30 June 2003
Vershbow Urges U.S., Russia to Stay United on Iran, N. Korea
(Remarks at 20th International Workshop on Global Security) (3550)
The future of U.S.-Russian relations depends "in large measure" on the
ability of the two countries "to work together in facing the related
security threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction," says U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation Alexander
Vershbow.
"Our two countries have managed to agree on a common agenda in
fighting terrorism, but reaching agreement on how to deal concretely
with weapons of mass destruction has proven more difficult," he said
in remarks at the 20th International Workshop on Global Security in
Moscow June 28.
"Clearly, North Korea and Iran are the two most obvious examples where
the United States, Russia and the international community must stand
united. Nuclear programs in those two nations represent a serious
challenge to regional stability, the entire international community,
and the global nonproliferation regime."
Vershbow noted that at a recent meeting of the Board of Governors of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "Russia joined the
United States in voicing concern about Iran's non-compliance with its
obligations, and in calling on Iran to place all of its nuclear
programs under IAEA control. In our view, this means that Iran must
sign an Additional Protocol with the IAEA under which it would accept
mandatory IAEA monitoring and short-notice inspections of all its
nuclear facilities, without exception. Anything less would fail to
dispel concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions."
He also spoke of the need "to consider what additional tools and forms
of leverage we can bring to bear to stop Iran, North Korea or any
other country from acquiring the technology for weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles."
Vershbow closed by reiterating U.S. support for Russia's progress
toward full democracy and economic openness, and he cited U.S.
determination "to take action with other nations, not only to defend
the world against the threats that endanger global security, but also
to work together with the international community to promote
stability, economic well-being and a peaceful, prosperous, healthy,
free world."
Following is the text as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
Moscow
June 28, 2003
GLOBAL SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation
20th International Workshop on Global Security
I would like to thank Dr. Roger Weissinger-Baylon and the Center for
Strategic Decision Research for inviting me to speak here today. I
also want to congratulate the Center on the occasion of its 20th
International Workshop on Global Security being held in Moscow this
year. I know from my NATO days that these workshops have become an
important opportunity for leaders and decision-makers from diverse
fields to share ideas about how we can make the world a safer place. I
welcome the Center's new focus on Russia and its place in the world.
This is especially timely, as Russia is becoming more and more a key
player in addressing the security challenges of the 21st century.
In thinking about global security today, there are many common threats
that all countries, wherever they are located, must deal with. But it
is also important to keep in mind that global security can mean
something very different for an American living in New York City, a
South African in Johannesburg, or a Russian living in Moscow or
Vladivostok.
The New Yorker might define global security in terms of 9/11 and other
terrorist attacks on America and Americans around the world; the South
African may think about the AIDS epidemic that has laid waste tens of
thousands of lives in Africa, the Americas, Asia and elsewhere; the
Muscovite might worry about terrorist attacks by Chechen separatists
or narcotics trafficking from Afghanistan, while the citizen of
Vladivostok might worry about North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons
or the potential for a huge influx of illegal immigrants from the
south.
In the United States, we have a saying, "all politics is local." In
some ways, we can also say that "all security is local" - or at least
that each person's perception of threats to global security is in
large part determined by local - even personal - conditions,
experiences and needs.
During the Cold War we tended to think of global security in terms of
a great East-West conflict defined by antagonistic political
ideologies and the threat of mutual assured destruction. We are all
thankful that that epoch is over and will not return, even though the
habits of thinking bred by decades of mutual suspicion and hostility
are hard for some to overcome. In certain ways global security may
have been deceptively easier to grasp and deal with then, as complex,
deep-seated conflicts and issues were subordinated to, and perhaps
even camouflaged by, the Cold War competition.
In today's world, all of us must understand that the threats to global
security are impossible to reduce to a simple framework. Terrorism and
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction may be the gravest
threats in terms of the potential devastation they can inflict. But we
need to remember to look at global security more broadly. Simmering
regional conflicts threaten to boil over into confrontations that, in
places like the Indian subcontinent, could go nuclear. The emergence
of diseases such as AIDS and SARS, with their catastrophic human,
social and economic consequences, offer a particularly difficult
challenge, one that is so frustrating for us in the 21st century when
we have come to believe that science and technology should provide the
answer to every challenge posed by Mother Nature. There are also
economic and environmental threats to long-term global security - the
gap between rich and poor, the widespread pollution of water and air
and soil, uncertainty about future energy supplies - that are no less
serious, even though they may not dominate the headlines.
Complicating the world situation is a loss of confidence in existing
institutions and multilateral mechanisms that were established to
ensure global peace and stability over the past half century. Many, in
the wake of the Iraq crisis and war, regard the credibility and
effectiveness of United Nations as more in doubt than ever before in
its history. NATO faces new challenges and issues, too, as it
redefines its mission and admits new members that used to be part of
the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Foes of globalization actively
oppose the role of the World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organization,
institutions that were all founded to ensure global prosperity and
security.
And, of course, attacks on the so-called "hegemony" of the United
States and concerns about a supposedly "unipolar world" have become a
daily part of global political commentary. As an American diplomat, I
cannot but lament the strength of anti-Americanism in many parts of
the world today that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of my
country's national security goals. According to recent polls, in some
Islamic countries, Osama bin Laden is regarded as among the two or
three leaders in whom people had the most confidence when it came to
dealing with world affairs.
Such views are alarming. Putting one's faith in a terrorist, a mass
murderer, demonstrates a sad, desperate view of the world, and a
striking lack of understanding of the real threats to world peace in
the 21st century. I think even our harshest critics in Europe
recognize that the United States is actively committed to promoting
global security as well as individual rights, democratic freedoms and
economic prosperity, even if they sometimes disagree with the means we
choose to achieve these goals. Indeed, when the United States has used
military force, it has done so not to establish or extend any colonial
empire, but to bring freedom and justice to the parts of the world
where it has intervened. This is as true of Afghanistan and Iraq as it
was of Germany or Japan after the Second World War.
The United States took military action with its NATO Allies in Bosnia
and in Kosovo to prevent genocide against Muslim minorities. The
United States led a broad coalition in the 1991 Gulf War to free
Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. The United States freed the people of
Afghanistan from the grip of Taliban extremists who had made their
country a base for al Qaeda terrorists to attack innocent civilians in
the United States and elsewhere. And the United States, along with
other nations, went to war this year against Iraq - on the basis of UN
resolutions dating back to 1990 - to remove a regime whose record of
brutality and defiance of the demands of the international community
posed a clear danger to the security of the region and the world. In
all cases, our goal has been to establish or restore peace, freedom
and democratic self-government, so that we can bring our troops home.
Of course, we prefer to act on the basis of international consensus
with the widest possible cooperation, which is why we sought and
received support from the United Nations Security Council in the form
of resolution 1441, which gave Saddam Hussein one last chance, after
12 years of evasion and deception, to comply with the will of the
international community. Our security is enhanced when the UN Security
Council chooses to play a constructive, active role in responding to
international terrorism and other global threats. Unfortunately, in
this instance, despite its earlier vote of support, the Council became
hopelessly divided, and this disunity encouraged Saddam Hussein to
continue his defiance rather than cooperate in fulfilling the UN's
disarmament demands. In cases such as this, the United States is
prepared to act alone or with the support of like-minded allies to
promote regional and global stability.
There is no question that, for the American government and the
American people, the greatest threat to global security today comes
from the possible acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by
terrorists. This is a very real potential threat because terrorist
organizations are now international in nature, well financed and well
organized. This threat will continue to exist whether or not we
eventually find out the full truth about Iraq's WMD programs.
Given what we know about terrorist attempts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, 9/11 has to be viewed as a non-chemical, non-biological,
non-nuclear preview of what is possible. Does anyone believe that
those responsible for 9/11 and other deadly terrorist attacks would
feel any compunction about using weapons of mass destruction to kill
tens of thousands of innocent people? Different nations may disagree
on what action to take to prevent this from happening, but the United
States believes that we cannot sit by idly and allow rogue states and
terrorist organizations to acquire weapons of mass destruction that
can be used against us or our friends. The threat is real, even if
acknowledging it and discussing it makes us uncomfortable and uneasy.
The emergence of new threats has required the United States to develop
new defenses. We have created a new Department of Homeland Security to
better integrate our domestic efforts to reduce the dangers posed by
international terrorism. We are reconfiguring our armed forces to make
them more mobile, flexible and capable of confronting a new kind of
enemy. We have devoted more resources to our intelligence and law
enforcement agencies so that we can track, penetrate and destroy
terrorist groups before they can carry out new murderous attacks. And
we have engaged in unprecedented cooperation with other nations and
institutions, including the European Union, to share intelligence and
to break up international terrorist networks together with their
sources of weapons and finance.
NATO has begun to adjust its own military strategy and capabilities,
focusing in particular on weapons of mass destruction and
anti-terrorism. Last fall Russia hosted a joint exercise in Noginsk
under NATO's Partnership for Peace with civil emergency response
forces from more than 15 countries. In that exercise,
"Bogorodsk-2002," participants dealt with a simulated terrorist attack
on a toxic chemical plant. Other significant cooperation between
Russian and NATO military authorities has included a joint assessment
of the threat posed by Al Qaeda to our troops in the Balkans and to
civil aviation. NATO and Russia have also begun an assessment of the
threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and are
exploring potential cooperation on missile defense as a means of
defending our armed forces and populations against ballistic missile
attacks.
On a similar note, Russia, China and states in Central Asia have
created the Shanghai Cooperation organization to address terrorism and
other security threats in that part of the world. The United States
has been working bilaterally with many of Russia's neighbors to
improve their capacity to combat terrorism, narcotics trafficking and
other transnational dangers. So countries are responding to the new
security dangers and are joining forces in new coalitions that will
help safeguard the world that we live in during the coming century.
The work among intelligence services and law enforcement agencies is
just as important as cooperation among militaries.
Of course the most effective way to promote peace and stability is
through political, social and economic reform in those countries where
the lack of democracy and economic opportunity provides fertile ground
for the growth of radical ideologies that fuel international
terrorism. We have seen how, even in some of the wealthier countries
in the Middle East, political repression combined with totalitarian
educational institutions can encourage hatred and the glorification of
murder of innocent civilians as the means to achieve political goals.
Extending peace and prosperity across Europe has been a central goal
of the EU and NATO since the fall of the Berlin Wall - through
partnership, cooperation, and even membership for those countries that
have proven their commitment to democracy and human rights, and to
free-market principles as the engine of social and economic
development. As Russia and most other ex-Communist nations in East
Central Europe and Eurasia consolidate their reforms, Europe and
Eurasia are becoming a zone of stability and democracy in which war
between nations has become virtually unthinkable. Global security in
the 21st century will be enhanced to the degree that we can extend the
same process of democratization and reform to the Middle East and
beyond. The collapse of Saddam's regime gives the people of Iraq the
chance to build their own form of democracy, to develop the potential
of the Iraqi economy for their own benefit rather than that of a
corrupt regime and, in the process, to serve as a model for other
states in the region.
Russia's own democratization and reforms have contributed to peace and
security in Europe and Eurasia, and we believe Russia has an important
role in extending democracy and stability to other parts of the globe.
That is why we have supported Russia's integration in the world
economy, its membership in the G-8, and its special partnerships with
NATO, the EU and other institutions. Russia is on the front lines in
dealing with international terrorism, the narcotics trade,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and organized crime. As
a world leader in science, Russia has a major role to play in
addressing new scourges like HIV/AIDS. As a growing producer of oil,
gas and other raw materials, Russia also has a major role to play in
ensuring global energy security by helping to diversify sources of
supply.
Our future relationship with Russia will depend in large measure on
our ability to work together in facing the related security threats of
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Our
two countries have managed to agree on a common agenda in fighting
terrorism, but reaching agreement on how to deal concretely with
weapons of mass destruction has proven more difficult. Clearly, North
Korea and Iran are the two most obvious examples where the United
States, Russia and the international community must stand united.
Nuclear programs in those two nations represent a serious challenge to
regional stability, the entire international community, and the global
nonproliferation regime.
The cases of Iran and North Korea demonstrate that the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime is not working as intended. That
regime is based on a simple bargain: if a state renounces nuclear
weapons, it can gain access to assistance and technology for
developing peaceful uses of atomic energy. Although a state must
accept some safeguards and verification measures, the regime is based
heavily on trust. What has happened? North Korea has cheated on the
1994 agreement under which it supposedly gave up its nuclear weapons
by starting a covert program for uranium enrichment - and North Korea
did this many years before the Bush Administration came into office.
Now Pyongyang has renounced the NPT and the North-South
denuclearization agreement, restarted its plutonium reactor, and even
claimed it already has a nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence that Iran is seeking to obtain
nuclear weapons. Previously our concerns centered on the nuclear power
station at Bushehr that Iran has been building with Russia's
assistance for some years. The risks from that project were supposed
to be reduced by Iran's reliance on Russia for supplies of nuclear
fuel and a commitment to return all spent fuel to Russia. Yet we have
now learned that Iran has secretly been developing its own uranium
enrichment capability - which would circumvent the very safeguards
Russia has been trying to put into place.
At the meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA last week, Russia
joined the United States in voicing concern about Iran's
non-compliance with its obligations, and in calling on Iran to place
all of its nuclear programs under IAEA control. In our view, this
means that Iran must sign an Additional Protocol with the IAEA under
which it would accept mandatory IAEA monitoring and short-notice
inspections of all its nuclear facilities, without exception. Anything
less would fail to dispel concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Looking ahead, we need to consider what additional tools and forms of
leverage we can bring to bear to stop Iran, North Korea or any other
country from acquiring the technology for weapons of mass destruction
and long-range ballistic missiles. President Bush suggested one new
approach in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) that he
launched last month in Krakow. The PSI envisages interdiction
operations aimed at stopping weapons of mass destruction, their
delivery systems, and associated equipment and technology - at sea, on
land or in the air -from moving to and from states that present a
proliferation risk (and, of course, to terrorist groups and other
non-state entities of concern). This will require the broadest
possible cooperation so that proliferators will have difficulty
obtaining dangerous technologies or selling, shipping and marketing
their goods. A core group of U.S. allies is now working to develop the
Proliferation Security Initiative, but we hope Russia and other
nations will contribute as well.
There may be other new approaches needed to bolster non-proliferation
regimes and to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of
terrorists and rogue states. I hope this workshop will help identify
them. For example, participants should consider whether more intrusive
forms of inspection are needed; whether there should be pre-agreed
conditions under which we would impose sanctions or other punitive
measures on potential proliferators if they are not responsive to
diplomatic persuasion. It may also be wise to accelerate efforts to
develop effective anti-missile defense systems in order to protect our
countries against nuclear blackmail in the event we are unable to
prevent proliferation.
Let me conclude by returning to the broader security agenda that I
described at the outset. Although discussion of global security tends
to focus on dangers and threats, ultimately our real challenge is to
ensure that the 21st century will be an era when nation states compete
in peace instead of resort to force of arms. The 20th century in large
part was defined by its wars and the accompanying disasters and
catastrophes - World War I, World War II and the Cold War - but we
were the witnesses at the end of the century to the triumph of
political and economic freedom. Today we have an unparalleled
opportunity to extend that freedom because the world's great powers
stand together in their commitment to human rights and political and
economic liberty.
Russia is moving forward on the course toward a democratic future.
America will support Russia's progress toward full democracy and
economic openness. America possesses unprecedented military, political
and economic strength but we do not seek to dominate any other nation.
That is not the approach we take to protect our national interests or
global security. Instead, the United States is determined to take
action with other nations, not only to defend the world against the
threats that endanger global security, but also to work together with
the international community to promote stability, economic well-being
and a peaceful, prosperous, healthy, free world. And in such a world,
the American living in New York City, the South African in
Johannesburg, and the Russian in Moscow or Vladivostok will all reap
the benefits of this cooperation within the community of nations.
(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
|
|
|
