Keynote speech by Karsten D. Voigt, Coordinator of German ñ American Cooperation at the Federal Foreign Office at the "Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung", Annual Conference, February 12, 2004
The year 2003 was a turbulent one for transatlantic relations. The advent of the fourth German membership in the UN Security Council coincided with a period of great differences of opinion between Germany and the US. The difference of opinion on the invasion of Iraq was so great, with the stakes so high on either side, that the rhetoric quickly became much sharper than usual. Talk of the irrelevance of "old Europe" countered the outcry that the US was acting unilaterally and in conflict with the UN Security Council and international law. On the other hand, however greatly the motivations behind the war in Iraq have been disputed and perhaps even discredited, the danger of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-democratic states provides one convincing point of agreement between the US and Germany. Today, in the first flush of the new year and with some distance from the debates of a year ago, I would like to take this opportunity to enumerate the issues surrounding WMD proliferation and to share with you my vision for cooperation on non-proliferation and in general on the future of transatlantic relations.
Let us take a look at the current challenges which we face on both sides of the Atlantic. We are living in a time of new and more dangerous forms of international terrorism, and not only since September 11th, 2001. Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-democratic regimes such as North Korea and Syria could represent or represent today already a clear danger to international security. At the same time crumbling governments and failed states, when coupled with the willingness of non-state actors to use large-scale violence, create a threat even less predictable. This threat makes it clear that the international community must be prepared to strengthen those existing legal concepts and instruments which remain useful, and to dispose of those structures which no longer work.
The visions for the campaign against weapons of mass destruction are somewhat different in the US and in Germany. This is not surprising, for though the US was instrumental in building up the government and legal structures which exist in Germany today, the backgrounds of each country contribute to very different viewpoints on international law. During the crisis over Iraq, the US government did not take into account the extremely high value placed on international law in Germany, which is the logical result of our experiences in and after World War II. Multilateralism is a necessity for Germany not only because of our history but also because of our geostrategic position and role within Europe. This is quite different from the position of the US, for which multilateralism is an important, I hope a preferred, method, but is by no means the only approach available. This tension is not new, but was newly accentuated during the Iraq crisis.
Also on the German side, however, a lack of consideration influenced relations for too long. The degree to which the events of Sept. 11th affected the national consciousness of the US was underrated. The United States' feeling of security which had reigned, despite the attack on Pearl Harbor, for over 100 years, was shaken to its foundations. Through this experience an old worldview gained new ground, a worldview which says that a nation can only increase its security through increasing its "hard power." The degree to which the US is therefore willing to use military means to this end was long underestimated in Germany.
The danger of weapons of mass destruction presents the transatlantic community with new challenges, and we in Germany and Europe have been very active in meeting them. Very soon after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, Germany actively contributed to the review of arms control policy of the EU in light of terrorist threats. On December 10th of that year, the Foreign Ministers of the EU adopted a targeted initiative to strengthen instruments for non-proliferation, tighten export controls, cooperate on disarmament and enhance political dialogues with third countries. Just last December, the EU Heads of State and Government adopted a comprehensive European Strategy against the spread of WMD. These committments are guided by the conviction that pursuing effective non-proliferation policy should be forceful and inclusive.
Germany has always stressed the role of the UN Security Council as the final arbiter of the consequences of non-compliance, and we feel this role needs to be strengthened. We need further development, not an end, to arms control policies. New initiatives, and here I mean the PSI, are also needed. This is one of several points in which I think that the new proposals and initiatives announced in President Bush's speech yesterday represent the right tendency and should be welcomed. Most important is that any breaches of international non-proliferation standards be discovered quickly, so as to be more easily combatable, and this is one the goals of the PSI. At the same time, the motivation for states to seek nuclear power must also be addressed. If all other possibilities are exhausted, we must not rule out sanctions or the use of forceóas long as it is implemented in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations. This would be also in keeping with our German view of the law.
The post-war period did, however, convince us in Germany that the use of non-military methods of persuasion are sometimes more effective than military intervention. In Europe we have learned that a whole contintent can be affected for the good when countries work together without the use of force. This European example is not, of course, appropriate for all regions, and we are conscious of the fact that even within Europe, i.e. in the Balkans, that we were forced to resort to military action. However, our positive experiences with non-military methods of persuasion do influence our strategy and goals. They also influence our expectations of the United States. And there certainly are supporters of non-military approaches in the US. Colin Powell recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that "The possession of vast territory, raw physical resources, and brute power guarantees neither prosperity nor peace. Investment in human capitol, social trust, trade, and cooperation within and among nations does."
Joseph Nye shares this view. He has also stated that the military power of the US alone does not account for its great stature on the world stage. In the past the US has always wielded a "soft power" of attraction to emigrants, workers and citizens; Nye says, based on the societal and financial liberties it offered. "Soft power" should not be disregarded as a source of influence. In light of the past year's events Nye warns that the US may stand to lose much of this standing through the over-emphasis of military might. This would lead to an overall loss of power, which is much more than just military strength. The US and also Europe stand a better chance by making use of "soft power" of persuading international actors to avoid building up hard power through weapons of mass destruction.
Even in the middle of this turbulent past year, and despite the differing view points on some methods, the EU and US have made a joint statement which reflects a common perception of the threat of weapons of mass destruction . It also reflects coinciding views on how to deal with this threat. The EU emphasizes unequivocally the committment to cooperate with the US and other partners who share our non-proliferation objectives. There does indeed exist a good basis for cooperation on this issue.
In closing, I would like to present you my vision for a new transatlantic partnership, using the fight against WMD as an example. It is obvious that this partnership will remain important. Firstly, Americans and Europeans are dependent on one another. Second, we share the same values of a democratic, open society ruled by law, and believe in these much more strongly than is the case in other regions of the world. Good transatlantic relations are just as important for Germany today as in the past, and are even more so for Europe as a whole. The problem of WMD proliferation, indeed one of the great problems of the world, could not be better addressed if the US and Europe worked against, rather than with, each other. I see the President's speech yesterday as an offer to engage the world in general, and the european allies especially, in a strategic dialogue on these important issues. If the US and Europe work against each other it would pose a grave danger to security and democracy in many parts of the world. However, we can accomplish almost anything if we work together.
The West is therefore by no means coming to an end. Au contraire! There is too much for us to do! Let us then raise our glasses to the future of a vital and effective transatlantic partnership!