Deputy Chief of Mission John M. Koenig
Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik, Berlin
March 8, 2007.
As prepared for delivery.
Thank you very much for the invitation to join you today. My most recent assignment was in Brussels at NATO headquarters and I am very interested in defense cooperation.
In my day-to-day work at NATO headquarters, I saw a NATO of 26 members and 31 partnerships that was working effectively and providing security in eight different operations. I saw the effects of the efforts that have been made in the last two years to reaffirm both the NATO Alliance and our partnership with the European countries, which is so important for peace and prosperity in the world. The last time I served in Berlin, Germany was a divided country. A little over a decade ago, NATO was a security alliance of 16 countries that had never conducted military operations.
The German EU and G8 presidencies come at a very critical time for the international community. The Chancellor has put forward an ambitious agenda for both these leadership roles. Under Chancellor Merkel's leadership, Germany is looking outward and accepting its global responsibilities. The United States needs a strong global partner. The combined presidencies provide an excellent opportunity for the United States and Germany, and all the members of the transatlantic partnership to move forward -- as partners. We share common values. We have common concerns. EU and NATO enlargement have allowed Europeans to raise their geopolitical sights, assume more global responsibility and become partners with the United States in addressing new threats beyond Europe.
The end of the Cold War changed our strategic goals. Since the end of the Cold War, no two parts of the world have experienced economic integration faster and more intensely than the U.S. and EU. The United States and the EU share the largest trade and investment relationship in the world. Increased investment, deeper economic integration, and more corporate partnerships all tie our business, people, consumers, workers, and farmers together. U.S.-EU cooperation has been a driving force behind efforts to liberalize world trade on a multilateral basis. Trade is the best way to help poor nations develop their economy so that people can realize the benefits of wealth moving throughout their society.
New global threats, however, have also however made it necessary to alter our strategic goals.
A U.S. proposal to site anti-missile installations in Poland and the Czech Republic has raised some concern about the re-emergence of U.S.-Russian Cold War tensions. Those concerns are unfounded. On the basis of detailed U.S. Defense Department analysis, we have concluded that Poland and the Czech Republic are good locations to provide protection for much of Europe and the United States from the evolving Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat. In Europe, U.S. missile defense deployments would be capable of intercepting not only intercontinental ballistic missiles but also intermediate-range ballistic missiles launched out of the Middle East. The U.S. goal is to optimize the defensive coverage of both Europe and the United States.
We have developed this system with intensive consultations with Europeans partners. Today, more than 15 countries (including nearly 10 in NATO alone) are engaged in missile defense efforts of some kind.
The United States has been transparent with Russia with our plans and capabilities and has encouraged their cooperation in dealing with a common threat in the Middle East. Senior U.S. government officials have frequently briefed senior Russian counterparts, as well as their experts, on the proposed U.S. European missile defense deployments. Russian officials, and their experts, fully understand the technical limitations and parameters of the proposed defensive capabilities. They understand the limited capabilities of the interceptors and the X-band radar, including why the European-based assets would have virtually no capability against Russian ICBMs launched at the United States, and how it is optimized for engaging ballistic missile threats launched out of Iran. Providing Russia transparency and predictability in our missile defense policy, plans, and programs is in the interest of the United States. We will continue to keep Russia informed about the status of our programs and decisions, and to explore the possibility of additional confidence-building measures.
Recent events have underscored the threats we face. Iran recently tested short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their continuing and aggressive missile development program. But Iran is not only building missiles, it is also pursuing a nuclear weapons program in defiance of the international community. The IAEA's report of 22 February 2007 made clear that Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment or heavy water-related activities, as required by UNSCR 1737. This marks the second time that Iran has failed to comply with a UNSC Chapter VII resolution and is yet another example of Iran's failure to comply with its obligations under international law. During the past week, the State Department has held extensive discussions with Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany about a second and strengthened Security Council Resolution. We particularly appreciate Chancellor Merkel's strong support for the United Nations Security Council resolution on Iran.
History teaches us that, despite our best efforts in diplomacy, there will be military surprises, failures in intelligence and deterrence. Missile defenses help hedge against such possible failures, acting as insurance should diplomacy and deterrence fail.
Also, over the long term, missile defenses discourage the proliferation of ballistic missiles as the means of delivering weapons of mass destruction by undermining the military utility of these weapons. Missile defense is one element of our approach to non-proliferation. We also use export controls, threat reduction assistance, non-proliferation regimes, and counter-proliferation programs such as the Proliferation Security Initiative under which states cooperate to disrupt trade in WMD and missile technologies, or our efforts to use financial tools to disrupt and block the finances used to facilitate proliferation.
We face a complex, interconnected set of challenges in the world, and in the Middle East in particular. Blocking Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions is one of the most vital. We don't see a peaceful future with the Iranians developing a nuclear weapon.
In Iraq, we are hopeful that 2007 will be a better year. Earlier this year, President Bush announced a change to our strategy but our goal remains the same - to help the Iraqis achieve the objective of a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself. The United States appreciates support from the EU, including funds for reconstruction and training initiatives for Iraqi police, administrators, and judges.
At their meeting in January, the President agreed with the Chancellor's suggestion to re-convene the Mideast Quartet. Two meetings of the United States and its partners in the Quartet - the United Nations, Russia and the European Union - have been convened - in Washington and in Berlin. Beyond a reaffirmation of the Quartet principles for a two-state solution to the conflict, these meetings are opportunities to discuss how each of the members can best work with Israelis and Palestinians on concrete programs designed to build institutions to that end.
Afghanistan is an example of how NATO military action is being conducted in conjunction with economic development, construction and the development of civil society in this era of unconventional and often global threats.
Our goal in Afghanistan is to help the people of Afghanistan establish a stable, moderate, and democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in the war against extremists and terrorists. One of the lessons of September the 11th was that we cannot allow terrorists to gain sanctuary anywhere. We must not allow them to re-establish the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan.
Over the past five years, the Taliban have been driven from power and Al Qaeda has been driven from its camps. Afghanistan has a democratically-elected President and a National Assembly chosen by the Afghan people in free elections. Under the Taliban, women were barred from public office. Today, Afghanistan's parliament includes 91 women. Under the Taliban, there were about 900,000 children in school. Today, more than 5 million children are in school. About 1.8 million of them are girls. In today's Afghanistan, people are free to speak their minds and to realize their dreams. The NATO Alliance is taking the lead in providing security for the people of Afghanistan.
We face, however, a tough enemy -- an enemy that cannot stand the thought of a free society. Across Afghanistan last year, the number of roadside bomb attacks almost doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled, and suicide bombings grew nearly five-fold. These escalating attacks were part of a Taliban offensive meant to stop the advance of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan. As a result, 2006 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the liberation of the country. The Taliban offensive was turned back by Afghan soldiers and by NATO forces. During the winter, the intensity of the fighting died down but the snow will soon melt in the Hindu Kush Mountains. When it does, we can expect fierce fighting to start again. The Taliban and al Qaeda are preparing to launch new attacks. Our strategy is not to be on the defense, but to go on the offense.
To do that, we need to increase the size and capabilities of the Afghan security forces. We also need to strengthen the NATO force in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is NATO's most important military operation. It is very much an American and European joint venture. The United States has 27,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. Secretary Gates has said we'll maintain very strong troop levels. We've just asked the Congress for $11.6 billion in American military and economic assistance to Afghanistan for the next two years. That is an extraordinary leap over the amount of money that we've spent so far in Afghanistan. Over the past five years, it has totalled $14 billion. The United States is in this for the long haul. We believe we can be successful in Afghanistan, but it's going to take a major effort - from the Americans and the Europeans. We need more creative thinking about what can be done in key areas, such as police training, development assistance, and counter-narcotics.
We commend Germany for its support for Afghanistan and the Afghan people. Germany is the third largest contributor to the ISAF mission. There are some 3,000 troops in the north doing very valuable work. The north of Afghanistan is a poppy growing area, so security and development are important. But we can only succeed in the north if we also succeed in the south and the rest of Afghanistan. Chancellor Merkel has heard the message that we need solidarity throughout Afghanistan. She is committed to do more in Afghanistan. We very much appreciate that the German government would like to provide reconnaissance aircraft. The Tornado aircraft would serve the whole mission. It would be one step toward filling the security gaps that still exist in Afghanistan. We can be proud that NATO has helped liberate the 25 million people of Afghanistan. NATO commanders on the ground must have the flexibility and the resources they need to finish the job.
It's an exciting time for the United States and Europe - a time that has great promise and potential for success. Together we have returned to the solidity of the transatlantic relationship which is so important for democracy, peace and prosperity around the world. Those are the underlying principles of our Alliance. They have served us well in the past and will serve us well in the future.
Thank you.
