05 December 2002
U.S. Envoy to Austria Urges U.S.-European Leadership to Fight Terrorism
(Ambassador W.L. Lyons Brown speech in Vienna Dec. 3) (3690)
The political, moral and economic costs of dealing with global
terrorism are best shared on the widest possible basis, and the United
States and Europe must continue their history of shared leadership to
maintain long-term peace and stability in the world, U.S. Ambassador
to Austria W.L. Lyons Brown said December 3.
"The creation of an international consensus on what is acceptable and
what is unacceptable is the best way to encourage states to adhere to
international standards of behavior," Brown said, referring
specifically to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and their nuclear weapons
programs.
To achieve this consensus, he said in a speech at the Diplomatic
Academy in Vienna, America is counting on its European friends at this
time "in a way we perhaps haven't before."
"As much as we value the support of our Asian and Latin American
friends," said Brown, "it is the trans-Atlantic partnership that has
been tested. It has proved to be the most successful alliance ever
known over two generations of shared endeavors and sacrifices.
European support and European views mean more to Americans than you
may realize."
Brown said he sees "no fundamental difference" in U.S. and European
thinking regarding the threat of weapons of mass destruction: "None of
us want non-democratic, unstable and aggressive states, with no regard
for the human rights of their own people, to obtain the most dangerous
weapons."
At the same time, the two sides differ in their perceptions of the
seriousness of the threat and what they are prepared to do about it:
"There are other threats in the world besides Iraq. Nevertheless, we
are convinced that to protect ourselves and reduce the threat of
terrorism with weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must show respect for
international law by disarming as it agreed to do after its war of
aggression in the Gulf."
Holding differing views on dealing with terrorism "may cloud the
trans-Atlantic relationship," Brown said, "but they should not
seriously harm it. Our shared interests are too close and too vast to
allow this to happen."
Following is the text of his speech:
(begin text)
"CONFLICTS AND RESOLUTIONS: THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP"
Speech by U.S. Ambassador to Austria W.L. Lyons Brown
Diplomatic Academy
Vienna, Austria
Tuesday, December 3, 2002
Excellencies, distinguished guests:
I am particularly honored to be able to address the important issues
of the trans-Atlantic relationship at the Diplomatic Academy. The U.S.
Embassy works closely with Ambassador Sucharipa, and the Academy does
the most splendid work.
This month is the first anniversary of my arrival in Vienna, and as I
look back on my first year, I immediately think of the wonderful
Austrian welcome and hospitality that has made us so happy in this
beautiful city.
It has also been, however, an especially tumultuous time in
U.S.-European relations. Many observers see the trans-Atlantic
relationship at a low point, a development all the more striking,
given the successes of our partnership over the last 50 years.
Tonight, I would like to look at some of the causes of the current
differences between Americans and Europeans. I would like to discuss
how we might go about addressing, and ultimately resolving, these
problems so that the potential of our partnership can be fulfilled and
progress towards a more peaceful and prosperous world attained.
A decade ago, the trans-Atlantic relationship was undergoing the first
tests of the post-Cold War world. After initially stepping back to
allow the Europeans to take the lead on resolving the crisis in the
dissolving Yugoslavia, the U.S. used its capabilities, together with
the Europeans, to bring the worst of the killing in the region to a
halt. We subsequently went through a series of crises in the Balkans,
in Bosnia, and in Kosovo, and Macedonia.
We also carried out a campaign in Serbia without a UN mandate, I might
remind you, in which NATO proved its new role out of area. Throughout
this period, the U.S. and Europe together defined a new relationship,
and Europe took on greater responsibility. While this process was not
always smooth, it was ultimately effective.
NATO got used to a new role, and new members were added, including
Austria's neighbors, the Czechs and Hungarians. The groundwork was
also laid for the successful Prague summit a few days ago where
decisions were made to admit more of Austria's neighbors to the east
and south. All this, including the creation of a new NATO-Russia
partnership, happened as a result of a shared U.S. and European
leadership role.
Consultations were the most important part of this process, but these
were consultations with actions, with commitments and real outcomes
that addressed the need for change in the international system.
During the majority of this period, there was shared leadership;
however, quite frankly, much of the impulse came from Washington. To a
certain extent this was natural, considering the preponderance of U.S.
resources and capabilities.
There was nevertheless a trend that both reflected and reinforced
differing perceptions over the need to meet new challenges with
greater resources. The "capabilities gap", which NATO's Lord Robertson
has called the greatest problem facing the trans-Atlantic
relationship, became more and more acute. Defense spending by the U.S.
over the last decade went from 5% of GDP to 3%. In Europe, it went
from 3% to 2%. With the supplemental defense budget passed after
September 11th, however, U.S. defense spending is again near 5% of
GDP. This is all the more striking in absolute terms because of faster
growth of the U.S. economy. European defense spending has not kept
pace, even with the demands of the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan where our European partners have provided
invaluable help.
More recently, we could argue that the West should have intervened in
Afghanistan far earlier. The human rights violations of the Taliban
regime had been obvious for years. The support that regime gave to
insurgents was a major threat to neighbors such as Uzbekistan well
before September 11th, 2001. The cynical use of illicit drug exports,
primarily to Europe, was the chief source of funding for a Taliban
regime that by virtually any standard showed its total disregard for
international norms. When a regime takes pride in destroying
historical monuments that have stood for thousands of years, it is an
especially bad sign by any calculation.
And yet, both Americans and European allies were content to tolerate
the Taliban because the perceived costs of a campaign to liberate
Afghanistan were too high and the perception of the threat was too
low. As far as Americans are concerned, we learned that we were wrong.
The direct economic costs of the September 11th attacks on New York
alone were higher than the costs of the military intervention in
Afghanistan. Of course, the monetary costs are minor compared to the
political and moral costs, which were far higher still.
Such costs, which may well be the result of leadership, like insurance
policies, are best shared on the widest possible basis. The creation
of an international consensus on what is acceptable and what is
unacceptable is the best way to encourage states to adhere to
international standards of behavior. Ideally, the UN should play this
role.
States that arrogate to themselves the right to operate outside these
standards are what President Bush referred to in his phrase "axis of
evil." North Korea's recent cynical admission that it has indeed been
developing nuclear weapons to go along with its long-range missile
program is in complete violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty and 1994 agreements. It is strong proof that President Bush's
concerns were extremely well-founded. Similar programs in Iraq and
Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction and systems to threaten
other states with such weapons are extremely destabilizing both in
regional and global terms. There can be no ambiguity about this kind
of thing. We either accommodate such threats, a strategy, which
history has proved almost never to work, or we do something about
them. I am happy to say that our European partners have worked closely
with us over many years to impede the transfer of dangerous
technologies to such countries, but as we learned recently, this isn't
always enough.
I believe there is no fundamental difference between the U.S. and
Europe about the threat. None of us want non-democratic, unstable and
aggressive states, with no regard for the human rights of their own
people, to obtain the most dangerous weapons. So why do our European
friends become so agitated about the president's words, which have
proved to be correct?
I have respect for pacifist sensitivities and the recollection of the
destruction of World War II; nevertheless, I believe the condemnation
the U.S. and President Bush has received in some quarters in Europe is
not only unfair, but also irresponsible.
I would encourage our European friends to take a deep breath and
examine what really bothers them about U.S. policy.
Since World War II, the United States has been engaged throughout the
world in promoting stability and peace. In many areas we are still
dealing with the legacy of the post-colonial period, problems not of
American making. The U.S., through the UN Relief Works Agency, for
example, has provided the greatest share of resources to Palestinian
refugees for decades. While it is true that we are good friends of
Israel, we have consistently cultivated close ties with Israel's Arab
neighbors because we know that brokering peace in such a complex
crisis can only be accomplished on the basis of long-standing
partnerships. We appreciate the support we are getting in this effort
from our EU, UN, and Russian partners in the Quartet. The approach to
the Middle East crises may be drafted in Washington, but it can only
lead to peace if it is edited in New York, Brussels, and Moscow.
Ladies and gentlemen, we do not consider our approach here to be
unilateral.
I also understand that many Europeans think President Bush's decision
to confront Iraq is unilateralist. We might wish to reflect for a
minute on the history of Iraq's disregard for 16 UN resolutions over
the last 11 years and, until recently, the lack of a consensus among
the main powers about the acuteness of the threat and what to do. I
think most knowledgeable people recognize that had the president not
made clear, if necessary, U.S. determination to go it alone, the UN
Security Council would have once again failed to adequately address
the threat of Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Unfortunately, as North Korea shows, the time to intervene to prevent
proliferation is before it occurs. There are those who have seized on
the president's effort to use diplomacy and economic pressure to
disarm North Korea as something that should also be used for Iraq.
Some have even indicated that North Korea is proof that the
president's preemptive doctrine doesn't work.
It should first be understood the administration's preemptive doctrine
does not call for a military response to all regimes seeking weapons
of mass destruction. It does suggest that action be taken against
states that attempt to "blackmail" the U.S. and others to prevent them
from taking action to defend themselves from aggression.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what North Korea is trying to do by
threatening "tough counter measures" unless the U.S. agrees to
negotiations. Once again North Korea will ask for large sums of aid
and recognition of its old line, totalitarian, communist regime. The
Clinton administration agreed to this transaction with, as we now see,
disastrous results.
There is, of course, no guarantee the administration's approach to
North Korea's nuclear weapons development will bring about a change in
that country's behavior in which case a more serious crisis could
ensue. It will be more likely to succeed, however, if the U.S. and the
UN continue to show seriousness about disarming Iraq.
If intervention in Iraq takes place, it will be because the U.S., its
allies and the UN have failed through diplomatic, economic and now
military pressure to bring about change in Iraq. Failure to act risks
in short order another nuclear blackmailer similar, or worse, than
North Korea.
If some Europeans criticize President Bush because they don't like his
vocabulary or his leadership style that is their right; however, we
should be careful not to lose sight of what is fundamentally
important. We must continue together to focus on how to maintain
long-term peace and stability. The question is how seriously we take
the problems in such places as Iraq and North Korea, and what are we
prepared to do about them. Phrased more provocatively, we might ask,
where does leadership stop and unilateralism begin?
In this instance, I am not talking about things such as the Kyoto
Protocol or the International Criminal Court. As you know, Americans
think the environmental treaty is seriously flawed. It is not based on
scientific fact, its goals are not attainable without creating severe
economic hardship and the loss of millions of jobs, and two-thirds of
the world, including China, is excluded from the goals. Similarly, our
views on the International Criminal Court differ, in part, because of
our different legal tradition. They also differ because the U.S., with
over 200,000 troops overseas at any time, uniquely faces potential
misuse for political purposes of a court, which reports to no one. We
know that honest people can disagree over these issues depending on
their perspective. These kinds of differences may cloud the
trans-Atlantic relationship, but they should not seriously harm it.
Our shared interests are too close and too vast to allow this to
happen.
What bothers me far more is the issue of capabilities and burden
sharing. Some of you will recall Robert Kagan's now famous article
about the differences between the U.S. and Europe, in which he says
the U.S. pursues a strategy of strength, while the Europeans follow a
strategy based on weakness.
This article seems to me to be greatly exaggerated, since I do not
believe that Europeans consciously desire to be weak or are somehow
unwilling to contribute to international order. There is, however, a
question about the perception of threat, or how remote a danger, or
how perilous a course of action. Recalling the example of Afghanistan,
both Americans and Europeans felt two years ago that however bad the
Taliban were, they were far away and their lack of technology, but not
their hostile intent, made them a threat only to their immediate
neighbors.
In today's world, I am afraid we are learning that places on the map
where laws and decency do not govern are a danger to us all. Does this
mean the U.S. will go to any length to solve all the world's problems
or, to quote John Kennedy, "to bear any burden in defense of liberty?"
I think not. No country is strong enough, or foolish enough, to try to
solve every problem. We need to set priorities, which in my view is
always important when defining the word leadership.
Understandably, my country's number one priority today is the war on
terrorism. We call it a war knowing full well that there will be no
peace treaty signed at its conclusion, if there can ever be a
conclusion to the struggle with extremism and hatred. We use that
harsh word to describe the seriousness of the fight, and the
unprecedented quality that September 11th gave to the effort.
We know as well, or dare I say it, maybe even better than our European
friends, that there are other threats in the world besides Iraq.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that to protect ourselves and reduce
the threat of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must
show respect for international law by disarming as it agreed to do
after its war of aggression in the Gulf. President Bush's approach to
Iraq has now received unanimous support from the UN Security Council.
It has received strong support from the U.S. Congress, and also the
broad spectrum of American media, including such critical institutions
as the New York Times and Washington Post. An Iraq that shows respect
for the international community rather than rewarding the families of
suicide bombers is also a prerequisite for regional peace and
stability.
To me, resoluteness is another important aspect of leadership. The
West would not have prevailed in the Cold War if we had not jointly
been consistent in our fundamental strategy. Today, the U.S. needs to
be steadfast in our campaign against terrorism, and our natural
companions are Europeans. As much as we value the support of our Asian
and Latin American friends, it is the trans-Atlantic partnership that
has been tested. It has proved to be the most successful alliance ever
known over two generations of shared endeavors and sacrifices.
European support and European views mean more to Americans than you
may realize.
Ultimately, we all know that leadership depends on the willingness to
pay a price and to see the way through to an ultimate goal. We do not
all have to pay the same or equal price to share in leadership, but we
should at least acknowledge that peace and stability cannot be had for
free. We should not pretend that all the world's problems can be
solved by some vaguely defined dialogue, just as we all recognize that
most of the world's problems are not amenable to solution by force.
I am old enough to remember living through WWII. My grandfather was
the American military attaché here in Vienna for the four years
preceding the Anschluss. I have always been a student of history,
which, for me, time after time, has shown that the greatest mistake a
society can make is the failure to address aggression. If somehow, the
attacks of September 11th, 2001 had been prevented, today we would
still face a threat from al-Qaida, Iraq and probably others.
Especially after the devastating attack on my country and my city of
New York, I, like the great majority of Americans, feel we need to
give our maximum effort to defeating the network of terrorism and
preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, that if ever
used, could greatly overshadow even the horror of September 11th.
This challenge is not only an obligation, in my view, but also an
opportunity to reinvigorate the trans-Atlantic relationship, and to
re-learn the mutual respect that Americans and Europeans should have
for each other because of our similarities and because of our
differences. My job here is to listen to you, to talk to you, and to
explain my government's policies and hopefully gain support. It is
also to understand where the perception gaps between Europeans,
Austrians and Americans might lie.
I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of Austrians, and indeed
Europeans, view the world in much the same way as Americans. We would
all prefer to devote our energies to more pleasant things than the
threat of terror, but until events like the bombing in Bali are just
bad memories, we cannot afford to let down our vigilance.
Enlisting your help in what is a global effort to combat terrorism is
of course not my only mission in Vienna, important as that goal is.
There are other important aspects of America's relationship with
Austria. I am confident that during my time as ambassador in Vienna,
there will continue to be many opportunities to broaden the bilateral
relationship. There is, of course, much to be done and I look forward
to working with the new Austrian government. The challenges of an
expanded EU and NATO are issues of great importance to Austria. I hope
Austria will play an even greater role in integrating new EU into the
mainstream of Europe. It is clearly in Austria's interest to do so. It
would be a boost to our bilateral relationship because of the
importance the U.S. attaches to seeing the former Eastern bloc
countries succeed as democracies and prosper from their long-delayed
freedom.
I also believe the new Austrian government has an opportunity to reach
beyond the immediate region. Austria is in many ways a success story
that can serve as a wonderful example for the Balkans and even further
abroad. During my first year in Vienna, we have more than doubled the
number of Congressional visitors to Austria. I attach great importance
to reminding Americans that Vienna stands for not only a great
culture, but also a modern center in the heart of the emerging new
Europe.
In the future, Vienna and Austria will face all the opportunities and
problems that come with a multicultural, dynamically changing society.
These problems and opportunities are another fact of contemporary life
we share. Americans and Austrians have much to talk about, and I look
forward to an increased dialogue between us on many topics of mutual
interest.
I know that I have been cursed and blessed with being ambassador at
what someone recently called, an "interesting time." My task here is
now more complex than it was when the White House nominated me in May
2001, a few months before September 11th.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can only hope to succeed at my task with your
help. America is counting on its European friends at this time in a
way we perhaps haven't before. I need to understand your perceptions
and concerns, but I also need you to be open-minded interlocutors,
both those of you within the political class and in the broader
society that is Austria.
As I look back on this so eventful year in Vienna, I can think of so
many acts of wonderful hospitality and kindness, but also some
frustrations. I often sense that on too many occasions we are still
talking past one another. The America I represent is not really so
different from the country it was two years, five years or ten years
ago. We must remember that together Americans and Europeans, but
mainly Europeans, accomplished one of the most impressive feats in
history with the peaceful end to the division of this great continent.
Americans were your staunch allies then, and together we showed and
shared leadership. There is no reason why we should not do so again.
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
|
|
|
