24 February 2003
Vershbow: Spirit of Cooperation Can Overcome Forces of Disorder
(Remarks in Moscow on International Cooperation for International Security) (2740) "I will not attempt to downplay the conflicts and differences that have arisen within Europe and across the Atlantic on how to deal with the real threat posed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein's defiance of UN Security Council demands that he disarm his country of all weapons of mass destruction," U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow said February 21 in Moscow. "But I think that our common interests and our shared values will ultimately enable us to overcome our differences and find a common approach." Vershbow was speaking at the Winter Academy of INION/RAN -- the Institute of Information on the Social Sciences at the Russian Academy of Science. Recalling the terrorist attack of 9/11 (September 11, 2001), he said America realizes that "no single nation can hope to deal successfully with the decisive challenges of this age. To quote the English poet John Donne, 'No Man is an Island,' and we understand that we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends and allies to achieve our common goals." International cooperation, Vershbow added, "is an indispensable ingredient in our view of national security," whether the focus is on anti-terrorism, regional stability, trade and development, or transnational challenges such as weapons of mass destruction, infectious disease and international crime. He cited Russia's cooperation with the United States and with NATO since 9/11 and noted that "today we are working together to combat the continuing threat of Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Central Asia and around the world." Vershbow outlined the threat posed by Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and said the United States, NATO, the European Union, the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, and other friendly nations "know that we stand on the same side of a profound divide between the forces of order and the forces of disorder." "The great powers must now act accordingly to overcome tactical differences so that we can stand together against the forces of disorder. This is the spirit that has guided NATO over the past 54 years and enabled it to endure even the most bitter disputes. It is the spirit that should also guide our new partnership with Russia in the new century, and the spirit that should guide our actions in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations," he said. Following are Vershbow's remarks as prepared for delivery: (begin text) Moscow Friday, February 21, 2003 International Cooperation for International Security Remarks by Alexander Vershbow U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation at the Winter Academy of INION/RAN (Institute of Information on the Social Sciences at the Russian Academy of Science) Thank you very much for your invitation to speak again at the Winter Academy. These seminars are an important opportunity to discuss some of the most pressing issues that confront NATO, Russia, Europe and the United States today with the young men and women who represent Russia's leaders of tomorrow. As we all know, complex issues defy quick solutions. We are all still trying to understand and adjust to the new security environment that has emerged for all of us in the wake of the global plague of terrorist attacks. Russian, European and American security today is endangered less by fleets and armies from any powerful enemy nation than by biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in the hands of a failing state, a dictatorship, or a band of embittered terrorists. Given the malevolent ambitions of rogue states and suicidal killers, national security is now a function of how well all countries protect each other, not just how well one country protects itself. International Cooperation in Response to 9/11 September 11, 2001 was a devastating day in U.S. and world history, but perhaps some good can come out of those terrible events. We can use this opportunity to create new international partnerships and to strengthen existing alliances - not just to win the war against terrorism, but also to meet other transnational challenges that imperil global security. Every responsible nation in the world stands to benefit from a global realignment that focuses on defending the rule of law, recognized standards for human dignity and the international system of nation-states. America's global network of allies and partners - including NATO - quickly adapted to the crisis demands of the post-9/11 security environment. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, NATO for the first time invoked its self-defense mechanisms. In fact, NATO forces drawn from European nations flew patrols over American skies in the days and months after the attack. The G-8 nations, including Russia, moved to secure global networks of commerce and communication, including the stationing of customs inspectors in each other's ports. The current coalition against terrorism is unprecedented in scale and scope. The United States, Russia, Germany and France have joined with dozens of other nations to counter the threat of terrorism using all the tools available to us - intelligence, financial institutions, law enforcement and military operations. A mix of ad hoc arrangements and more formal alliances has led to a sustained campaign against Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Afghanistan, and around the world, over the past 17 months. This is not to mention the collapse of the Taliban regime, which had supported a network of terror. The American people, and other nations, expect the United States to exercise leadership in this war as it did in the global wars of the 20th century, but we Americans also realize - and 9/11 made this clear - that no single nation can hope to deal successfully with the decisive challenges of this age. To quote the English poet John Donne, "No Man is an Island," and we understand that we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends and allies to achieve our common goals. This is a fundamental principle of President Bush's National Security Strategy released last September. On nearly every page the document underscores - as I wish to emphasize again here - the necessity of cooperating with other nations, institutions and organizations. International cooperation is an indispensable ingredient in our view of national security, whether the strategy is focused on fighting the war against terrorism, promoting and sustaining regional stability, expanding trade and development, maintaining friendly ties to global powers, or dealing with transnational challenges such as weapons of mass destruction [WMD], infectious disease, and international crime. A basic responsibility for any government is to protect its people. The top strategic priority of the United States, therefore, is to shield the American populace from the threat of terrorism. As recent horrific incidents - at a nightclub in Bali, a hotel in Kenya, a theater in Moscow, and a government building in Grozny - have all demonstrated, terrorism continues to be a grim reality around the world. And we must remember that terrorists do not respect international borders. Our response, therefore, must be global. While the United States will always reserve the right to act alone if needed to protect the lives of Americans, our security is enhanced when other countries choose to play a constructive, pro-active role in responding to international terrorism and other global threats. Post-9/11 Russian Cooperation with NATO and U.S. I believe that no one has recognized this more clearly than Russian President Vladimir Putin. His immediate offer of condolences and support on September 11, 2001, was followed up by substantive cooperation in the continuing war against terrorism. The Taliban could not have been toppled so quickly in Afghanistan and a democratic government installed in Kabul so successfully without the important logistical, intelligence, humanitarian and political assistance that Russia provided. And today we are working together to combat the continuing threat of Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Central Asia and around the world, thereby serving the common security interests of the United States, Russia and all nations that value stability, human dignity and freedom. The new NATO-Russia Council set up last year is a specific, practical example of the new security environment that exists today. It is off to an impressive start. Russia held a joint civil-emergency exercise with NATO Allies and Partners last fall in Noginsk and hosted a NATO-Russia seminar in Moscow two months ago on the military's role in combating terrorism. Russian and NATO military authorities have completed joint assessments of the threat posed by Al Qaeda to our troops in the Balkans and to civil aviation, and we have begun an assessment of the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this month Russia and NATO signed an agreement on joint submarine search-and-rescue operations, in the hope of avoiding future submarine disasters such as the Kursk tragedy. This is the first in what we hope will be a series of military agreements between Russia and NATO that will help achieve our shared goal of a secure, stable and peaceful Europe. Enlargement of NATO is aimed at this same goal. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said after the Prague Summit, NATO membership for Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will help strengthen and solidify democracy in those countries and "to have stable democracies at the door of Russia . . . can only be for the good." Stable countries on Russia's borders will better enable Russia to meet the real threats to its security that emanate from other directions. U.S.-Russia Partnership Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov at the end of last year described Russia's growing partnership with the United States as the single most important element of Russian foreign policy. Let me add that the new security environment that we face today provides our two countries with the opportunity to develop an even closer relationship. The most recent proof of this is the unanimous approval on February 5 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of a resolution that will lead to the final ratification of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions. The Moscow Treaty that President Bush and President Putin signed at their summit meeting last May was a watershed in our relations. It reflects a recognition that our security no longer depends on micromanaging the numbers and types of warheads and delivery systems that each side has, but on working together against the new threats of the 21st century. In fact, the Treaty of Moscow may be less important than the second agreement signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in Moscow last May - their joint declaration on the New Strategic Relationship. That document sets forth an action for joint work in dealing with new security challenges. It commits us to work together against terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics trafficking and organized crime. It creates a framework for transparency and cooperation on missile defense - reflecting the fact that we both face growing threats from countries that are acquiring the technology for long-range missiles that could be armed with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The joint declaration also calls for expanding trade, investment and people-to-people links between our countries. I believe it is possible that historians will look back on the joint declaration as marking the start of a long-term security partnership - perhaps an alliance - between our two countries, one that is grounded on common interests and a shared commitment to the values of democracy, economic liberty and the rule of law. Iraq Now you're probably asking yourselves: How can the Ambassador be so optimistic when some of the governments represented on this panel are locked in a bitter argument over Iraq? I will not attempt to downplay the conflicts and differences that have arisen within Europe and across the Atlantic on how to deal with the real threat posed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein's defiance of UN Security Council demands that he disarm his country of all weapons of mass destruction. But I think that our common interests and our shared values will ultimately enable us to overcome our differences and find a common approach. I'm sure that everyone here would agree that it is not in our common interest to allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of one of the world's most dangerous leaders. Saddam has launched two wars of aggression against his neighbors, and he has used WMD against Iran and against his own people. He openly supports the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbollah and is now harboring Al-Qaeda operatives on his territory. As Secretary of State Powell noted during his speech at the UN earlier this month, "Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world." The Iraqi government has defied the United Nations for the past 12 years by refusing to rid itself of its arsenal of terror. There may be some who are prepared to wait another decade for Iraq to comply with UN resolutions, but the United States is not among those nations. We have shown patience in seeking the broadest possible international support for action to enforce the will of the United Nations. The UN Security Council has repeatedly found that Iraq's conduct poses a threat to world peace and security. Resolution 1441 said Iraq was already in material breach of previous UN resolutions and gave Saddam one last chance to comply peacefully. But the simple truth, more than three months later, is that Saddam is not disarming. While he may be offering slightly improved cooperation in the process of inspections, he has yet to cooperate in the substance, namely, disarmament. He has not accounted for the thousands of liters of anthrax and botulism toxin that we know he had when the previous UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998. And he has not account for the thousands of tons of chemical weapons whose existence was confirmed in 1998. Every option short of force has been tried to convince Saddam Hussein to disarm. None has worked. As President Bush recently said, it is now Saddam Hussein's choice to make - whether there will be war or peace. Time is running out. At some point in the next few weeks, the members of the Security Council will have to make some fateful decisions on whether to enforce Iraqi compliance, or whether to let Saddam escape his responsibility yet again. President Bush has made clear that the United States will disarm Iraq - peacefully if possible, by force if necessary. War is still not inevitable. And the surest way to avoid war is for Saddam Hussein to see that the will of the international community is united behind a non-negotiable demand that, at long last, he carry out his obligation to disarm - or else. And if he does not, if he continues to ignore the authority of the United Nations, then we trust that other members of the UN Security Council will assume their obligation to show that such unlawful behavior will no longer be tolerated. Conclusion Today as we contend with the threats posed by terrorist organizations and rogue states - and their possible collusion in launching attacks with weapons of mass destruction - the world's great centers of power are united by common interests and, increasingly, common values. If we have differences, they are much more about tactics than about our strategic goals. Moreover, since 9/11, the United States, our NATO allies, our EU partners, the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere, our friends and partners in Asia, Australia and Africa, as well as the Russian Federation - all of us know that we stand on the same side of a profound divide between the forces of order and the forces of disorder. The great powers must now act accordingly to overcome tactical differences so that we can stand together against the forces of disorder. This is the spirit that has guided NATO over the past 54 years and enabled it to endure even the most bitter disputes. It is the spirit that should also guide our new partnership with Russia in the new century, and the spirit that should guide our actions in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations. Thank you very much. (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 |
|
|
|
