|
"Die Geschichte unserer Zeit spiegelt sich im Leben Berlins wider."
"The history of our times is written in the history of Berlin."
These were President Bush's words last May when he addressed the Bundestag. Like any visitor to Berlin, he could not help but feel the history of this city.
Organizations like the Verein Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller, established over 120 years ago, are part of that history. Revived after the end of the war, the Verein was part of the reconstruction of a devastated Berlin, and since the fall of the Wall, the Verein has been an essential factor in the re-integration of East and West.
The United States is proud to be part of that history. Indeed, the German-American partnership in the last half of the 20th century is perhaps one of the greatest success stories in modern history.
Out of the ashes of World War II and through the long years of the Cold War, the United States and Germany forged a very special partnership, based on unity and strength.
The true distinctiveness of the transatlantic partnership of the last half century was its recognition that, to build for the future, more would be necessary than a shared history and common values. It was also necessary to encourage the joint pursuit of mutual strategic interests.
With this shared history, and our common goals and our mutual strategic interests in mind, I look forward to being as candid as possible with you. That is why I am glad it was your decision to keep our discussion this evening “off the record.”
Twenty years ago, the U.S, Ambassador to Germany, Arthur Burns, described the world of international politics and diplomacy as “a world in which perception of facts often obscures the facts themselves.” Ambassador Burns was concerned that the realities – the hard facts – of history were often forgotten, and that only perceptions remained. He was concerned about respecting what he called the boundary line between “sheer opinion and true knowledge” and the value of historical perspective.
Together we successfully met the major challenges of the last century. Now, as we enter the third year of a new century, we face overarching new challenges – the most important of which are the frightening explosion of world-wide terrorism, the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the need to deal with states that act in defiance of international norms.
The War on Terrorism
In the past year, we learned that terrorism is not just directed at America, nor is it directed against military targets. It is directed against innocent people – ordinary citizens from more than 80 nations working in offices in the World Trade towers, ordinary citizens in vacation resorts in far-flung Bali, on city buses in Jerusalem, in a theater in Moscow – against innocent people around the world in a way that undermines people’s security and destroys their confidence in the economy.
Merely by showing solidarity with us against this terrorist threat, Germany and Germans have put themselves at greater risk as well. The terrorists of al Qaida know that German troops have helped in Afghanistan. They know that German courts in Frankfurt and Hamburg are trying suspected terrorists, that German authorities have shut down extremist organizations that call for violence and collect funds for terror attacks. They know that U.S. and German authorities work closely together to track and, when possible, detain terrorists and their supporters in Germany.
All of us who not only share, but dare to defend our common values of religious and personal liberty, and “freedom to pursue happiness” as our forefathers said, are now at risk. This is not just an “American problem,” and never was.
Thus, it is in our mutual interest to stand together now as we face the new 21st century threats to world order and address the challenges that we cannot afford to ignore.
As we look back on the headlines of the past year, these threats and challenges have been laid out in great detail – and some issues of collaboration have become issues of contention.
Can these differences, these issues of contention, undermine the broader sense of enduring political and cultural ties between our peoples, our common values and goals?
President Bush outlined his priorities in his New Year’s message to Americans: “We will continue our efforts to secure our country, win the war on terrorism, focus on education, promote compassion, create new jobs, and ensure the economic security of all our citizens.”
Are the priorities of the German government for its people really any different? Nations that share these goals must stand together. Together we must look at new and better solutions to further the growth of democracy, prosperity and justice around the globe.
Before I discuss an area where we have disagreements on how to proceed, let me first acknowledge some of our mutual successes in addressing these new 21st century threats.
Legal/Financial Aspects We have greatly improved our capabilities and our cooperation in the fight against terror over the past year. Our police and intelligence agencies work more closely together than ever. The arrests that were made two weeks ago in Frankfurt are just one example of that close cooperation.
We have also made great progress in new programs to dry up sources of terrorist financing, to ensure energy security, and to improve the security of our transportation, information, and financial systems. Legal structures and mechanisms to identify and take financial sanctions against terrorists and their supporters have been instituted. The U.S. and countries in the EU are engaged in an active dialogue on law enforcement cooperation, protection of critical infrastructure, and use of new technologies, including biometrics, to confront new security challenges. Both the US and the EU are providing technical assistance to countries seeking to improve their ability to track and control the flow of funds to terrorists.
Together, we are coordinating a series of initiatives to improve the security of our air, sea, and land transportation. We are committed to finding ways to do this without encumbering the movement of goods and people.
Afghanistan In Afghanistan, we learned that we are not secure if failed states allow terrorists free reign. That is why it was critical that after Afghanistan's liberation, the EU joined with the U.S. to lead international efforts to provide reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. In just over one year, we have gone from nothing to a government that is now starting to function -- with a national police force, a national judicial system, and a national army. Germany has made a major contribution to these efforts, taking on in particular the daunting task of rebuilding the Afghan police force. As Secretary Powell said recently, "The glass may not be full yet in Afghanistan, but it certainly isn't empty. I think we should be proud of our accomplishment."
In addition, German troops are deployed in the Balkans, maintaining stability terribly troubled region, and German ships stood guard off the Horn of Africa, denying African sanctuary to terrorists.
Iraq Like terrorism, Iraq is also not just an American problem. The situation in Iraq is not about America -- and what we may or may not be prepared to do. It is about Saddam Hussein -- and what he is prepared to do -- and what he is not doing right now.
On November 8th, the United Nations Security Council responded to the challenge issued by President Bush in his 12 September speech to the United Nations General Assembly. On that day, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, requiring Iraq to disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction and to disclose all of its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. Resolution 1441 was the latest in a long string of Security Council resolutions since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Previous resolutions, which included requirements to disarm and to end the cruel repression of the Iraqi people, have all been defied or ignored by Iraq.
Iraq's answer to Resolution 1441 came on December 7th in a 12,000-page document submitted to the Security Council -- a three-foot stack of papers that the UN weapons inspectors have said that fail to answer many open questions -- the third such declaration that has failed to be full, currently accurate and complete, as required by the UN Security Council.
Despite the incompleteness of the Iraqi declaration, the inspectors are doing their best to do their jobs. It is safe to say that the discovery of 16 chemical warheads and new documents about nuclear and missile programs this past week is an important development. But finding these 16 warheads just raises a basic question: Where are the other 29,984? Because that is how many empty chemical warheads the UN Special Commission estimated he had -- and has never accounted for. And where are the 550 artillery shells that are filled with mustard gas? And the 400 biological weapons-capable aerial bombs? And the 26,000 liters of anthrax, the botulinum, the VX, the Sarin gas that the UN said he has? We don't know, because Saddam Hussein has never accounted for any of it.
The discovery of undeclared warheads and Iraq’s only then coming forward with more undeclared warheads and signing an “agreed statement” are not signs of progress; they reflect Iraq’s continuing failure to comply fully with 1441. The resolution does not charge inspectors with discovering weapons of mass destruction and enticing Iraqi cooperation; inspectors are to verify Iraqi disarmament based on Iraq’s disclosing all relevant information and its active and unconditional cooperation.
We have seen this game before -- an attempt to deceive and delay, to sow confusion and buy time, hoping the world will lose interest. We must remember these lessons from the past in assessing the sincerity of Baghdad’s intentions expressed earlier this week -- to expand cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors. But time is running out. What we seek is action, not words on the part of the Iraqis. Iraq’s cooperation and the terms of its compliance with 1441 are non-negotiable.
The regime in Iraq must comply fully with the terms of Resolution 1441. If the United Nations is going to be relevant, it has to take a firm stand with respect to Iraq's continuing disregard of its obligations under 1441 and the16 other UN Security Council resolutions that have preceded it in the past 12 years. The Security Council has a responsibility under Resolution 1441 to finally bring Iraq into compliance with its obligations to the international community. The international community must maintain and even increase the pressure to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations.
There are differing points of view in the international community on how to proceed at this point. We will continue to discuss next steps with our Council partners -- but inaction is not an option. If Iraq continues to threaten this vital region with weapons of mass destruction and refuses to disarm peacefully then we have not only the authority but the responsibility to act.
We await the inspectors’ report on January 27, at which point each of the Council members will examine Iraq’s behavior against the requirements of 1441 and then make a judgment about next steps. The question to ask is not how much time inspectors need to do their work; 1441 puts the burden on Baghdad to cooperate in a way that will allow the inspectors to verify Iraq’s disarmament. And right now, as the president said yesterday, it is clear that Saddam is not disarming.
As a nation, the United States prefers a solution short of war. But as President Bush has said, our patience is running out. This regime has very little time left to undo the legacy of 12 years. But a decision to resort to military operations has not yet been made. The threat of military repercussions is however a symbol of our resolve and it is one very potent form of international pressure. The unequivocal communication of the reality of this threat is the reason inspectors are now in Iraq. And if Saddam Hussein does the right thing in the coming days, if he makes a full and complete declaration of what he has, if he begins to take the steps necessary to destroy it, and if he provides unhindered access to his scientists -- it will only be because he believes in the consequences of not doing so.
Over the past weekend, demonstrations were held in several cities in America and Europe -- the sentiment behind them is quite understandable. No one wants to go to war. But no one wants to see a world in which a regime with no regard whatsoever for international law, for the welfare of its own people, or for the will of the United Nations -- has weapons of mass destruction. And that regime would gladly provide those weapons to people of ill intent. This is not a problem we can turn away from; we must be prepared to face it.
War in Iraq is not inevitable. The only thing that is inevitable is that the government of Saddam Hussein must come into compliance with its international obligations and give up any weapons of mass destruction. It is our preference that this be done diplomatically and peacefully but it is essential that it be done. The world's demands -- as expressed in Resolution 1441 -- are clear.
And the United States, working with other nations, will confront this threat. Our resolve is strong.
Confronting the threats of terrorism, of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, of dealing with states that act in defiance of international norms are not just tasks for Americans. They are tasks for freedom-loving people from around the world -- joining together in a shared commitment -- acknowledging and successfully addressing the "hard facts" of this new century.
Our ultimate goal is to protect and preserve our hard-won freedom -- freedom to live, to work, to worship, to conduct our lives free from the tyranny of those who seek to destroy these most basic of all human endeavors. Once again we have been presented with a moment of enormous responsibilty and opportunity. Remembering the past helps us understand the present. The lessons of history can inspire us today to move forward on the challenges we face now – and move forward we must. Recently, President Vaclav Havel warned against making concessions to aggressive dictators, as Britain and France did in the 1930s. He said: "It is necessary to take action against deadly evil, even using force if that it is needed."
Decisions must soon be made – in terms of the actions e must take to deal with the threats that face us today. It is important that we confront the hard facts of the threats to freedom-loving people around the world.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to address the VBKI this evening. I thank you for your attention and look forward to the discussion to follow.
Vielen Dank.
|
