[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2176-S2178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SENATOR LIEBERMAN'S REMARKS TO NATO ALLIES

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last weekend in Munich, our colleague, 
Senator Lieberman, gave a remarkable speech to the annual Wehrkunde 
Security Conference. Alliances have contributed to America's strength 
since the end of World War II, and Senator Lieberman, like many of us, 
has watched with concern as those alliances have weakened over the last 
2 years. He makes a compelling case on why those alliances remain vital 
to our security and why it is important that the administration 
redouble its efforts to strengthen those alliances.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of his speech be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   ``Halting the Continental Drift and Revitalizing the U.S.-Europe 
                             Relationship''

             (By U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman; Feb. 8, 2003)


       Remarks to Wehrkunde Conference (as prepared for delivery)

       We come together in trying times with an urgent 
     responsibility: to fortify our transatlantic alliance, which 
     has vanquished many foes, spawned many democracies, and 
     promoted many freedoms--but is now struggling to find a 
     common voice in the face of many dangers.
       The growing reach of NATO and its principles belies a 
     disheartening truth. In a world facing new and evolving 
     threats--terrorists, rogue regimes, and Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction--NATO is split, and risks not only becoming the 
     shell some predicted it would be after the fall of the Berlin 
     Wall... but a dangerous stumbling block to a safer world.
       The big question before us today is not who will join NATO 
     or whether NATO will field a rapid response force, but 
     instead, can our alliance survive a world in which our 
     enemies are less defined, the dangers are more dispersed, and 
     the road to victory is much less clear?
       We who are privileged to be leaders of NATO countries must 
     make sure that the answer to that question is yes. The world 
     of the 21st Century and each of our nations will be much 
     safer if our alliance becomes not just larger but stronger, 
     united around shared principles and the need for a common 
     defense to the uncommon new threats that now face us all.
       This process might best begin with some family therapy, 
     since we have been acting too often in recent years like a 
     dysfunctional family.
       Let me begin with our side of the family. Since NATO'S 
     inception, the strength of our alliance has always depended 
     on American power. But America's power to lead has always 
     depended on America's ability to listen. During the last two 
     years, the American administration has turned a deaf ear to 
     Europe. Some in America have sent the message that they see 
     NATO and its member countries as a rubber stamp for the 
     crisis that matters most to the United States at the moment, 
     instead of a multilateral alliance of nations who listen to 
     each other's concerns.
       But I assure you that most Americans understand that 
     America is not an island; it is part of an interconnected 
     world. No matter how mighty a country's army or how large its 
     treasury, vigorous and resilient alliances built on mutual 
     respect are essential to securing the peace and making the 
     world a safer place.
       At the same time, we Americans are upset that so many 
     Europeans seem so much less anxious about the new threats of 
     terrorism, rogue nations, and weapons of mass destruction 
     than we are. We accept the fact that for more than 50 years, 
     U.S. leadership of NATO and our unique role in the world has 
     meant that our security responsibilities have been more 
     global than Europe's. While we worry about missiles in North 
     Korea or conflict in the Taiwan Straits, Europe has mostly 
     been able to focus on securing its own borders. But if 
     September 11th has taught us anything, it's that none of us 
     can retreat behind borders--because terror recognizes no 
     borders. In today's world, enemies of freedom anywhere are a 
     threat to safety everywhere.
       I understand why the heavy hand from Washington has lately 
     been seen less as a source of protection and more as a cause 
     of resentment. But I'm here today to argue for your 
     enlightened self-interest. Robert Kagan rightly asks: why 
     should free people--citizens of our closest European allies--
     seem more worried about America than about terrorism--more 
     anxious about Bush than about bin Laden?
       We must urgently and honestly confront and resolve the 
     differences that now divide us. If we fail to, the current 
     continental drift will become a permanent rift, and we will 
     all risk losing much more than family harmony. We will 
     endanger our common security and future prosperity. And the 
     world will lose its most reliable force for freedom and 
     stability.


                     the anatomy of our disharmony

       We NATO allies still share three basic bonds, as we have 
     since the beginning: common values and aspirations, common 
     enemies who threaten those values, and common fates should we 
     fail to work together. That those bonds are being weakened is 
     an urgent threat that we must confront and resolve without 
     delay.


                            The World We See

       The first wedge between us is in the way we see the world 
     and its newest problems. Prime Minister Blair put it well 
     when he said recently: ``The problem people have

[[Page S2177]]

     with the U.S.--not the rabid anti-Americans but the average 
     middle ground--is not that, for example, they oppose them on 
     WMD or international terrorism. People listen to the U.S. on 
     these issues and may well agree with them; but they want the 
     U.S. to listen back.'' As an American, I believe we haven't 
     and we must--and many of my fellow Americans agree.
       Consider global warming. America is the single biggest 
     global contributor to the problem. Americans know it, and in 
     strong majorities consider global warming to be a serious 
     problem. Yet the Bush Administration turns a deaf ear to 
     American opinion and European pleas to do something about it.
       It is also clear that the Bush Administration's precipitous 
     withdrawal from the long-term efforts to build an 
     International Criminal Court and strengthen the Nuclear Test 
     Ban Treaty. Again, in large numbers the American people 
     support joining the court and improving the Test Ban Treaty. 
     Even with imperfect world agreements such as these, removing 
     our nation and our priorities from the global conversation 
     creates an unnecessary breach with our allies.
       If some in America have viewed the world with blinders on--
     blocking out all concerns except our own--some in Europe seem 
     to us unable to see threats that stare you and us right in 
     the face.
       For example, when we speak of the terrorists as evil--and 
     of Saddam Hussein as a dangerous tyrant and torturer who has 
     viciously murdered his own people, we are puzzled why many 
     Europeans recoil at those descriptions--which, to us, are 
     thoroughly justified by the facts.
       Terrorism is not just America's problem. We know full fell 
     that Europe has known more than its share of terror, so we 
     don't presume to preach. But Al Qaida and its ilk consider 
     all of our people as their enemies and targets--because all 
     our nations represent the values and the way of life they 
     hate. They also seek to inflict pain upon moderate Muslim 
     regimes. The fact that citizens from more than 70 countries--
     including many Muslims--died in the attacks on the World 
     Trade Center is more than a symbolic reality. If we cannot 
     cement our alliance in our own minds, let the hatred of our 
     terrorist foes for all of us do it for us.


                              what we say

       Second, the differences between us have been exacerbated by 
     the words we use to describe each other. Along the way, 
     honest policy differences and critiques have given way to 
     caricature and hyperbole.
       We in America should work for a strong and united Europe, 
     not divide it with our words. There is no ``old Europe'' 
     separate from a ``new Europe.'' A Europe divided was the 
     incubator for mankind's bloodiest century. A Europe united 
     provides the best hope for a more peaceful and secure future, 
     for you and us.
       And when Europeans caricature America and its leaders as 
     naive or ignorant ``cowboys,'' it offends Americans--even 
     some of us who hail from a place far from cowboy country 
     called New England. The point is: we should challenge each 
     other's policies, not personalities, and question each 
     other's decisions, not motives.
       Europe and America have often had our differences. Just 
     think about these news headlines about U.S.-European 
     disputes: ``Allies Complain of Washington's Heavy Hand,'' 
     ``France to NATO: Non, Merci,'' ``U.S. Declares Economic 
     Warfare on Allies,'' and ``Protesters Rally Against American 
     Arms Plan.'' As former President Clinton once reminded us, 
     the first of these headlines is from the Suez crisis in 1956. 
     The second is from 1966, when France left NATO's military 
     command. The third is from 1981, during the Siberian Pipeline 
     Crisis. The Fourth is from 1986 during the debate about 
     deploying intermediate nuclear missiles in Europe.
       Like any good dysfunctional family, we've hurled invectives 
     and insults across the Atlantic intermittently for more than 
     50 years. But the difference is, leaders on both sides have 
     always in the past worked to douse the rhetorical flames, not 
     fan them. It's time we return to that shared compact. Now, 
     more than ever, words have consequences.


                         how and when we fight

       The last and most serious area of contention is when, why, 
     and how we commit our military might to protect our people 
     and principles.
       We Americans must recognize that no matter how strong our 
     military or our economy, we still need help. Defeating the 
     dangers arrayed against us requires more than the forced 
     compliance of our European allies; it requires a genuine 
     partnership.
       Regrettably, over the past two years, the Bush 
     Administration has too often kept our European friends at 
     bay. NATO's invocation of Article 5, declaring the September 
     11th attacks an attack on us all, was a powerful and moving 
     act of solidarity and sacrifice. But the Bush Administration 
     failed to grasp NATO's outstretched hand in Afghanistan, and 
     that was a mistake. When we made the war our own, the 
     subsequent peace became far too much our own as well.
       The Administration's declaration of its policy of military 
     preemption has also understandably and unnecessarily raised 
     anxieties in Europe and throughout the world. It made no 
     sense to publicly announce this doctrine without offering our 
     friends and foes alike clarification as to how and when the 
     policy might be exercised. The fact is, the United States, 
     like most countries in the world, has always reserved the 
     right to use force to prevent an attack against its people. 
     But some policies are best left undeclared, to be announced 
     only when it is necessary to implement them. In the case of 
     pre-emptive military action, that ought to be rarely.
       But it takes two hands to tear a seam. And the fact is, the 
     hand of the Bush Administration has been assisted by the hand 
     of many in Europe in tearing the seam that has united us for 
     more than a half century now.
       Rather than coming together with one voice to enforce 
     United Nations Resolutions all have supported to disarm 
     Saddam Hussein, we hear many reflexive notes of discord from 
     Europe. Rather than consent to the use of force when all 
     other options have been exhausted, important parts of Europe 
     have pulled back from our shared responsibility to put 
     military muscle behind our policies to protect our security.
       And the transatlantic gulf between military capabilities 
     doesn't help us overcome this rift. We all know that Europe 
     has grown too dependent on American strength, and that that 
     dependency undermines our partnership. I understand that 
     Europe is focused today on the remarkable challenges of 
     finishing the peaceful integration of Europe, new membership 
     in the E.U., the Euro, and a constitutional convention.
       But as John Lennon once said, ``life is what happens to us 
     while we're making other plans.'' Global terrorists are not 
     waiting for our European allies to complete their domestic 
     work before planning their next attacks--and it's not enough 
     for Europe to rely upon the military might of America to 
     ensure its own safety. It's time for Europe to take more of 
     its own responsibility. The new NATO rapid response force, 
     authorized at last year's Prague summit, is a start in a 
     better direction. But it is only a first step. A deeper 
     commitment and more money must follow.
       As I said a few moments ago, we have heard the European 
     complaints that NATO has been ignored by the United States. 
     But now President Bush has come to NATO and asked for the 
     alliance to help in disarming Iraq. While we are very 
     grateful that most member nations have responded positively, 
     two of our closest and most important allies, France and 
     Germany, have resisted NATO requests and taskings. That 
     hurts. The NATO alliance itself made possible the historic 
     reconciliation between Germany and France. I would hope the 
     shared principles that led to that reconciliation would be 
     remembered now.
       In the interest of our security and our unity, I want to 
     urgently appeal to all NATO nations to rise to help the U.N. 
     and the U.S. meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. 
     Thousands of years ago, Sophocles told the Greeks, ``What you 
     cannot enforce, do not command.'' The contemporary corollary 
     of that axiom is: what the world through the United Nations 
     commands, it must enforce--or the judgments of the U.N. will 
     lose their force, and the world that we and you live in will 
     grow much less secure.
       Our friend Joe Joffe, editor of De Zeit, has said with 
     characteristic insight and edge: ``We are now living through 
     the most critical watershed of the postwar period, with 
     enormous moral and strategic issues at stake, and the only 
     answer many Europeans offer is to constrain and contain 
     American power. So by default they end up on the side of 
     Saddam, in an intellectually corrupt position.''
       I respectfully suggest that the nations of Europe define 
     their positions on Iraq independently and affirmatively--not 
     in reaction to America or its President. As you know, I am a 
     Democrat. In fact, I'm a Democrat seeking to replace George 
     Bush in the Oval Office. But he and I agree on the danger 
     posed by Saddam and the need to do something soon to 
     eliminate that danger to us, to you, and most immediately to 
     his neighbors in the Arab world--as do most other Democrats, 
     Republicans, and Independents in the U.S.
       In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the U.N. 
     inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and 
     introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became 
     law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official U.S. policy. 
     You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, 
     President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.
       The facts here are stark and even more clear after 
     Secretary Powell's chilling and convincing testimony at the 
     U.N. on Wednesday. For twelve long years, Saddam has flaunted 
     every attempt to get him to keep his promise to disarm and 
     instead has continued building weapons of mass destruction. 
     If we shrink from challenging his defiance, we will not 
     only leave a ticking time bomb ticking, we will have 
     undermined the remaining credibility of the United 
     Nations, and further diminished the power of NATO to 
     protect the peace of the world.


                               Conclusion

       The battles against tyranny, terrorism, and weapons of mass 
     destruction, and for freedom, opportunity, and security, are 
     the great causes of our time, and the greatest alliance of 
     all time must lead the way in winning those battles.
       More than forty years ago, on the Fourth of July, 1962, 
     President Kennedy spoke at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. 
     His words echoed the covenant of our American Constitution, 
     and should guide us now in our Transatlantic relations. 
     ``Acting on our own, by ourselves, we cannot establish 
     justice throughout the world; we cannot insure its domestic 
     tranquility, or provide for its common defense, or promote 
     its general welfare,

[[Page S2178]]

     or secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
     posterity. But joined with other free nations, we can do all 
     this and more.''
       Americans and Europeans are proud people--and justifiably 
     so. We both want to control our own destinies. We both want 
     to shape our own futures. But neither one of us can let pride 
     or politics block the unity by which we will all achieve 
     greater security, freedom, and prosperity. Our values are 
     shared. Our fates are interlocking. We will rise or fall 
     together.
       And when we rise, the terrorists and tyrants will fall. 
     America still needs Europe, and Europe still needs America, 
     and it is time that all the leaders on both sides of the 
     Atlantic started acting in a way that says we understand that 
     overarching truth.
       Thank you.

                          ____________________