Deputy Chief of Mission John M. Koenig
Deutsch
Nürnberger Sicherheitstagung 2007. Nürnberg, June 22, 2007.
As prepared for delivery.
Thank you very much for the invitation to join you today.
This afternoon, I'd like to take a closer look at how the United States and its transatlantic partners are facing up to some of the security challenges of the 21st century and how together we can promote peace and order. I will start with some historical perspective but I would like to focus on the very forward-looking transatlantic agenda that shapes our partnership today, using Afghanistan as an example.
First of all, however, I would like to congratulate the German government for its leadership. Germany's twin EU and G8 presidencies came at a very critical time for the international community. Chancellor Merkel put forward an ambitious agenda for both these leadership roles. In my opinion, significant progress has been made in establishing ways we can work together to achieve results in the international political arena. The challenges we face are indeed significant, but they can be overcome with leadership and commitment. That is the price of peace.
Over the past century, the United States has paid a significant price to fight aggression, deter potential adversaries, extend freedom, and maintain peace and prosperity in many parts of the world. In the post-war period, the price of peace was an underlying theme of the foreign policy of my country.
The commitment of the United States to pay the price of peace was backed up by the decision, made sixty years ago in 1947 to aid a suffering people and a suffering continent with the Marshall Plan; by the decision in 1948 to assist the people of Berlin with an airlift that none really thought possible; and by the decision in 1949, to join together and form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's second inaugural address in 1957 was in fact entitled: "The Price of Peace." In that speech, President Eisenhower pledged the dedication of the United States to the building of a peace with justice. He himself admitted that the pledge was easy but he went on to emphasize, and I quote, "To serve it will be hard. And to attain it, we must be aware of its full meaning -- and ready to pay its full price. We know clearly what we seek, and why. We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom." Unquote.
In 1961, John F. Kennedy reiterated the pledge in his inaugural address. He said, and again I quote, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Fast forward twenty years to the inaugural address of another new President, Ronald Reagan. This is what President Reagan said, and again I quote, "The price for freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price."
The price of peace for Americans has always been associated with the protection and promotion of freedom and democracy. That is as true today as it was 20 or 50 years ago. When President Bush said in his second inaugural address, "The best hope for peace in our time is the expansion of freedom in all the world. ... Our goal is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way,” he was following a roadmap for American foreign policy. That roadmap remains firmly anchored on one basic premise: Liberty and justice within states leads to peace and stability between states.
Looking back, I think one could say that totalitarianism in Europe was defeated as much by ideas as by ICBMs, tanks, and warships. Our most effective weapon was an underlying belief in political and economic freedom, religious toleration, human rights, representative government, and the rule of law. These values kept our side united, and inspired those on the other side to defeat communism from within. We believe these shared values and shared interests endure, as do our shared responsibilities to come to their defense. Today, these shared values are, however, under threat by another virulent ideological adversary -- an adversary that has set in motion a range of new geopolitical challenges. Violent extremists are determined to tear down the progress that the majority of people want to build. We have seen the future promised by the extremists: as Defense Secretary Gates recently described it -- “a dark, joyless existence personified not by piety or virtue, but by the executioner and the suicide bomber.” In western Iraq, eastern Afghanistan, or elsewhere where Al Qaeda and its affiliates have seized and controlled territory in the past, the result has been misery, poverty, and fear.
Despite attacks on their lives and those of their families, reformers and modernizers are not backing down on their commitment to the principles of political and economic freedom. They want to join the global order of free minds and free markets. Many of these people are risking everything for a better life -- in the faith that the rest of the world will take their side. The United States has once again pledged to do so.
The vital challenge for our times is how, within this new context, Americans and Europeans can apply power and principle in order to make the world more just, more free, more prosperous, and more peaceful. Our alliance is being tested in ways that its founders -- and perhaps many of us here today -- would have found almost unbelievable even just a few years ago.
Within the parameters of my own career, German reunification and 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. This is my second posting to Berlin. The last time I was posted to East Berlin. Germany was still a divided country.
Before returning to Germany last summer, I was in Brussels at NATO headquarters. Just 10 years ago, NATO was a security alliance of 16 countries that had never conducted military operations. By contrast, in my day-to-day work at NATO headquarters, I saw a NATO of 26 members and 31 partnerships that was working effectively in eight different operations.
Europe is also undergoing dramatic change. It is remaking itself as a union of 27 member states and finding a way to speak with one voice on matters of security. The exact parameters of a European Constitution are still a matter of debate. Progress has been made on the question of Kosovo's independence but as of today, it still remains an open question. Turkey's potential membership in the European Union is unresolved. The relationship with Russia is complex. One thing, however, is certain. Neither America nor Europe can succeed without the other. Alone, we simply cannot tackle huge transnational challenges like terrorism, energy security, economic development, disease, the environment, or pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear weapons. No other partner shares the same capabilities, the history of cooperation, and the values of freedom and democracy.
Missile Defense
The ongoing discussion on missile defense highlights the radical changes in the security environment of the 21st century. The United States is pursuing a missile defense proposal that is aimed to safeguard free nations from the possibility of a missile attack launched from a rogue regime like Iran.
Russia voiced some concerns that this system was a return to Cold War politics and that it was not a purely defensive measure. As Secretary Gates has frequently said, one Cold War was quite enough. We have conducted intense consultation with Russia on this issue to reassure them that the system that is being proposed does not pose a potential threat to their country. At the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, President Bush and President Putin had a very constructive discussion on the topic. In the press conference after their meeting, President Putin publicly and officially recognized the potential threat of Iranian missiles to Russia, Europe, and the United States. He went one step further with a proposal on how Russia might make a contribution to a missile defense system.
The United States is also in close consultation with our NATO allies on this topic. At talks in Brussels last week, NATO defense ministers discussed the possibility of complementing the U.S. shield with a NATO anti-missile defense system. There were no criticisms by any of the NATO allies of our missile defense proposals or of our moving forward. This is the first time that the U.S. proposal for Europe-based antimissile interceptors and radar units has been factored into NATO planning. We are very interested in making the system complementary to NATO shorter-range missile defenses. The Russian defense minister sat in those meetings by the way. We are also very interested in working and
partnering with Russia on missile defense.
Afghanistan
The NATO ministers also focused on the ISAF mission in Afghanistan in their talks last week. It is in Afghanistan that the alliance faces the greatest test of the moment. Afghanistan is NATO's most important military operation. It is an American and European joint venture. Together Americans and Europeans are paying a price for peace that we are convinced will pay off in the years to come.
In Afghanistan, NATO military action against a small minority of hard-core irreconcilable insurgents is being conducted in conjunction with economic development, construction, and the development of civil society. It is important that all of our allies recognize the importance of remaining together in Afghanistan as one unit. Each country contributes decisively to our ability to succeed. Our common 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.
Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak attended the meetings ministerial in Brussels last week. “With your support and help,” Minister Wardak said, “Afghanistan has been delivered from the ashes of destruction, tyranny, and decades of civil war. Now we have hope for a bright future.”
We have made major progress in Afghanistan but we are not there yet. 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. We face, however, a tough enemy in Afghanistan - an enemy that cannot stand the thought of a free society.
Complete success in Afghanistan is going to take a sustained effort. We need to maintain what has been achieved so far by meeting the commitments that have been made in the areas of both development and security assistance. Over the past five years, American military and economic assistance to Afghanistan has totaled over $15 billion. We've just asked the Congress for $11.6 billion for the next two years.
We are especially appreciative of Germany's support for Afghanistan and the Afghan people. Germany is the third largest contributor to the ISAF mission, with more than 3,000 Bundeswehr soldiers deployed in the north of Afghanistan. The recent deployment of German Air Force Tornados to Afghanistan have given ISAF a significant reconnaissance capability that provides valuable support to the overall mission. Germany is also participating in a new EU police training mission in Afghanistan to help Afghans help themselves in the quest to establish the rule of law and order.
Last week Defense Secretary Gates commended the NATO partners for the initiative that has been taken in Afghanistan. But he also pushed for the alliance to continue working to fulfill the commitments made at the Riga summit last November. Broader international engagement is necessary. Further investment in terms of people on the ground and financial investment will be required. Undoubtedly and regrettably, until the mission in Afghanistan is completed, there will also be loss of life. That is the hardest price to pay for peace.
In order to complete the mission as soon as possible, we need to strengthen NATO forces in Afghanistan. It is important that NATO commanders on the ground have the flexibility and the resources they need to finish the job.
We also need more creative thinking about what can be done in key areas, such as police training, development assistance, and counter-narcotics. We need to do a better job of aligning our civilian and military operations. When NATO troops clear the Taliban out of a town, our civilians need to move immediately in to rebuild it -- not to run feasibility studies; to rebuild it. And when the schools and hospitals and roads that we do build come under attack, we must defend them, as well as the innocent Afghans who need and want our protection. We believe Germany can play a key role in these functions.
We need to place more emphasis on police training. It’s the key to almost everything else. The inability to provide security is one of President Karzai's major problems. It accounts for the public's growing dissatisfaction with him. There are almost 400 districts in Afghanistan. Ideally we would have police trainers/mentors in every one of them. The ESDP police mission is welcome, but we need hundreds of police trainers/mentors. One hundred and sixty is just a drop in the bucket. Last week, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer reported that a number of countries volunteered to send additional mentoring and liaison teams. We are relying on Germany’s continued commitment to these initiatives.
On civilian assistance, quick impact projects and infrastructure are important, but if we ever hope to complete our mission, we need to focus more on developing the capacity of the Afghans to help themselves. We need to focus more on developing human capital and governance and reducing corruption. The problem is that these kinds of projects are not "sexy" and hard to show off to visiting VIPs. Nonetheless, they are vital. We would like to see Germany increase the amount of overall civilian assistance and expand its scope outside the north to other parts of the country.
Counter-narcotics is another example of the need for a multifaceted and integrated strategy. Too many people -- including some deployed ISAF military forces -- still believe that poppy eradication should be put off until the counter-insurgency is under control. The problem is that opium is funding the counterinsurgency. We can't afford to deal with counterinsurgency and counter-narcotics in succession. They must be tackled at the same time. Eradication can't be conducted in isolation. Farmers will never choose to abandon the much more profitable poppy crop for alternatives unless there is some kind of disincentive. We welcome the FDP's recent emphasis on counter-narcotics and we hope that Germany will continue its support of counter-narcotics operations as provided in the ISAF Oplan.
We agree on the need for a "comprehensive approach" in Afghanistan -- but this is nothing new. The Provincial Reconstruction Team or PRT concept was originally developed under Operation Enduring Freedom with the military working together with civilians in a completely integrated fashion.
Sixty years ago, we learned that winning hearts and mind, however, has a military component as well as a civilian one. The same is true in Afghanistan. It is not just about reconstruction and development. A former ISAF Commander, General David Richards from the United Kingdom, put it well during a recent visit to Berlin. If you want to get the people on your side, he said, you also have to show that you have military prowess, that you are a "winner." That's what the whole Medusa operation last summer was about. When ISAF expanded to the south and took over from OEF, the Taliban made a stand in Kandahar. They were betting that ISAF (along with the Afghan National Army) would not fight. ISAF had to fight and defeat the Taliban or the whole counterinsurgency campaign would have been lost right there. We could not have "built" or "developed" our way out of that confrontation.
The U.S. is not only militarily engaging the hard-core, irreconcilable insurgents, but also spending billions of dollars on reconstruction and development to win the population over. As General Richards put it, nobody mixes kinetic and non-kinetic operations together better than the United States - but "they don't do a very good job talking about it."
The old dichotomy between OEF and ISAF no longer holds true. Both OEF and ISAF are engaged in the counterinsurgency fight. I still encounter, however, misperceptions about U.S. Special Forces troops in Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Special Forces are not Rambos. These soldiers are mature, seasoned, and specially selected to recruit, train and employ foreign militaries in counterinsurgency operations. Unlike the German Special Forces Unit (Kommando Spezialkräfte, or KSK), the primary mission of the U.S. Special Forces is not quick, in-and-out combat raids but rather unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense. The bulk of U.S. Special Forces troops under OEF work through the Afghan National Army.
Operation Enduring Freedom remains, however, important from a combat point of view. It still conducts anti-terrorist missions against high-value targets. Those who talk about fully integrating the two missions should ask themselves if ISAF is prepared to take on all the OEF residual tasks?
Germany has not deployed forces in Afghanistan under its parliamentary OEF mandate for the last two years, and does not plan to in the near future. However, Germany should not underestimate the symbolic importance of the Afghanistan portion of the German parliamentary mandate. Jettisoning it could send a very bad signal about the price individual countries are willing to pay in the fight against terrorism.
I have tried to outline just a few of the issues that we are facing in Afghanistan because I think they illustrate the complexity of the challenges that face us in many parts of the world. Together the United States and European countries are advancing political, economic and social reforms in through a variety of forums. Together we can and are building upon a foundation of power and principle and a firm belief in a set of common values.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ended her remarks at an Atlantik Bruecke event in Berlin earlier this month by noting “it is the nature of a historic sweep of humankind; that that which seemed once impossible in retrospect seems to have been inevitable.” We saw what seemed impossible happen in Germany. Secretary of State Rice called upon the transatlantic partnership to act on that legacy so that our successors can look back on these times and ask themselves who could ever have doubted the success of freedom and peace and prosperity in the Middle East and beyond.
Thank you.