[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.
____________________