Regional Crises - Global Risks?
Heidelberg Security Conference
Heidelberg, May 15, 2009
Chargé d'Affaires John M. Koenig
Minister Jung,
Dr. Lamers,
Dr. Kaim,
General Lather,
Dr. Keller,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a pleasure to participate in this conference on the broad parameters that define global challenges in the security environment of the 21st century.
President Barack Obama campaigned on the promise that he would change the direction of America's foreign policy, that the United States would take transformational steps to address the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, the continuing threats posed by terrorist extremists, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the dangers of climate change, pandemic disease, worldwide poverty and financial instability - in ways that are consistent with the values and its ideals of America and its partners.
The President laid out an ambitious foreign policy agenda - and within 48 hours of taking office, he set out to put that agenda into effect.
Under President Obama's leadership, relationships with key allies and historic partners in Europe and Asia have been reinforced. The United States has engaged emerging nations and pivotal regional actors on issues of common concern, from climate change and energy, to democracy and good governance, and regional and global security. The State Department, the Defense Department, other departments and agencies, as well as the Congress have worked closely with the White House on a number of policy reviews to chart the best course forward in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The review of U.S. policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan has led to wider recognition that the security challenges posed by the Taliban and al-Qaida are a problem for the whole of South and Central Asia, and require a common front involving all of the neighbors, including Iran and India. It is one of the main priorities of the Obama administration. The new comprehensive strategy treats Afghanistan and Pakistan as two countries but one challenge. It calls for intensive regional diplomacy involving all key players in South and Central Asia to enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border and address common issues like trade, energy, and economic development.
The United States will devote more resources to the training and support of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. The new strategy focuses more intensively on Pakistan than in the past, calling for significant increases in U.S. and international support linked to Pakistani performance against terror.
But as President Obama said, a "campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone." More resources will also be allocated to civilian efforts in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. When Afghan President Karzai and Pakistani President Zardari came to Washington last week to meet with President Obama, they brought along the heads of their justice, agriculture, intelligence, and energy departments to meet with their U.S. counterparts. Concrete action plans and timetables were sketched out in areas ranging from intelligence sharing and police training, to crop policies and trade agreements. As agreed at the summit, the U.S. will spend $27.5 million to help Pakistan and Afghanistan improve the sustainable development of their agricultural sectors.
The Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy is an example of the kind of collaborative diplomacy -what Secretary Clinton calls "smart diplomacy"- which the new administration stands for. In plain words, that means that the United States will actively seek global opportunities. It will cooperate with the military and other agencies of government, partner with nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and international organizations. It will empower negotiators who can protect our interests while understanding those of our negotiating partners.
Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we live in a world that is not defined by old rules or strict boundaries. Neither the promise nor the peril of the 21st century is contained by national borders or vast distances.
Nothing illustrates the change in security parameters more dramatically than the changes that NATO has gone through during the last 20 years. During the Cold War, NATO never fired a single shot, except in training exercises. Today, it is involved in six different operations -- fighting and securing stability in Afghanistan; keeping the peace in Kosovo; assisting defense reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina; patrolling the Mediterranean Sea in a maritime anti-terrorist mission dispatched under the collective defense clause of the North Atlantic Treaty; countering piracy and armed robbery at sea off the Horn of Africa; and training Iraqi security forces. NATO is busier than ever. But this operational reality has exposed differences among allies in terms of threat perceptions, strategic cultures, resources and capabilities.
In the years to come, we -- Americans and Europeans alike -- will be required to do more, not less. Even as we have made progress on many crucial issues, the reality of the 21st century is that local and national problems quickly become global challenges.
The recent episode of potential global flu outbreak and the economic crisis demonstrate both the benefits and risks of interdependence.
Piracy off the coast of Somalia is another regional crisis that has escalated to a global issue. Acts of piracy more than doubled in the Gulf of Aden area during 2008. Attacks on ships in this region have disrupted United Nations World Food Program transports delivering aid to some of the world's most vulnerable populations. They place innocent sailors from countries across the globe in immediate danger and pose environmental threats as pirated ships may be damaged or run aground; and they jeopardize commercial shipping interests. The vast majority of Somali pirates are motivated by economic desperation, not ideology. Somalia is a failed state that cannot provide even the most basic services to its population. Unfortunately, outsiders also contributed to Somalia's desperate condition by, for example, trespassing into Somalia's economic zone and overfishing its waters.
As Secretary Clinton has emphasized, there will be no long-term solution to piracy in the region unless progress is made in addressing the larger political, security and governance challenges facing Somalia, its government and its people. Sustainable change in Somalia requires a political solution that is authored and implemented by Somalis themselves and not by outsiders. Fighting piracy has obviously become an important element of our strategic objectives in Somalia. The underlying focus, however, is on helping Somalia regain political and economic stability, eliminating the threat of terrorism, and responding to the humanitarian needs of the Somali people. Efforts to blunt maritime piracy off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden are beginning to show some success, but there is an international consensus that more must be done.
This is just one of several over-arching problems that affect the peace and prosperity of both the United States and Germany. President Obama has demonstrated his commitment to an effective, collaborative foreign policy strategy. At a press conference where the president himself rated his administration after its first 100 days, he said he thought it was a good start -- that he was pleased with the progress that had been made, but not satisfied. And that means, he concluded, that America and the world could expect an unrelenting, unyielding effort from his administration to strengthen prosperity and security -- in the second hundred days, and the third hundred days, and all the days after that.
