| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Speech by Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Mr Teltschik, Ladies and gentlemen, I think all of us here today and indeed further afield are aware that, while our world is threatened in many ways, at the same time it holds many opportunities. This is why, Mr Teltschik, this conference entitled "Global Crises – Global Responsibility" is perhaps more important than ever. Our world is threatened and, yes, it offers many chances. We must recognize both these facts equally and accept them. To do this we must first understand what these threats are in our world today and how appropriate and acceptable answers might look. We must answer this question – Isn't it the case that in times of crisis nations and peoples have always closed ranks in order to overcome these crises? Didn't, for example, the idea of European integration arise out of the experience that the European nation-states could never break out of their centuries-old vicious circle of war and destruction alone, and that they could only serve their national interests in an ever-smaller world within a community? Wasn't the creation of the transatlantic partnership, of NATO, also an expression of this realization that countries needed to get together in order to defend shared values and assert shared interests? Taking these questions about the past as a basis, I ask, what is the situation today? If we look at our planet we see a multitude of threats. Let me begin with an ecological and economic challenge which has nothing whatsoever to do with the classic threats being discussed at this conference: If the climate researchers' reports are to be believed, global warming is a huge medium and long-term threat, one which could have dramatic consequences such as refugee flows and armed conflicts. One thing is totally clear – this is a global challenge, one from which no-one can escape, and which we can only tackle together. It therefore requires action against global threats which affect all peoples, countries and continents, and which mean that none of us can avoid them. We must consult and close ranks. This is precisely the philosophy of international agreements, for example on reducing CO2. So it is just as you said, Mr Teltschik: Global crises – global responsibility. This rule applies even though I have not even mentioned the classic conflicts which are of course also on our minds. In my view accepting global responsibility for global crises requires a new, comprehensive understanding of security. Our security policy neither begins nor ends with NATO or EU military operations, or with financial and personnel contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Let me put this more pointedly: Those who want to prevent and sustainably overcome crises cannot act alone, but must be able to invest in hope, confidence, justice, the rule of law, good governance, economic reconstruction, education and health. In other words we must invest in human development in the broadest sense. This is what I mean by global responsibility for global challenges. Ladies and gentlemen, the need for such an approach can be seen particularly clearly, as under a magnifying glass, in the Middle East. Work has been going on towards peace and the vision of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine for decades now, and for just as long generations of politicians from the region itself, from the US, Europe and the UN, have constantly experienced setbacks and disappointments. The question is, do these setbacks and disappointments mean we can afford to give up? Can we do that to the people in the region who have suffered so much? Let me turn the question around – can we afford that in our own, broader security interests in this world, or I should say in Europe? For me the clear answer is no. Both Palestinians and Israelis have a right to self-determination in two viable, prosperous states, side by side, in peace, dignity and with secure borders. The people there have a right to a life free from fear of terrorism and violence and with prospects of a better future. For just this reason the results of the Mecca talks on the formation of a Palestinian government of national unity are encouraging. I know that many things still need to be done, and that the three prerequisites for international support must be fulfilled by the new Palestinian government – rejection of violence, recognition of Israel's right to exist, and compliance with the agreements concluded up to now. However – and I say this both as German Chancellor and as President of the European Council – Mecca did produce results. We should see this as the first step in the right direction, and we should thank the Saudi leadership and above all welcome the fact that this initiative comes from the region itself. Mecca shows no more and no less than that something is possible. I know that much more must follow. Let me repeat here today that for example the release of the Israeli soldier Shalit would be an important signal. But we know that in the final analysis the desire for a solution must come from the region itself, and equally that we must never leave the region to its own devices. For that very reason it was important for me and many others that just over a week ago, the Middle East Quartet met again after a long period, and that it will shortly be reconvened. I'm aware that the going is slow and that many ask whether this is worth it, but let's face it: what would be the alternative to trying and trying again? The character of the Quartet, which contains representatives from the US, the EU, Russia and the UN, of course demonstrates once more what I regard as the most important factor – that we are closing ranks, tackling things together, sending coherent, joint signals. We are integrating this with the activities on the ground. This proves once again that the global challenges, whether they be climate protection or asymmetric terrorist threats, cannot be met by anyone on their own, no matter how strong they are. I think that when we recognize that fact, and only then, will we at least come closer to resolving conflicts such as that between Israel and Palestine or that regarding the future of a sovereign Lebanon. For I believe we agree that Lebanon has a right to stability and sovereignty, and that it urgently needs our joint help in its reconstruction. The Paris conference a few days ago was a very important signal. When I talk about Lebanon, this leads inevitably to the question of Syria's role. A few weeks ago Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, like others before him, was in Damascus to try once more to persuade Syria to take a constructive stance on peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, however, Syria hasn't yet used that opportunity. I therefore say very clearly: We have not closed the door on Syria, but Syria should not doubt the determination of the world community either to protect Israel and support Lebanon. During my recent trip to the Middle East I saw that the threat felt by many countries regarding events in Iran is dramatically visible and recognizable. For that reason Iran must fulfil the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors. There is no way around this demand, and it must be fulfilled without ifs or buts and without tricks. The technology involved is highly sensitive, and therefore Iran's nuclear programme must be subject to a high degree of transparency; however, Tehran has not delivered on this. If things stay that way, Iran risks falling deeper into isolation. Let me repeat that the international community's offer remains valid. We invited Iran to cooperate and to do what is right for its people, as Iran is a country with a proud history and a long cultural heritage. It would therefore be a good thing for Tehran to integrate into, and submit to, the international community. But what we have said to Iran on another issue – and this too means global responsibility – remains also valid: We cannot in any way accept the Iranian leadership's threats against Israel. I have several times made it clear in my talks, and my counterparts have agreed, that we are all determined to prevent the threat emanating from an Iran with a military nuclear programme. The recent resolution dealing with sanctions was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council. Europe, the US, Russia and China all went along with it. We must in my opinion try to maintain this signal of solidarity in our further steps. Global responsibility means espousing the same principles and taking the same route, even when the going gets tough. When we talk about the threats and of course also the opportunities of our times, I feel that three elements of our action become obvious – freedom, security and responsibility. For me these three aspects sum up in a nutshell the aims of a modern, 21st century security partnership. These were also the coordinates of the Euro-Atlantic security partnership in the past, i.e. of NATO, where we Europeans pursue these aims alongside the US and Canada. For that reason Atlantic partnership and European integration remain the pillars of Germany's security policy for me. Strengthening Europe's security identity, separate from the Atlantic security partnership, is not a route I want to take. Both pillars are, so to speak, two sides of the same coin. For me NATO will continue to be the strongest expression of a security policy for which we are jointly responsible. In spite of the difficult discussions on some issues, the NATO Summit in Riga and the NATO Defence Ministerial Meeting in Seville demonstrated just this solidarity and determination on the part of NATO to face the increasing challenges. We know that this is not just theory and hot air, but that on the contrary it is being put to the test day by day and that we all must contribute. The German Government last week decided, subject to parliamentary approval, to send reconnaissance aircraft to Afghanistan for use by the ISAF mission. I don't think there is any doubt that in Afghanistan NATO is being taken to task in a particular way. On the one hand the reconstruction work is already showing considerable success, things that we should not forget during our discussions. With regard to the people there a great deal has happened – children can now go to school again, and it is safe for women to be seen on the streets. But it is also indisputable that the Taleban are constantly testing our resolve, and that is why we must do all we can to make this mission a success. The German Government is convinced that success can only lie in a holistic approach involving both civilian and military elements. The task now – Afghanistan is a good example – is to implement that approach and to ensure maximum integration of civilian and military activities. I think that if we do this in a consistent manner considering all aspects, we will be on the right track, although it could be more difficult than we thought. In my opinion Afghanistan shows that NATO needs two things to prevent, ward off and deter from threats – on the one hand robustness and on the other hand persuasion. For me the combination of the two is "networked security", in other words, the inextricable link between our military approach and civilian measures. I don't want to advocate a "civilian NATO", but I do want to talk about the Alliance's self-image as part of a civil-military overall profile. For me that is NATO's role in the 21st century. This concept of "networked security" is also the central idea of the White Paper adopted last year by the German Government. This means for us more specifically that in all of our military engagements – in whatever part of the world – military, stabilizing measures must from the very start go hand in hand with political and civilian processes. We believe that failing this success is not possible. "Networked security" – this calls for the creation of structures across the broad spectrum of political, diplomatic, military, civilian, economic and development policy instruments. We must better coordinate our crisis management and develop concepts for efficient cooperation between international, national, governmental and non-governmental organizations. But most importantly, this must not take place somewhere in the capitals of the seconding states but on the ground. I am very pleased that exactly this route is increasingly being taken in Afghanistan. Let us not fool ourselves: there is now a link between the work of NGOs and military capabilities to an extent which was not usual, at least in my country, during past decades. Development policy was in the one corner and military engagement in the other, and each had plenty of prejudices about the other side. The fact that success is only possible through cooperation and that one side is not superior to the other is a new concept which we must learn, but one upon which I think success depends. We Europeans know at this point that our responsibility has not become less but rather more since the end of the Cold War. I think it is very clearly visible that we are taking on that responsibility, even if there is often criticism that we aren't taking it on quickly enough. Just think of the Balkans and our support for Lebanon, where we have time and again developed concepts and capacities which closely link civilian and military operations. For over a month now the "battlegroups", i.e. the European units for operations in crisis regions, have been fully operational. As the EU we are active in Aceh in Indonesia and in the Gaza Strip. We are supporting the police in Palestine, Bosnia and the Congo. We are training Iraqi judicial personnel. Our shared desire, also and in particular with regard to Iraq, is of course that the country comes to rest and that stabilization succeeds, difficult as this may be, because otherwise we will all feel the effects. In Kosovo the EU is ready to assume a central security task with what is its biggest civilian mission yet. With that mission we want to help back up the status talks and solution currently being discussed. While former Finnish President Ahtisaari has presented his recommendations, we can feel that the process is difficult. Serbs and Kosovo Albanians need time to clarify the issues for themselves. I call on the one hand for them to be aware that the solution is on the table and that wasting time poses the risk of exacerbating the situation. But on the other hand I also say that it will be vital that the process gives the Serbs some dignity. Therefore all sides know that the conditions for this must be met, and that we must adopt a highly sensitive approach while bearing in mind that a solution must be found. We cannot put this off forever. This of course also depends to a great extent on the question of how things will develop in Bosnia and Herzegovina where, twelve years on from Dayton, the time has now come to reduce the international presence. Here, too, however, we must say – or so would I – that the High Representative should continue to operate there for a while with a smaller staff, while at the same time the EU Special Representative's status should be strengthened so that the transition goes off smoothly. Let me remind you here that Bosnia currently has no constitution enabling a government to take effective action. I feel it is therefore important for us as the EU to state that there is a European prospect for all Western Balkan countries and that this is linked to certain progress. But I believe that without that prospect there will merely be an increase in military engagement. This is another example of how things are interlinked. During Germany's EU Presidency we want to continue to develop the European Security and Defence Policy, as it has become second nature to us in spite of its relative youth. We have learned, partly from difficult experience, that where Europe fails to speak with one voice and is divided, we have little or no influence; in other words we cannot even defend our European interests. But we must of course look beyond our backyard. Today we need an area of joint security which goes far beyond North America and Europe, and for that reason we want to strengthen our relations with the Mediterranean countries. This, too, played a role during yesterday's Defence Ministerial. Of course we also want to improve our ties with our neighbours to the east and south-east so as to shape the future together. In this regard there can be no doubt whatsoever that the partnership with Russia is of special significance. I am very pleased that President Putin is here with us today and that he will speak to us during the conference. I am utterly convinced that the answer to the question of how the future relationship between the EU, NATO and Russia is shaped will be decisive for the stability of the joint area of security in Europe and for our relations with our neighbouring countries. It is true that Russia already shares responsibility with us in many fields, for example in contributing towards resolving the Middle East conflict – I have already mentioned the Quartet –, with regard to Iran, where all resolutions would have been less effective had Russia not supported them, and concerning the Balkans. Therefore our experience is that together with Russia we can achieve a great deal. This means never to cease seeking out and using the opportunities that arise from this international solidarity, and it means that sharing responsibility between Russia, the EU and NATO is in our interests. For that reason I am very keen that we start negotiations for a cooperation agreement between Russia and the EU soon and that we remove the remaining obstacles. We know that Russia is a major energy partner. Mr President, I have felt time and again during our talks that Russia wants to be, and indeed is, a reliable and calculable energy partner. We will speak frankly about areas in which improvements can and must be made. There is no use sweeping things under the mat. And I think the NATO-Russia partnership must become closer. Talks took place recently on that topic, too. We must also constantly urge stability in the difficult regions bordering on Russia, and on this we must engage in a frank exchange of views. Our opinions sometimes differ, and we must discuss these issues, but this can only happen if we talk to each other at all, and that is why I regard dialogue as being so important. I'm also saying this with a view to the new military installations, and here I believe it is always good to talk to rather than against each other; this has never been any good. There can always be areas where we disagree at some point, but we would be deceiving ourselves if we acted as though we were not highly dependent on each other in this world. Ladies and gentlemen, talking about the global security partnership, it is true that NATO is increasing its cooperation with countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, and that we naturally see China and India as strategic partners. We are facing totally new challenges in the field of non-proliferation and arms control. Here, too, we must realize that the world has become a much less calculable place. I believe that China in particular assumes a growing political role due to its increasing global economic weight. In any case, if one considers the world's differing economic growth rates, many of the emerging economies in particular will start to bear greater political responsibility – something we also expect from them. Here a change is taking place. We must then of course encourage China to assume that responsibility. We must clearly express our disagreement with some developments. I think this means that inclusion rather than exclusion is the right approach in dealing with China. But we must be quite frank in talking about things on which we are not and cannot be of the same opinion. These include human rights and development-policy actions, particularly in China's approach to Africa. I believe that it is important, in everything we do, that good governance and respect for human rights form part of what is necessary. When Germany, in its role as EU Presidency – together with Portugal – and as G8 Presidency, pays special attention to Africa as our neighbouring continent, then an open discussion with China on its approach there must be possible. In my view we can all see that, in this post-Cold War world, problems and local crises can become international threats in an unbelievably short time. That is why I am convinced that the idea of conflict prevention will play an increasing role. Last year we in the EU were – rather unexpectedly – engaged in Congo, where we succeeded in enabling the peaceful implementation of the elections. None of this would have been possible without the years of previous development cooperation. However, it is also true that the elections, as an interim phase in Congo's development, would not have been possible if we had not resorted to a military operation. Let me add that there was much discussion about the length of this mission. It was also right to apply time pressure, as in Congo, like in many other countries, help is also meant to be self-help. We must be able to let go a little and call on the countries themselves to assume responsibility wherever possible. There are major concerns in Africa. Let me just remind you of Sudan and of the responsibility of President Bashir. Hundreds of thousands have died there and many more are still dying. The international community cannot merely stand aside and watch. Somalia is a country where reconciliation and reconstruction must be urgently placed on the agenda. In my view we must do all we can to strengthen Africa's own structures and regional organizations, especially to strengthen and help the African Union, while at the same time saying that there is a shared responsibility. All this is leading up to my message that we need the United Nations. I see the UN as the place where legitimacy for global responsibility can be created. But I also say that UN reform is going too slowly – and this is putting it mildly –, in fact at a snail's pace. This is why I say to the new Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, that we will support him, but also that reforms are necessary to keep this body functioning. Ladies and gentlemen, it has often been said that the end of the Cold War meant the end of the bipolar system and with it the end of the balance of terror. However, the security threat has not disappeared, just totally changed. Today individuals are ready to throw away their lives in order to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible. This means that the classic deterrence mechanisms no longer work. If some countries now try to gain possession of WMDs and their delivery systems, this leads to an escalation of conflicts and raises the risk of chain reactions, given that classic deterrence no longer functions as it should. Therefore it is clear that our world is threatened, but also that it holds many opportunities. No-one can grasp these chances and counter these threats alone. No single country has sufficient power, influence and credibility to face these challenges all by itself. I am firmly convinced that only in security partnerships and alliances can this succeed. I know that to do this all of us must bite the bullet, something which is not so easy in national discussions. For Germany, and this may seem strange to some outside my country, the decision to station maritime forces off the coast of Lebanon was the result of a highly emotional and difficult discussion. I think by taking that decision we bit the bullet, out of the conviction that it is always better when two sides do something than when one side goes it alone. A Union of joint interests is better than an alliance of two. A continent that acts as one is better than when individual regions act alone. A transatlantic Alliance is better than when the Atlantic separates us. Joint action by major powers is better than the dominance of their rivalries. Therefore let me close by returning to the beginning, to European integration. Today Europe is more peaceful, free and stable than most of us here could have imagined in our youth. I for one didn't think, 17 or 18 years ago, that I would be able to leave the Eastern bloc before I retired. And so I ask you, is it really so unthinkable that something similar could happen later to a 20-year old Israeli or Palestinian? Or is it really so impossible for us to jointly face the threat of climate change in order to halt it? Is it so impossible for us to succeed in decoupling economic growth from energy consumption and thus create the basis for the existence of later generations? I believe we must face the worst fears and threats imaginable. There is nothing worse than sweeping a threat under the mat and just living from day to day. But at the same time we must have the strength to believe that we – countries and peoples – are capable of countering these threats, of releasing energies we never thought we had, and of acting together. This requires new and unknown efforts from all of us. Everyone must start with him- or herself; this, too, is unfamiliar. But let me at least assure you that my country is prepared, to the best of its abilities, to take up this challenge. Thank you!
|
|
 Newsletters
 Printer-Friendly
Page
Email This Article |
||
|
|||||
|
|||||
