Monday, February 09, 2009





Speaker: de Hoop Scheffer, Jaap
Function: Secretary General of NATO, Brussels

Speaker: Sarkozy, Nicolas
Function: President, Paris

Speaker: Steinmeier, Frank-Walter
Function: Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Berlin

Speaker: Vondra, Dr. Alexandr
Function: Vice Prime Minister for European Affairs, Prague

Speaker: MacKay, Peter
Function: Minister of National Defence, Ottawa

Speaker: Biden, Joseph R.
Function: Vice President, Washington

Speaker: Hutton, John
Function: Secretary of State for Defence, London

Speaker: Merkel, Dr. Angela
Function: Federal Chancellor, Berlin

Speaker: Larijani, Dr. Ali
Function: Speaker of the Majlis, Tehran


Speaker: Kissinger, Dr. Henry
Function: Former U.S. Secretary of State, New York

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
2/06/2009 KISSINGER

Over 200 years ago, the philosopher Immanuel Kant defined the ultimate choice before mankind: World history would ultimately culminate in universal peace either by moral insight or by catastrophe of a magnitude that left humanity no other choice.

Our period is approaching having that choice imposed on it. The basic dilemma of the nuclear age has been with us since Hiroshima: how to bring the destructiveness of modern weapons into some moral or political relationship with the objectives that are being pursued. Any use of nuclear weapons is certain to involve a level of casualties and devastation out of proportion to foreseeable foreign policy objectives. Efforts to develop a more nuanced application have never succeeded, from the doctrine of a geographically limited nuclear war of the 1950s and 1960s to the mutual assured destruction theory of general nuclear war of the 1970s. In office, I recoiled before the options produced by the prevalent nuclear strategies, which raised the issue of the moral right to inflict a disaster of such magnitude on society and the world. Moreover, these prospects were generated by weapons for which there could not be any operational experience, so that calculations and limitations were largely theoretical. But I was also persuaded that if the U.S. government adopted such restraints, it would be turning over the world’s security to the most ruthless and perhaps genocidal. In the two-power world of the Cold War, the adversaries managed to avoid this dilemma. The nuclear arsenals on both sides grew in number and sophistication. Except for the Cuban missile crisis, when a Soviet combat division was initially authorized to use its nuclear weapons to defend itself, neither side approached their use, either against each other or in wars against non-nuclear third countries. They put in place step-by-step a series of safeguards to prevent accidents, misjudgments and unauthorized launches.

But the end of the Cold War produced a paradoxical result: the threat of nuclear war between the nuclear superpowers has essentially disappeared. But the spread of technology -- especially peaceful nuclear energy -- has multiplied the feasibility of acquiring a nuclear weapons capability by separating plutonium or from enriching the uranium produced by peaceful nuclear reactors. The sharpening of ideological dividing lines and the persistence of unresolved regional conflicts have magnified the incentives to acquire nuclear weapons, especially by rogue states or non-state actors. The calculations of mutual insecurity that produced restraint during the Cold War do not apply with anything like the same degree to the new entrants in the nuclear field and even less so to the non-state actors. Proliferation of nuclear weapons has become an overarching strategic problem for the contemporary period. Any further spread of nuclear weapons multiplies the possibilities of nuclear confrontation; it magnifies the danger of diversion, deliberate or unauthorized. Thus if proliferation of weapons of mass destruction continues into Iran and remains in North Korea in the face of all ongoing negotiations, the incentives for other countries to follow the same path could become overwhelming. And how will publics react if they suffer or even observe casualties in the tens of thousands in a nuclear attack? Will they not ask two questions: What could we have done to prevent this? What shall we do now so that it can never happen again? Considerations as these induced former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, former Secretary of State George Shultz and I -- two Democrats and two Republicans -- to publish recommendations for systematically reducing and eventually eliminating the danger from nuclear weapons. We have a record of strong commitment to national defense and security. We continue to affirm the importance of adequate deterrent forces, and we do not want our recommendations to diminish essentials for the defense of free peoples while a process of adaptation to new realities is going on. At the same time, we reaffirm the objective of a world without nuclear weapons that has been proclaimed by every American president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Such a world will prove increasingly remote unless the emerging nuclear weapons program in Iran and the existing one in North Korea are overcome. Both involve the near-certainty of further proliferation and of further incorporation of nuclear weapons into the strategies of nuclear weapons states. In the case of Iran, the permanent members of the Security Council have called for an end to the enrichment of materials produced by the program for peaceful uses of atomic energy. In the case of North Korea, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States have demanded the elimination of nuclear weapons. North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program but, by procrastinating in its implementation, threatens to create a legitimacy for the stockpile it has already achieved. I have long advocated negotiations with Iran on a broad front, including the geopolitical aspect. Too many treat this as a kind of psychological enterprise. In fact, it will be tested by concrete answers to four specific questions: (a) How close is Iran to a nuclear weapons capability? (b) At what pace is it moving? (c) What balance of rewards and penalties will move Iran to abandon it? (d) What do we do if, despite our best efforts, diplomacy fails? A critical issue in nonproliferation strategy will be the ability of the international community to place the fuel cycle for the material produced by the peaceful uses of nuclear energy under international control. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) capable of designing a system which places the enrichment and reprocessing under international control and in locations that do not threaten nuclear proliferation?


Arresting and then reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons places a special responsibility on the established nuclear powers. They share no more urgent common interest than preventing the emergence of more nuclear-armed states. The persistence of unresolved regional conflicts makes nuclear weapons a powerful lure in many parts of the world to intimidate neighbors and serve as a deterrent to the great powers who might otherwise intervene in a regional conflict. Established nuclear powers should strive to make a nuclear capability less enticing by devoting their diplomacy to diffuse unresolved conflicts that today make a nuclear arsenal so attractive.A new nuclear agenda requires coordinated efforts on several levels: first, the declaratory policy of the United States; second, the U.S.-Russian relationship; third, joint efforts with allies as well as other non-nuclear states relying on American deterrence; fourth, securing nuclear weapons and materials on a global basis; and, finally, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the doctrines and operational planning of nuclear weapons states.The Obama administration has already signaled that a global nuclear agenda will be a high priority in preparation for the Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty scheduled for the spring of 2010. A number of measures can be taken unilaterally or bilaterally with Russia to reduce the preemptive risk of certain alert measures and the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

-- Russian Relations: For over 30 years after the formation of the Western Alliance, the Russian threat was the motivating and unifying force in Western nuclear policy. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up, it is important to warn against the danger of basing policy on a self-fulfilling prophecy. Russia and the United States between them control around 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have it in their control to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in their bilateral relationship. They have already done so for 15 years on such issues as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The immediate need is to start negotiations to extend the START I agreement, the sole document for the verification and monitoring of established ceilings on strategic weapons, which expires at the end of 2009. That should be the occasion to explore significant reductions from the 1,700 to 2,000 permitted under the Moscow Treaty of 2002. A general review of the strategic relationship should examine ways to enhance security at nuclear facilities in Russia and the United States. A key issue has been missile defense -- especially with respect to defenses deployed against threats from proliferating countries. The dialogue on this subject should be resumed at the point at which it was left by President George W. Bush and then-President Vladimir Putin in April 2008. The Russian proposal for a joint missile defense toward the Middle East, including radar sites in southern Russia, has always seemed to me a creative political and strategic answer to a common problem.

-- Allies: The effort to develop a new nuclear agenda must involve our allies from its inception. U.S. and NATO policy are integrally linked. Key European allies are negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue. America deploys tactical nuclear weapons in several NATO countries, and NATO’s declaratory policy mirrors that of the United States. Britain and France -- key NATO allies -- have their own nuclear deterrent. A common adaptation to the emerging realities is needed, especially with respect to tactical nuclear weapons. Parallel discussions are needed with Japan, South Korea and Australia. Parallel consultations are imperative with China, India and Pakistan. It must be understood that the incentives for nuclear weapons on the subcontinent are more regional then those of the established nuclear powers and their threshold for using them considerably lower.The complexity of these issues explains why my colleagues and I have chosen an incremental, step-by-step approach. We are not able to describe the characteristics of the final goal: how to determine the size of all stockpiles, how to eliminate them or to verify the result. Affirming the desirability of the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, we have concentrated on the steps that are achievable and verifiable. My colleague, Sam Nunn, has described the effort as akin to climbing a mountain shrouded in clouds. We cannot describe its top or be certain that there may not be unforeseen and perhaps insurmountable obstacles on the way. But we are prepared to undertake the journey in the belief that the summit will never come into view unless we begin the ascent and deal with the proliferation issues immediately before us, including the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.

A closing word: A subject at first largely dominated by military experts has increasingly attracted the commitment of disarmament advocates. The dialogue between them has not always been as fruitful as it should be. Strategists are suspicious of negotiated attempts to limit the scope of weapons. Disarmament advocates occasionally seek to preempt the outcome of the debate by legislating restrictions that achieve their preferred result without reciprocity -- on the theory that anything that limits nuclear arsenals, even unilaterally, is desirable in and of itself.The two groups need to be brought together. So long as other countries build and improve their nuclear arsenals, deterrence of their use needs to be part of Western strategy. The efficiency of our weapons arsenals must be preserved. The program sketched here is not a program for unilateral disarmament. Both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, while endorsing this approach, also made it clear, in President Obama’s words, that the United States cannot implement it alone.

The danger posed by nuclear weapons is unprecedented. They should not be integrated into strategy as simply another more efficient explosive. We thus return to our original challenge. Our age has stolen the fire from the gods; can we confine it to peaceful purposes before it consumes us?

Speaker: Schäuble, Dr. Wolfgang Function: Federal Minister of the Interior, Berlin

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 SCHAUBLE

Although the term governance as it is used today has not been around for very long, it describes an old social reality and an old phenomenon: that policy decisions are made not by government bodies alone, but are always also influenced by non-state, civil society actors.The term governance expresses the fact that state structures, whose legitimacy and authority are governed by a constitution, are assisted in their decision-making by informal structures. What is new is our unfinished search for a global governance.(World Government)

[Globalization: Altered challenges]

In 1989, hardly anyone was talking about globalization. Europe and Germany were still divided by the Iron Cur­tain, although globalization, like governance, had already been around for a long time, of course. But the world and the perception threat have fundamentally changed since then.Borders between nation-states are growing less and less important, as is the distinction between internal and ex­ternal security. Policy-makers are forced to react appro­priately to the shrinking significance of borders as well as to their active removal.There is no longer a confrontation between the Eastern Bloc and the West, no more balance of terror. These have been replaced by countless asymmetries, the si­multaneity of the non-simultaneous (Ernst Bloch).Such asymmetries can shake the foundations of our world order, for example the global economic imbalances between the US, Europe and Asia that have contributed to the ongoing global financial and economic crisis. But in the field of security politics we also have asymmetric conflicts, failing states and ever more powerful non-state actors – such as international terrorism. We are therefore facing altered security challenges: or­ganized cross-border crime, global migration flows, cyber crime and cyber warfare against the information infra­structures of private companies or governments, just to mention a few of the threats.

The Internet and other media permeated national borders long ago. After all, globalization means first of all an in­crease in information, communication and mutual de­pendence.

[International terrorism as a phenomenon of global­ization]

One of the greatest challenges for security authorities around the world is international terrorism. In fact, the structure and activities of international terrorism depend on globalization, without which terrorism could not be so efficient or brutal.Terrorists take advantage of media networks with their global coverage and rapid response times to spread their inhuman messages made available on video or the Internet. The Internet serves as a communications platform, advertising medium, distance university and think-tank all rolled into one.The strategy of international terrorism is to undermine the legitimacy of government authority by demonstrating any government's impotence in the face of cruel attacks. For this demonstration to succeed, media are needed to transmit the message.At the same time, terrorist networks exploit regional or re­ligious conflicts for their own inhuman aims, as demon­strated most recently by the horrific attacks in Mumbai. Here too, those who planned and organized the attacks placed the media impact of terrorism at the top of their agenda.International terrorism needs globalization. To put it in the language of criminology: Globalization provides motives and promotes opportunities.

[Importance of international cooperation]

No nation can face these immense new challenges alone. This is why the entire global community depends on ef­fective cooperation today more than ever.We need close, trusting cooperation in bilateral partner­ships and supra-national organizations such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union.We still have plenty of options in this regard. I am con­vinced there is still room for improvement in key areas of intra-governmental and supra-national cooperation.Now that almost everyone agrees that unilateral meas­ures hardly yield satisfying results today, we must come to multilateral decisions within the framework of our exist­ing partnerships and alliances, and then carry out these decisions multilaterally as well - by military means, if ab­solutely necessary, or increasingly by using police.Up to now, the tendency has been for others to decide multilaterally what the United States is then supposed to do unilaterally. That can't be right.Anyone who thinks we have nothing to do with Afghani­stan and that everything would be fine if we just stayed within our own national borders does not understand how globalization works. Globalization means that no one is an island; instead, every country must do its utmost so that international terrorism does not reach it too one day.We Europeans must learn how to speak with one voice -preferably on the single telephone number for Europe that Henry Kissinger looked for in vain. And we must learn to see the European Union not as a rival to the United States, but as a stable pillar within the transatlantic alli­ance.We need the cooperation of NGOs, private companies, welfare organizations, churches and religious groups, citi­zens' initiatives, charitable foundations and aid organiza­tions. If we want to strive for the lofty ideal of global gov­ernance, we must work together with such non-state ac­tors in a mostly informal but cooperative and productive network.

[How realistic is global governance?]

Admittedly, global governance today is more a guiding star than political reality. And as attractive as the concept of global governance is, there are still some unanswered questions.These are above all questions of transparency, efficiency and democratic legitimacy. Even powerful, globally active NGOs play only an advocacy role and often have no mandate, not even from those they claim to represent.Global governance depends on a willingness to engage in dialogue, on the sincerity and trustworthiness of all actors. It requires a certain amount of consensus and rules which all participants agree to abide by. And we know that the reliability of international agreements and conventions can sometimes be a problem.Making it easier at least for state actors to take part in global governance would require urgent changes to inter­national law, which is still largely based on realities that have long ceased to exist. To give you one example: We must ask ourselves whether existing international law is still adequate to deal with the new threats posed by international terrorism. This is why I launched the Schwielowsee dialogue, named for a beautiful lake south-west of Berlin. In this dialogue, we are talking with our counterparts in the U.S. and key European partner states about possible new instruments of international law to counter the terrorist threat. This dia­logue also addresses issues of extra-territorial self-defence in counter-terrorism and preventive measures which are in full compliance with the international legal framework to protect human rights.By the way, I do not view global governance as a step to­wards a global state or a world government. Global coop­eration is the only way to master the new, asymmetric global challenges of the twenty-first century. No nation can manage these tasks on its own, nor can the entire in­ternational community do so without the help of non-state, civil society actors. We must work together to find appro­priate security policy responses to the realities of the twenty-first century.

Speaker: Miliband, David
Function: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, London

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 MILIBAND

There are two distinct debates about European security today.

The first is about security in its conventional sense. It is about concern for territorial integrity and protection of state sovereignty. In parts of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, countries remain suspicious of their neighbours; or nationalist tensions threaten internal cohesion. Such fears are real, and they reate a potent sense of insecurity. In Bosnia and Kosovo people are still struggling to escape ethnic divides and heal the scars of bloody conflict. The conflict in Georgia last summer showed how vulnerable individual states are when there is a breakdown in respect for basic principles like peaceful resolution of conflicts. The second debate is about new threats to our security; above all terrorism, but also the impact of the global economic downturn, climate change and energy security. Thanks to the post war recipe of collective defence and economic integration, much of Europe no longer has any reason to fear conventional conflict. Yet the paradox is that while our nations are more peaceful and prosperous than ever, our citizens still do not feel secure. Why? Because they know how the breakdown in law and order in Pakistan or Afghanistan can threaten their security - in London, Hamburg or Istanbul. They understand that without rapid action to secure a stable, global climate, untold damage could be done to our planet - and our way of life. They know that the threats we face are global - and that it is increasingly difficult for the individual nation state alone to provide the protection and security they seek. Europe's security architecture therefore needs to address both new global fears and our traditional concerns. And it needs to build on the systems and institutions that proved themselves over the last few decades - NATO, the EU, the OSCE, the UN and the Council of Europe - while reaching out to forge new relationships to underpin our stability and prosperity.

NATO provides a commitment to collective defence. The Article 5 Guarantee and the integrated military structures reassure each and every one of our Allies that their borders are inviolable. Backed by the political and military might of 26 democracies, including Canada and crucially the US, it is a commitment that builds confidence at home and allows us to focus on addressing new threats abroad. This is a significant change. The post-cold war reality demands a more expeditionary and more comprehensive approach; because we have learned from bitter experience how instability abroad can lead to insecurity at home. So NATO was right to act to reverse Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. At stake was not just the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, but the stability of central Europe. And NATO troops are now engaged in Afghanistan to deny Al Qaeda a base from which to launch attacks of the kind we saw on 9/11. This is a real test for NATO. We'll be talking about this in tomorrow's session when my colleague John Hutton will be speaking. Suffice to say here that it demands not just new capabilities and technologies, but troops trained for irregular or asymmetrical warfare. The sacrifice is enormous. But we should be in no doubt that if we leave before the Afghan authorities - especially the Afghan National Army that Coalition and NATO forces are training - are able to defend themselves, the Taleban will be back, and the country will once again become a haven for those who seek to do us harm. It is also of course a test for the EU. The EU began as a bargain over coal and steel to prevent another Franco-German war. Sixty years on it is the world's most successful experiment in pooling sovereignty and promoting intergovernmental cooperation. It has shown how collective action can enhance national and global security. It has charted a course for regional cooperation between small and medium sized states. It has become a model power - those who are near us, want to join us. And some of those who are far away, want to imitate us. And it is a test for the EU and NATO together. They are complementary, grappling with the same security challenges. As President Sarkozy says, NATO is an Alliance between Europeans as well as between Europe and the US. We need them to work together seamlessly.

But as the world changes, so must the EU. It must modernize and adapt. It must turn its attention to the wider range of insecurities. Take energy for example: if we want to secure our energy supplies, we need a properly functioning internal market, more interconnections between countries, more diverse sources, secure routes of supply and ambitious action to drive a global low-carbon revolution. The EU needs to stand for open markets at home and abroad. And if we are to address insecurity and instability beyond our borders, we need to use the accession process and partnership arrangements to encourage political and economic reform. But we must also develop the hard edge of our external action. Be it tackling piracy in the Gulf of Aden, building the Palestinian security services in the West Bank, or training police in Kosovo. The EU is showing how its instruments add real value to our security, provided that NATO and the EU work co-operatively to support each other's efforts. I have talked about institutions. But however much European security may today be defined by cooperation within Europe, our alliance with the US and our relationship with Russia remain at the heart of the European security debate. The West has spent the last twenty years seeking partnership with Russia. It has never sought to encircle, threaten or weaken it. Yet whatever our intentions, the perception in Moscow is different. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that Russia feels uncomfortable with the current European security arrangements. There is a clear deficit of trust that we must work together to overcome. So we welcome President Medvedev's call for a debate about the future of European Security. In taking this debate forward we should be pursuing our mutual interest in resolving and preventing conflict in Europe, tackling WMD proliferation, combating organised crime and addressing the threat from extremism. This enterprise can only be successful if we work to a shared understanding of what security means. Though we must also be clear; this does not undermine our commitment to leave the door to NATO membership open for those who desire it. Its starting point needs to be an acceptance of the fundamental principles of territorial integrity, democratic governance and international law, and recognition that, in the 21st century, breaking these principles will have serious consequences. It needs to embrace a wide definition of security: not just military security and state sovereignty, but economic, energy and climate security, human security and human rights. And it should take place across Europe's enduring security institutions - including the OSCE, EU and NATO - which have served us well and must not be undermined. Which brings me to the US and the Transatlantic relationship. European and North American interests - political, economic and military - are very closely aligned. We all believe that liberty, equality and justice are the foundations of peace and prosperity. And we know that when we act together, we have an unrivalled ability to shape the world around us. Yet ours is a relationship that has been strained b divisions over Iraq and more recently questions of burden-sharing, leading to talk of a two tier alliance.

This is the moment for us to renew the alliance. Because as global power becomes more diffuse we will need each other more. And because President Obama has signalled that he wants to intensify our partnership. As he said in Berlin In this century...America needs a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. If Europe wants to work with the new Administration, if it wants to re-energise multilateralism for the 21st century, it needs to show that we are not just a partner of historical choice but a partner of future choice too. We need to invest in the alliance, and not just support from the sidelines. That means practising what we preach. It means taking the difficult decisions not just the easy ones. And it means being willing and able to combine hard and soft power in a credible way. We welcome US willingness to talk to Iran. But if Iran doesn't respond we will need to be read to impose much tougher sanctions, even if that imposes costs on us here in Europe. In this instance, nuclear security must come above commercial interests. We also need to work much harder to generate military and civilian resources if we are to continue to be taken seriously as an international player. And we need to sweep away the obstacles to genuine NATO/EU partnership, in strategic dialogue, but also in practical co-operation. This includes developing a common approach which makes all of us, including Russia, feel more secure, rather than just talking about it. And we - and I include the UK here - need to show that we want to be not just bilateral partners of the US but also European partners. The backdrop to all discussions of European security in 2009 will inevitably be the economic downturn. This is strengthening two opposing political forces. The first is for countries to turn inwards. The second is multilateralism: people recognise that unless countries can work together we will be powerless to respond to the great challenges of our time. Europe has a central role to play in ensuring that the latter wins out over the former. We have spent sixty years fine tuning our own multilateral institutions. Both NATO and the EU are remarkable success stories. Now we need to turn outwards, renewing old alliances but also reaching out to new partners. Using our collective power and influence to forge a new era of global cooperation and shared interest. This is the best, indeed the only way to ensure that the peace and prosperity we have enjoyed over the last sixty years will continue for the next.

Speaker: Mahbubani, Prof. Kishore Function: Dean,
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 MAHBUBANI

THE need to reform global governance has never been greater. Paradoxically, at a time when the world urgently needs new thinking in global governance, old thinking dominates. The Economist's cover story on global governance in July brilliantly used the image of the Tower of Babel to capture the contradictions and confusion surrounding the global governance debate. Sadly, the essay itself was full of conventional wisdom to the effect that we only need to reform existing global governance institutions. Tinkering will not work. The world has changed fundamentally since 1945 and will change even more radically. We need new thinking, not new tinkering. To arrive at the new thinking, we need to focus on three tensions that have arisen in global governance.The first tension is between the desire to cling to sovereignty and the need to respond to globalisation. Globalisation has changed the world fundamentally. Most new challenges respect no borders. Neither terrorism nor epidemics, financial crises nor environmental challenges, respect borders. None can be solved by any country working alone. At a time when the global village needs to convene global village councils to address these issues, these very institutions are being weakened.

Sadly, the most powerful country in the world, the United States, is allergic to global governance. Strobe Talbott explains this allergy well: 'It is not surprising that talk of global governance should elicit more scepticism, suspicion and sometimes bilious opposition in the US than elsewhere. The more powerful a state is, the more likely its people are to regard the pooling of national authority as an unnatural act.' Paradoxically, the US has the most to gain from good global governance because the richest home in any village has the most to lose from global disorder and instability.The second tension in global governance is between the old and new rising powers. We are coming to the end of two centuries of Western domination of world history. All the new emerging powers are non- Western. Yet, the West continues to be over-represented in existing global institutions. The United Nations' founding fathers wisely created the veto to anchor the great powers in the UN. Sadly, they did not anticipate that the great powers of the day could become the great powers of yesterday. Britain and France could help by giving up their seats in favour of a common European seat. If they did, they would embarrass the Asian powers who are busy undermining one another's bids to gain key seats in global organisations.Similarly, the Group of Eight represents the great powers of yesterday. It maintains a charade of addressing global challenges. This charade is sustained by the Western media, which legitimises the G-8 as a global village council, though it represents only 13.5 per cent of the world's population. Persuading great powers to give up privileged positions will not be easy, unless a new social contract can be created that also serves their long-term interests. The rich Western powers stand to lose the most from global disorder. Hence, it should be in their interest to support a new principle that all new and old powers who want to occupy privileged positions in global organisations should take on responsibilities commensurate with their privileges. Hence, if genocide breaks out in Rwanda or if a financial crisis arises in Asia, all great powers must assume the responsibility to address these challenges.

This approach will also help to resolve the third tension between great power imperatives and the need to reflect the views and interests of the majority of the world's population in global governance. Great powers can no longer dominate global politics as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries. The majority of the world's population has gone from being an object of world history to becoming the subject. People want to take greater control of their destinies and not have their views or interests ignored.Hence, any reform of global governance should pay attention to both institutions that respond to great power interests (like the UN Security Council and G-8) and institutions that respond to the universal interests of humanity (like the UN General Assembly).It will not be easy to resolve these three tensions. If we are unable to do so, both rich and poor countries will become losers, and our global village might be destroyed. Therefore, there is an urgent and pressing need to discard old thinking on global governance and prepare new perspectives. Every villager understands the wisdom of this phrase: To protect our home, we must protect the village. Hence, we should say: To protect our country, we must protect the planet.

Speaker: Cuyaubé, Miguel Angel Moratinos
Function: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Madrid

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 MORATINOS

Good morning,

I would like to thank the organization of the Munich Conference on Security (Wehrkunde) for kindly inviting me to take part of this panel. My warmest greetings to all of you with us today in this session, entitled Managing instability: global challenges and the crisis of global governance.Very specially, let me greet and congratulate my fellow panel members: the Japanese Defence Minister, Yasukazu Hamada; the German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble; I also welcome Strobe Talbott, former member of the US Department of State and President of the Brookings Institution. Also with us are Kenneth Roth, the Director of Human Rights Watch; the political scientist, Joseph Nye; and Kishore Mahbubani, the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.I am very pleased to participate with all of you in this panel as part of the Conference on Security.

I believe that the subject proposed and the composition of this panel are highly significant and that we shall develop a very fruitful analysis. The challenges of governance in the 21st century require us to adopt diverse approaches and to make a variety of contributions and responses, both institutional and in many other areas and disciplines, some of which are represented on this panel (defence, national security, civil society, academics and research, and international politics).All these areas influence and contribute to shape the consensus that is needed to maintain a holistic, systematic and effective perspective within the International Community. Thus, we shall emerge strengthened from the present crises and we shall create and consolidate the new institutions that are needed for today’s world and for that of the future, and which will be applied within ever more complex international relations. This complexity, and the pressure of time that are imposed to us, exceed the bounds of the setting in which most of our international institutions were created after the Second World War.We are now entering a new era, at a turning point in history, and we bear a special political and historical responsibility, that of reshaping the global order. We must undertake a period of reforms, from a position of political consensus and with the inclusion of new actors, to promote confidence and to strengthen the values and principles on which the International Community relies on.In the analysis of international relations, many researchers and experts have made use of scientific theories to explain their complexity and to go beyond traditional analytical and descriptive approaches. The application of concepts such as complexity and uncertainty, with respect to the international system, is one of the great challenges currently facing those responsible for international policy making.Murray Gell-Mann, the great American physicist and Nobel prize winner, affirmed that all systems, including the international one, are complex adaptive systems which acquire information both about their surroundings and about the interaction between the system itself and those surroundings. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both the exact position and the exact velocity of a particle at the same time – and this principle could be applied to our world reality. We often find ourselves in a situation in which it is difficult to determine, at the same time, the reasons, the positions and the possible reactions of an international actor before an unexpected event, because if we attempt to identify and influence one of these variables, this very intervention may alter the others.

The French scientist, Théodore Monod, considered chance to be the key element in all research. The most determinant positive chance in the international arena is that of effective political agreement, which may produce a weakening of extremely negative viewpoints. The absence of creativity and positivism will only lead to the inadequate management of reality, never to its transformation.Nowadays, meeting new challenges is a more complex task than it used to be. We no longer see conventional wars, and conflicts are not resolved by treaties between the victors and the vanquished. We find that classical methods of coercion are no longer sufficient, and that actions require an approach that combines political, social, religious, humanitarian or environmental dimensions. The international system of the 21st century must implement appropriate mechanisms for dealing with unpredictability and uncertainty.In today’s international politics and diplomacy, we should be able to determine probable sequences of events and to prepare possible responses. We need to accurately identify diverse elemental particles (i.e. political, economic and environmental factors), determine their scope of action and combine these with positive, committed chance – that is, the political action taken by governing bodies.

This complex, uncertain outlook should not undermine our enthusiasm in searching for models for the creation of a system of global governance that is capable of addressing global challenges with creativity and effectiveness. Such challenges range from the fight against poverty to the use of nuclear weapons and the threat of climate change, and all of them are of vital importance to the future of mankind and the planet itself.Processes of globalization may have negative side effects, as shown by economic and financial crises and the persistence of hunger and poverty, they require vigorous responses and resolute commitments. The reshaping of the international order will be truly global and successful if all the actors take part in it. In this respect, we must be aware of political changes taking place, in the west and in the east, in the north and in the south; we must include many more technical considerations in the decision-making process; we must make use of social networks as tools for empowerment, and at the same time we must listen more closely to the young people of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to term this new phase, which opens up before us in 2009, a global constitutive moment. In Spain, we believe that it is necessary to look beyond the current difficulties to address this constitutive moment in a spirit of confidence and optimism for the future. This global constitutive moment is not limited to the consideration of individual issues, but refers to broad sectors of international relations. For this reason, in addition to economic governance, we must consider political and security-oriented governance and the management of new global challenges.In order to re-establish economic and financial governance, we must incorporate regulatory and control mechanisms. Civil society throughout the world is calling for pro-active intervention in globalization by the politicians, and this has been highlighted by political leaders in all five continents. In Spain, we have always recognized the creativity of free enterprise and of the market, but we have also maintained that the role of the State is essential to uphold the role of law and to defend fundamental values.This comprehensive approach has led us to become the eighth largest economy in the world, according to World Bank data. I believe that the G20 meeting held in Washington should set a precedent for advancing a process of far-reaching reforms of mechanisms for regulating the international economy, based on principles such as transparency, accountability, and the rule of law, as well as solidarity and respect for the environment. Spain is prepared to shoulder its responsibility in this process .We must also reinforce governance regarding political and security issues. The initial aim is to increase our own security, that of the nation States, but we are aware of the dependence of the latter on many different international scenarios. After centuries of bitter warfare, Europe and other areas in the world have enjoyed over 60 years of peace. So, in Europe we know that peace among peoples can be achieved – Kant’s “perpetual peace” - and we also know that it generates economic, social and cultural benefits, while at the same time leading us to disarmament. Unfortunately, large parts of Africa and the Middle East are still suffering the ravages of war, and here in Europe we must make all possible effort, with both local and external actors, to change this situation.

The Government of Spain has no doubt that the new United States Administration, under President Barack Obama, will make a fundamental contribution to world peace. But this is a collective task, in which Americans and Europeans must work side by side. And side by side, too, with Ibero-america and Africa in constructing an Atlantic axis of peace and progress – of a New West.In order for peace to prevail, the UN Security Council must play the central role specified for it in the UN Charter. Although there exist different positions regarding its reform, I am sure that the main criterion that will eventually be applied is the one set out in Article 23 of the Charter: the members of the Security Council must be elected with due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization. Greater contributions in this respect require greater participation within the Council.In these early years of the 21st century, we have still not managed to achieve the ambitions of disarmament that were born after the end of the Cold War. An effective policy of disarmament and non-proliferation (currently of vital importance, when there still remains the danger of terrorist groups gaining access to weapons of mass destruction) would constitute an effective instrument for security and for increasing trust. International terrorism will continue to be one of the fundamental threats in our time. In this case, too, the necessary response is that of greater unity and global governance. We can and must regain the spirit of international solidarity that flowered spontaneously after the attacks of September 11th, cooperating through multilateral frameworks and initiatives which, like the Global Convention against Terrorism, are aimed at addressing this phenomenon in all its complexity, placing above all other considerations that of strict respect for human rights and international laws.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
At present, the world is undergoing conflicts both old and new, although the paradigm continues to be that in the Middle East, because it contains elements from the past (peace, territories, sovereignty, etc.) together with new ones, such as terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and religious radicalization. Moreover, this conflict influences and determines to a considerable extent the development of international relations. The use of military means alone is not the way to reach a solution where a global approach is needed to encompass political and diplomatic action. This reality obliges us to reconstruct the dynamics of negotiation in order to banish violence forever from our world, which is bleeding of incomprehension and pain.A few weeks ago, at Sharm-el-Sheikh, we renewed our commitment to reach a negotiated solution to the conflict and to work for the reconstruction of Gaza. There have been over fifty years of suffering and desperation, fifty years of calling for a definitive solution, fifty years of the inability of the international community to achieve a peaceful, viable state of Palestine, to put an end to the violence and the terror against Israel, to reactivate the Madrid Process, which began 20 years ago, or to consolidate conversations between Syria and Israel. Our Arab and Israeli friends know that we shall always support them in their quest for peace and security in the region. The EU has an important role to play in this effort and I believe that NATO, together with other actors, could be called upon to play a role in resolving this conflict, which must not be allowed to remain at an impasse any longer.The European Union and NATO must work jointly to maintain peace and security. Both organizations are aware of the need to adapt their instruments to the global challenges they face in the 21st century. This fact underlies the importance we grant to the dimension of security and defence in the EU. And also the importance of our considerations regarding the possible updating of NATO's Strategic Concept. I believe the Strasbourg-Kehl Summit next April will provide a good opportunity for opening up the debate as to how the Alliance can adapt to the world of the 21st century.

This updating of the Strategic Concept must be based on the understanding that security should be broad-based, indivisible and cooperative. Such broad-based security must include the “global approach” that we are already seeking to apply in EU and NATO peacekeeping missions, with the necessary involvement of many and diverse actors. Such security must be indivisible, taking into account the legitimate security interests of all involved, and thus promote mutual trust. And such security must be cooperative, founded upon multilateral frameworks of dialogue and cooperation.Global governance would not be complete without including in the equation the creation of a fairer, more sustainable world order, one more committed to basic human rights. As well as the traditional threats and risks, there are other global menaces which are of more diffuse origin but affect us all. Extreme poverty not only affects human, regional and global security, provoking unstoppable migratory movements. It is also an affront to the dignity of those excluded, and shames the conscience of the developed world. In the interrelation between the challenges of hunger and poverty, and the global economic model and security, we must also consider the degradation of the environment and the effects of climate change, which, logically, are interwoven with the concept of human security.At this point, I believe it is time to speak also of cultural governance. President Obama’s speech reflected the multicultural nature of the United States, and the end of an era, raising hopes for the development of intercultural dialogue. The world is intercultural. In this respect, the United Nations Organization has taken a decisive step with the creation of a new pillar – the intercultural pillar, and an instrument, the Alliance of Civilizations, that is receiving more and more support every day.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Spain is responsive to the new framework of global governance and is fully involved in the resolution of global challenges, though its steadfast social and political commitment, arising from its geostrategic position in the world. We are located at a geographic and historical crossroads, between Europe, America, the Mediterranean and Africa. And we maintain a long-standing tradition of ties with Asian countries, a tradition that has been renewed in recent years. Spain seeks to become a global actor, committed to global governance.Spanish society has provided irrefutable evidence that it is generous and open to the world. The Government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has increased Spain’s official development assistance more than that of any other country, and has provided concrete evidence of its commitment to international peace; moreover, it has welcomed millions of migrants from all over the world, and has promoted interregional dialogue through initiatives such as the Alliance of Civilizations, and with our partners in Africa and the Americas. When this Security Conference meets again in 2010, Spain will, just a few weeks before, have begun its six-month Presidency of the European Union. I trust that when we do so the Lisbon Treaty will be fully implemented. Nevertheless, be that as it may, we shall demonstrate, once again, our commitment to building a Europe that is ever more closely integrated and prepared to work with the United States and other partners to achieve solutions to common challenges. Europe must trust more in the future in order to become a coherent global actor, with a model equipped to provide suitable responses to the challenges of global governance.For all these reasons, Spain stands willing to assume its responsibilities in global decision-making forums, and I can assure you that we are well aware of the compatibility between national interests and those of the international community. National policies based on isolationism and protectionism are ineffective in achieving global governance, being only a mirage reflecting mistrust and a distorted, obsolete image of the way ahead for the international community and for humankind.Thank you very much.

Speaker: Hamada, Yasukazu
Function: Defence Minister, Tokyo

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 HAMADA

Mr. Talbott,Distinguished panelists,Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honor to speak before such a distinguished audience as the first Minister of Defense of Japan to participate in this famed conference. I would like to take this opportunity to offer some remarks on the lessons learned from recent collective efforts against global challenges and key factors for enhanced international cooperation.With growing mutual dependence among nations, we come to face more and more acute global challenges, such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, and global warming. None of these challenges can be solved by any single nation alone. Consolidated efforts based upon international cooperation have become increasingly important in order to acquire strong legitimacy for responses against such challenges.Our collective efforts have indeed achieved a certain degree of success; however, considering the nature of addressing global challenges, it is imperative to take a more comprehensive response to secure global governance. Recent experiences suggest several key factors are needed for the success of such an endeavor:

First, to formulate and implement a concerted and comprehensive strategy;

Second, to consider an optimal combination of military and civil assets;

Third, to communicate well with the local community and strategically publicize our efforts in order to obtain wide support from the local population, our fellow citizens, and the international community.These are precisely in line with lessons learned from Japan’s involvement in Iraq. I believe three points contributed to the effective implementation of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance by the Ground Self-Defense Force. They include, first, respect for the local population and efforts to meet their needs, in collaboration with development assistance; second, winning respect from the local people through demonstration of strict discipline and professionalism; and third, close communication and cooperation with international partners.In addition, we cannot overlook the importance of credible military power. Self-reliance and mutual support are keywords in addressing common security challenges as well. Every country must make its best proactive efforts to deal with global challenges. At the same time, every country faces constraints in financial and human resources or from an institutional standpoint; thus the entire international community must be there to fill in the holes.In this regard, I am aware that Japan has the potential to contribute even further to international peace. We have therefore been improving the capacity of the Self-Defense Forces for international peace cooperation activities by establishing high-readiness units and new training systems. Furthermore, the Government of Japan is striving to build a national consensus for legislation necessary for our broader involvement in global security issues.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The international community has never before been in more need of the spirit of cooperation. Relations between Japan and the countries of Europe, as well as NATO, are becoming increasingly important as partners to tackle global challenges in such a spirit.We have already worked together in multinational operations in Iraq and the Indian Ocean. I also see another excellent upcoming opportunity for coordination in taking measures against acts of piracy.I would like to conclude my remarks by expressing my sincere desire for closer cooperation in the field of security between Japan and the countries of Europe, as well as with NATO.Thank you very much.

Speaker: Solana Madariaga, Dr. Javier Function: EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Brussels

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 SOLANA

I would like to start by thanking the Munich Security Conference, and the German government, for the invitation. The Wehrkunde has a special place on the international calendar. This is even more relevant this year. For we are also meeting at the start of a new US administration. A full team of top US leaders is with us today. There are many urgent problems that demand our attention. They are captured in the rather ambitious title of our session: NATO, Russia, Oil and Gas and the Middle East: the future of European security. That is rather a lot to cover in a short intervention. Let me first focus on the last element: European security as such.We tend to believe that security inside Europe is largely completed. Of course we know many threats remain. But we see them as coming from other parts of the world: the Middle East, Africa, South Asia. Or that they are really global in nature: climate change, non-proliferation or poverty. And it is fair to say that no other region in the world has anything that comes close to our security order: a sophisticated blend of rules and institutions. Its most important feature is its comprehensive character: co-operation in all the three baskets of hard security, economics and human rights. That was a vision that we have to retain; and that we have still to fully achieved.Moreover, it is quite clear that among the three pillars of the pan-European security order - US, Europe, Russia - one of them feels uncomfortable in it. For whatever the reasons. But President Medvedev's proposals are a clear signal in that respect. It is in all our interest to analyse why - and see what can be done.

Let me begin with the diagnosis:

Last year, we had a real war between two OSCE countries. The war in Georgia was a massive breach of a core principle we hold dear: the non-use of violence to settle conflicts. Other, not-so-frozen conflicts simmer and could erupt into violence.The EU and NATO still keep 20.000 people deployed in the Balkans. Security and stability in that part of our Continent are not yet self-sustaining.At the start of the year we saw, yet again, a major gas dispute between our most important supplier and our most important transit partner. To people across Europe trying to keep warm, this did not look like a purely commercial dispute. Several treaties and agreements, take the CFE Treaty or the Energy Charter, are not functioning as they should. The economic crisis is encouraging some to follow the dangerous way of protectionism. As if we had learnt nothing from history.Certainly, no new Cold War is in the making, but all this is taking place against a wider backdrop of distrust.There is a paradox in all this. Never before have so many people worked to promote overall European security. Countless meetings are held in every conceivable format: bi-lateral and multilateral, formal and informal, among governments and with those outside.

But while meet often, there is less trust among us.

And there is an apparent contradiction: in recent years, co-operation between the US, Europe and Russia on some of the most difficult global issues has been positive. Take Iran, the Middle East Peace Process or non-proliferation and terrorism. Of course I hope this continues. And that it will be expanded to the financial crisis and climate change. But closer to home, things have been more difficult. No wonder: many times it seems easier to be strategic partners than good neighbours.With Russia we share a continent and a history. But our respective memories are very different.

Take the 1990s. For us, these were years of liberation and integration. But for many Russians, these were years of decline. To try to understand mindset is not the same as condoning the actions that follow that logic. For us, the idea of Russia feeling threatened is absurd. But for Russia, apparently, that is the case. Russia should understand how small countries feel vulnerable beside a giant neighbour. And that in today's world it's not a good sign if you have difficult relations with many of your neighbours. All of us should ask whether it makes sense to still have people and resources geared towards planning for conflict scenarios among us, rather than towards addressing common threats together. Whether there is not more scope for disarmament. At a time of financial crisis, these questions are even more relevant.

Now, President Medvedev proposals. They are still to be precise further. But the underlying ideas deserve to be taken seriously. And engagement in a debate is in itself a road to build trust.

Some principles under-pinning European security are non-negotiable: that we do it with the US; that countries are free to choose their alliance; and that we reject notions such as spheres of privileged influence. Russia knows all this. Just as it knows that there are many elements we can work with: the primacy of international law. Calls for legally binding instruments and more transparency are good too. Not just in political and military terms, but also for energy and gas. The point here is not to offer a detailed set of parameters. But that we should engage in this discussion. And that we should have a positive agenda which is about more than let's preserve what we have.What we have has produced unparalleled results in terms of peace and security. It is immensely valuable - but not perfect. Our goal should be that all three pillars of European security feel comfortable with and attached to whatever order we have.The advent of a new US administration offers new opportunities.

Let me close with one final thought:

For all the talk of rising powers and Asian centuries, we should not forget the centrality of US, Europe and Russia as the leading players for global security. Those three agreeing is often a necessary, even if it's not a sufficient condition, to get things done around the world. That is another reason to secure our base. That means these three pillars working as much as possible together on security across our own Continent.

Speaker: Ivanov, Sergey B. Function: First Deputy Prime Minister, Russian Federation

Non-proliferation of WMD. The case for joint effort
02/06/2009 IVANOV

Mr.Chairman,Ladies and gentlemen,Excellencies,

May I, as one of Munich old-timers, wish every success to the Conference and specifically to Mr. Ischinger in his capacity of its new Chairman. The level of participation and the way we have started to-day show that Munich Conference on Security Policy remains an international forum of a very high standard.

Dear colleagues,

Russia has invariably favored strengthening the UN role in maintaining peace, international security and stability, working out strategies to counter modern challenges and threats affecting all states without exception. Our priority remains to ensure integrity, viability and effectiveness of the international legal basis, regulating the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. The major international agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CNDN), treaties on the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons presume the need for universalization and attaining through joint effort their unconditional implementation. We stress the fundamental importance to guarantee openness of the multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms to ensure participation, on equal footing, of the countries showing interest and capability to make a meaningful contribution to the process.

The START I treaty, which has played a historic role in nuclear missile disarmament, is due to expire on December the 5th , 2009. It is time we move further. In 2005, we invited the US to conclude a new arrangement to replace it. We believe that it should be legally binding and provide for further reductions and limitations both of strategic delivery vehicles (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) and their warheads.It is crucial to make a good use of the tested-by-time experience of START I treaty while drafting a new arrangement including, in particular, the ban to deploy strategic offensive arms outside national territories. However, our commitment to continue this process in a positive manner should not be translated as refusal from certain major approaches. First and foremost this concerns uploading capability problem. Our point of departure is that any deviation in this sense from basic principles of START Treaty leads to the emergence of uploading capability, which in fact provides means for quick acquiring decisive military superiority in the area of strategic offensive arms.We expect a constructive response of the new US Administration in this matter and generally to our proposals. This will allow to arrive in the foreseeable future at an arrangement which will mark a new substantial step forward along the road to missile and nuclear disarmament. Our principle attitude to the issues of anti-missile defense development remains very much the same. We are confident that the creation and deployment of missile defenses of various types affect directly regional and international security. If one does it unilaterally without due respect of the interests of strategic stability of other parties involved as, for instance, is in the case with fielding of the US missile defense European site, the situation cannot but result in increased tension.

The potential US missile defense European site is not just a dozen of anti-ballistic missiles and a radar. It is a part of the US strategic infrastructure aimed at deterring Russia’s nuclear missile potential. Of course, implementation of transparency and confidence-building measures proposed by Russia with regard to the US missile defense European site might certainly mitigate some of our concerns. However, such measures are not to be considered as an alternative to our response. The Sochi Declaration of the Russian and US Presidents clearly states that Russia is opposed to the deployment of the US missile defense European site. Now a few words about Treaty between the US and the USSR on the elimination of their intermediate range and shorter-range missiles [Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty] (INF).

Generally, the situation here looks, indeed, alarming. During 20 years after signing of the Soviet – American INF Treaty many countries (North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel) have acquired such delivery vehicles. And, by the way, all of them are situated near our borders. That is exactly the reason why the US and Russia have come forward with a joint initiative to ascribe INF multinational nature. As far as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned, our main priority remains to increase the efficiency of the NPT.The next NPT Review Conference will take place as soon as next year. It will become an important landmark in our joint efforts aimed at strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We hope that the year 2010 Conference will be marked with constructive and productive work. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is an important instrument for strengthening the international regime of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear arms limitation. Russia has ratified the CTBT in year 2000, and has been consistently promoting its early entry into force. Observance of the nuclear tests’ moratorium, however important it might be, is no substitute for legal obligations under the CTBT. We therefore urge all countries whose participation is vital for this Treaty’s entry into force to sign and/or ratify it as soon as possible.Monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is yet another important way of strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We view the Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement as an effective tool to enhance potential of the Agency in this respect.

We expect that all countries, which have not yet joined the Protocol, especially those involved in significant nuclear activities or possessing large stocks of nuclear material, will accede to it at the earliest possible stage.Nowadays, there is a growing interest in peaceful nuclear energy as a dependable means to ensure national energy security. In our view, international cooperation in what concerns the nuclear fuel cycle should be promoted aiming at providing a cost-effective and feasible alternative to creating all its elements on the national level. Russia has proposed multilateral cooperation in developing the global infrastructure of the nuclear energy sector and in establishing international centers to provide nuclear fuel cycle services. We have already contributed to the implementation of this initiative by setting up of the International Uranium Enrichment Center on the basis of the processing facilities in Angarsk. The project has already been joined by Kazakhstan, with Armenia and Ukraine finalizing entry formalities. One of the challenges both to the international non-proliferation regime and to the international security as a whole is the threat of nuclear terrorism. Consequently, we regard the Russian-American Global Initiative to Combat Acts of Nuclear Terrorism launched in 2006 by the Presidents of Russian Federation and the United States as a major contribution to the global security. The Initiative is already being implemented and is growing in scale. The number of states participating in the Initiative has reached 75. We consider it to be a good example of how we can cooperate in the modern world in addressing new challenges and threats. On the other hand, the long-lasting reluctance of NATO to bring the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) in line with the new realities and expansion of the Alliance - despite certain countries’ security interests, has forced Russia to suspend the Treaty.

At the same time, Russia has proposed a distinct program to restore viability of the European control regime over conventional armaments. Our proposal still applies. We are prepared to continue and intensify the dialogue. And if one believes that the existing control regimes are inadequate (which, indeed, seems to be the case), we should reinforce them. Russia is ready. Until now, our parters’ point of departure was that Russia could be persuaded to make concessions in exchange for the promise to consider its anxieties at a later stage. As President Medvedev has recently stated, national security cannot depend just on promises. In other words, our partners’ approach is based on a false assumption and does not leave many chances for this problem’s early solution. Meanwhile, time factor and some of NATO countries’ own decisions are working against CFE itself. Missile proliferation problem remains the source of our serious concern, which has only multiplied in the absence of control arrangements similar to those of WMD – namely related to WMD delivery vehicles. The situation with small- and medium range missiles’ proliferation – as I have already mentioned – is an obvious demonstration of the fact. Russia favours complex approach to addressing this problem. Our strategic objective is to have a global missile non-proliferation regime based on a legally binding agreement elaborated, in particular, along the lines of the Russian initiative to set up a global missile and missile technology non-proliferation control system. Under auspices of the UN Security Council, we cooperate in the implementation of the Council's resolutions 1540 and 1810 on non-proliferation. And finally, we participate in multilateral export control activities, including Wassenaar arrangements for control of conventional armaments and dual use goods and technologies, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). We are convinced that results of cooperation for the non-proliferation purposes could be better if Russia participated in the Australian Group.

Ladies and gentlemen,

No doubt, WMD non-proliferation regime should be strengthened through international cooperation and leaders here should be naturally USA and Russia. Moscow is ready to work closely with the new Obama Administration. Before I leave this podium may I take the opportunity and suggest that politicians improve their economic thinking in the situation of the global financial and economic crises when the world just cannot afford speeding up expenditure on arms race. And very finally: should we keep the trend when the market conditions improve? Thank you for your attention.

Speaker: Qureshi, Makhdoom Function: Minister of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/08/2009 QURESHI

Your Excellency, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of 45. Munich Security Conference, Excellencies, Distinguished participants, Ladies and Gentleman,It is a matter of great Privilege and honour for me to address the 45. Munich Security Conference, a premier forum for candid deliberations an global security issues.I am grateful for this opportunity to share Pakistan’s views on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan and its future. This ssues is of vital Importance for peace and stability in our region.I wish to thank Abassador Wolfgang Ischinger for this imely and important initiative.To us in Pakistan, Afghanistan holds a special significance. Peace and security of our two countries are interlinked. What afflicts one, invariably impacts the other.For the last three decades, Pakistan has suffered the gravest fallout of the conflict in Afghanistan- Our stakes in its peace and stability are therefore, high.Regrettably, our region, has for far too long, been a victim of history and circumstance. Over time, the troubles of Afghanistan have gone through different phases, morphing into one of the gravest and most serious challenges of our times: the challenge of extremism, militancy and terrorism.

But let’s be very clear. The genesis of the problem goes back to the decade-long foreign occupation of Afghanistan and the deliberate expoitation of religion by the free world to defeat a super power. The legacy of this strategy is now threatening the whole world. We are all equally responsible for it.Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, in 1989, should have been followed by a well thought-out and comprehensive plan, to rebuild the country, within a democratic, pluralistic framework.The international community should have assisted Afghanistan, in reconstructing its devastated physical, social and institutional infrastructure.

The international community should have provided opportunities for education and livelihood to the youth and the freedom fighters. A counrty-wide disarmament process should have been initiated. Instead, the hapless Afghans were all but abandoned.

Flushed with weapons, fired with ideology, and forgotten as the last vestige of a war just won, Afghanistan was left in a crippling security and socio-political vacuum.International neglect, widespread poverty, lack of governance and sustained internecine warfare provided further grounds to the insidious spread of extremism and extremist ideologies. The rise of the Taliban has to be seen in this context. Subsequently, the Taliban were hijacked by Al Quaeda thus creating a dangerous nexus. What followed is history.Pakistan, as a frontline State during the Afghan Jihad could not and did not remain immune to these trends and tragedies unfolding across its western border. The presence in our country of the largest human refugee population in contemporary times stands testimony to this reality.While this dangerous affliction was spreading, silently gnawing at the fabric of our societies, the world looked the other way.Sadly, it took more than 3.000 lives, and a barbaric atrocity of the scale of 9/11 to awaken the world to the gravity of the situation.

The world`s response was prompt and massive. Since then the international community, including NATO has maintained a firm commitment to peace, stability and development of Afghanistan. Pakistan has been an integral and leading partner of this global endeavour.Yet, seven years on, despite having made significant gains, the malady of extremism and terrorism continues to plague the region. It has roots in all countries of the region. The challenge confronting us today is big and complex.A confluence of latent and conflicting interests, invisible hands, covert policies, free flow of arms, money and drugs and misplaced priorities have added to the complexity of the situation. Popular perceptions of longstanding and festering disputes involving the Muslim populations, for example, in the Middle East, Iraq, Kashmir and more recently in Gaza, are further compounding factors. It is time for dispassionate stock-taking. We need to honestly ask ourselves some basic questions:

One: Seven years on whether militancy and terrorism has been reigned in or is in fact spreading. What is the popular perception about the military strategy of the coalition in Afghanistan? Two: What are the underlying causes and rallying points formenting extremism and terrorism? Are these beeing addressed in a meaningful and comprehensive manner? Three: Has international assistance brought about a significant improvement in the lifes of the affected people? Is the international community truly following a broad-based and comprehensive approach to deal with this scourge? After Afghanistan, perhaps no country has suffered more in human and material terms than Pakistan. We lost Benazir Bhuttoto to terrorists. Nearly 2,000 Pakistanis lost their lifes in more than 600 terror related incidents last year alone.Pakistan’s economy has suffered direct and indirect losses of more than $ 35 billion.

In October last year, the Parliament of Pakistan adopted a historic Resolution declaring the Pakistani nation’s unswerving commitment to stand against the threat of terrorism and to address its root causes. This Resolution provides a comprehensive framework for a multi-proged strategy to deal with this serious menace. It also sent a clear message that the territory of Pakistan will not be used for terrorist activities, while our sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.In line withe this resolution, we are pursuing a multiproged strategy with the support, cooperation and owership of local populations.Recent distractions at our eastern frontier notwithstanding, Pakistan is assiduously fulfilling its responsibilities along the western border.The down of democracy in Pakistan has heralded a new era of understanding and cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan. With Afghanistan, our democratic government has made a new and promising beginning. This has resulted in restoring trust and confidence and bringing about a fundamental and qualitative transformation in bilateral ties with Afghanistan in all spheres.We have joined hands to move towards our common vision of peace, prosperity and development for our people and the region. During President Asif Ali Zardari’s historic visit to Kabul last month, I had the pleasure of signing, together with Foreign Minister Spanta, a landmark Declaration on Future Directions of Bilateral Cooperation.The Declaration looks beyond the present phase of terrorism, and provides a clear and comprehensive framework to take forward Pakistan-Afghanistan partnership to higher levels, in the political, economic, security and social fields. It is also a manifestation of the aspirations and determination of our people for a better, peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.Creating an implementing projects such as Turkmenistan -Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Gas Pipeline project would create a stake for people living all along the route. A stake, where peace would pay clear dividends.The Jirgagai process, emanating from Kabul Peace Jirga, has been a great success in bringing the representative segments of the people of the two countries together. The Jirgagai meeting held in Islamabad in October last year, made important strides in achieving dual objective of promoting dialogue with the opposition and forging a common agenda for development and people-to-people exchanges. Since then two further meetings of Contact Group of Jirgagai have taken place, achieving positive results.

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are resolved to pursuing the Jirgagai process as a useful means for promoting dialogue and development.The Tripartite Military Commission mechanism has proven useful in enhancing coordination both at the strategic and tactical levels. However, we remain concerned about financing and arming of militants. Recent incursions in our territory by militants are a matter of serious concern. Pakistan wishes to see the tripartite mechanism further strengthened.More than 3 million Afghan refugees who are still in Pakistan pose an additional security risk, often providing nurseries and sanctuaries to militants.On the regional plane, Pakistan will be hosting the 3rd Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan (RECCA) on 1-2 April 2009. We are in close touch with Afghan authorities and our international partners to make this conference focused and result-oriented. This event, we hope, will prove to be a milestone in assisting Afghanistan in its developmental efforts and forging greater regional cooperation.

Critical situations demand critical appraisals. This is an opportune moment to readjust our strategy on the basis of lessons learnt. Our way forward must be grounded in strict adherence to principles enshrined in the UN Charter, observance of international law and respect for the free will and aspirations of sovereign States and their peoples.It is our considered view that the future course of action to deal with this growing problem should incorporate the following essential elements:One: The international community must adopt a regional approach in resolving this problem which is essentially regional in nature. Only those solutions enjoying the support of regional countries would be sustainable.Two: This complex problem requires a multi-faceted, comprehensive and balanced approach. Over emphasis on military dimension has not proved fruitul. For lasting success of any endeavour, the people must assume ownership.Three: In the battle for hearts and minds, the power of persuasion must be stronger than the effects of coercion. An inclusive process must include dialogue and reconciliation.Four: A generous focus on reconstruction, development and social welfare with participation of all stakeholders. To attain durable security, the dynamic and logic of development must trump the dynamic and logic of force. The campaign against extremism will not be won in the battlefield but in classrooms and the mind of the people.Five: Drug money is a major source of terror-funding. There is a need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. Farmers growing opium will have to be provided alternate opportunities.Six: There is need for better coordination of international efforts. All disconnects and fragmentations, including within the international coalition and NATO must be addressed.Seven: An extensive sensitization campaign should be launched with the support of local communities to neutralize the impact and influence of militant ideologies and to correct negative perceptions that fuel extremism. Eight: Any lasting and sustainable solution must respect local customs, traditions, values and religious beliefs.

We know that the difficulties are complex and daunting, and the road ahead winding, bumpy and long. Yet these obstacles are not insurmountable. Pakistan welcomes the international community’s unwavering resolve to remain meaningfully and effectively engaged to help root out the menace of extremism and terrorism.Pakistan is a principal partner in this global compaign. Pakistan is determined to tide the difficulties with the support of its friends and allies. We will continue to strengthen our partnership with the international community. It is well within our capacity to harness our resources to defeat the common enemy. Together we can achieve lasting peace and stability and craft a better tomorrow for our coming generations. I Thank You.

Speaker: Gruevski, Nicola
Function: Prime Minister, Skopje

Speech at the 45th Munich Security Conference
02/07/2009 GRUEVSKI

Distinguished Chairman, Distinguished panelists, Ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to be speaking today at the Munich Conference, surely the most important annual forum on security and foreign policy. Coming from the Republic of Macedonia - a country from the Western Balkans - I will try to give a specific contribution to our joint discussion, a view regarding the issues that are significant for the stability of my country and the region as a whole. I want to begin with a short discussion of where we have been, and the direction we must take in the future so that we - both individual states and institutions such as NATO and the E.U. can finally bring a permanent, lasting peace in what has been a volatile region of Europe. It is a tragic part of our past that the first and last wars of the 20th century both started in the Balkans. We now have an unprecedented opportunity to consolidate democratic gains that can usher in a new era of lasting peace, stable democracies and prosperity in an area that history, with the words of our Chairman today, had “otherwise reserved for instability, conflicts and great power rivalry.” We now have an opportunity to complete Europe, if all of us have the political will to take the final steps necessary for integrating the entirety of the Balkan region into Europe and Euro-Atlantic institutions. Thomas Mann, only one of the many great minds who lived in Munich, said that war is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace. The Macedonian people have never escaped from their problems. Rather, we have learned to face them. There is no doubt that the engagement of the international community in the country (through the key international factors, the first preventive mission in the UN history-UNPREDEP and OSCE) had a significant role in the prevention of spilling over of the wars from the rest of former Yugoslavia. The Republic of Macedonia has remained throughout this entire period, a stability factor in the region, playing a key role in the logistic and other kinds of support to the engagement of the international community in Kosovo during the 1999 crisis, which is today also present in the form of logistic support to the KFOR activities.

We have managed to overcome the 2001. If there were NATO small scale deployments as well as the first EU peacekeeping mission ever on our territory back then, there have been Macedonian military deployments in ISAF and ALTHEA since. Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means said President Ronald Reagan. Through the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement we devolved political power to local administrators and ensured that our national and local governments reflected our ethnic mix, developing a functional multiethnic democracy. The Republic of Macedonia passed and implemented strict anti-corruption laws and overhauled our military so that it could easily integrate itself into NATO’s infrastructure. Macedonians continue to seek membership in NATO and EU because it is a natural expression of our shared values, commitment to freedom and respect for individual rights and the rule of law. It is unfortunate that, despite meeting all NATO requirements and receiving recognition from NATO for our military, political, and social reforms, the Macedonian NATO invitation was placed on indefinite hold. The reason for leaving more than two million people outside NATO’s sphere of freedom, security and democracy? Our constitutional name. The assertion by Greece that the Republic of Macedonia threatens their national sovereignty is simply not true. We have changed our constitution and our national flag to meet their concerns and we remain committed to working with them on a compromise.
Undoubtedly it is correct to say that Europe thrives on its diversity said Chancellor Angela Merkel and concluded that the quality that enabled Europeans to make the most of diversity is tolerance. Europe's soul is tolerance. But is Europe’s diversity possible without freedom? How to explain to the Macedonian people that their entry in the European home, a home of diversity of identities, will cost them their freedom to express who they are? Will cost them their identity?

The real-world consequences of Greece’s objection to Republic of Macedonia run counter to strengthening regional security and stability and impede the effectiveness of NATO at a time when all our collective efforts need to be directed at confronting threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. A Macedonia in NATO will assist in the stabilization of Kosovo and make the alliance—including Greece—stronger and more secure.The security and stability of the Western Balkans clearly and undeniably lie in NATO and EU. As the Western Balkan region is coming out of the post-conflict stage on the way towards a sustainable development, the European and Euro-Atlantic integration is ever more considered a factor that connects the parties sharing a common goal. All countries in the region are, to a various extent, in a process of Euro-Atlantic integration. The clear Euro-Atlantic perspective of the countries from the region, the membership in NATO and EU, are an incentive for the stabilization and sustainable democratic development of these countries. There is a strong current against expansion of both NATO and the E.U. I ask that policymakers keep an open mind to greater membership and integration. Will it come with a cost? Is it difficult? Unquestionably, yes to both questions. However, what price can you place on peace, stability and an expansion of democratic values? On completing Europe? International attention to our region has faded as we focus on other areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. This is understandable. However, there is still unfinished business that once completed can serve to cement a permanent peace.

There are many challenges in the year ahead chief among them the implementation of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's six-point plan for EULEX deployment in Kosovo, With the words of President Barack Obama, if you are walking down the right path and you are willing to keep walking, eventually you will make progress. We in Macedonia will be working to build peace and continue with our economic and social reforms. I urge our friends gathered here for this conference to help press for renewed interest in the Balkans. Doing so will help Macedonia and our region take those final few steps towards greater integration into Europe and increased security in NATO.Thank you for your attention.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?