is currently contributing to NATO operations, and Romania is active in every NATO operation in the world. It is my hope that our host today will adopt this same activism. Germany has been a bit quiet on the world stage in recent years, and yet it could assume a true leadership role within NATO - one commensurate with its role as a leader of Europe.
As history's pace quickens, and with some difficult times ahead, the members of NATO will need to rely on each other more often in the future than in the past. The world will rely on NATO to a greater degree as well - as a security guarantor, as a peacekeeper, and as diplomatic leverage. But to adequately and appropriately fulfill these roles, the Euro-Atlantic community must clarify their understanding of what constitute the core threats to our interests and our values. I believe the greatest threat today is the specter of international terrorism, along with situations that give rise to it and render it more dangerous - whether this means a failed state in Iraq, a nuclear armed Iran, weapons proliferation, or a Russia that exports autocracy. I hope - but am not sure - that we have the consensus within NATO that this threat demands.
If and when we achieve this consensus, we can take action. We can robustly fund our militaries, and employ them in defense of our common heritage as democratic allies. We can transform our alliance so that countries specialize in peacekeeping, interdiction, foreign military training, or any other field. We can orient our diplomatic energies toward the defeat of terrorism and the promotion of democracy, human rights, and freedom.
In 1942, another President Roosevelt commemorated the first anniversary of the Atlantic Charter, which established the moral foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty. Referring to the nations bound by alliance, he said, "Their faith in life, liberty, independence, and religious freedom, and in the preservation of human rights and justice in their own as well as in other lands, has been given form and substance. . ." That vision, made so concrete through NATO, now includes former enemies once divided by war, both hot and cold. Today, the challenge is to strengthen and extend that vision, and to bring its faith to those lands in which it is so sorely lacking.
We in the transatlantic community should dare to dream today of the future we might help build in Europe's borderlands, in Central Asia, and throughout the Broader Middle East. As partners in a shared and historic endeavor that has already transformed the lives of millions, we should discount neither the power of our ideals nor the capacity of our democracies. In turning back the forces of tyranny and terror, and in helping to secure the blessings of liberty everywhere, we will embark on a project worthy of this grand alliance. And in doing so, we will prevail, as we have prevailed before - together.
The spoken word is applicable!
See also: McCain, John - Speech at the 37th Munich Conference on Security Policy (02/04/2001)
McCain, John - From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order (02/02/2002)
McCain, John - The Global Fight against Terrorism: Status and Perspectives (02/08/2003)
McCain, John - Speech on the 40th Munich Conference on Security Policy (02/07/2004)
McCain, John - Security in the Middle East: New Challenges for NATO and the EU (02/12/2005)
Rumsfeld, Donald H.
Secretary of Defense, United States of America
United States of America
Speech at the 42nd Munich Conference on Security Policy
Ministers, parliamentarians, ladies and gentlemen. I am very pleased to be back at this important gathering and to see so many old friends.
It is sometimes said that America is somewhat unusual among nations, because most of our citizens trace their origins to someplace else. To Asia and Africa. The Middle East. Central and South America. And of course, here in Europe. During America's Civil War, a Confederate commander said if you took the Germans out of the Union Army, the South might win easily. A list of descendents of German immigrants since then would include such world-famous Americans as President Eisenhower, Elvis, and even Babe Ruth, to name but a few. I mention this because often when we talk about relations between the United States and Europe, we tend to think of two separate entities. But in a real sense we are a community, with shared histories, common values, and an abiding faith in democracy.
Today, there is a threat to our community - to our very way of life. Violent extremism is a danger posed as much to Europe as to America and elsewhere. And, as during the Cold War, the struggle ahead promises to be a "long war" - that will cause us all to recalibrate our strategies, perhaps further adjust our institutions, and certainly work closely together. We have done a good deal since the "wake up call" of September 11, 2001. We have begun a historic transformation of NATO, reached out in partnership to non-NATO nations, and responded with compassion to the tsunami in Southeast Asia and the devastating earthquake in Pakistan. We are helping to battle determined enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will need to continue to stay on the offense against them.
Unlike previous struggles, the enemy today is not a country, or even one particular organization. While al-Qaeda is the principal enemy, there are others equally dangerous. Consider that before September 11, 2001, terrorists:
Hijacked an Air France jet
Bombed several airplanes traveling to and from Europe, including the Lockerbie flight
Attacked airports in Rome and Vienna, and
Here in this city, kidnapped and killed 11 Israeli Olympians
And, since September 11, 2001, when 3,000 people were killed on a single day, terrorists have murdered hundreds more in places like:
A war has been declared on all of our nations. Our futures depend on determination and unity in the face of the terrorist threat that Chancellor Merkel has so correctly labeled "the greatest challenge to our security in the 21st century." And the world's great democracies - anchored by NATO - must stay united to meet this challenge. Have no doubt - the terrorists intend to kill still more of our people. They have said so.
An al-Qaeda operative in Afghanistan said of civilians in Europe and America: "Their wives will be widowed, and their children will be orphaned".
A radical cleric said after the London bombings: "I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over Number 10 Downing Street, but the whole world".
And the leader of the Khobar Towers attacks boasted: "We tied the infidel [a Briton] by one leg [behind the car] … The infidel's clothing was torn to shreds … We found a Swedish infidel. [We] cut off his head, and put it on the gate so that it would be seen by all those entering and exiting. … We found Filipino Christians … and Hindu engineers and we cut their throats, too".
No fewer than 18 organizations - loosely affiliated with al-Qaeda - have conducted terrorist acts in places such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria, Russia, and Indonesia. And it is worth noting that those nations were attacked by terrorists even though none had forces in Iraq. So any argument that Iraq might have been a trigger is inconsistent with the facts.
According to their own words, they seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re- establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent. They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire. Today, they call Iraq the central front in their war against the civilized world. And they hope to turn it into the same sort of haven for training and recruitment that Afghanistan once was for al-Qaeda. That is their strategy. But we and our friends and Allies have a strategy as well.
First, to use all elements of national power to try to prevent them from obtaining weapons of mass destruction
Second, to defend our homelands, through sharing intelligence, law-enforcement, and more integrated homeland defense
And third, to help friendly nations increase their capabilities to fight terrorism in their own countries
In Afghanistan, as our NATO mission moves south, we must give Afghans the assistance they need to nurture their new democracy. In Iraq, the United States and our Allies have sent our best men and women to help Iraqis build a government that is dramatically different from the regime it replaced. We must help ensure its new government succeeds. And in Iran, we must continue to work together to seek a diplomatic solution to stopping the development of its uranium enrichment program. The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. The world does not want - and must work together to prevent - a nuclear Iran. While we oppose the actions of Iran's regime, we stand with the Iranian people who want a peaceful, democratic future. They have no desire to see the country they love isolated from the rest of the civilized world.
In this long war, the enemy has tried to cast the struggle as a war between the West and the Muslim world. In fact, it is more a war within the Muslim world. Most of the people in the Middle East do not share the violent ideology of al-Qaeda or other violent extremists. They don't want the terrorists to prevail. Many in the Middle East have been inspired by the example of the some 50 million Muslims in the new democracies of Afghanistan and Iraq. A recent survey shows that a large and growing number of Muslims believe freedom can work in their countries, and it shows that support is declining for al-Qaeda and bin Laden. A survey indicates that more than 80 percent of Afghans say their country is moving in the right direction. Only 5 percent have a favorable view of bin Laden. In Iraq, a growing majority wants a representative government.
We have an opportunity - an opening that we need to seize - to help to write a new chapter in the history of freedom while these enemies are on the defensive. This is - as it has been in earlier decades - a time to work together closely. No nation can succeed in the War on Terror without close cooperation with other nations. Working together, our tasks ahead are to:
All work to make the Proliferation Security Initiative a success. Consider how markedly our world would change, overnight, if a handful of terrorists managed to obtain and launch a chemical, biological, or radiological weapon in Munich, Paris, or New York
To help countries like Georgia train their security forces, and work with nations in the Caucasus and Central Asia through the increasingly important Partnership for Peace programs
And to continue to transform NATO for the 21st Century, invest in the NATO Response Force, broader common funding, and encourage NATO to develop an expeditionary culture and capability
This commitment cannot be done on the cheap. It may be easier for all of us to use our scarce tax dollars to meet urgent needs we all have at home. But unless we invest in our defense and security, our homelands will be at risk. Today 3.7 percent of every American tax dollar goes toward our national defense and the defense of our friends and allies. Six of our 25 NATO allies spend 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense, but 19 Allies - 19 - do not even spend 2 percent. Without the U.S. contribution, NATO nations collectively spend only 1.8 percent. It is unlikely that these levels of investment will prove to be sufficient to protect the free people of our NATO nations in the decades ahead.
And this is happening in the face of the reality that the availability of weapons of greatly increased lethality is growing. We all need to consider where this risky trend could take us. In many ways, this war is different than any we have ever fought. But in other ways, our situation today resembles that of free nations in the early days of the Cold War. Over the course of what President Kennedy called "a long twilight struggle," our countries have disagreed on some things from time to time. But fortunately for us, and for our children, we did not lose our will - over many decades, and through many changes in political leadership in all of our countries. Our free nations did not waver when the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, promised to "bury" us. Nor when he predicted that our grandchildren would live under Communism. Quite the contrary. Today we live in a world where the son of Nikita Khrushchev has chosen to become an American citizen. And where a woman raised in this country's communist East - where the state decided where you could work, what you could read, and whether you could pray - is now the newly elected Chancellor of a united and democratic Federal Republic of Germany.
I'm told that Chancellor Merkel has said, "I did not expect to live in a free society before I reached the age of retirement". As we consider those words, we note that the Cold War wasn't won through fate or luck. Freedom prevailed because our free nations showed resolve when retreat would have been easier, and showed courage when concession seemed simpler. Today, our countries have another choice to make. We could choose to pretend, as some suggest, that the enemy is not at our doorstep. We could choose to believe, as some contend, that the threat is exaggerated. But those who would follow such a course must ask: what if they are wrong? What if at this moment, the enemy is counting on being underestimated, counting on being dismissed, and counting on our preoccupation. Ultimately, history teaches that success depends on will. So let us today speak with one voice:
To those who murder children
To those who kidnap diplomats
To those who behead aid workers
To those who slaughter journalists
And to those who claim the moral high ground for a cause that is anything but moral
Let us warn them not to mistake periodic differences for disunity, nor our respect for life as a fear of fighting. Let us continue to show them that the nations of this great alliance will meet the great peril of our age. And that liberty, the legacy of our forefathers and the right of our children, will not, by us, be idly surrendered or bargained away. Instead it will live and endure for generations to come.
The spoken word is applicable!
See also: Rumsfeld, Donald H. - Speech at the 37th Munich Conference on Security Policy (02/03/2001)
Rumsfeld, Donald H. - The Global Fight against Terrorism: Status and Perspectives (02/08/2003)
Rumsfeld, Donald H. - Speech on the 40th Munich Conference on Security Policy (02/07/2004)
Rumsfeld, Donald H. - Security in the Middle East: New Challenges for NATO and EU (02/12/2005)
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject:
|Panel: Russia, Europe and the World -- Prospects for Cooperation on Global Security Issues
Robert B. Zoellick , Deputy Secretary of State
Munich Conference on Security Policy
February 6, 2006
Deputy Secretary Zoellick: Well thank you, Horst, for those very kind words.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to return to Munich and Bavaria. It's an extraordinarily beautiful city -- the first one I actually visited in Europe, many decades ago. And I am very pleased that we have such a strong congressional delegation here. I have learned over the years that a close involvement and engagement with our Congress is critical to a successful U.S. foreign policy. Their leadership is vital. I had an opportunity to listen to both Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman yesterday and particularly with their focus on Iran and Darfur, where we work closely with Senator Lieberman. I think it is very helpful for the audience to get a fuller sense of the U.S. attitudes on these issues.
So I thank them for taking the time.
I also thank my friend Horst for the invitation and the excellent program. And it is a particular pleasure to be here with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. I have known Sergey Ivanov since the late 1990s, and, as I think many of you know, he brings a particularly strong strategic sense to these topics but also with a very good operational and practical feel. And I found his remarks very helpful in that regard.
I have had an opportunity to work with Foreign Minister Steinmeier more recently, but I certainly know of his record of strong accomplishment and I very much appreciate the partnership and what I thought what was a very important address setting out German views on an important set of issues.
Today's panel, and indeed the presence of the Chancellor yesterday, prompted me to recall an earlier period of government service -- from 1989 to 1992 where I worked very closely with Germany and Russia, which I haven't had the chance to do more recently. When I returned to the State Department early in 2005, I had a very similar sense to the one that I had when I first entered the State Department in late 1988 with Secretary James Baker. In late 1988, the apparently stable ground of the Cold War began to shift. Of course it is easier to recognize this in retrospect. And many expected the status quo of that time to hold, but as I believe Chancellor Bismarck once remarked, that it is the sign of a statesperson to recognize fate as she rushes past and to grab on to her cloak. And in that sense, I want to say that Horst Teltschik was one of those people with the Chancellor who very much recognized that and played a critical role not only for Germany but for Europe as a whole. And the years immediately after 1988 and 1989 brought were nothing less than seismic changes.
Well, in early 2005, when I started to assume this new post, the ground seemed to be shifting again -- this time, throughout the broader Middle East. President Bush and Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld who have pointed out the key security transformations that have been driven by the events of September 11th, but of course there are astounding political changes as well -- the elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories. For my part, when I was serving as our Trade Representative, one could see the economic dimensions of this change. The winds of economic globalization were changing outlooks and opportunities but also raising anxieties.
Having worked with some of the countries in the Gulf ten or fifteen years before and seeing what seemed to be a very different economic attitude, I was struck with some very hands-on experience with countries like Jordan and Morocco and Bahrain and Oman, the UAE -- each of which we have negotiated free trade agreements with through extensive documents. Moving ahead to bring Saudi Arabia into the WTO. And also a very important country -- Egypt, where there is now a solid economic reform team and the starts of political change with the fits and starts one might expect. Indeed I had the good fortune of attending an event in Egypt, one of my last as Trade Representative with then Trade Minister Olmert, which turned out to be the first agreement between Israel and Egypt in twenty years. It was a qualified industrial zone process drawing on the United States.
Now of course we are very far from being able to determine the shifts of this new landscape. I recall Mark Twain once said, that history doesn't repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. So perhaps we have to determine the nature of this rhyme.
The movements toward openness have cleared the way for the rise of political Islam. It is taking different forms and it is struggling to determine what role it will have in a democracy. The changes are also combined with a virulent radical Islamic terrorism. This is most typified in my view by the letters from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, which make the agenda very clear. It is to create a new caliphate. It is to throw out the infidels. It is to overthrow the apostates.
These changes clearly pose very real economic and security challenges for all of us. And the response is not just military or counter-terrorism, although that is a vital part. And the response is not just support for political and economic reforms, although that is a vital part. As Goh Chok Tong of Singapore stated, this is a contest of ideas. In effect, it is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and ultimately only Muslims can decide that outcome. But others -- all of us here -- can have an effect on it.
In that context, I want to say I very much appreciate the comments that Minister Steinmeier said about the terrible violence that took place in Damascus with the Danish and Norwegian embassies - others hurt as well. President Bush promptly issued a statement emphasizing our solidarity with Denmark and our European allies. And as the Minister said, undoubtedly the cartoons were offensive and insensitive to religious beliefs, but part of the challenge is developing societies where we respect religious freedom but also freedom of the press. The role here of people who disagree is to criticize, to debate, certainly not to turn to violence, and certainly not to manipulate that violence for other political purposes.
So, I also hope that some of those who raised their voice, appropriately so, on the cartoons, will raise their voice on other issues that go to the question of the soul of Islam -- including beheadings and bombings and attacking of other religious faiths.
In addition to the agenda I just outlined, we also have a very important transatlantic agenda - the unfinished work of 1989. It includes the integration, the development and the security of the new members of the European Union and NATO. It is finally determining the peaceful democratic place of the Balkans in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community, as was discussed in the panel yesterday. It also means assisting the fragile new democracies in the European space, such as Ukraine and Georgia. And of very great importance, building a constructive relationship among Russia, the European Union, the United States and NATO.
Now to appreciate Russia's position today, I personally find it useful to step back a few years to the time that President Putin assumed office. Without knowing for sure, I suspect the view of President Putin and his very close colleagues, was that Russia was disintegrating - in societal terms, territorial terms, institutional terms. Crime and corruption seemed to be eating away aspects of the state. I believe that President Putin's primary focus was to restore the Russian state, its patriotism, and to focus on Russian interest.
Well, I believe there is a substantial overlap of interests among the United States, Germany, Europe and Russia. Certainly as my colleagues have said, there is an interest in countering terrorism and radical Islam. There is an interest in helping to re-build countries such as Afghanistan that have become breeding grounds of danger. Stopping nuclear proliferation by dangerous states such as Iran and North Korea.
And here I am very pleased that Russia may be developing a special role in exploring the possibility of developing internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle, where perhaps Russia and the United States have a particular historical responsibility.
I also work a great deal with Asia; and I encounter my Russian colleagues at meetings of APEC and the ASEAN countries and Southeast Asia. I think the interest in northeast Asia in particular where we still have problems with the Cold War -- and even World War II -- that are still frozen and need to be addressed.
I believe that Russians share a strong interest in the U.S. dialogue with China about the concept of developing China as a responsible stakeholder in the international system.
And of course we have shared interests in transnational topics such as Avian influenza, infectious diseases. We should cooperate with major humanitarian challenges. Senator Lieberman talked yesterday about the problems in Darfur. Well, Russia has agreed to take part in the peacekeeping mission in the south and UNMIS, with some important transportation capacities. Obviously they will be working very closely with us in the UN Security Council. I will also emphasize that the partnership with the European Union on this couldn't be better as we deal with what is a very, very difficult problem.
We have a common interest in Russia's accession into the WTO, to integrate it into a rules-based trading and economic system.
But at the same time, we need to recognize we do have differences with Russia. My personal view is that this might stress from the fact that Russia's re-building of state power has overshot the target. I am concerned that state capitalism will impede Russia's economic development. I can see from the variety of the work I do that it is leading to investor uncertainty, which will not be good for Russia or the international economy.
Sometimes I have seen around the world that over-reliance on high resource prices can mislead about the nature of economic development.
Russia's approach to energy security, I am concerned, may also lead to insecurity, although I appreciate Sergey's offer to talk about that further today.
A strong state can choke off the development of civil society. So, as Minister Steinmeier said, we are all very interested in the implementation of the new NGO laws and the election process in Russia, over the course of the coming months.
Then, equally important, there is the issue of Russia's perspectives on its neighbors. And here, I will just offer a comment I made to some Russian friends during the course of the 90s when I was outside government. I was trying to share a historical perspective. I sometimes had the sense that as Russia looked upon its neighbors, it had a 19th-century view of the world. And what I mean by that is that in the 19th century, big powers often wanted weaker neighbors that they could dominate. But if you look at the experience of the European Union and the United States, as we start in the 21st century, this has been flipped. We recognize that weak neighbors export problems, whether they be dangers of immigration, whether they be dangers of transnational problems, whether they be nests of terrorism. And so, our strategy has been to try to strengthen our neighbors - with varying degrees of success.
So I think where we have again a common interest is working with Russia to try to seek healthier, stable, more confident neighbors. I believe Russia and all of us will be better off with a healthy, prosperous, secure, democratic Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, countries of central Asia; and of course, the relationships with the Baltics and Poland, I think will be strengthened by the confidence that the Poles and the Baltics have with their place in the Euro-Atlantic community. And I hope they, too, will reach out to Russia.
Now a word on Germany and the European Union, as well. Having been involved with these issues for a considerable period of time, I do want to pause because I think it is very notable to recognize the changes in Germany's willingness to conduct military operations beyond its border. This was not the Germany of 1989 or 1990; and credit on this belongs on To all the major parties in Germany, that have led to a significant shift. This is very important for the future of NATO and Germany and the transatlantic relationship. Of course, it leaves issues of resources and capabilities but I think the change of strategic course is important. I also believe that Chancellor Merkel, a political leader who arose out of the changes of 1989, is raising the issues of freedom and democracy, as well as development, as part of German and European foreign policy. And I noted the Foreign Minister emphasized these same points. For those who have worked closely with Germany and Europe, this is a change from the traditional focus on "Stabilitaet" -- stability. So I think this could be a change that accords with the shifting ground of 2005 and 2006.
As we reflect on the changes of '89 and 2005, it's I think a common theme, is that they both challenge the conventional wisdom of the time. And, as I have reflected on some of the tensions in U.S.-European relations over the past years, one insight might be that, normally in world history, it's the strongest powers that try to preserve the status quo. Perhaps one of the confounding parts of U.S. policy has been that the United States has been challenging the status quo. European politics over the past ten years -- except for the issue of enlargement, and that's a big exception, because it is a very important issue - has generally valued the status quo. Now I understand the intellectual and political energy that has been channeled into European architecture, and know the significance of it; but I would suggest that the changes in the world that we have touched on today are shaking these traditional assumptions. So I would just close to suggest that perhaps the measure of European, Russian and American cooperation will be how we address, in practical terms, as Sergey Ivanov mentioned, four challenges.
First, the leftover work from 1989, in the broader European space.
Second, the new challenges in the broader Middle East, especially radical Islamic terrorism, and now connected to the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
Third, the rise of China, including the adjustments and changes that will be triggered throughout East Asia and South Asia.
And finally globalization, which offers incredible opportunities for economic development and growth but we also have to recognize that it is not easy to integrate 3 to 4 billion people in the world economy. The world economy, circa 1989, was about a billion people. Adding 3 or 4 billion, not surprisingly, will be a challenging process. So we are going to have to assist societies, developed and developing, to manage the process of change. And clearly, we will be better off with all four challenges if the United States, Europe and Russia are cooperating on these activities.
Thank you. (Applause)
[Excerpted text - questions and other panelists responses not included]
Complete statements by Deputy Secretary Zoellick in Q&A session:
Deputy Secretary Zoellick: I will try to be brief. The interesting question about the Iraq-Iran lessons. While I think it is an interesting search, we also have some very different circumstances we need to recognize. But I think one key point is the importance of building a coalition to deal with the problem. And in building a coalition, it requires some actions on all the potential parties. That is why we have been very intent on trying to first work with the EU-3, use the international system, the IAEA, the UN to build this coalition. And in the process, make clear our position to the Iranian government and the Iranian people - I want to come back to that point -- because I think Saddam Hussein felt he could divide the United States, Europe and others. And this might have led to some miscommunications and misimpressions on his part of some of those evidences revealed. Iran will try to divide us, too. And so it is very important that we try to work together, send a common message, as was done strongly yesterday.
And here I will just draw a connection we have some from Asia in the audience. I was in China about a week ago and had some extensive discussion with our Chinese colleagues not only about the importance of this international system but the importance to China's own energy interests which are obvious. But you have to ask yourself if you are concerned about stability in a energy- producing area and you have a country that has supported terrorism and says that Israel has no right to exist, denies the Holocaust, develops a nuclear weapon - that is not very good for stability in a major energy-producing area. So simply on interest base there is an important reason to work together. And I appreciate the cooperation that we did get from China.
An important point on this is that you may have seen President Bush yesterday after the vote made a point about trying to have the Iranians have a clear sense of where next to go. And this partly goes to Senator Lieberman's point. And it was focusing on suspension, cooperation with the IAEA, negotiation. He also emphasized that this was not the end of diplomacy but it is the start of a new phase of more intense diplomacy. But he combined it with a message to the Iranian people, which is to make very clear - and this is something I think, I hope, all of us can do together. This is not about developing a civilian nuclear energy program. And here is where, I think, the Russian cooperation has been very, very helpful. We need to drive this point home to the Iranian people and others. That is not what this is about. What this is about is developing a nuclear weapons program and the dangers that are associated with it. So perhaps one of the lessons as we have talked about is how to develop options like having the fuel cycle separate from the civilian nuclear program.
And I think another lesson and this goes back to some of Richard Perle's points, too, is understanding the internals of the countries as best we can. We don't really do that that well. Not sure we did that that well with Iraq, and I also think we need to do better with Iran, as we proceed.
One other point is the connections of issues with Iraq and Iran. And here particularly for a European audience, I am glad I have a chance to underscore a point. People talk about the upheaval that is represented by the Palestinian elections. Keep in mind: there has been a big upheaval in Israel at the same point. You had first an upheaval in Sharon's position in terms of frankly making a historic decision that you couldn't have a greater Israel and a Jewish state and a democracy. And so the pathway that was set by Sharon and is now being followed by Olmert is very clear. They are opting for the Jewish state and the democracy.
But when you combine the uncertainty in Israel with the stroke of Sharon -- an election that to some Israelis says: We are back to 1947. We have got neighbors that don't believe we should exist. And then you add an Iranian nuclear program that is extremely dangerous. And so in looking at the Iranian nuclear program, it is important to see its connection to issues of Middle East peace, which we are also interested in.
And last and final point: As I emphasized in my remarks, I think there is a tremendous amount of common interest with Russia, the United States and the European Union. It does also, I think, it is part of what gives us the opportunity where we do disagree to say so honestly and openly. I have met civil society members from Belarus. I don't know what would happen in an election. But my test for that would be: open it up and have a fair and free election and see.
Deputy Secretary Zoellick: Okay, I will just take two.
On the Georgia and energy security issue, what the Georgians have explained to us, was that they were in a terrible situation. They bought energy temporarily from Iran. But the whole nature of your question explains why I think this has been misframed by Russia and some other countries. I have an economics background. So when I look at energy security issues, I don't see it just in terms of manipulating this flow or that flow.
I see that the way to deal with energy security issues is: number one, multiply non-oil and gas supplies, whether they be nuclear, clean coal, solar, others; second, multiply and diversify oil and gas supplies from a variety of sources; third, work on the demand side, and efficiency and conservation; fourth, develop strategic petroleum reserves to deal with emergency situations; and then fifth, try to deal with the security chokepoints, as the NATO Secretary-General said.
I think there is a good agenda there, for all of us to be working on, as opposed to trying squeeze one country or another.
On Darfur, which Dick asks. Dick, it is far beyond me to explain the position that is outlined in the New York Times. That would be too much of a burden for me to carry (laughter). I hope that the movement is much quicker.
As you could see, our excellent Ambassador in the UN, John Bolton, has moved quick off the mark during the short month of February when we are Chair to try to move forward the UN peacekeeping mission; and as you said, the first step was just taken a day or two ago. And we hope that we can try to move that forward during the month where we are chairing it. As we do so, and I know you know this subject well, we need to work very closely with the African Union AMIS force, not only because of trying to develop African solutions for African problems -- but they are the people on the ground, and frankly they have done a pretty good job under difficult circumstances. We all know they are going to need more support, but this now leads to questions, which I hope we can deal with quickly, about the size, the mandate, how to move that mission forward. Frankly, that is one reason I stopped in Paris on the way here and talked about this with the NATO Secretary General and frankly had some good discussions with China on it a week ago, trying to move this process forward.
The NATO part, however, is that since there will be a period, even under best of circumstances and an interim period before you get an expanded UN peacekeeping force, which I hope will blue-helmet a large number of the African Union forces, that we believe there are things that NATO, and if the EU wishes, can be done to increase the performance of those 7,000 personnel from the African Union. These tend to be of the nature of logistics operations, planning operations, intel operations. I won't go through the full detail but there have been assessments of performance; and these guys are doing a courageous job. They need better weaponry. The Canadians gave them some armored personnel carriers. And we hope that NATO and the EU can help supply what don't have to be large numbers of skilled people to help that.
And in the context of the discussion yesterday on NATO and EU, I tell you -- both of us have -- I have lived with those discussions for twenty years. I just hope people don't get theological about this. To be honest, it doesn't matter to me whether EU, NATO - we need the help to be able to provide the support in Darfur, so I hope that capitals that sometimes get a little complex about this, don't on this issue - particularly given the fact, that this has now got dangers with Chad as well. And that's another subject that I was in a discussion in, in Paris.
The last point. While we focus on the humanitarian and the security, we also have to keep our eye on the fact that those can only stabilize the situation and therefore we have to move forward the Abuja peace process, which the African Union under Salim Salim is chairing. It's had a slow and sluggish start but there are some signs -- as you know, sometimes these are under the surface -- that we might be able to put the forces together. Although when I read the news stories that have the rebels fighting with each other at the table -- physically -- it always underscores the challenge we have ahead.
||All times are GMT - 4 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group