21 May 2003
Text: Senator Hagel Sees No Stepping Back From U.S. Middle East Commitment
(Says peace effort has "profound implications" for global security)
(3440)
The United States faces immense risks, challenges and opportunities in
the Middle East, and how it responds will have "profound implications
for global security," says Senator Chuck Hagel.
The Nebraska Republican, in remarks to the World Affairs Council in
Washington May 20, said "Setting the region right will require a
commitment and a focus that will test our leadership, resources, and
alliances." He called for strengthening traditional U.S. alliances and
for building new ones.
"We cannot step back from the Middle East," Hagel said. "Our interests
in defeating international terrorism, halting the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and protecting our vital interests all
depend on our success in rebuilding and re-shaping alliances and
international institutions. What we do in the Middle East, and how we
do it, will have profound implications for global security," he said.
Such a U.S. commitment will not be without concomitant costs, Hagel
noted. He recalled that in spite of taking risks for peace, Presidents
Carter and George H.W. Bush were defeated in re-election attempts.
Moreover, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin were killed for their commitments to Middle East peace.
"Making peace [means] putting everything on the line for a purpose
greater than parochial or political self-interests," he said.
Hagel called for starting the clock now on President Bush's "road map"
to peace, and said Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas must take
identifiable steps to end the threat to Israelis from militant
terrorist groups. He also agreed with making quiet but direct contacts
with Iran about its role in supporting terrorism, its nuclear program,
and "its meddling in Iraq."
Hagel mentioned problems remaining in Afghanistan, and said the United
States "will remain committed to help rebuild Afghanistan," asserting
that the help of U.S. allies will be necessary. He called Afghanistan
"the first test in the war on terrorism," adding that "we cannot
fail."
Hagel said he supported the emphasis on security in Iraq made by new
civilian administrator, Ambassador Paul Bremer. "If we do not secure
the peace in Iraq, the liberation of Iraq will be compromised, an
historic opportunity squandered, and America's will, purpose and
credibility will be severely damaged," he said. "Security must come
first."
The senator called for quickly internationalizing both security and
the transition process in Iraq. He suggested that NATO could play an
important security role, and postulated an eventual role for U.N.
peacekeepers.
Hagel also pointed out that the rebuilding or Iraq "is an opportunity
for rebuilding our alliances and relationships, especially at the
United Nations. ... [O]ur interests are best served through
cooperation and consensus with our United Nations allies."
In order to facilitate economic transition in Iraq, Hagel said U.N.
sanctions "should be lifted unconditionally. ... Those sanctions were
meant to keep revenues from Saddam Hussein, not punish the Iraqi
people." He also called for the world community to address Iraq's
outstanding debts. And he called for trade as an important part of the
long-term solution, not just for Iraq, but for the entire Middle East.
Following is the text of Hagel's remarks:
(begin text)
"Next Steps in the Middle East"
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel
World Affairs Council
May 20, 2003
The end of Saddam Hussein's regime offers the prospect for a new era
of hope and opportunity in the Middle East. But that path is far from
assured.
America and her allies face difficult decisions in a part of the world
that has moved from periphery to center in our geo-political strategy.
The terrorist attacks over the past week -- in Saudi Arabia, Morocco,
and Israel -- have given new urgency to our efforts to bring security
and lasting peace to the Middle East. The instability and violence in
Iraq and Afghanistan show that these areas remain complicated,
unpredictable, and dangerous, even after deposing the brutal regimes
of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
The scope of the challenge and risk that we face in the Middle East is
immense. But so is the opportunity. Setting this region right will
require a commitment and focus that will test our leadership,
resources, and alliances. We must strengthen those alliances that have
served America and the world so well during the last 50 years, and
build new ones.
We cannot step back from the Middle East. Our interests in defeating
international terrorism, halting the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, and protecting our vital interests, all depend on our
success in rebuilding and re-shaping alliances and international
institutions. What we do in the Middle East, and how we do it, will
have profound implications for global security.
Real long-term security in Iraq and the region requires that a peace
process is initiated, sustained, and completed between Israel and her
Arab neighbors. President Bush understands this linkage, as did his
father, 12 years ago. The Madrid process, authored by President George
H.W. Bush in October 1991, began a decade of progress between Israel
and her Arab neighbors, including the Oslo Accords and the
Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement. While much maligned today, that era
reminds us of how close we once were, and how far we may now be, to a
lasting peace in the Middle East.
The legacy of peacemakers is a legacy of courage and perseverance.
But, ironically, it can also be a legacy of tragedy for those who take
the risks for peace. Today, there can be no lasting peace, no lasting
security for Americans, Israelis, and Arabs, without a willingness to
take risks and make the tough choices. There are no easy choices in
peacemaking. Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush made the
tough choices for Middle East peace, but their historic achievements
were overshadowed by other issues when their turns came for
re-election.
Anwar Sadat and Yitzakh Rabin both paid with their lives for their
commitments to making peace in the Middle East. Making peace is not
about giving a good speech. It is putting everything on the line for a
purpose greater than parochial or political self-interests.
America's re-engagement with the Middle East began on September 11,
2001. We cannot understand where we are today without understanding
the effect of that day on America. From that day forward, the Middle
East and the Islamic world became the focus of our national security.
And in dealing with al-Qaeda and international terrorism, we again
learned the value of global alliances. The international response to
the war on terrorism reflects recognition of the common threats that
face all mankind, and the role of American leadership in defeating
these threats. Our successes in breaking up al-Qaeda cells and
capturing their leaders have depended on close coordination with our
allies in many areas: diplomatic; intelligence; economic;
humanitarian; military; and law enforcement.
Afghanistan has not gone as we had hoped. While the Taliban no longer
rules, the government of President Hamid Karzai has gained little
ground. Warlords, and those who may sympathize with al-Qaeda and
extremists, still control much of the countryside. Afghanistan could
descend into civil war, or perhaps a failed state, which would have
grave consequences for stability in South and Central Asia.
America will remain committed to help rebuild Afghanistan . . .and our
success will depend to a great extent on the support of our allies.
Germany is leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),
and has led the support for NATO taking over ISAF this summer. France
has had the responsibility of building the Afghan police force. And
there are many other allies involved in our efforts in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is the first test in the war on terrorism, and we cannot
fail.
In Iraq, the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime presents us with a
new reality in the Middle East, a reality with both promise and peril.
And, like in 1991, what begins in Iraq does not end in Iraq. Like
Afghanistan, post-war Iraq has not gone according to expectations.
Also like Afghanistan, what happens next in Iraq is directly connected
to the war on terrorism, with the potential for further instability
and violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.
I support the emphasis that Ambassador L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer III, the
new civilian administrator for Iraq, has placed on establishing
security in Iraq. If we do not secure the peace in Iraq, the
liberation of Iraq will be compromised, an historic opportunity
squandered, and America's will, purpose, and credibility will be
severely damaged. Our military has done Iraq and the world a great
service by ridding Iraq of the dictator, Saddam Hussein. However, this
is only the beginning of a long journey in Iraq. We have few options
other than to follow through with the critically important objectives
and responsibilities we have undertaken.
The disorder in Baghdad and throughout Iraq today should not be
considered as simply the unavoidable or untidy results of Iraq's
liberation. The prospects for a democratic transition in Iraq will be
corrupted and lost if we do not now set the situation right. That is
why the administration has restructured our efforts in Iraq. Security
must come first.
Increasing our commitment to security has its complications and
controversies. I understand why many Americans would want to cut back
our military presence so that we can reduce the risk to our men and
women and get out of Iraq as soon as possible. But securing the peace
is as important as winning the war. Our involvement in Iraq is far
from over.
America should quickly internationalize the security and transition
process in Iraq. NATO could play a vital role in Iraq's security. At
some point, a U.N. resolution might recognize a role for U.N.
peacekeepers in Iraq, as well as other important U.N. functions and
responsibilities. Our Arab allies should play a major role in helping
establish security and rebuilding Iraq's government and
infrastructure. It is in their interest, as well as ours, that our
regional alliances and relationships are strengthened and reinforced
in dealing with restoring security and stability to Iraq. That America
and Britain essentially alone should determine Iraq's short-term
future is very risky and probably unachievable. This is an immense
task. It will require the participation of our allies and the
involvement of international institutions.
Rebuilding Iraq is an opportunity for rebuilding our alliances and
relationships, especially at the United Nations. The current
deliberations at the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution on Iraq
reflect our recognition that our interests are best served through
cooperation and consensus with our United Nations allies. We need to
look ahead. It is in our interest to stay focused on the future.
The political transition in Iraq should encourage the emergence of new
leaders from inside the country who have a stake in their country's
future. That's what liberation is all about. But this will take time.
We must facilitate an economic transition in Iraq that presents
opportunities for economic growth. U.N. sanctions on Iraq should be
lifted unconditionally, as the president has requested. Those
sanctions were meant to keep revenues from Saddam Hussein, not punish
the Iraqi people. We must also encourage the world community to
address all outstanding debt and reparations claims against Iraq. If
not addressed, these debt and reparations obligations will compromise
Iraq's future and undermine the prospects for democracy. Helping
rebuild Iraq's economy will require international consensus and
cooperation from the Paris Club, the World Bank, the U.N., and other
international organizations.
President Bush's recently announced policies to promote trade-based
growth and economic integration in the Middle East is an important
part of the long-term solution to a region that for decades has been
mired in economic stagnation. The prospects for economic development
and growth will support political efforts to bring peace and stability
to this region. Senator Lieberman and I are working on a bill to
complement and support the president's plan with efforts to strengthen
private sector development and regional trade in the Muslim world.
But there will be no long-term economic prosperity without resolution
of the endemic political problems that have bedeviled the modern
history of the Middle East. And those problems are connected to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The acts of terrorism against Israeli
citizens over the past week should reinforce the urgency of starting,
without delay, a new approach to bringing an end to this conflict We
cannot allow the terrorists to hijack the peace process. We must not
allow the peace process to be held hostage by extremists and
terrorism. We must continue to move forward. This is in the interests
of Americans, Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and the world.
Yesterday, the president publicly reaffirmed his commitment to the
Road Map and to supporting a renewed peace process. Today, he spoke
directly with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. President
Bush's personal commitment is critical to the process. Without the
president's involvement, the peace process will stall and ultimately
fail.
We must start the clock on the Road Map now. So far it has been
difficult to identify any party that has demonstrated a willingness to
step forward to make the tough choices that peace will require. That
must change for all parties involved in this process.
None of the parties should be wedded to the fine print of the Road
Map. It should be treated as a working document. That's why it is
called a "Road Map." The first steps need to be about security. The
Palestinian Government must take identifiable steps to end the threat
to Israelis from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Brigade, and other
terrorist groups. These steps by the new government of Prime Minister
Abbas are essential, and not subject to negotiation or delay. And, at
the same time, the Israeli government must take specific steps to ease
the suffering and conditions of Palestinians living under Israeli
curfew and occupation, and cease new settlement activity.
If we cannot accomplish these initial basic steps toward peace, then
there will be no peace. We should also not further complicate and
inhibit progress by putting the most sensitive items up front, like
the "Right of Return" for Palestinians. Israel's Jewish identity
should not be negotiated and can never be compromised. But we should
not be setting conditions before we even get to the starting line.
Neither party need accept the Road Map line-by-line right now. We need
to get on with implementation, not spend time building more roadblocks
to peace.
The governments and peoples of the Middle East hope, more than expect,
that America will commit to re-engaging in the Middle East peace
process. Low expectations have been assigned to American efforts. Our
credibility in the Middle East is attached to these low expectations.
After ridding the region of Saddam Hussein's regime, a commitment to
real peace between Israelis and Palestinians would help define
American purpose. If Iraq and Afghanistan slip away and the Middle
East peace process fails, we will find ourselves back in a mindless
cul-de-sac of violence and hopelessness, further jeopardizing world
stability and American interests and security.
Like at the end of World War II, America must seize the initiative to
strengthen alliances and rebuild international institutions to meet
the challenges of this dangerous new era.
As Jim Hoagland recently wrote in The Washington Post:
"The victory in Iraq does not free the United States of its need for
allies. In fighting international terrorism, the United States can no
more 'pull down the blinds and sit in the parlor with a loaded
shotgun' than it could in the Cold War, when Dean Acheson used that
phrase to steel the nation against the temptation to leave Europe on
its own."
And, in looking ahead to this new era in world affairs, Hoagland
sagely advised that:
"The Bush administration should do nothing to deepen the
self-inflicted divisions now roiling the Old Continent. And Washington
has only a limited role to play in resolving these new divisions,
which are political in nature and do not endanger a global stability."
We need Europe on our side in helping bring peace to the Middle East.
America must put forward a vision of a Middle East peace that builds
confidence, trust and institutions, not only to prevent future
conflict, but to offer hope where there has been only despair ... and
hope for a future worth living and dying for. In addition to the Road
Map, we need a regional security plan for the Persian Gulf by working
with the United Nations, the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council,
Iran, and Iraq. While we have real differences and conflicts of
interests with Iran, the administration is right to bring those issues
to Iran directly through quiet diplomatic channels. That is the most
responsible and effective approach to putting Iran on notice regarding
our concerns about its nuclear programs, support for terrorism, and
its meddling in Iraq.
Without real progress in the Middle East, we will stagger from crisis
to crisis. The interludes without terrorism will be only the illusions
of false hope.
Making peace has always been man's greatest challenge. War and
conflict breeds perpetual suffering and devastation. Making peace
requires saying what's done is done, that we must move forward, learn
from a dark past, but put it behind us. President Anwar Sadat of
Egypt, and his counterpart, Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel,
knew the risks of peace, but they also knew the costs of war. They did
not choose the easy path: That would have been to do nothing. Instead,
with America as a partner, they chose peace. In his landmark address
to the Israeli Knesset in November 1977, President Anwar Sadat said it
well:
"... There are moments in the life of nations and peoples when it is
incumbent on those known for their wisdom and clarity of vision to
overlook the past, with all its complexities and weighing memories, in
a bold drive towards new horizons. Those who, like us, are shouldering
the same responsibility entrusted to us, are the first who should have
the courage to take fate-determining decisions which are in consonance
with the circumstances. We must all rise above the forms of
fanaticism, self-deception and obsolete theories of superiority."
He added that:
"... Peace is not a mere endorsement of written lines. Rather, it is a
rewriting of history. Peace is not a game of calling for peace to
defend certain whims or hide certain admissions. Peace in its essence
is a dire struggle against all and every ambition and whim."
And Yitzhak Rabin, in his powerful statement on the White House lawn
on the occasion of signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of
Principles on September 13, 1993, said that day came with "great hope
mixed with apprehension" for the Jewish people. Israel had suffered,
and that suffering could not be forgotten. But Rabin added:
"We have come to try and put an end to the hostilities so that our
children, our children's children, will no longer experience the
painful cost of war: violence and terror. We have come to secure their
lives and to ease the soul and the painful memories of the past -- to
hope and pray for peace."
Today, the testimony of Sadat and Rabin to the promise and peril of
charting a new direction for their nations must not be lost. The path
of expediency is the path of inaction, gamesmanship, and squandered
possibilities. The challenge of peace places us in the company of
world statesmen and peacemakers, who walked a lonely and difficult
road, who looked beyond themselves, and their own pasts and
limitations, to the hope of a better life for their children and their
children's children. These are the choices that are again before us.
Are we worthy of the legacy of Sadat and Rabin? Will we today find
such men as Sadat and Rabin? Destiny is now in our hands. The future
depends on us. History will render its judgment on whether we were the
worthy inheritors of their legacy, or whether we let pass an historic
opportunity to find peace in the Middle East. Great opportunities like
great men are rare in world history. Will history repeat itself? The
future belongs to those courageous enough to shape it. In such a time
we now live.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
