Disarmament Documentation
Back to Disarmament Documentation
'[E]very option must remain on the table', US Senator John
McCain on Iran, February 4, 2006
'NATO's Future Role in International Peace Keeping', Speech
at the 42nd Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 4,
2006.
Nearly a century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote that,
"There can be no nobler cause for which to work than the peace of
righteousness." With this and other eloquent turns of phrase,
Roosevelt touched on a question of international politics no less
salient in our time than his: how does a state achieve at once both
peace and righteousness?
The question goes beyond the armed strife to which America's 26th
president referred. How today should the transatlantic democracies
use their national influence in various circumstances - from Iran
to the Balkans to Russia to the completion of a free Europe? Our
gathering today addresses NATO's mission, and so this question has
particular importance. For our alliance exists not solely to defend
members from outside threats. NATO is the very embodiment of the
transatlantic community, a partnership built on shared values,
bountiful resources, and democratic legitimacy. It has transformed
the world and, limited only by the imagination and will of its
leaders, can continue to do so.
Those who argue that the vanished Soviet threat undermines NATO's
very rationale should look at the western Balkans. By deploying
peacekeepers in 1995, the transatlantic partners staunched the
bloodshed in Bosnia. Working together, we stopped further killing
in Kosovo and then averted civil war in Macedonia. There are
important final status issues to be resolved this year, about which
I will say more in a few moments, but the story in that region is
one of unmitigated NATO success. Today the democratic aspirations
of Balkan peoples have become a reality - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia,
Macedonia, and Albania are on a path to full membership in
Euro-Atlantic institutions, a prospect unimaginable in the days of
Srebrenica and the siege of Sarajevo.
To those who say that disagreements over the war in Iraq strained
the alliance irreparably, I again dissent. Even at the peak of
Iraq-related tensions, NATO was engaged in successful operations in
Afghanistan, and since then has expanded its role throughout the
country. In December, NATO committed to send an additional 6,000
troops to Afghanistan, a contribution that is vital to maintaining
stability there. The 37 countries active in Afghanistan are faced
off against terrorists who believe they can apply lessons from Iraq
to undermine President Karzai and Afghanistan's democratic
government. We cannot let them do that. Operations there are costly
and they are dangerous, but they are necessary to preventing the
reemergence of a pre-9/11 failed state.
NATO is continuing its internal transformation as well, evolving
from a territorial defense mission to an expeditionary alliance. As
Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer has detailed, this means
investments in new capabilities, including strategic airlift,
special operations forces, and intelligence.
In short, the transatlantic partnership has accomplished things
that no other alliance has. We will need to maintain this
solidarity throughout 2006 and into the future, as we face a number
of very challenging issues.
Foremost on many minds is, of course, Iran. The world's chief
state sponsor of international terrorism, the Iranian regime
defines itself by hostility to the United States and Israel - a
point made shockingly apparent by President Ahmadinejad's recent
comments about Israel and the Holocaust. Tehran has repeatedly used
violence to undermine the Middle East peace process and governments
friendly to the United States, and it has sponsored at least one
direct attack against the United States.
Tehran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons plainly poses an
unacceptable risk to the international community. Protected by a
nuclear deterrent, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor
terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that regime obsolete,
and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others to
reassess their defense posture and arsenals. And the world would
live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass
nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist
networks. Iran already possesses ballistic missiles capable of
reaching major European capitals. The threat, to Europe, the United
States, and countries beyond, is clear.
In facing down this problem, the EU3 has made great diplomatic
efforts, but Iranian intransigence has resulted in failure. Europe
has outlined one potential endgame if Tehran abandons its nuclear
programs: an Iran with far reaching economic incentives, external
support for a civilian nuclear energy program, and integration into
the international community. But Tehran has rejected this offer and
instead removed IAEA seals. Now the international community must
stand together as we present Iran with a different set of
incentives.
Immediate UN Security Council action is required to impose
multilateral sanctions, including a prohibition on investment, a
travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear
scientists. It is in the interest of Russia and China to support
these moves, notwithstanding their business interests. Surely they
do not wish to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, an end
to the NPT, and a more malicious Iranian foreign policy in Iraq and
elsewhere. But should Russia and China decline to join our peaceful
efforts to resolve the nuclear issue, we should seek willing
partners to impose these sanctions outside the UN framework. The
countries of Europe, with their close economic ties to Iran and
diplomatic leadership on the nuclear issue, will have a special
responsibility in this regard.
And every option must remain on the table. There is only one thing
worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran. The
regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the
world. Should diplomacy fail, the responsible members of the
international community - and the transatlantic partners especially
- need to stay unified to answer this grave challenge.
While we do so, we need to reassure the reformers and the millions
of Iranians who aspire to self-determination that we support their
longing for freedom and democracy. The talented and educated
Iranian people are stifled by a corrupt and repressive elite.
Hungry for reform and an end to their country's international
isolation, they have voted for change time and again - only to
discover that their votes count for little with the ruling regime.
The mullahs provide neither the jobs, nor the freedom, nor the
basic human rights that their people want so badly. The regime
cynically uses the nuclear issue to rally its people, hoping they
will forget the everyday difficulties under clerical rule. The
countries of Europe are particularly well placed to support
democratic forces in Iran through democracy programs, broadcasting,
and by lending political support to dissidents. After decades of
difficult relations with Iran, it is important that we remain on
the right side of history, supporting the legitimate aspirations of
the Iranian people.
The Iranian nuclear issue will be an obvious test of our relations
with Russia, which I hope will support swift Security Council
action. With the G8 summit in St. Petersburg five months away, it
is clear that Moscow wishes to be seen as a great power. That
possibility remains, because there is much that the U.S. and Europe
could do together with Russia. We could stand up to Iran's threats,
end the frozen conflicts in Europe's east, ensure Ukraine becomes
an oasis of stability and prosperity instead of a Cold War-style
battleground, and help to transform Central Asia.
The Kremlin, however, shows no interest in such a relationship.
Instead, it continues to pursue foreign and domestic policies
strongly at odds with our interests and values. Even after Iran
rejected the EU3 talks and removed nuclear seals, Moscow indicated
that it would proceed with a $1 billion deal to sell short range
missiles to Iran. In recent weeks Moscow has used its natural gas
supplies as a weapon, punishing democratic Ukraine and Georgia
while providing cut-rate gas to the dictatorship in Minsk. It
continues to prosecute a brutal war in Chechnya that has killed as
many as 200,000, radicalizing the Muslim population, and it
actively supports dictatorships in Central Asia. As one journalist
recently catalogued, the broadcast media are Kremlin-controlled, as
are parliament, provincial governors, and the judiciary. All of
these were free and independent when Mr. Putin took office. Andrei
Illarionov, Mr. Putin's former economics advisor, said upon
resigning, "It is one thing to work in a partly free country, which
Russia was six years ago. It is quite another when the country has
ceased to be politically free."
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the West invested resources,
political capital, and above all hope in Russia. We wanted to see a
reformist, democratic, capitalist Russia acting in partnership with
the West. But let's be honest with ourselves - everything we see
today indicates that the Russian government has chosen its path,
and it is not ours. The Kremlin seems to prefer the pursuit of
autocracy at home and abroad, to prefer blocking concerted action
against rogue states, to prefer weakening what it views as
democratic adversaries. This is a Soviet mindset, not a post-Cold
War one. Under Mr. Putin, Russia today is neither a democracy nor
one of the world's leading economies, and I seriously question
whether the G8 leaders should attend the St. Petersburg summit.
Russia is not the only issue on Europe's borderlands that will
face us this year. Ukraine's political development will have
reverberations throughout the region, and the March 26
parliamentary elections will illustrate the degree to which Ukraine
has made the shift to a competitive democratic political system. As
Ukraine moves further down the road to reform and orientation
toward the West, the transatlantic partners must respond by
extending tangible benefits. NATO can take a first step this year
by endorsing a Membership Action Plan at the June Ministerial.
It should do the same for Georgia. Since the Rose Revolution,
Georgia has implemented far-reaching political, economic, and
military reforms, and has presented a viable peace plan for South
Ossetia. By integrating reformist democracies like Georgia and
Ukraine into transatlantic institutions, we can meet their
aspirations for a secure partnership in a community of values - and
extend the zone of democratic peace into regions of vital interest
to Western security. Just as NATO enlargement stabilized Europe's
north and center, so too will it stabilize Europe's east.
2006 will be a critical year not just for the countries in
Europe's east, but also on its south. The international community
needs to ensure that old tensions in the Balkans do not flare up in
this period of transition, when Montenegro will conduct is
referendum and the future status of Kosovo is determined. It seems
clear that, while the timing remains uncertain, Kosovo will
eventually become independent, and that with this independence will
come domestic and international responsibilities. The government in
Pristina will be expected to protect minorities, address crime,
root out corruption, and conduct its foreign policy responsibly -
and how it approaches each of these issues will affect the timing
of independence. At the same time, the EU should smooth the way for
a future status decision this year by putting Serbia on a fast
track to membership, and by moving ahead with visa and market
access agreements. In so doing, Europe can ensure that the Serbian
people are anchored firmly in Europe. If we can accomplish these
goals, the transatlantic allies can, in 2006, successfully conclude
their greatest European democracy project since the end of the Cold
War.
In speaking of the countries on NATO's periphery, we return to the
future of international peacekeeping. For in each of the
enlargement debates, the question arose: Will the new members be
contributors or consumers of alliance security? A look at NATO's
current operations answers this definitively. Every member of the
latest round of expansion is currently contributing to NATO
operations, and Romania is active in every NATO operation in the
world. It is my hope that our host today will adopt this same
activism. Germany has been a bit quiet on the world stage in recent
years, and yet it could assume a true leadership role within NATO -
one commensurate with its role as a leader of Europe.
As history's pace quickens, and with some difficult times ahead,
the members of NATO will need to rely on each other more often in
the future than in the past. The world will rely on NATO to a
greater degree as well - as a security guarantor, as a peacekeeper,
and as diplomatic leverage. But to adequately and appropriately
fulfill these roles, the Euro-Atlantic community must clarify their
understanding of what constitute the core threats to our interests
and our values. I believe the greatest threat today is the specter
of international terrorism, along with situations that give rise to
it and render it more dangerous - whether this means a failed state
in Iraq, a nuclear armed Iran, weapons proliferation, or a Russia
that exports autocracy. I hope - but am not sure - that we have the
consensus within NATO that this threat demands.
If and when we achieve this consensus, we can take action. We can
robustly fund our militaries, and employ them in defense of our
common heritage as democratic allies. We can transform our alliance
so that countries specialize in peacekeeping, interdiction, foreign
military training, or any other field. We can orient our diplomatic
energies toward the defeat of terrorism and the promotion of
democracy, human rights, and freedom.
In 1942, another President Roosevelt commemorated the first
anniversary of the Atlantic Charter, which established the moral
foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty. Referring to the nations
bound by alliance, he said, "Their faith in life, liberty,
independence, and religious freedom, and in the preservation of
human rights and justice in their own as well as in other lands,
has been given form and substance. . ." That vision, made so
concrete through NATO, now includes former enemies once divided by
war, both hot and cold. Today, the challenge is to strengthen and
extend that vision, and to bring its faith to those lands in which
it is so sorely lacking.
We in the transatlantic community should dare to dream today of
the future we might help build in Europe's borderlands, in Central
Asia, and throughout the Broader Middle East. As partners in a
shared and historic endeavor that has already transformed the lives
of millions, we should discount neither the power of our ideals nor
the capacity of our democracies. In turning back the forces of
tyranny and terror, and in helping to secure the blessings of
liberty everywhere, we will embark on a project worthy of this
grand alliance. And in doing so, we will prevail, as we have
prevailed before - together.
Source: Munich Conference on Security Policy, http://www.securityconference.de.
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
|
