26 April 2002
U.S. Envoy Says Anti-Terror Coalition Aims to Protect Citizens
(April 17 speech by Ambassador to Greece Thomas J. Miller) (3290)
The task of the global anti-terror coalition is not simply to
eliminate one man or to neutralize one group of fanatics but "to make
the international system we live in stronger, more effective, more
vigilant, in order to protect its citizens without sacrificing the
values and principles that make us worth protecting," U.S. Ambassador
to Greece Thomas J. Miller told the Economist Conference in
Vouliagmeni, Greece April 17.
Terrorism is spawned not by poverty and ignorance, Miller maintained,
but is "a by-product, for certain blighted souls, of an ideological
half-education that offers little preparation for the modern world and
rejects the values of tolerance and the worth of the individual."
He added: "The deficits of democracy, of justice, of security that
exist in much of the world must be dealt with. But the cure for lack
of democracy is more democracy, not murder; the cure for injustice is
more justice, not more injustice."
During the course of his remarks, Miller discussed Iraq and its
programs for developing weapons of mass destruction, and also the EU's
European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).
Following is the text of his speech:
(begin text)
SPEECH BY U.S. AMBASSADOR TO GREECE THOMAS J. MILLER TO THE ECONOMIST
CONFERENCE
17 April 2002
Astir Palace Hotel
Vouliagmeni, Greece
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is a conference about leadership strategies; as I look around me
at so many distinguished past, present, and future leaders, I feel
very nervous talking about this subject. It doesn't help that I just
got off a plane from New York and have left parts of my brain in seven
different time zones. But even by accepting the Economist's invitation
to speak on leadership strategies I worry that I lay myself open to a
charge heard a great deal here in Greece, the charge of American
arrogance. So let me say at the outset that I only agreed to speak
tonight out of a sense of obligation to this distinguished audience.
My hope is to present, in a spirit of humility, some U.S. and personal
views about the need for leadership in the world. Not about leadership
by one country or statesman, not about historical or other "right" to
lead; rather, I want to offer one perspective, an American
perspective, on the need to keep up a vigorous, united coalition of
the whole civilized world. Maybe I can help answer the question what
is it the U.S. is really asking from our European allies and partners.
The people of the United States want the same things as everyone else.
We want to feel safe, we want economic security, we want justice.
Every four years we elect leaders we believe can offer those things.
And the thirst for security is a very basic one. Greeks of a certain
age remember vividly the cost of war. Others in this room have seen
the ugly face of war much closer at hand. The horrible death of 3000
innocent, unsuspecting people before the eyes of the whole world on
September 11 reminded us that to be safe it not enough simply to be
law abiding citizens of a country located far from the conflicts that
continue to rage in this new century.
And the thing that hurt us most is that we were victims of the thing
that makes us proudest of ourselves. We are an open society, a land of
opportunity for all. How many countries are there where it is so easy
for a foreigner with desire and a little money to come and learn to
pilot an airplane? Do we want to change this? Of course we don't. Are
we changing? As little as we dare. But we are confronted with
difficult choices, the kind of choices that must be made, the kind of
choices that require leadership of a special kind.
The people of Afghanistan have rid their country of a nightmare
regime, in a quick and relatively surgical military operation. The
unholy alliance between the Taliban and Al Qaeda has been disrupted,
their leadership is dead or in hiding. The international community has
come in, with generous assistance, to build up a new government
representing all major groups in Afghanistan. Children have begun
school again. Women are no longer prisoners in their houses. It is
reasonable to suppose that this new, freer Afghanistan will no longer
be the training ground or hiding place for armed extremists. But I'm
afraid I have to agree with a great American author Louis L'Amour:
"There will come a time when you believe everything is finished. That
will be the beginning."
The task of the coalition we built together was not to eliminate one
man, was not to neutralize one group of fanatics who reject the values
of the civilized world. The goal is to make the international system
we live in stronger, more effective, more vigilant, in order to
protect its citizens without sacrificing the values and principles
that make us worth protecting. But first, one clarification: People
who travel the world often come to doubt the idea of a "clash of
civilizations." Greeks are sensitive to the differences among cultures
and peoples, but their very success as a Diaspora proves that these
differences are limited and hardly fatal. All world religions are
religions of peace rather than war, of love rather than hatred. The
very definition of civilization includes the idea of coexistence.
Terrorism is not a tool of civilized societies. The war against
terrorism is not a war of one civilization against another. Rather, we
are fighting one more historic campaign in a conflict between
Civilization and Barbarism that has lasted as long as the human race
has. Frankly, the human race cannot afford to lose.
The urgent challenge that lies ahead of us now is not to try to
persuade a number of people who hate our so-called Western values that
they are making a mistake and should love us. We will try, but the
world is full of powerful men who, like President Mugabe in Zimbabwe,
have mobilized racial or tribal hatreds and resentments as a tool to
keep themselves in power after they have failed to achieve legitimacy
by the ordinary methods of good governance and democratic election.
Though we mourn the choices of such men and exert whatever moral
pressure we can, ultimately most of them stand or fall by the judgment
of their own people.
But certain leaders have reached beyond their borders to trouble the
peace of the whole planet. The U.S. and Europe have fought a slow,
steady, rearguard action against the expansion of weapons of mass
destruction in the world. There have been successes -- for example in
South Africa, which renounced along with apartheid a highly developed
nuclear weapons program; Ukraine abandoned the nuclear capability it
inherited from the Soviet Union. There have been failures, most
recently when India and Pakistan dropped the veil from their own
nuclear arsenals. I am not sure how many more failures the world can
survive. Those countries closest to acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability are precisely those countries least under the control of
ordinary norms of international behavior.
And this fear of nuclear proliferation applies much more to chemical
and biological weapons. Recent events have proved how great the damage
is, even from small groups or individuals, where no state actor was
involved. Picture the chaos that would ensue if, as is now perfectly
possible, the resources of even a poor and backward state were used to
spread death and terror in a city like Washington or Athens.
I am afraid that many of you are wondering when the United States
plans to attack Iraq. This is the wrong question. Our goal is the
stability of the Middle East and the safety of the planet. I am very
dubious that either goal is possible while Saddam remains as absolute
ruler of Iraq. However, we are in close contact with all the
interested states in Europe and the region. We are better placed than
anyone to know the limits of military action; we understand perfectly
well why our friends in the Middle East are urging us to continued
restraint, despite what we have told them and what they already know
about Saddam's ongoing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
programs.
The United States is the largest but far from the sole member of the
coalition of countries determined to safeguard the welfare of the
innocent people of Iraq as well as the peace and security of the
planet. It is imperative that the pressure be maintained on Saddam to
fulfill the UNSC resolutions now applied to Iraq. Those resolutions
are scarcely onerous for a state with honest intentions. The sanctions
currently applied to Iraq provide ample money for the food and
medicine his people need. I wish I knew a non-military way to persuade
him that his systematic diversion of those funds to secret armaments
programs is a crime against his own people. Alas, reading certain
newspapers, it is clear he is not the only one we need to persuade.
I am proud indeed that President Bush announced in Monterrey an
additional $5 billion per year in U.S. development assistance. This
money will be well spent. However, this money is by no means a sign
that we have adopted the fatalistic notion that it is poverty and
injustice that breed terrorism. When we study terrorists, whether in
the U.S., Greece, or Afghanistan, we see that terrorism is spawned not
by poverty and ignorance. Rather, it is a by-product, for certain
blighted souls, of an ideological half-education that offers little
preparation for the modern world and rejects the values of tolerance
and the worth of the individual. The deficits of democracy, of
justice, of security that exist in much of the world must be dealt
with. But the cure for lack of democracy is more democracy, not
murder; the cure for injustice is more justice, not more injustice.
As I turn back to the issue of U.S. coalition-building with Europe,
let me say a word of praise for the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and for its Diplomatic and Historical Archive Service. Last month they
unveiled three volumes of documents regarding the Marshall Plan in
Greece. Reading those documents from 50-odd years ago, I've been
reminded of an important part of our shared history. The civilized
world emerged victorious from World War II but exhausted and deep in
debt. A number of inspired leaders vowed to continue the effort, to
find new resources, to make sure that the mistakes made after World
War I -- the so-called War to End Wars -- would not be repeated.
The core of that effort was a U.S. vision of a united Europe as the
bastion against future threats. I was struck by a report by the Greek
Ambassador to Washington, Vasilis Dendramis. In August 1949 he wrote
back to Athens: "In reality the European Economic Union constitutes
for the moment only a beautiful thought, since in Europe, due to the
prevailing conditions and the tribal differences and rivalries
inherited from the past, the European states are unable to look with
the necessary objectivity toward the European Union the U.S. so
fervently desires."
Obviously times have changed since 1949, with a United Europe now
practically a reality. I want to stress, however, that the U.S. has
not changed its position promoting that united Europe. On the
contrary; though we may have the occasional ugly but brief quarrel
about trade, we are proud of our contribution to uniting Europe, and
grateful to Europe for having justified our faith in it. The past
seven months have reaffirmed, not weakened, the reasons why the U.S.
supports a strong and effective European Union as leader as well as
partner in our shared battles.
Many of the leaders taking part in this conference represent NATO
aspirant states. Let me just tell you my personal conviction; the
expansion of NATO to include Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic
fulfilled a dream for millions of us. I see the next round or rounds
of NATO expansion as equally vital contributions to the collective
security of Europe, and to anchoring democracy throughout this
continent. I have no idea what decisions will be taken at the Prague
summit. All I can say is that I am delighted that Greece and Turkey
are partners in assisting their Balkan neighbors meet the requirements
for membership.
One topic I feel compelled to mention in this context is European
Security and Defense. The United States welcomes Europe's goal of
developing an effective European military capability, not to defend
Europe's borders (NATO does that very effectively) but to promote a
more ambitious and effective European foreign policy in less extreme
cases where NATO as a whole is not engaged. The first step has been to
draw up an EU rapid reaction force that can perform certain specific
tasks, peacekeeping for example. Very sensibly, the EU doesn't want to
spend the resources to duplicate the structures of NATO. That would be
a tremendous waste of money and talent. The European Army will thus
call upon NATO capabilities and structures for certain purposes. But
this is complicated. Both the EU and NATO are organizations that
operate by consensus of all their members, and the non-EU members of
NATO deserve to be consulted if NATO assets might be involved. A very
delicate process has been under way for two years to convince all the
interested parties that their interests will be protected.
Unfortunately, at a certain point many Greeks concluded that too much
of the EU's autonomy had been given away to non-EU members such as
Turkey. I think personally that this is a misunderstanding -- the
draft agreement between NATO and ESDP usually called the Ankara text
is a very specific document for narrow purposes. It is not the
sweeping charter for European collective security that you hope to
reach in the future. I see Greece's security as further strengthened,
and certainly not undermined, by this agreement. In any case, Greece
has exercised its right to block consensus. Until Greece's concerns
are resolved, Europe will not have an autonomous military force
capable of implementing a unified EU foreign policy. This deadlock, as
most Greeks realize, does not serve Greece's interests and
aspirations. I hope a solution will be found, one that accurately
reflects the inseparability of our common security.
This leads me to the question of resources. A number of European
analysts wonder whether the EU has all the capabilities required to
conduct a military campaign outside its borders. They believe that the
gap between the U.S. and Europe has widened significantly in recent
years, and have accurately identified the shortfalls in Europe's
ability to be a credible military power. Greece, of course, devotes an
impressively large share of its budget to defense, but even here, only
part of that investment actually serves broader European defense
capability requirements. I am not going to boast about the size of
U.S. defense spending. It is a tragedy that we still live in a world
where democratically elected leaders are convinced that such
investment is necessary. But I will say the obvious, that Europe's
ability to play the superpower role its size, location, and humane
values warrant depends on having the intelligence-gathering and
decision-making capabilities to match its current superpower role in
diplomacy and providing assistance.
In the short term, resources are not the major problem. We are still
not yet at the stage where European and U.S. institutions are talking
to each other as frequently and as openly as they need to. The EU is
working to complete the institutional changes required to present a
common front against terrorism. I welcome this. I am convinced that
the legal and practical obstacles are far less serious than imagined,
and can all be overcome.
In closing, let me quote again from the Foreign Ministry Archives.
This time it is a speech in English, reported by the Greek Embassy in
Washington from the deliberations of the U.S. Senate in 1948 on the
Marshall Plan. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, was a far finer orator than I, a great spokesman
for America's commitment to peace and democracy in the world.
"Mr. President, the decision which here concerns the Senate is the
kind that tries men's souls. I understand and share the anxieties
involved. It would be a far happier circumstance if we could close our
eyes to reality, comfortably retire within our bastions, and dream of
an isolated and prosperous peace. But that which was once our luxury
would now become our folly. This is too plain to be persuasively
denied in a foreshortened, atomic world. We must take things as they
are. The greatest nation on earth either justifies or surrenders its
leadership. We must choose. There are no blueprints to guarantee
results. We are entirely surrounded by calculated risks. I profoundly
believe that the pending program is the best of these risks. I have no
quarrel with those who disagree, because we are dealing with
imponderables. But I am bound to say to those who disagree that they
have not escaped to safety by rejecting or subverting this plan. They
have simply fled to other risks, and I fear far greater ones. For
myself, I can only say that I prefer my choice of responsibilities."
That was Senator Vandenberg. At a crucial period for the future of
Europe the U.S. played a leadership role. History justified that
decision. My message for this evening is that the world still faces
real, grave threats. Though in most respects the average citizen of
the United States or European Union can and should feel safer than at
any previous point in three thousand years of human history, the
preservation of that security requires permanent vigilance, permanent
sacrifice. An "isolated, prosperous peace" is not an option for any of
us here.
I wish we lived in a world where the messenger is not held responsible
for the bad news he brings. Very few politicians want to speak clearly
and say the obvious but unpalatable -- first, that the Balkans, the
Middle East, and a myriad of conflicts in Africa and Asia are
unfinished business; second, that the unchecked development of weapons
of mass destruction by undemocratic and unstable states threatens not
only their unfortunate neighbors but the peace and security and
prosperity of all of us.
The death of 3000 Americans and foreigners on September 11 thrust
President Bush into a position of world leadership no sane man would
have sought. As a leader, he has his responsibility to keep saying
what many do not want to hear, that the task we began is not finished.
It is easy to read the European press and shake heads sadly about
American unilateralism. A more thoughtful person would look around and
realize that the United States has never acted unilaterally, despite
frequent temptations. We live within a web of international
relationships on which our economic and political security depends. We
do not have the luxury of the famous essayist and moralist G.K.
Chesterton, who could write: " I owe my success to having listened
respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing
the exact opposite. "
No one country can or should seek a monopoly of leadership. We are in
the world together; we depend on our friends and allies; we listen to
them; when the circumstances dictate we go in together, and we stay in
together until the job is finished.
Thank you.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
