	ESTA & Visa Waiver Program American Citizen Services U.S. Visa Information Immigrant Visa Section Travel to the U.S. Study in the U.S. Press and Culture U.S. Embassy Programs American Reference Center Publications Doing Business with the U.S. GEI/SNAP Recruitment Services Foreign Agricultural Service America.gov Fulbright Commission Frequently Asked Questions
	Contact Us

THE U.S. AND E.U.: PROSPECTS FOR COOPERATION IN FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

Speech at the Annual Conference on the
Paneuropean Movement of Austria, Innsbruck

Deputy Chief of Mission, A. Daniel Weygandt

May 3, 2003

Introduction

It is a pleasure to be here this evening with the Paneuropa Bewegung to discuss European foreign and security policy. However, since I am not European, but American, I would like to try to stimulate discussion by outlining what I believe will be a major impetus in our rethinking of post cold war realities -- and that is the relatively new U.S. National Security Strategy. This Strategy will shape future defense and security cooperation with Europe by laying down parameters for international political, economic, and military engagement. It proceeds from the assumption that a strong alliance with Europe will continue -- one in which trade and development play as large a role as the military in assuring global stability. Here the challenge on both sides of the Atlantic is to think creatively and embrace linkages between trade, development, and security.

We are prepared to broaden the dialogue in the Doha Development Round, the United Nations, and NATO - to name a few multilateral channels -- but in order to do so we need a strong Europe that speaks with one voice in embracing a long-term vision of the world. We want to know the telephone number we can use to call Europe -- harkening back to the challenge posed by Henry Kissinger.

The New National Security Strategy

The National Security Strategy introduced by President George W. Bush in September 2002 signaled a new era in the way the U.S. approaches foreign and security policy. In his letter to Congress transmitting the strategy, President Bush wrote that, "In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children - male and female; own property, and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society - and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages."

I am sure these are also values the Pan-Europa movement can support.

With this in mind, the National Security Strategy calls on the U.S. to:

strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism;

work with others to defuse regional conflict; and

prevent our enemies from threatening our allies, our friends, and us, with weapons of mass destruction.

It calls for a new era of global economic growth through:

free markets and free trade;

expansion of the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy; and

development of agendas for cooperative action with other centers of global power.

The new strategy also maintains elements that are familiar to all of us as the cornerstone of U.S. security policy, namely containment and deterrence. However, as September 11 showed, containment and deterrence are not sufficient when it comes to dealing with terrorists and tyrants.

Nature of the Threat

September 11 made clear that the gravest threat to U.S. security comes from terrorists and failed states. The threat is no longer from the Soviet Union. The "Cold War" is over; former members of the Warsaw Pact are now in NATO, the EU is expanding. Our understanding of national security needed to catch up with the world as it is today. The fact is that today's security environment is more complex and unpredictable than ever.

We are threatened by terror networks and by tyrants who have or seek atomic, biological and chemical weapons. This is why we could not sit by and watch as Saddam Hussein developed and/or used weapons of mass destruction. The war in Iraq is also a clear signal to regimes that ignore international norms and covertly pursue WMD programs. The task of national defense was fundamentally altered by 9/11. As President Bush has noted, "enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us."

The Three Pillars

The chief goals of the new National Security Strategy are based on three pillars:

The U.S. will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.

The U.S. will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.

And, the U.S. will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe.

In some cases, preemptive action will be necessary to prevent untold suffering. Our desire is to see the development of free and open societies on every continent.

Preemption

The National Security Strategy advocates the preemptive use of military force against terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism that attempt to gain or use weapons of mass destruction. This concept of preemption, an action taken to check other action beforehand, is one element of the Strategy that has received a great deal of media attention. However, I'd like to point out that preemption is an element of national security which has long existed and which the U.S. has exercised in the past, for example President Kennedy's naval quarantine of Cuba in 1962 to force the removal of Soviet nuclear missiles.

As National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice has stated, preemption is an option to use when all hope of resolving a crisis in any other way has failed. It does not imply unilateralism. The U.S. demonstrated in Iraq that we would take action - when necessary - together with a coalition, and American public opinion clearly supports the "safety in numbers" approach. Our hope is that by working together with other responsible nations, the U.S. will not need to resort in the future to such action. Credible deterrence, however, requires solidarity -- especially transatlantic solidarity.

U.S. Military Strength

The U.S. position of power in today's world calls for the U.S. to seek to dissuade any potential adversary from pursuing a military build-up. At the same time, we seek to persuade our allies to close the capabilities gap and to increase their defense budgets so they can shoulder some of the burdens. It is this area specifically that Europe needs to address. Austria's defense budget's share of GDP, for example, is declining rather than increasing.

Let me point out that through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in the defense of others, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. At the same time we seek to increase our military strength, we must continue to increase diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts.

Multilateralism

In this complicated age, no nation can face the challenges of terrorism alone. Thus, multilateralism is not only what we seek -- it is the key. The Strategy emphasizes repeatedly the need for the U.S. to work together with others to meet our global priorities and meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Such challenges range from terrorism to sustainable development to infectious disease to crime.

The U.S. is committed to international cooperation because only by working together can we conquer the terrorist threat. This is not just a problem for the U.S. as the bombings in Bali and Kenya illustrated. People from seventy-eight countries died in the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.

Multilateral institutions are more important than ever. Although the UN failed in its efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis diplomatically, it certainly plays an important role in Iraq's reconstruction. NATO, too, remains an important symbol of transatlantic security and defense cooperation. At the Prague summit, NATO invited seven European nations to join as new members, reaffirmed its commitment to developing updated military capabilities and emphasized its new and deepening relationships with Russia, Central Asia, and other regions beyond Europe.

Free Markets and Free Trade

The U.S. recognizes that when nations are suffering economically, radical solutions and terrorism exert greater appeal. Therefore, our goal is not simply to improve the U.S. economy, but to strengthen the world economy. A return to strong economic growth in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia is vital to U.S. national security interests. European efforts to remove structural barriers in their economies are particularly important in this regard. Europe is the natural trading partner for many developing countries. The U.S. has taken bold steps with our Latin American partners - especially Mexico - to expand trade. We hope this process of opening markets will continue.

Spreading Democracy

The last "pillar" of the National Security Strategy is the U.S. desire to extend peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe. It is time to change the way we provide development aid to countries in need. That is the heart of the U.S. new USD five billion Millennium Challenge Account. The old method of providing money without demanding reform does not work. We know that sustained growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies.

We are seeking to improve the effectiveness of the World Bank and other development banks in raising living standards. We are increasing the amount of development assistance that is provided in the form of grants instead of loans. And, we are seeking to open societies to commerce and investment, encouraging progress in public health, emphasize education, and continuing to aid agricultural development.

Conclusion

The war in Iraq exposed splits within the EU and tensions within the Transatlantic Partnership regarding security and defense policy. This does not mean that the transatlantic relationship is damaged beyond repair -- it is not -- or that we cannot or should not cooperate in the future. On the contrary, the U.S. intends to move forward with its European allies to cooperate on security and defense policy as we have done for over fifty years. Of course, it takes both sides' willingness to cooperate to have effective partnership. Europeans should pay attention to what the American public is saying - not just the headlines - if we are to rebuild our relationships.

With NATO and EU expansion, opportunities for U.S.-European cooperation on security and defense are greater than ever before. Still, there is no doubt that serious challenges lie ahead for Europeans seeking a common defense and foreign policy. I look forward to hearing my colleague's views on the likelihood of Europe's achieving that objective and how it affects the Transatlantic Partnership.

Privacy Notice and Disclaimer

e-mail: embassy@usembassy.at