Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 12 -13, 2005

• Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
• US Senator Hillary Clinton
• Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary-General
• Sergey Ivanov, Minister of Defense, Russian Federation
• Gholamali Khoshroo, Deputy Minister for International and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Iran
• US Senator John McCain
• M K Narayanan, National Security Advisor, Republic of India
• Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense
• Gerhard Schröder, Federal Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany
• Dr. Javier Solana Madariaga, Secretary General, Council of the European Union; High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, EU; Secretary General, WEU, Brussels

Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General

A More Secure World: The Future Role of the United Nations

Excellencies and dear friends,

Anyone who looks at the global security situation today can see that we face many daunting challenges. But we can also see hopeful signs in humanity's endless quest for peace.

Old foes have agreed to share power in Sudan. The Israelis and Palestinians have committed themselves to a ceasefire. The Afghan people are in charge of their destiny. And the Iraqi people, with heads bloodied but unbowed, have begun the long march in that direction too.

A stable and democratic Iraq, at peace with itself and its neighbours, is vital - for Iraqis, for the region, for the entire international community. The United Nations must play its full part in helping to achieve that goal. We are proud of the role the United Nations played in helping the Iraqis conduct the recent election. And we are determined to help them in the important next steps in the transition.

The key to success in Iraq is inclusiveness. The United Nations is already engaged in efforts to reach out to those groups - mainly Sunni Arabs - who stayed away from the elections, for whatever reason, but are willing to pursue their goals through peaceful means.

We will also, if the Iraqis ask us, provide them with all the technical assistance we can - in preparing the constitution, in organizing October's referendum to approve it, and in holding the subsequent parliamentary elections. Meanwhile, 23 UN agencies, fund and programs are working today to coordinate international aid and help rebuild the country.

I am greatly heartened by the efforts of long-time allies to come together to nurture the fragile shoots of peace in Iraq. I have come here today to call on Europe and America to do something more this year: to think ahead, and to help plant the seeds of long term global collective security.

Next month, I will be placing before the Member States of the United Nations a blueprint for the most far-reaching reform of the international security system since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. My report will draw heavily on the recommendations of the 16 eminent men and women who served on the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. One of the most eminent members of the Panel is here with us today and it gives me great pleasure, once again to salute and thank my good friend Brent Scowcroft.

Their message is simple: our global security environment has been transformed, and our global collective security system, including the United Nations, must be transformed too.

We all know that today's threats can cross borders in an instant, and can appear, sometimes literally, from a clear blue sky. But what is less understood is just how mutually vulnerable we are:

If New York or London or Paris or Berlin were hit by a nuclear terrorist attack, it might not only kill hundreds of thousands in an instant. It could also devastate the global economy, thereby plunging millions into poverty in developing countries.

If a new deadly disease broke out in one country, international air travelers could quickly and unwittingly spread it to every corner of the earth.

If a country is engulfed in civil war, it can destabilize whole regions, radicalize populations, become a haven for terrorism and organized crime, and hasten the spread of disease.

And if perpetrators of mass atrocities are allowed to get away with their crimes, it only emboldens others to do the same.

So, in this era of interdependence, let us banish from our minds the thought that some threats affect only some of us. We all share a responsibility for each other's security, and we must work together to build a safer world. Indeed, in strengthening the security of others, we protect the security of our own.

I believe we must act, in four areas, to give effect to this vision.

First, we must strengthen our collective defences, to give us the best chance of preventing latent threats from becoming imminent, and imminent threats from becoming actual.

Take the threat of nuclear proliferation. For decades, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has helped prevent a cascade of nuclear proliferation. But unless new steps are taken now, we might face such a cascade very soon. The High-Level Panel has made many forward-looking recommendations, including:

• Tougher inspection rules;
• Incentives for States to forgo domestic uranium enrichment;
• A fissile material cut-off treaty;
• A tighter timeline for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative;
• Broader participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative;
• Closer cooperation between the IAEA and the Security Council;
• And concrete steps on disarmament.

• Developed countries to move faster to transform existing force capacities into contingents suitable for peace operations;
• The strengthening of the UN's strategic deployment stockpiles, standing arrangements, trust funds, and civilian police capacity;
• And closer cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, to divide labour and reinforce each other's work.

These are not dry or academic issues. Look at the situation in Sudan today. Millions have been killed over many years in north-south violence. The United Nations under very challenging conditions, is going to deploy a peacekeeping operation in the south in support of the recent peace agreement.

And in Darfur, a United Nations Commission of Inquiry found last month that the civilian population has been brutalized by war crimes, which may well amount to crimes against humanity. The Security Council is now considering how to ensure that those responsible are held to account for their crimes. And I salute the African Union for taking the lead in deploying peacekeepers in Darfur.

But even with the help so far given by the UN, the EU, the US and other donors, the AU's capacity to meet the requirements in the area of security is dwarfed by the size of the challenge. People are dying, every single day, while we fail to protect them.

Additional measures are IONS UNIES urgently required. Those organizations with real capacity -and NATO as well as the EU are well represented in this room - must give serious consideration to what, in practical terms, they can do to help end this tragedy. Together, working in close cooperation, we must come up with an effective strategy that halts the killing and protects the vulnerable. Otherwise, we shall have failed the people of Darfur. I am ready to play my full part in working out such a strategy.

So when I speak of our responsibility to protect -- and when I say we must be able to deploy robustly and quickly, and that we need an integrated approach to crisis management and long-term peacebuilding ~ remember this: our current collective shortcomings are measured in lives lost.

Of course, it would have been far better if the chronic problems of governance that have long plagued Sudan had been addressed earlier. So let me stress a fourth and final point about collective security: our eventual goal must be a world of peaceful and capable States, able to exercise their sovereignty responsibly, and to deal with internal stresses before they erupt in conflict, harming their own citizens and threatening others.

We cannot build a safer world unless we take democratization, development and human rights seriously. The United Nations advances these causes every day. For example, UN reports draw attention to human rights concerns in many countries. We have helped to foster a long overdue debate on the state of human development in the Arab world. And our efforts to halve global poverty by 2015 are based on the need for good governance in developing-countries, matched with concrete assistance from developed countries.

More and more donor countries are now making concrete plans to meet the development promises made at key international conferences. In 2005, all rich countries should follow suit. A recent landmark UN study shows that, with the right mix of policy and resources, development can succeed. So as we support democracy and good governance, let us boost aid, provide debt relief, and promote free and fair trade. These efforts reinforce each other, and are the best investments we can make in our collective security.

In just over a month, Member States will have before them my agenda for renewal and reform. And in just seven months, world leaders will be called upon to make some momentous decisions.

If Member States act now, we will still have plenty of problems. But we will have a more efficient, more effective, and more equitable collective security system, a more serious plan to promote development, and a better United Nations.

And if you keep in mind the people who are losing their lives today in Sudan and elsewhere, that would be a precious gift to humanity.

Thank you very much.

Back to the Top of the Page

Senator Hillary Clinton

Future Role of United Nations within the Framework of Global Security

I want to thank the Munich Conference for promoting 41 years of dialogue about peace and security and for this opportunity to briefly speak about the Role of the United Nations in Global Security, and I want to thank the Conference for putting together such a distinguished and diverse panel.

I also want to thank Secretary-General Annan, for his remarks at this morning's introductory session and especially for his leadership at the United Nations for the last eight years and his service to the organization over the last 40 years. He has in many ways an unenviable job, but an indispensable one. He has brought tremendous grace and quiet fortitude to his position, and I thank him for working so hard on behalf of so many.

The Secretary General has recently given my husband a new job as the United Nations Special Envoy for Tsunami-affected Countries. My husband is deeply grateful for the opportunity to work with the former President Bush and with the U.N. on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people suffering from the devastation of the tsunami.

Let me follow up on the U.N. Secretary General's remarks with a few comments from my perspective as a long-time supporter and frequent visitor to the U.N. My own participation in the historic U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing exactly ten years ago was one of the highlights of my own life.

My first observation is simple but it must govern all that we do: The United Nations is an indispensable organization to all of us - despite its flaws and inefficiencies. This means quite simply, that everyone here today, and governments everywhere, must decide that our global interests are best served by strengthening the U.N., by reforming it, by cleaning up its obvious bureaucratic and managerial shortcomings, and by improving its responsiveness to crises, from humanitarian to political.

This is, of course, precisely what Kofi Annan has sought to do with his Millennium Development goals, with his recent High-Level Panel on Threat, Challenges & Change, and recent personnel changes. But the Secretary General's authority is limited, and real power rests, according to the U.N. charter, with the member states.

At its founding in San Francisco sixty years ago, fifty members signed the Charter. Today, the U.N. has 191 members, and, quite frankly, many of them sometimes act against the interests of a stronger U.N., whether consciously or not, with alarming regularity. Since the U.N. is not, in the final analysis, an independent hierarchical organization, like for example a sports team or a corporation, but no more - or less - than a collection of its members, the U.N. becomes progressively weakened by such action. Ironically, "the U.N." - an abstraction that everyone from journalists to those of us in this room use in common discussions - is often blamed for the actions (or inactions) of its members.

This is the case with the meaningless and outrageous anti-Israel resolutions routinely passed by large majorities in the General Assembly. They carry no weight at all, and, if you think about it, every U.N. Ambassador is simply following instructions from his or her home capital. But it is the U.N. - not the home capitals - that gets blamed.

This was also the case in the dramatic diplomatic train wreck that took place in 2003 in the Security Council over Iraq. While the Administration and its conservative allies denounced in violent terms the U.N., the decisions taken to deny authority for military action in Iraq were in fact made in capitals. The U.N. was simply where those positions were made manifest. To blame the U.N. was like blaming a building for what happens inside it. In fact, the U.N. system worked as it was conceived by its founders - only its outcome was not the one sought by two of the three nations - the U.S. and the U.K. ~ who played the biggest roles in creating the organization.

My second point is equally simple, but directed primarily at my own nation: The U.S. benefits from a stronger, more effective U.N. As the founding nation, the host nation, and the largest contributor, the United States has far more to gain than to lose by insisting on reform, transparency and performance. In the humanitarian and peacekeeping fields, we pay roughly one-quarter of the overall costs, and we pay 22% of the regular budget. Thus, if the U.N. is effective, our investment is highly leveraged. If it is weak, our money - along with yours - is worth less, and more of the burden will fall directly on us, the richer nations represented here today. Thus, I fully support the Secretary General's reform efforts, and urge him to do even more.

I have elsewhere deplored people in my own nation who have sought to weaken, undermine and underfund the U.N. There are many in the U.S. who feel the U.N. is too strong, but the truth is quite the opposite: it is far too weak to serve the great causes that are its calling: fighting poverty, conflicts and disease, and promoting equal human rights for all.

There are those in America who fear that the U.N. wishes to be a "world government," but of course this is ill informed. It was precisely to address this fear that Presidents Roosevelt and Truman and Prime Minister Winston Churchill created the Security Council veto for the "P-5" - the five permanent members of the Security Council. Without that veto power, the U.N. would have been as weak as the old League of Nations; without that veto the U.S. Senate would have rejected the U.N. charter as it had the League. And without the U.N., the world would be an even more dangerous place.

This brings me to my third point: peacekeeping, post-conflict reconstruction and the U.N. This was always seen by the founders as the U.N.'s core function, and thus they created the Security Council with that all-important veto I just mentioned for the P-5. But the world has changed dramatically in ways that no one could have foreseen in 1945.

Most conflicts today are not simply caused by one nation invading another. They arise within the boundaries of a single state, as in Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Sudan/Darfur, the Congo and Afghanistan. Each present a different set of circumstances and conditions, but all require the world's attention, and thus they all end up in the U.N. Security Council for action - or inaction. I support many of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel proposals for finding ways to deal with the challenges of a 21st century world of failed states and terrorists, but I must say, quite frankly, that Security Council Reform, while justifiable in principle, will be immensely difficult to achieve. I also should note the presence here today of one of that Panel's members - my friend, Brent Scowcroft.

A brief word is in order here about the relationship between the United Nations and NATO. By inviting a U.N. Secretary General to this NATO-centered conference for the first time, you have already made the point here in Munich. But it needs to be more widely understood: in the post-Cold War world, NATO, and other multi-national military forces, can and should play important roles in peacekeeping operations in support of U.N. mandates. This is something very new, and we are still feeling our way. Bosnia after the Dayton Peace Agreement of 1995 was our first such venture. It succeeded, and ten years later, Bosnia is still at peace, with NATO replaced by an EU force. Kosovo provided a more complicated model: the 1999 NATO military action was not authorized by the U.N. because Russian threatened a veto. But after the war, U.N. Security Resolution 1244 authorized the NATO force, Russians joined it, and today a joint NATO-UN military civilian presence controls Kosovo pending resolution of its final status.

In East Timor in 1999, when a U.N. peacekeeping force would have taken months to assemble, the Security Council authorized an Australian-led multi-lateral force to go to East Timor. 96 hours later they were in Dili, and the massacre of innocent Timorese stopped immediately, never to resume. These are real success stories, to be balanced against the tragic failures in Rwanda, early Bosnia, and up to now, the inadequate response in Darfur.

What can we learn from this decade of successes and failures? For me, the first lesson is the U.N. Security Council must meet its obligations. It did not do so, for example, in Rwanda. The second is that it cannot succeed through the old, failed system of slowly assembling peacekeeping forces from around the world. These are often weak, poorly equipped, and poorly led. This is where NATO- the best peacetime military alliance in history - can play a role. In Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and now, I hope, Iraq, they play a vital role. Why not, if it is appropriate - and with the full consent of all NATO members - elsewhere? Why not, for example, at least a limited NATO role in logistics, communication and transportation in Darfur in support of the African Union? I am not advocating that NATO do all things in all places, but we should learn from the past and keep an open mind on future NATO assignments in implementation of Security Council mandates. This is fully consistent with the remarks we have just heard from the Secretary General. One thing I must regrettably predict: There will be other Bosnias, other Darfurs in the world, and we cannot continue to say "Never again" as it happens again before our eyes!

Finally, I want to close by emphasizing my core point: we need a better U.N., not a weaker one. America must take the lead, or else this will not be possible. But all of the other nations at this great conference have roles to play. Our main speaker today, who has devoted his life to the organization, who is our friend as well as a world figure of great stature, cannot do it alone. The lofty ideals of the 1945 founders may not have yet been realized but they are still valid, and we owe it to the world to redouble our efforts to achieve them.

Thank you.

Back to the Top of the Page

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary-General

Dr. Teltschik, Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It may come as a surprise to some that the NATO Secretary General is addressing this topic. It shouldn't. NATO's engagement in the broader Middle East region is not new. It has been part and parcel of NATO's transformation since the mid-1990s.

This transformation is based on a fundamental change in perspective for NATO - that providing security in this new strategic environment means reaching out. In the post-Cold War world, the new NATO needs to set up a network of partnerships. This network has to include countries across Europe, through the Caucasus, and into Central Asia -- but it also has to include countries in the Mediterranean and the Middle Eastern region, given the pivotal importance of this region, for Allies of course, but also for the entire international community.

The Alliance started to reach out to its Southern neighbours ten years ago. The initial goal of our Mediterranean Dialogue was to achieve better mutual understanding, and to dispel misconceptions about NATO's aims and policies.

This was initially a relatively quiet and low-key affair. The Mediterranean Dialogue did not have the visibility of other NATO initiatives, such as the Partnership for Peace programme. But it did help to change perceptions of NATO - to correct the outdated image of a Cold War organisation and to help our Dialogue partners understand, and appreciate, today's Alliance as a security provider that can help us all to deal with common challenges.

I must confess, it also helped us, in NATO, to better understand the Mediterranean and Middle East region. As you might expect, our expertise, built up over many decades, was more focused on other parts of the world.

Over time, these contacts have had a practical benefit as well. The Mediterranean Dialogue has helped our partners to the south to understand and support some of NATO's new operational commitments in the broader region. Our anti-terrorist naval operation in the Mediterranean, for example, has long been appreciated by our southern neighbours - and we are now even exploring how interested Mediterranean Dialogue partners could participate in it. In sum, there has been a sea change in our understanding of each other, and our willingness to work together.

Last December, the Foreign Ministers of our Mediterranean Dialogue partners came to NATO to discuss the way ahead. This was a first, and highly symbolic. But our discussions went beyond pro forma niceties. We discussed, openly, all key security issues on our common agenda. And the visits I have recently made in the region have also reinforced this trend. The perception of NATO in the region has changed for the better, and there is a willingness to engage in concrete security-related discussions and cooperation.

Last June, at our Istanbul Summit, we took our outreach to a new level. We launched the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, through which we offer cooperation to countries of the broader region, starting with countries from the Gulf. Right away, we received a lot of positive feedback, especially from Kuwait and Bahrain, which have already formally joined the initiative. Because in the Gulf region as well, there is a growing awareness that we face common challenges, and that we need to meet them together. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative is work in progress, and still needs to be fleshed out in detail. But, politically, the stage is set for closer relations between NATO and interested Gulf states.

All this is not to suggest that the image of NATO in the Middle East is exactly what we would like it to be. We need to do more sustained public diplomacy in the Arab world, to explain what we are and what we do today. But the willingness to look at NATO in a new way is clearly there. And that must include a fresh look at how NATO can contribute to Middle East security.

The time for a fresh look, and a more systematic approach has clearly come. The Middle East is currently going through a period of big change - and this time, there might be a change for the better, even if huge challenges remain. The election of President Mahmoud Abbas, the Summit held in Sharm El Sheikh just last week, the possible Gaza pullout, and a renewed U.S. commitment have opened new prospects for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Libya is coming back from its self-imposed isolation. The European Union, in close contact with the U.S., is addressing the International Community's grave concerns on Iran's nuclear programme and talking with this country on ways to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its programme. In Iraq, just over two weeks ago, millions of Iraqis went to the ballot boxes and showed their determination to participate in building a new, democratic country. I hope this courageous first step will pave the way for a stable political environment in Iraq.

We must sustain this positive momentum, and I am happy to see that, earlier this week, NATO Foreign Ministers focussed their discussion on Iraq and on relations with the broader Middle East region. We can only offer encouragement and assistance. But we have seen on many occasions in the past that outside support can be critical to sustain a positive dynamic over the longer term.

What can NATO do? First and foremost, we must be prepared to listen. We must get a feel for the concerns and needs of the countries of the region. And then we must tailor our approach accordingly, because cooperation can only be a two way street between NATO and each of its partners.

How could NATO's role in the Middle East evolve? Let me give you my views on where the Alliance might be able to make a greater contribution.

First, I believe that we need to explore with our southern neighbours how NATO's existing bilateral, multilateral and regional mechanisms could be focused to suit the specific needs of each individual nation. The experience NATO has gained through the Partnership for Peace could certainly be adapted and used for the benefit of the partners in the Mediterranean Dialogue. Joint training is one important area that comes to mind. Another is greater cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Yet another is non-proliferation. We could also assist interested countries in the field of security sector reform and defence institution building. These offers might also be of interest to others, if our initiatives were to be broadened to include more regional players.

This outside support has to be coherent and driven by each actor's added value, without unnecessary duplication. For its part, NATO can offer a broad range of practical, defence related cooperation, in full complementarity with initiatives of the EU and the G8.

I also believe that we should not shy away from already starting to think about a potential role for NATO in supporting a Middle East peace agreement. This is not a revolutionary idea. For years, politicians and academics have, at various times, highlighted the potential added value NATO might bring in supporting an eventual Israel-Palestine peace agreement.

But let me be clear: we are not yet at the point where an active NATO role is in the cards. There would first have to be a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians and a request from the parties for NATO to get involved, with the understanding that the prime responsibility for security should remain in the hands of the regional players themselves; and, I suppose there would be a UN mandate to support such a role. These conditions do not yet exist. But I believe that, if the call comes to NATO, this Alliance must be prepared to respond positively - and to play its full part.

It is no surprise that this idea is surfacing again. For reasons of military and political credibility, any multinational peace operation deployed to the region to support a peace agreement would likely have to include both North American and European forces.

NATO is the only organisation that engages North American and Europe both politically and militarily. It has the political and military structures necessary for the effective political management of peace support operations. It has long experience in the most difficult and complex multinational missions. It has the arrangements necessary to include contributions by non-NATO nations, and long practice at making it work. For all these reasons, there is a logic to a support role by NATO in fostering peace and stability in the Middle East region.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

NATO's approach to the broader Middle East is based on one fundamental premise: that the Alliance can only help the countries of the region to help themselves. We offer nothing more than a trusting dialogue and a hand of partnership. But those who wish to enter into this dialogue and this partnership will find NATO ready and willing.

But to be truly effective - for NATO to make a real difference in the region - NATO Allies must also have a fresh perspective. They must be prepared to use NATO to the fullest possible extent - not only as a vital military framework, but also as a unique political forum for transatlantic consultation. Contributing to the security of a region as complex as the Middle East requires profound transatlantic dialogue and coordination. And NATO is an important place - indeed, an unique forum -- to do just that.

There is a growing consensus between Europe and North America that new and stronger ties must be built with this region of such strategic importance. There is also consensus that NATO can and should play its part. For their part, countries in the Mediterranean and the Middle East also want to put their relations with the West on a new footing. We have today a chance - a chance that we must seize, for the benefit of the region, the Euro-Atlantic community and beyond.

Back to the Top of the Page

Sergey Ivanov, Minister of Defense, Russian Federation

Security in the Middle East

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen The Russian military and political leaders are fully aware that Russia's active role in the world sets higher requirements not only for its political system but also for the predictability of Russia's participation in common endeavor to promote international security.

And we do our best to demonstrate our compliance.
Our primary contribution to the common cause is the participation in countering present-day threats and challenges, and taking part in working out a strategy for the world community to counter crisis developments.
The need to safeguard our national interests alongside with the points I have quoted form the cornerstone for activities and practices of the Russian Armed Forces.
To put it I bluntly, until late last century a handicapped social and economic reform in Russia has limited the transformation of the military machine to cosmetic reductions in force and personnel sizes.
The situation has changed only a few years ago, when Russia had embarked on political and economic stabilization, resulting in a more secure public welfare. In turn, this has enabled the military to switch from struggle for survival in their own homeland over to a full-fledged development effort.
Now, the points of departure in reforming and changing our military mechanism are the notions of defense sufficiency and a thorough consideration of prevailing geopolitical realities.
We have gone ahead with a structural change which enables us to raise efficiency of command, control and communications, allowing to take prompt strategic decisions.
Furthermore we have downsized the central military authority which from now on will be limited to 0.5% of the overall service personnel, both military and civilian. These numbers are in fact even less than the corresponding figures for any other federal executive body in Russia.
As regards the overall number of the Army and Navy, including the Railroad Troops, as of Jan. 1, 2005 it amounts to 1 million 207 thousand service personnel and 876 thousand civilian personnel.
Now one of the top priorities for the revamp of the Russian military is to switch over to the contract service.
To meet this goal we have selected about 16,000 servicemen to occupy positions of privates and NCOs. This has enabled the 42" Motorized Rifle Division deployed in Chechnya to complete during 2004 its transition to the contract service. Together with the 76th Airborne Troops Division, this unit is a second fully professional formation in the Russian military forces.
This year 40 more units with a total of 44,000 privates and NCOs will transform to the contract service.
It is expected that by 2008 the overall figure for contract serving personnel in the Russian Army will reach 70% and the term of service on the non-contractual basis will be reduced to only one year.
Another important point is that we have intensified combat practices and training in order to accommodate new patterns in warfare and fighter techniques. In doing so we will even stronger rely upon exercises which enable us to enhance quality of military training.
A real priority for us is to make sure that Army gets modern and sophisticated arms and equipment. This has always been an important pillar of our combat capability, but now quality is much more important than quantity or sheer numbers as it was in the Soviet Union times.
To facilitate this we have established a single authority in charge of armaments and equipment procurement which in the near future will acquire responsibility for the deliveries covering not only Army, but also police, militia, security services and some others.
This will no doubt contribute to better management of procurement process and improve funding of new types of hardware creation. Currently we expect that in 2005 about 300 new and modernized pieces of hardware will be delivered to the Army.
General improvement of economic situation in Russia has enabled us to approach in a very practical way such issues as improved remuneration for the military, replacement of benefits in kind with cash payments and housing. The latter is being addressed through mortgage loans and saving schemes, as well as through establishment of service accommodation facility.
Alongside with performing its direct functions, the Russian Armed Forces have been engaged in operations against international terrorist formations and also have performed peace keeping functions.
It is precisely to meet these objectives that two mountainous rifle brigades are being established within the North-Caucasian military district, which will be equipped and trained for special missions of combating terrorist groups and bandit formations in a hard-to-access alpine terrain.
The 201st motorized rifle division deployed in Tajikistan has been transformed to a Russian military base assigned to promote the collective security in Central Asia and to contribute to the military potential of the Organization for the Collective Security Treaty.
Furthermore, on February 1, 2005 a special peace-keeping brigade has been established on a fully contractual basis. It is being re-equipped with special arms and defense hardware, with its service personnel being combat-trained up to peace keeping standards. The meaning is that this brigade will be incorporated into the joint NATO-Russian program for enhanced interoperability.
Further work on development of the Russian Armed Forces will be carried out according to the following priorities:
First, preserving the Strategic Deterrence Force potential as a result of the balanced development, improvement and upgrade of missile systems and their nuclear component.
On saying this, may I emphasize the fact that we have reached understanding that Russia does not need the nuclear weapons in the amount the Soviet Union used to possess. Therefore we have no plans to boost our nuclear missile potential.
Neither are any of our new nuclear missile system developments geared against any individual country.
None the less, Russia will remain to be an important nuclear power bearing its burden of responsibility for nuclear deterrence.
Second, sufficiently raising the potential of the Armed Forces up to a point where current and perceived military threats will assuredly be warded off by means of establishment of actionable, quick deployed force units at major threat-prone areas.
Third, improving the legislative and regulatory base for the Army and Navy, including re-drafting of in-house rules related to command and control authority resulting from changes in the MoD structure.
Forth, improving research, technology and production incentives to ensure an independent development and production of strategic armaments. In doing so, we do not rule out research and production cooperation with other countries, including NATO member states.
Fifth, developing the defense infrastructures, as well as improving the legal base for the Armed Forces activity in a market economy.
And last but not the least priority is concerned with the further enhancement of the military service prestige in general and of a single serviceman social status in particular.
May I emphasize that all of these measures are a clear demonstration of political determination of the Russian leadership to bring the ongoing change in the military sphere to its logical result.
That is, to equip the Armed Forces to meet today's requirements and national security challenges, as well as to uphold Russia's international commitments for global and regional security.
In my further remarks I cannot but dwell upon some issues of global politics.
The first issue is the one of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
Russia's stance on the issue remains to be unaltered. International agreements shall remain binding for all parties, with no exception, although export controls regimes are not supposed to serve as a smoke-screen to cover up unfair competition in the arms trade markets.
In this context, I would like to express my attitude towards one of the rumors launched in this respect.
It is alleged that we in Russia have inadequate controls for nuclear weapons or their components, and those are being smuggled to Iran or North Korea.
The situation has immediately been used by certain adventurists who have delivered to the black-market in Afghanistan a few fake weapon-grade uranium containers with Russian language labels. I can demonstrate to those interested related photos, which I have already passed to friendly defense establishments.
As far as both cases are concerned no comment is needed.
Another issue is related to the North Korean statement of its withdrawal from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
I believe we should do all we can to keep that state in the Treaty framework. For that purpose, compromise solutions will be required, first of all within the ongoing six-party talks.
Of course, we have to see official documents to this score. But if information in question proves accurate I would say that North Korea has made a wrong choice.
And we have to remember that this is a state sharing common border with Russia.
We also believe that long overdue is the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which might serve as an extra roadblock to proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The third issue is the one related to the control over the trafficking of man-portable air-defense systems, which are indeed very efficient, and which, once at the hands of terrorists, can spark off disastrous consequences.
We believe this issue shall be addressed in a comprehensive manner, through international and regional organizations as well as export control bodies.
The work already accomplished indicates that there exists potential for constructive cooperation.
This goal is also being promoted through the Russia-launched initiative known as the "Understanding between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America on Cooperation for Enhanced Control over Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems".
This document is pending for signature in a very near term.
As a result, both the US and Russia will have access to precise information on where, in what quantities and which MANPADS are about to be used.
It should be mentioned that drafting of the agreement has been completed within a shortest possible period of time, in as little as half a year. This is already an outstanding example of how we can, and need to, cooperate.
The forth issue is that of relations between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
In this respect the most positive dynamics, first of all within the NATO-Russia Council, has been observed.
We are prepared to reach a new level of cooperation with the Alliance. In this sense I believe that the most promising directions are interoperability and cooperation in managing the consequences of various disasters or man-made catastrophes.
Establishing direct working contacts between the Alliance and the Organization for the Collective Security Treaty can also yield a considerable positive effect.
But of course there is enough room for perfection. Despite of the stable nature of our relations we cannot always share some of our partners' approaches concerning, for example, abuses of rights and freedoms of the Russian-speaking communities in the Baltic states. Neither are we prepared to watch the Nazi veterans marching through the streets of those new NATO members.
We will not accommodate the fact that some European states welcome and harbor international terrorists and grant visas to them.
Indeed we find it mildly speaking strange that terrorists committing horrendous crimes in Russia are continuously being referred to as insurgents.
A certain part of those "insurgents" are posted by international terrorist organizations. According to our intelligence, those who stay on a long-term basis in Chechnya amount to some 150-200 persons.
And the last point is the issue of Mideast settlement which spells challenges not only to the North Atlantic Alliance or the European Union. It equally affects our country's security concerns.
New chances for regaining momentum in peace talks between the two parties concerned have been opened up by the election earlier this year of the Head of the Palestinian National Authority.
Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip should also fit well to the Road Map worked out by international mediators.
Last December, at the Interim Coordination Committee the international community expressed its interest in rendering efficient assistance to the Palestinians. It is high time pledges were translated into concrete deeds.
On its part, Russia is prepared to pursue this work. The all-round contribution to the solution of the Arab-Israeli issue will further remain to be the chief objective of the Russian foreign policy in the Middle East.
In this context, rumors circulated recently by some media alleging talks are underway for a possible sale to Syria of Russian Iskander operational and tactical missiles are absolutely inappropriate and not true.
Although under any international agreement no limitations are imposed upon deliveries of this or similar armaments, still, Moscow has not been engaged in any sort of negotiations with Damascus on that subject.
Neither do we conduct any talks concerning deliveries of MANPADS to Syria.
To conclude my remarks, I'd like to say that the Russian military and political leadership has long abandoned its illusions as to the possibility of the present-day world existence without powerful military instruments. At the same time, while raising the efficiency of the national Armed Forces, we are also well aware that it is only through joint effort of the world community, on the basis of regard of the international law principles, and mutual respect for each other's interests that we can face challenges of the time.

Back to the Top of the Page

Gholamali Khoshroo, Deputy Minister for International and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Iran

Security in the Middle East

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful Mr. Chairman,

Allow me to begin by thanking you for having convened this meeting. Undoubtedly, at a time when the international community faces grave threats and challenges, both, at the regional and international levels, the holding of gatherings such as this one help provide a proper forum for dealing with those challenges and threats.

Since Sept. 11th 2001, extremism is seen as a burning issue in the West and across the globe. And it has always been as much a threat to my country as it is to the West. However, while we have a high stake in defeating extremism, we could not subscribe to certain tactics and means employed to this end. Bare and brutish force may reap some rapid benefits, but in the long run it creates more fertile breeding ground for extremism. This phenomenon has spread as a response to lack of justice and closure of all avenues for participation. Thus, it can be removed by addressing these root causes that gave rise to it in the first place and not by exacerbating them.

Against this backdrop, two conflicting trends are discernable at the present time in the Islamic world: voices of wisdom and moderation in the Islamic world, adhering to and emphasizing on religious values, human dignity and democratic process. Its prime objective is to strike a balance between Islamic tents and democratic mechanisms. The extremists, quite to the contrary, not only reject the non-Muslims, despite the explicit Koranic recognition of other religions, but also question even other Islamic sects. They have manipulated, misconstrued, and try to hijack Muslim tenets. The most fundamental way to combat extremism and terrorism that emanates from it is to reinforce and strengthen the voice of Islamic wisdom and democratic process. Solutions of conflicts and disruptions in the Islamic world can not be achieved through exclusion and negation of Islam; - Iranian experience is a good example- but to include Islam in a democratic and enlightened way. Imposition of secular values, in a forceful way, in Islamic world is not conducive to democratic process. It rather results in dangerous consequences. It is very unfortunate that the path undertaken since Sept. 11 runs opposite to this requirement. The resort to brutish force, including the invasion of Iraq, has already alienated a great number of Muslims, thus providing a fertile ground for recruitment and material support for terrorist groups. We believe that the most successful strategy in trying to defeat terrorists is depriving them from their bases and drying out their breeding grounds.

The concept of Dialogue among Civilizations provides a more constructive approach to the relation between the Islamic community and the western world. This concept, put forward by the Iranian President, contends that cultural or religious differences do not justify conflict, but instead can provide grounds for cooperation rooted in a mutual recognition of complementarities.


Mr. Chairman,

We live in a turbulent region and the task we face in securing our neighborhood is daunting. Conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are yet to be resolved and the spread of the instability originating from them continue to threaten the region and beyond.

While important milestones in the implementation of the Bon Agreement have successfully been passed in Afghanistan and the Afghan people now enjoy having a Constitution and an elected president, threats to peace in that country are yet to be overcome. The remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda continue to regroup and conduct acts of subversion, mainly along the Eastern border areas, with a view to undermining the central Government and sowing instability across the country. On the other hand, and despite the sincere efforts by the Afghan Government, the opium cultivation and drug trafficking continue unabated, which is daunting and could have unsettling effects.

These two scourges may disrupt the smooth progress of the reconstruction in Afghanistan. In our view the most effective way to forestall the acts of subversion and drug-trafficking is to help the Afghans to organize, train and equip their national army and police force. The international community at large, including all Afghanistan's neighbors, has a high stake in the current trend and needs to protect it at all cost and ensure that it becomes irreversible. The international assistance in creating new armed and police forces as well as in combating narcotics in Afghanistan and transit countries is essential and indispensable.

As to the situation in Iraq, the former Iraqi regime was a threat as much to the Iraqi people as to Iraq's neighbors, and as such a destabilizing factor in the region. Thus, while my Government opposed the invasion of Iraq as a matter of principle, we did not fail to consider the ousting of Saddam Hussein from power to be a welcome development.

At the present time, the situation in Iraq runs through a sensitive and crucial period. The people of Iraq, turning out actively and massively on the Election Day, demonstrated clearly their commitment to the democratic process and their interest in shaping their future and that of a free and independent Iraq. Here, I wish to reiterate that, in my Government's view, Iraq belongs to all Iraqis and everybody's right, majority or minority, should be observed.

While inviting the whole Iraqi people and all the groups inside Iraq to safeguard unity and national accord and defend Iraq's territorial integrity, we put emphasis on the need for all-inclusive participation of all groups in the political process. The Islamic Republic of Iran congratulates Iraqi people for their elections and is prepared to assist them in reconstruction, economic and political development of their country.

My Government's policy with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq is guided by the understanding that Iran's interests are best served by the restoration of peace and stability, the respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the establishment of democratically-elected and representative governments in those two countries. The affinities between our people and those of Iraq and Afghanistan have deep roots throughout history. And the continued instability in those two countries constitutes destabilizing factor along our common borders and in the whole region. Thus, we have adopted a forward-looking and constructive policy towards the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Mr. Chairman,

Despite the fact that Iran never invaded any country in the past two centuries and currently maintains no territorial claim against any of its neighbors, the Iranian people suffered the most from the turbulences in the region in the recent decades. The invasion of Iran by Saddam's regime, as well as protracted instability in Afghanistan and its fallouts, including terrorism, drug-trafficking, and influx of refugees, gave rise to a genuine national consensus in Iran that we should continue to be at the forefront of any effort aimed at underpinning peace and stability in the region.

In view of the above and addressing the whole situation in the Persian Gulf region, Iran has proposed, since the mid 1980's, the establishment of a security and cooperation scheme to ensure security and stability in the region. This idea was later enshrined in Security Council resolution 598, which brought the Iran-Iraq war to an end, but was never implemented. When Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was brought to an end, the Security Council again underlined the need for a regional security perspective, which again escaped implementation.

We believe that it is imperative to use the opportunity created by the removal of a great menace to our region's security to replace mistrust and arms race with confidence building and transparency and to establish an indigenously-based and internationally guaranteed regional security arrangement under the UN auspices to spare our region from further bloodshed.


Mr. Chairman,

Given the fact that Iran is the largest and the most populous country in the region, it is clearly in Iran's interest to discourage an arms race in the region. Furthermore, considering Iran's huge reconstruction needs and a young population requiring allocation of a large proportion of Iran's limited resources, a costly arms race is counterproductive and obviously contrary to Iran's security interests.

The forgoing of the weapons of mass destruction adopted by Tehran is predicated partly on the same logic as well as on the clear understanding that, in the prevailing international climate, developing nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction not only does not enhance Iran's security, but in fact will prove detrimental to our long term security and prosperity. This geo-strategic logic prompted Iran to initiate in 1974 the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East and to rigorously pursue ever since a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction in the region.

The same logic led us to accede to NPT, CWC and BWC, and to sign the CTBT, resulting in the objective fact that Iran is party in good standing to more international disarmament regimes than almost any other country in this region. We have gone so far a very long way to assure the world of the peaceful nature of our nuclear program. We signed the most stringent safeguards mechanism, i.e.,the Additional Protocol, and implemented it immediately before its ratification. The extent and number of inspections carried out by the IAEA of the Iranian nuclear or non-nuclear sites has had no precedent in the history of the Agency. In spite of our legal right, my Government committed voluntarily itself to suspending uranium enrichment for sometime, despite being an unpopular measure and thus politically incorrect. Nonetheless, the Iranian Government is fully aware of concerns over its nuclear program and takes questions about it seriously. We have therefore been actively cooperating with the IAEA in a most transparent manner in order to the IAEA would gain a full understanding of all aspects of our nuclear programs. In so doing, the Agency's inspectors have had unlimited, unhindered and quick access to whatever and wherever on Iranian territory they requested.

We are pleased that our efforts have not been in vain as far as the IAEA is concerned. This Agency in its latest report (GOV/2004/83, 15 November 2004) confirmed that its inspectors had uncovered no evidence of concealed nuclear activities or an atomic weapons program in Iran. The report specifies that: "All the declared material in Iran has been accounted for and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities". This report along with the recent agreement we reached with the E3 and the EU, clearly demonstrate Iran's full commitment to the non-proliferation regime, particularly the NPT.


Mr. Chairman,

The primary purpose of the agreement we reached with the three european countries; Germany, Great Britain and Franc in last November is to engage in a result-oriented negotiation that would hopefully pave the way for a long lasting mutually beneficial cooperation in political and economic fields. The agreement, to our mind, is the fruit of four interrelated concepts: Rights, Obligations, Concerns, and Cooperation. In this agreement, Iran's right under the NPT has been reiterated. With regard to its obligations, Iran has committed herself to full and transparent cooperation with the IAEA and voluntarily applies the Additional Protocol in advance of its ratification. Proceeding from its obligations, Iran has taken many effective measures to address the concerns and perceptions of the outside world. Concerns root in perceptions while the unhindered and intrusive inspections are reality. This reality and IAEA's reaffirmation of Iran's peaceful activity contradicts such perceptions. The Iran's right which is determined by international treaties should not be violated because of unjustifiable perceptions.

Reciprocally, we need now to take some concrete steps in fulfilling Iran's right in the framework of the NPT as well as promoting cooperation between Iran and the EU. In the meantime, negotiations with a view to reaching a general agreement on long term arrangements are well underway in the framework of three working groups established by the two sides on nuclear, political and security, and finally cooperation and technology. We believe that with the necessary political will and readiness of the west to invest in mutually beneficial relations, there is every reason for cooperation about the outcome.

Finally, let me conclude by reiterating that Iran has entered into the process of removing any misperception in its relations with the EU with good faith and intends to exhaust it fully. Given the good intention of the both sides, we are consciously hopeful about the outcome of the process. We believe that any interaction between us and the Europeans such as this one could help promote understanding and mutual respect, thus advancing further the process we are engaged in.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Back to the Top of the Page

US Senator John McCain

Security in the Middle East: New Challenges for NATO and the EU

Since we met last year, the people of Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority and Iraq have chosen new leaders in democratic elections, an "Orange Revolution" has brought a new dawn of freedom in Ukraine, and Israeli and Palestinian leaders have declared an end to four years of conflict. As we, the Atlantic community, sketch out our vision for the future, we should reflect on these events and consider how much more we can do - together - to build a freer and more secure world.

The Iraq question continues to darken relations among transatlantic friends, but the shadow lightens with each passing month. Many challenges remain, and the road ahead is arduous. But we are beginning to put the past divisiveness behind us, and starting again to identify shared challenges as collaborative opportunities.

These new events unfold as our fundamental understanding of international security evolves. For many years we believed that bonds of friendship among governments led to peace, irrespective of their domestic nature, and that a despotic ally was preferable to an unfriendly democracy. The events of September 11 showed most painfully that this form of statecraft can be a recipe for complacency and danger.

We have learned that, where repression rules, the lack of political participation and economic opportunity engenders despair and even extremism. Nowhere is this problem more acute today than in the broader Middle East, and the stagnating status quo there demands attention. The promotion of democracy and freedom are simply inseparable from long-term security in this region, and security in the broader Middle East is fundamentally linked to security elsewhere - includmg in Europe and North America. When the security of New York or Madrid or Munich depends in part on the degree of freedom in Riyadh or Baghdad or Cairo, then we must promote democracy, the rule of law, and social modernization just as we promote the sophistication of our weapons and the modernization of our militaries.

This is not merely an American view or a temporary whim. Last year before this conference, the German Foreign Minister said that "Following 11 September 2001, neither the U.S. nor Europe and the Middle East itself can tolerate the status quo in the Middle East any longer." Mr. Fischer was absolutely right, as was his observation that we must respond to jihadist terrorism with all of the instruments available - military, when absolutely necessary, but not military alone. The power of attraction can be as powerful as the ability to destroy evil. In recognition of this new reality, the G-8 launched the Broader Middle East/North Africa initiative at Sea Island, and NATO launched its Istanbul Cooperation Initiative - both of which are building blocks on which we can do more - much more - to engage the broader Middle East. Working in partnership with willing reformers, the U.S. and Europe must deepen their long-term commitment to use economic, political, and diplomatic resources to promote positive change in the region.

Nowhere is this more critical today than in Iraq. The outcome there will affect Europe as much as, if not more than, the United States. None of us can afford failure, with all of the implications that a failed state - in the heart of the Middle East - would have for our homelands. The recent elections may be a turning point, but we still face a long, difficult, and expensive road ahead. The battle, once between insurgents and the coalition, is now waged between the insurgents and the Iraqi people. Today they need our help, and we must not remain unmoved. I fully understand that there exists in some European countries lingering, and significant, domestic opposition to the coalition military operation in Iraq. But I cannot believe most of those who opposed the war also oppose providing any assistance to the Iraqi people today. Even if that were opposed, as political leaders, faced with a serious issue whose outcome affects us all, we must make decisions based on what is right, not merely what is popular. The leaders of the world's great powers cannot stand idle during the most significant political transformation of our time. Given the catastrophic implications of failure in Iraq, we should all look at the situation there as an emergency that requires immediate attention.

Security is the preeminent requirement. Iraqis can sort out their own politics, but they cannot do it in the absence of order. Our alliance should be doing much more to help provide it. Last year there was much talk about a NATO brigade that would train Iraqi troops, but today there are fewer than 500 NATO representatives in Iraq. Without well-trained, well-equipped Iraqi forces that can provide real security throughout the country, it will be very difficult to make progress on the economic and political fronts. So I urge every member of NATO to be as generous as possible when examining their potential security contributions.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops, however skillful, will be of little use unless the people of Iraq believe that the new government truly represents their interests. The parliament, free and fairly elected, is now the source of Iraq's democratic legitimacy. As it begins its work, its list of requirements will be long - from computers to staff, from technical assistance to security - and significant resources will be required to properly represent the people. In the ministries too, the Iraqis need help to build institutions that can govern effectively. The scope for assistance is limited only by the creativity of the donors.

As the newly elected government takes shape, the transatlantic partners will be in a position to influence, but not to determine, its decisions. In order to ensure a democratic system in which all Iraqis feel represented, it will be critical to bring the Sunnis into the political process. The Sunnis made a major mistake in boycotting the elections, but it is not a fatal error. There is wide scope for their participation in the constitutional drafting process, and there will be two further elections this year - the referendum on the constitution and the election of a permanent government. I am encouraged by strong signs that the Shiites and Kurds wish to reach out to the Sunnis, and we should urge Sunni leaders to join in the democratic process.

In the Middle East many issues, both related and unrelated, are viewed through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Achieving peace between these two peoples would have positive reverberations throughout the region and the world, and today I believe that the potential for a permanent peace is closer than it has been in years. In Mahmoud Abbas, Israel finally has a real interlocutor with whom to talk. But the Palestinian economy and political system are shattered, and to return to the Roadmap, the Palestinians will require international help. We can assist the Palestinians as they build the institutions of an independent state and reject the pernicious role of terrorism in their society. Here too, NATO may have a key role. While I believe a peacekeeping role would serve only to prolong the necessary peacemaking, and should be avoided, there are other options for NATO participation, including training of security forces, enhancing border security, and monitoring the implementation of Roadmap commitments.

As we work to enhance security in the broader region, we will inevitably confront Iran's nuclear weapons program, the pursuit of which should alarm us all. A longstanding sponsor of international terrorism, the radical Iranian regime defines itself by hostility to the United States and Israel. The United States needs to vigorously support European leadership on this issue, but our European friends must also realize that no deal will be worthwhile unless it includes a verifiable monitoring regime. And the mullahs running Iran's repressive regime should hear one unified message from all of us: continued nuclear weapons development will be punished by multilateral sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. At the same time, the reformers and the millions of Iranians who aspire to self-determination must know that we support their longing for freedom and democracy.

Just as the desire for freedom is universal, so must be its promotion. It is not America's mission alone, nor Europe's - the people of the Middle East must seek freedom and democracy of their own accord. And as we look to nations like Iran, we see those eager for assistance and change. And governments like those in Iraq, Bahrain, Morocco, and Jordan hear their people and pursue reform. But we also see other governments, including longstanding friends, who invoke the specter of social chaos and undue foreign influence when faced with the most basic reform proposals. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in many ways the pillars of the Arab world, could lead the Middle East into a new era, but they prefer to couple repression with a blind eye to the radicalism growing in their own societies.

In Egypt today, a degree of economic reform has taken hold, taxes are being cut, and growth is up. Yet President Mubarak has reigned as a dictator for almost 24 years, and he seeks yet another term, while grooming his son for what one newspaper described as a "Pharonic succession." To be clear, Egypt's support for Middle East peace is welcome, and critical. And yet when multiparty elections are doomed, opposition party leaders are jailed, and emergency laws remain in place for decades, we can no longer ignore its dangerous domestic environment. Egypt's reform plans, while clearly insufficient, are leagues ahead of Saudi Arabia, where elections will soon be held to fill municipal counsel seats. This is a welcome change to the absolute rule of the House of Saud, but repression remains the norm in that land. I single out Egypt and Saudi Arabia because these two proud countries should be the Middle East's natural leaders, but I could make similar remarks about other nations. If these governments are willing to reform, we should help them. If they refuse, and continue in their dangerous ways, we should reassess our relationships - including the billions of dollars in bilateral aid that flows to them.

U.S.-European cooperation on this issue is vital, and we have seen its success elsewhere. Afghanistan is a prime example. Ruled by the Taliban just four years ago, we have brought increasing stability, seen the return of over two million refugees, and witnessed a quiet democratic revolution in a land previously known only for its poverty, misrule, and violence. To further deepen our transatlantic cooperation there, we should combine the two separate operations - ISAF, under NATO command, and Operation Enduring Freedom, under U.S. command. By merging these under one NATO umbrella, we can enhance our alliance's sense of collective action and common purpose.

Ultimately, what we may need in the Middle East is a regional security structure, perhaps an institutionalized forum at which security issues can be addressed and rules of behavior hammered out. One model for such a grouping might be the ASEAN association of Southeast Asian countries. Over time, such a grouping might engage in arms control, develop norms for regional behavior, and exchange information on borders and transnational security threats, including terrorist groups. Given the deep political fissures in the Middle East today, we should not hope for too much too fast from such a structure, nor formalize it quickly as another talk shop. Yet some basic security architecture could help stabilize a region still feeling reverberations from various conflicts of years past.

While this talk pertains to security in the broader Middle East, I would like to touch briefly on events in the wider European neighborhood. The Rose Revolution in Georgia, progress in the western Balkans, and the recent events in Ukraine all suggest that democracy and freedom are marching forward. Yet under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is actually moving backward. Mr. Putin has moved to eliminate the popular election of Russia's 89 regional governors, has cracked down on independent media, continued his repression of business executives who oppose his government, and is reasserting the Kremlin's old-style central control. Most recently, Russia embraced electoral fraud in Ukraine and is now refusing to renew the mandate for the OSCE's border monitoring operation in Georgia - while at the same time complaining about alleged terrorist infiltration from Georgian territory. NATO can play a role here too, by taking over the border monitoring operation and ensuring that all observers are impartial, not subject to a Russian "nyet." The Atlantic democracies should commit to resolve Europe's frozen conflicts, which persist with Russian support, and together we should work with the people of Belarus to help end a dictatorship whose very existence offends Europe's values.

I have outlined a number of ways that NATO, the U.S. and the EU can use their power to enhance the security of the broader Middle East. In doing so, we should not overlook Europe's "soft power," which was on proud display during Ukraine's Orange Revolution. By attracting nations to its club of prosperous democracies, the EU has prompted change all along its ever expanding border. Perhaps it is time for the EU to consider a new mechanism for a close long-term partnership with Middle East democracies, beyond the Barcelona Process and the G-8 initiatives, as they arise. While it may be unrealistic to think that the European Union itself will stretch throughout the broader Middle East, some form of economic and security association would likely prompt more countries to make necessary reforms.

Europe and the United States are natural and vital partners, and so we cannot treat our relations today as merely a good faith effort to make the best of a bad situation, The opportunities we face are too numerous, and the challenges too grave, to limit our potential cooperation. President Harry Truman observed that, "Men make history, not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better." In this room today we have many of these skillful leaders, and the opportunity for change now presents itself. When the United States and the countries of Europe stand together, it creates a moral and political force that gives no ground to the enemies of freedom. The world needs us together, and we need each other.

Back to the Top of the Page

M K Narayanan, National Security Advisor, Republic of India

Future Role of Uno within the Framework of Global Security

It is indeed a privilege and a honour to be present at this distinguished gathering of policy makers, diplomats and experts to deliberate on the theme: Future Role of the United Nations within the Framework of Global Security. This forum provides participants such as India an unique opportunity to present their perspective on the United Nation's future role in a vital area.

This is an era of inter-dependence, and global security cannot be held hostage to any ideological template. Nevertheless, themes such as freedom and democracy versus tyrannical dictatorship are even now sometimes viewed from the narrow perspective of a country's distinctive history and geography. As threats and challenges become increasingly global in nature, it is evident that no nation would be able to insulate itself from developments taking place elsewhere. The world is becoming inextricably interconnected and the trend towards multi-polarity and economic globalisation cannot be prevented.

The security architecture in the second half of 20th century was dominated by military alliance systems. This was a relic of the post-1945 Cold War. We no longer face a confrontation between two Blocs, but other kinds of threats and challenges - many of which go beyond State systems. Organised governments consequently continue to face a new and extraordinary range of threats. Terrorism, Insurgency and Violent conflict are only the more evident, for there are many less apparent unresolved problems which over time have become a festering sore. At this juncture, and even as the previously well-defined international system of States is beginning to show signs of fraying at the edges, the need is to develop fresh approaches to deal with these newer problems.

In spite of this, the challenge posed by the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction still represents to-day a threat of the very first magnitude. India's position on nuclear proliferation has always been clear and unambiguous. A few months ago, when speaking at the 59th UN General Assembly session in New York, our Prime Minister, Mr Manmohan Singh had unequivocally declared that India was opposed to proliferation and that it had an impeccable record in this respect. He underlined India's preference for a global consensus on such matters, instead of placing reliance on restrictive regimes and the use of punitive action. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also observed that a global discourse was required for evolving a more cooperative and consensual international security order and that this consensus must differentiate between States whose actions strengthen non-proliferation and those that weaken this objective. The consensus must, however, be such as would not hinder international cooperation for peaceful purposes and the developmental benefits that accrue from such cooperation.

India has consistently held that the only way to completely eliminate the threat arising from the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction is through multilaterally negotiated, universal and non-discriminatory disarmament instruments. India also remains a firm and consistent proponent of general and complete disarmament, and continues to attach the highest priority to nuclear disarmament. The nuclear tests of May 1998 are not contrary to India's commitment to this long-held objective. We in India believe, furthermore, that nuclear disarmament cannot be viewed piecemeal in terms of geographical extent. The whole world needs to be freed of the menace of nuclear weapons.

Additionally, as a nation that has confronted the threat of terrorism for more than three decades, Indians attach the highest priority to the fight against Terrorism. We believe that the fight against terrorism has to be long-drawn, sustained and comprehensive. Many world statesmen have warned that terrorism is slated to outweigh nuclear proliferation as "the most fundamentally dangerous political phenomenon of our age". The real challenge here is, apart from developing a methodology to effectively counter terrorism, how to confront terrorism without it degenerating into mindless counter-violence.

India has a long history of dealing with terrorism. India's experience in this regard could even provide useful lessons for the global community, confronting as it does today a threat from faith-based terrorists; the institutionalization of violence; and the concept of asymmetric warfare. New Terrorism represents an altogether separate genus of terrorism, differing from earlier variants, both in structure and methodology. Combining many precepts of earlier terrorist outfits with novel attributes, and making use of state-of-the art technology and global mobility, terrorist outfits to-day have a trans-national reach, and are no longer tethered to geographical locations.

The grim reality of global terror to-day is that nations are increasingly being pitted against global non-State actors. These latter are essentially dispersed, fanatical terrorist networks who have the capacity to wage war internationally, sharing common operating procedures, common operating philosophies, common training paradigms and common funding structures.

It is essential to achieve effective global cooperation, considering the enormity of this challenge. India has been cooperating with the United Nations in its counter-terrorism network. We, however, share a commonly held view that the Counter-Terrorism Committee could be more evaluative and more effective. We, hence, welcome in this regard the recent Russian-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1566, since it both broadens the effort and makes it more action-oriented.

Departing from the above-mentioned threats and challenges, I would like to reiterate that India is a firm believer in the nurturing of democratic traditions as a means to strengthen international cooperation. We believe that inclusive participatory processes of governance and the values of pluralism, openness and accommodation all contribute to building stable societies in which extremist impulses are moderated and which contribute to peace and stability. The international community must endeavour to build a global environment in which such values develop and flourish. It remains our firm belief that it is a democratic pluralistic security order working through a network of cooperative structures which alone will have legitimacy as well as the wherewithal to deal with the security challenges of this century.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations which was created 'to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Having experienced the horrors of two World Wars, nations came together to create an institution for collective effort in addressing the critical issues of peace, security and development. There were expectations in the Nineties that the United Nations, free from the shackles of the Cold War, would play a more significant role in ensuring global security. These hopes were nurtured by the upsurge in peace-keeping activities and the initiatives taken for the reform of the Organisation in the period. However, developments at the turn of the century do seem to have led to the erosion of the centrality of the UN.

This dilution of the role of the UN is particularly striking in respect of security issues. This is an area which has seen increasing resort to multilateral groupings outside the universal character of the UN. There are different rationales in respect of each instance, all of which may be valid in terms of objectives but it is significant that whether for reasons of efficiency or effectiveness or exclusivity, action on several security related issues is taken forward outside the UN system. This tendency has its own implications for the role the UN as a universal body can play.

The growing salience of regional organisations is another factor that is noteworthy. Some regions have several more layers of regional organisations than others, and there may be some duplication and I dare say competition in terms of activities. Also not all regional organisations deal with security issues. However, the growing importance and visibility of regional organisations is a fact.

The United Nations to-day is at a fork in the road to quote the expression used by Mr Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, in his address to the 58th UN General Assembly. He has described this moment as no less decisive than 1945 itself, and we understand his concerns. India has hence welcomed the presentation of the Report of the UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and believes that it is a useful contribution to assessing current challenges to international peace and security and the nature and scope of reforms of the United Nations required to deal with these challenges effectively, efficiently and in an equitable manner.

The nearly four-fold increase in the membership of the United Nations since its inception, and the contemporary global situation, has given rise to the need to revisit the fundamentals relating to the international order; the nature of contemporary challenges, the institutions to deal with them; and the need for reform of the UN system. The High Level Panel set up by the UN Secretary General clearly recognises this. It mentions the need to effect changes and seeks an expansion of the UN Security Council. It states that there is at the same time a need to increase both the effectiveness and credibility of the Security Council.

Within the developing world, and also outside it, there is already a view that the imbalance in the current composition of the Security Council is making the Council decisions more difficult for many countries to accept and implement. Hence, if the Security Council is to be truly representative in its decisions and actions, and be effective and legitimate, reforms and expansion of the Security Council is an imperative. An expansion in membership should entail an increase in the existing categories viz., permanent and non-permanent membership, and inclusion of developing countries as full permanent members in an expanded Council.

It is in this framework that India has expressed its interest in becoming a permanent member of the Security Council and underlined its willingness to take on the obligations and responsibilities that befit its stature and role in the world community. As one of the longest serving and largest troop contributors to U.N. peace-keeping, India has emerged as one of the most dependable and sought-after troop contributing countries in the world. Our credentials in this regard are second to none. Approximately, 70,000 Indian military and police personnel have participated in 41 out of the 59 peacekeeping operations established so far. India's policy of involvement in peace-keeping operations is shaped by a commitment to the UN, its objectives, and a commitment to Peace.

India sincerely hopes that the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly will mark a watershed in the history of the United Nations, heralding its rebirth as an institution in which its members again repose their faith as well as their aspirations. In the coming months, discussions on UN reforms are likely to intensify and India is ready to contribute to this global discourse on the current challenges facing the international community and the need for an urgently reformed and restructured United Nations to meet these challenges.

Back to the Top of the Page

Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense

Security in the Middle East: New Challenges for NATO and EU

Thank you, Horst. It is good to be with you.

Secretary General Annan, my colleague Minister Peter Struck and fellow ministers, members of the Congress, parliamentarians, distinguished officials and friends. Well -- here we are again.

First, I want to thank our hosts here in Bavaria for their always warm hospitality.

It has been forty years since I was a NATO parliamentarian. It has been more than thirty years since I served as ambassador to NATO. So I hope you will permit me to make a few personal observations about the enduring relationship that has existed among the nations of the Atlantic Alliance.

There have been times when it was predicted by the pundits that the Atlantic Alliance would crumble or become irrelevant. That is surely what our enemies have wished for. They know that divisions and differences aid their cause. But we know that our collective security depends on our cooperation and mutual respect and understanding.

Since we met last year, consider the historic events that have taken place. And some would not have happened were it not for the contributions of people in this room:

• NATO added seven new members - nations eager to contribute to the Alliance in powerful ways;
• In Afghanistan, 8 million voters, 40 percent of them women, chose their first democratically elected President in 5,000 years. Think of it. Attending that Inauguration was a memorable moment;
• And in the Palestinian Authority, a democratically-elected president offers the hope of a new chance for peace;
• Ukrainians have demonstrated the depth of their commitment to free and fair elections;
• And in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's former subjects voted for the first time with ballots that offered a choice of 70 political parties, rather than but one.

• I remember Skybolt in 1962;
• France's decision to pull out of NATO and to expel NATO from France in the late 60's;
• Disagreements about the deployment of Pershing II missiles in the 1980's;
• Differences in approaches to the Middle East peace process;
• And so many more.

Back to the Top of the Page

Gerhard Schröder, Federal Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany

Speech on the 41th Munich Conference on Security Policy

Ladies and gentlemen,

The terrible tsunami disaster in Asia generated a unique ground-swell of sympathy, solidarity and readiness to help all around the world. In common with many other governments, the German Government acted quickly and in a spirit of solidarity. This disaster made it abundantly clear to us that we live in one world.

In this one world, we undertook in the United Nations Charter "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security". Today our security is threatened by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional instability and failing states. However, poverty and underdevelopment pose no less a threat. This has created ample breeding ground for international terrorism. The new dangers are causing tensions and can have an impact on any part of the world. That grim truth was brought horrifyingly home to us by the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, in Madrid on 11 March 2004 and in Beslan last September.

But one thing is certain: we can only successfully master the new challenges if we tackle their root causes - and we must do so together, in a comprehensive manner and with a view to prevention. The fight against international terrorism must not be limited to military and police measures. Our commitment must help overcome the modernization crisis in many parts of the world, not least in the Islamic-Arabic countries. We should do so not with public admonitions but, rather, with encouragement and support for their own efforts.

Promoting democracy, the rule of law, good governance, economic and social development, education opportunities, women's rights and the protection of the sources of life on our planet play a prominent role in security policy today. We are pursuing these objectives together with our partners in the Middle East and through the G8 programme "Broader Middle East and Northern Africa" initiated by President Bush. Federal Foreign Minister Fischer presented the German proposals for this initiative here in Munich last year. They were expressly welcomed by many partners on both sides of the Atlantic and in the region.

Ladies and gentlemen, one thing is certain: We will only master the challenges of the 21st century if transatlantic relations, the close ties between Europe, Canada and the United States are - and remain - intact. Only then will we also achieve the major international objectives which our governments have set themselves. That was true during the long years of the Cold War and it is still true in today's fundamentally different world.

The maxim continues to apply: close transatlantic ties are in the interests of Germany, Europe and America. However, we cannot look to the past when it comes to translating this maxim into practical policies, as is so often the case when transatlantic loyalty is professed. Rather, we must adapt to the new circumstances.

Every now and again during the last few years, there have been misunderstandings, strains, mistrust, even tensions across the Atlantic. I suspect that these were due not least to the fact that this process of adjustment to a changed reality has still not been completed. The changes are considerable, and some are even dramatic.

Not only the United States, but also Europe, need no longer fear a military attack on its borders today. The American military presence, which at that time both provided protection and represented a token of close solidarity, is no longer the security policy priority that it used to be. However, it continues to be of political significance.

In fact, the strategic challenges lie today beyond the North Atlantic Alliance's former zone of mutual assistance. And they do not primarily require military responses. In Asia, China and India are emerging as new world powers whose weight will have an impact not just on the region but on global politics. And the enemies we face together are no longer functioning states with a defined territory but the new global risks.

But it is not only the environment for Atlantic cooperation which has changed. The ensuing responsibility of the two states which, as it were, were the linchpins of this cooperation for many decades, namely the United States and Germany, has also changed. You, ladies and gentlemen of the US Congress, know best how your country's view of the world and perception of its role has altered during the last few years.

My country, too, sees its international role in a different light. As part of the European Union, Germany today feels that it shares responsibility for international stability and order. And our active commitment in numerous crisis regions around the world demonstrates that we Germans are living up to this responsibility. At present, some 7,000 German troops are being deployed abroad.

However, this responsibility also brings with it a right to be involved in decision-making. Our wish to see Germany become a permanent member of the UN Security Council derives from the need to base responsibility on legitimacy.

I believe that the transatlantic partnership must take such changes into consideration. And, to be honest, it does so insufficiently at present. This becomes clear when we look at the institutions which are supposed to serve this partnership. The admission of new members is proof that NATO continues to be attractive. And NATO's presence in Afghanistan has highlighted how helpful its military organization can be even in distant crises. However, it is no longer the primary venue where transatlantic partners discuss and coordinate strategies.

The same applies to the dialogue between the European Union and the United States which in its current form does justice neither to the Union's growing importance nor to the new demands on transatlantic cooperation. I hope that new impetus will be generated in both areas on 22 February when the US President visits Brussels.

Today, no-one can produce ready answers. However, we should focus with even greater determination and resolve on the task of adapting our cooperation structures to the changed conditions and challenges. To this end, the governments of the European Union and the US should establish a high-ranking panel of independent figures from both sides of the Atlantic to help us find a solution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan set us an example by establishing such a panel to deal with the necessary reform of his organization.

This panel should submit a report to the heads of state and government of NATO and the European Union by the beginning of 2006 on the basis of its analysis and proposals, the necessary conclusions could then be drawn.

Ladies and gentlemen, in many regions of the world, not only major security challenges but also opportunities lie ahead. In Iraq, the elections held on 30 January marked an important step along the road towards the establishment of democratic political structures. The political process must now be vigorously continued and put on a broader basis. Only the participation of all political, ethnic and religious groups can provide any hope of lasting stability.

In Iraq, the international community is facing the considerable task of stabilizing the country, with repercussions for the entire region. Germany is making an important contribution towards this. Its share in the Paris Club debt relief for Iraq amounts to 4.7 billion euro. We are involved in the political and economic reconstruction and launched successful programmes to train and equip Iraqi soldiers and police officers very early on. Indeed, we were the first to do so. Due to the considerable advantages of conducting this training in the region, we are carrying out this project in and with the cooperation of the United Arab Emirates.

In Afghanistan, the presidential elections last October paved the way for national consensus. The forthcoming parliamentary elections offer hope of this country's further stabilization and democratization. The sustained support of the international community continues to be indispensable. At the same time, however, Afghanistan must, and can, gradually assume greater responsibility, also in the spheres of security and counter-narcotics policy.

Within the framework of the obligations it entered into in the Alliance, Germany will maintain its political, financial and military commitment in the long term and help ensure that the Alliance lives up to its tasks. In Afghanistan, we are prepared to support the progress made towards stabilization by assuming greater responsibility, especially in the north of the country.

2005 will also be a key year in the western Balkans where the European Union is increasingly engaged. Lasting stabilization of this region can only be achieved through close cooperation between the European Union, NATO, the UN and the OSCE. This applies to Bosnia and Herzegovina and, above all, to Kosovo. Around mid-year, it will be decided whether and when negotiations on the status issue can begin. It is up to political leaders - both Albanians and Serbs - to create the prerequisites for an acceptable solution.

We will lend our support to a solution which is both realistic and points the way ahead. Above all, this includes a long-term constructive European perspective based on European values and standards, such as protection of minorities, the repatriation of refugees and decentralization. The European perspective applies to Kosovo and to the entire western Balkans.

In the Middle East, the election of the Palestinian President Abbas and Israel's readiness to withdraw from Gaza have opened a window of opportunity for the revival of the peace process. The cease-fire agreed upon in Sharm el Sheik must become permanent. The Road Map remains the key framework for the peace process. Our goal must be to ensure that Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace in two independent and recognized states. We welcome the declared intention of the US to make an active contribution without which a solution cannot be found. Europe, too, and Germany in particular, are aware of their responsibility and are prepared to support the process.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must prevent the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which are in violation of international law. To this end, we must ensure that every state complies with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that there are no gaps in the non-proliferation regime. We remain committed to preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The negotiations with Iran, which we are conducting together with our British and French friends and the European Union, are intended to serve this objective. We are strongly committed to making the process a success. That would entail objective and verifiable guarantees from Tehran that its nuclear programme serves exclusively peaceful purposes. Our American friends share this goal.

I strongly encourage the US Administration to actively support the Europeans' diplomatic efforts. We must overcome Iran's massive isolation. For Iran will only abandon its nuclear ambitions for good if not only its economic but also its legitimate security interests are safeguarded. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to work with our American partner and in a dialogue with the region to develop sustainable security structures for the Gulf region.

Ladies and gentlemen, German foreign and security policy is determined by our geographic and political location at the heart of Europe. We are formulating it in Europe, for Europe and from Europe. It is in Germany's, as well as the international community's interests, that the European Union assume greater international responsibility. The step towards creating its own set of political and military instruments with the European Security and Defence Policy is therefore necessary.

The European Union is assuming an increasing number of security tasks in close coordination and cooperation with NATO. It has already demonstrated this in several missions. A strong European pillar guarantees Europe's loyal partnership in the transatlantic alliance and its willingness to share the burden of tasks. This is also in the vested strategic interests of the US.

Ladies and gentlemen, one of the fundamental truths of European politics is that security on our continent cannot be achieved without, and certainly not against, Russia. Since the sea change of 1989/90, we have managed to remodel our relations with Russia and moved away from Cold War confrontation towards ever more comprehensive cooperation - in political, security and economic terms. Given the historical background, this could certainly not be taken for granted.

Russia itself has made considerable progress during the last few years, despite the enormous problems and difficulties which such an unprecedented transformation inevitably brings with it. The West has a vital interest in a democratic Russia which plays a constructive role in resolving global issues.

That is why we are working with Poland towards a truly strategic partnership with Russia, a partnership made to last which will include all key areas and benefit both sides. The NATO-Russia Council shows what opportunities lie in close security cooperation.

It would send a far-reaching message if the European Union and Russia were to agree on the content of a strategic partnership in all key areas at the EU-Russia summit on 10 May - one day after the ceremony to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. We will do all we can to achieve this goal.

The fresh democratic start in Ukraine also offers new opportunities. Developments in this European country are of great importance to the stability of Europe as a whole. We therefore have a vital interest in an independent, democratic, market-oriented Ukraine which develops close relations based on trust with the European Union and Russia. We will support President Yushchenko in this and assist him in his policy of reform and national reconciliation.

Ladies and gentlemen, no country in the world can successfully tackle the new international challenges on its own. We need a strong and effective multilateral system for this, one which provides a reliable framework for cooperation and solidarity between states and guarantees good global governance.

I am convinced that the international community will succeed in mastering these challenges. Germany is prepared to make its contribution and to live up to the international responsibility which we are expected to shoulder. Thank you for your attention.

Back to the Top of the Page

Dr. Javier Solana Madariaga, Secretary General, Council of the European Union; High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, EU; Secretary General, WEU, Brussels

New challenges for NATO and the EU

For Europe, the Middle East is our immediate neighbourhood. Many factors tie us together: history, economic links, shared interests and close personal relationships. EU engagement with the region is deep and has a long history. For years, including the most difficult periods, we have actively supported the search for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This year, we will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Barcelona process. And we are fast expanding our relationship with the Gulf Co-operation Council.

The reason for this engagement is simple: security in the Middle East has a direct impact on security in Europe. Our fates are tied together. Moreover, the Middle East is increasingly present in our city centres, not just on the other side of the Mediterranean. Violence and instability in the Middle East has knock-on effects on the streets of Europe.

Politics is about changing things, not merely managing the status quo. We need to tackle both new and old challenges. It is clear that there are no quick fixes to the many problems of the Middle East. But equally that is no reason for procrastination.

The agenda for action is clear. We need to proceed on four tracks:

1. The Middle East Peace Process.
2. Iraq.
3. Iran.
4. Regional co-operation.

Back to the Top of the Page

Source: Munich Conference on Security, http://www.securityconference.de/

Back to the Top of the Page

© 2003 The Acronym Institute.