| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to Disarmament Documentation
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
Source: Munich Conference on Security, http://www.securityconference.de/
© 2003 The Acronym Institute.