UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

USIS Washington File

13 February 1998

TEXT: SEC. COHEN'S REMARKS AT SECURITY POLICY CONFERENCE

(Defense Secretary closes conference in Munich, Feb. 8) (2030)
Munich -- In his concluding remarks at the Munich Conference on
Security Policy, February 8, U.S. Secretary of Defense William S.
Cohen said, "We do not seek to impose our presence on any, and if the
day should come when a country asks us to leave, we leave, so we are
not trying to occupy any territory. I mention this because there is
some notion that, once again, America is trying to dominate.
"With respect to the NATO enlargement, I want to reassure our Russian
friends who are here from the DUMA, that this is not the case.... I
will be meeting shortly with Minister Sergeyev in Moscow -- all in an
effort to really establish the kind of personal relationships that
many of us have here."
Recounting lessons from his personal experiences with his friend, the
Russian poet Yevtushenko, Secretary Cohen said, "when we don't have
the opportunity to either befriend one another or confront one another
across the table, then it becomes easy to demonize the other in a time
of stress. That really is the value of this conference."
About his recent twelve-day Asian trip, Cohen said, "It was a unique
experience for an American secretary of defense to have that
opportunity to lay out our strategy for our presence in the region,
the U.S. defense guidelines, our commitment to South Korea and how we
believe that we provide a stabilizing influence for the entire
region."
The Secretary concluded his remarks with a suggestion to remember,
when looking back on the 20th century, that "we can learn from our
mistakes and really commit ourselves to a much better future."
Following is the text of the concluding remarks:
(Begin text)
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Concluding Remarks at Wehrkunde Conference
February 8, 1998
Munich, Germany
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I regret that I have to depart
momentarily. Since there were so many comments that were made that
supported or supplemented much of what I had to say, I really don't
have much to say.
But let me say that I regret having overlooked George Robertson. He
was not named, but is not unknown. He certainly is not unknown to me.
We have become very close friends. After you heard his presentation,
you can understand why he will continue to be a real rising star
throughout Europe in terms of his influence. I must tell you a story
about George Robertson -- how he caught my attention, because it
touches upon something that Senator Kyl said a while ago about
questions raised as to whether the United States is behaving like an
imperial bully. When I attended a NATO conference recently and at a
Partnership for Peace luncheon, I was trying to understand the
sometimes schizophrenic attitudes on the part of our European friends:
On the one hand, I have been reading stories about "America the
powerful, America the bully, America the pushy," always trying to
throw its weight around. I said, 'Okay, I can understand how that can
be the perception.' When we say: 'Look, why don't you just handle the
problem?' -- namely Bosnia. 'Oh no, no, you can't leave, that would be
an abdication of your responsibility.'"
I was trying to articulate the frustration that some of us sometimes
feel in terms of the commentary that we read from time to time about
our European friends and others talking about us being bullies and
perhaps being too self-inflated.
Then George Robertson said in his inimitable brogue, "Bill, you don't
understand," he said, "if you can't ride two horses at once, what the
hell are you doing in the circus in the first place?"
That really sort of summed it up nicely, I thought. But he really did
sum up the dilemma that we face from time to time. Senator Kyl has
said that we do not purport to be, do not intend to be in any way an
imperial bully. We recognize that we have global responsibilities, and
we recognize also that many countries ask us to perform this role. We
are focused upon Europe at the moment.
There are other things taking place in Asia in which Europeans have a
vast interest, Germany in particular, perhaps other countries; the
French, the British and others, the Italians. All those have a stake
in what's taking place in Asia as well.
I recently completed a twelve-day trip to Asia and what I found was
the countries there are beckoning the United States. They welcome us.
When I was in Singapore, for example, the Singaporans are building a
new pier that will be completed in 1999. They announced during my
visit that they want American aircraft carriers to pay visits to
Singapore. They are welcome in Singapore.
We signed a new agreement dealing with the training of our forces when
they visit the Philippines. When I went to China, we had a very
productive relationship in terms of my being the first American to
have paid a visit to their air command control center, to sign a
safety agreement with the Chinese government to be able to address the
PLA's Academy of Sciences.
It was a unique experience for an American Secretary of Defense to
have that opportunity to lay out our strategy for our presence in the
region, the U.S. Defense guidelines, our commitment to South Korea and
how we believe that we provide a stabilizing influence for the entire
region.
As I mentioned last night, when you have stability, you have at least
the opportunity to enjoy prosperity because investment flows. Business
tends to follow the flag -- when they find a secure environment they
will invest. When you have investment, you have an opportunity to
promote the prosperity of all the people in the region -- in which you
can share. So we think that our presence is welcomed by many.
We do not seek to impose our presence on any, and if the day should
come when a country asks us to leave, we leave, so we are not trying
to occupy any territory. I mention this because there is some notion
that, once again, America is trying to dominate.
With respect to the NATO enlargement, I want to reassure our Russian
friends who are here from the DUMA, that this is not the case. I have
taken occasion to meet with the former Minister of Defense Rodianov. I
invited him into our talk with the Joint Chiefs of Staff where they
meet on a daily basis, to receive briefings, to ask questions. Mr.
Primakov has been there as well. I will be meeting shortly with
Minister Sergeyev in Moscow -- all in an effort to really establish
the kind of personal relationships that many of us have here.
I mention this because I go back to 1984. 1984 was an important year.
It was Orwell's year, as you may recall. It seemed appropriate that I
would help to fashion an oxymoronic phrase known as the "nuclear
build-down." I went off to Moscow to visit with the Academy of
Sciences to explain this concept of how we could modernize our nuclear
forces while reducing the overall limits as well as getting tile
numbers down while still providing for a stable and mobile nuclear
arsenal. I was singularly unpersuasive. I did not persuade anyone at
the time that this was a concept that should be endorsed or embraced,
but as an incident to my going to meet with various then Soviet
officials, I went out to meet with two poets, and this experience
stayed with me.
I met with Yevtushenko and Voznesiensky. Both of them have become good
friends -- each has played an important role in my life, certainly.
Voznesiensky came to visit me shortly after I met him in Moscow,
outside of Moscow. He came one day, it was in 1985, and he walked into
my office and said he wanted a copy of "the book." I said, modestly,
"which book of mine?"
He said, "You know, the spy book." It was a novel that I had
co-authored with Senator Hart.
I said, "There's no sense in taking this book, you won't be allowed to
take it back into the Soviet Union because the KGB has captured and
kidnapped an American senator and taken him off to Moscow. It will
never sell in Moscow, so don't even bother." But he said, "I want
something else. I want the chance to meet President Reagan -- just
give me five minutes with President Reagan."
I said, "I can't get five minutes with President Reagan, but I'll see
what I can do." So I called the White House. I said I have an
important friend -- poets enjoy a unique position in Russia -- I think
they still do. They command great audiences, and the people look to
them for their insights and wisdom and courage over the years. I was
able to arrange a meeting between Voznesiensky and President Reagan.
It was very quiet, very private, and he made a direct appeal to the
President. He said, "It's important that we start sharing our writers,
our artists, our musicians and our people so that you will have a
better understanding of who we are."
President Reagan picked up on it immediately and said, "You're right!"
He started an exchange program which I think has benefited both of our
countries. From that one meeting, it was the beginning of a new
opening that was brought to bear by this individual. I have not
forgotten that experience.
The other experience I had in Moscow at that time was a meeting with
Yevtushenko. We spent the afternoon reading each other's lines and
some of his novels. At the very end, when I was leaving, he said, "You
and I must stay in contact, otherwise we will forget each other's
faces."
It was a very simple way of him saying that when we don't maintain
this kind of contact, when we don't have the opportunity to either
befriend one another or confront one another across the table, then it
becomes easy to demonize the other in a time of stress. That really is
the value of this conference.
The fact that we can have so many different opinions, that we can have
the Chancellor and the SPD, that we can have members from the DUMA and
from other countries come to this conference to express their opinions
and challenge us in terms of our ideas and to probe, to find out
whether there is an intellectual basis for it. That is the essence of
how we can continue to make history in the most positive sense. We
should not have to live to tell those who follow behind us that, in
Eliot's words, we have a sudden illumination, that we have the
experience but we missed the meaning. All of us who have [had] the
experience during the past decades of what it means to pursue a path
of peace and how that can be achieved and we should not leave it to
chance or to any neglect, that we have done our very best to measure
up to our responsibilities.
So I take this opportunity to say, it's a pleasure for me to be here,
to be a part of Herr von Kleist's final chairing of this conference. I
look forward to his successor following in very large footsteps.
Perhaps I can refer to one final poet: W.H. Auden. He said that
history is a great tide that never sleeps or rests and, held one
moment, burns the hand. I think we should always keep that in mind as
we look back upon what the 20th century has meant and what we hope the
2lst century will mean. That we can, in fact, not simply have a
repetition of what has taken place in the past, that the past not
necessarily be only prologue, that we learn from our mistakes and
really commit ourselves to a much better future.
Thank you very much.
(End text)




NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list