[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Joint Statement by the European Union and the United States

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:04 am    Post subject: Joint Statement by the European Union and the United States Reply with quote

For Immediate Release
June 20, 2005

Joint Statement by the European Union and the United States Working Together to Promote Democracy and Support Freedom, the Rule of Law and Human Rights Worldwide




The European Union and the United States believe that the spread of accountable and representative government, the rule of law, and respect for human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are a strategic priority as well as a moral necessity. We will continue to work together to advance these priorities around the world.

The work of the United Nations is central both to democracy and human rights. We welcome the proposals put forward by Kofi Annan to renew the UN's commitment and enhance its effectiveness in these areas. Specifically, we value the UN Secretary General's initiatives for reforming the UN human rights mechanisms and for creating a Peacebuilding Commission. We pledge to support the establishment of the UN Democracy Fund to assist countries in strengthening civil society and democratic institutions.

We express our admiration and pledge our support for all those engaged in the defense of freedom, democracy and human rights, in many cases at great personal risk.

We are encouraged by the efforts of many governments to open their societies and political systems. Recognizing that democratic reform is a process that deserves our support, we promise our solidarity and support to those promoting democracy around the world, be it in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. We will continue to support pluralism and the development of civil society, and will encourage the political participation of women and minorities.

Free and fair elections are central to democracy. We congratulate the many thousands of citizens who have participated in organizing and observing elections in their own countries and abroad. We pledge to support the work of the United Nations in assisting in the organization of elections and will work together in multilateral fora to further strengthen international election standards and to spread the implementation of objective and fair election assessment mechanisms. We support the principles of impartially-conducted and transparent election administration and observation and commend the efforts undertaken by various regional organizations such as the OSCE or civil society in this context. We will continue to support the holding of free and fair elections in countries undergoing or desiring democratic transitions, including in Afghanistan, Haiti, DRC, Iraq, and in the Palestinian territories.

Democracy is not just a matter of elections; it must be anchored in democratic institutions, separation of powers, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, good governance, and justice. Our assistance to third countries increasingly takes into account the need to sustain democracy in all these dimensions.

We have worked closely to create a Europe whole, free, and at peace; both the EU and NATO have played an important part in this, and continue to do so. We are confident that the reform process in the Balkans will further the region's successful integration into Europe. The European Neighborhood Policy and U.S. support for democratic and economic transitions will contribute further to stability, prosperity and partnership. We will in particular continue to coordinate our efforts to promote democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Belarus.

We are witnessing a growing desire for reform in the Middle East and welcome recent democratic developments. Democratic elections in the Palestinian territories, Iraq, and Lebanon have successfully taken place. We recognize the importance of transparent and fair elections and the need to expand freedom and opportunity across the region. We reaffirm our commitments made at Dromoland and Sea Island, and our support for the Forum for the Future and other elements of the G-8 BMENA Initiative. Recognizing that the threat of conflict can undermine democratic reforms, we commit ourselves to support those who are working for the resolution of conflicts, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

We have both encouraged the growth of democratic institutions in many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We acknowledge the important contributions by regional and multilateral organizations, as well as initiatives such as the Community of Democracies, to promote democracy and respect for fundamental human rights.

We recognize that differences in history, culture and society mean that the paths taken towards democracy and the rule of law will be different and that the systems of government that result will be varied, reflecting local traditions and preferences. Democracy, while it is based on universal values, will not be uniform. However, the desire for justice, freedom, human rights, and accountable and representative government is universal. In the long term, only systems responsive to the wishes of the people they govern can achieve political stability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

U.S.-EU Declaration on Enhancing Cooperation in the Field of Non Proliferation and the Fight Against Terrorism




Promoting international peace and security is of vital importance to the United States and the European Union. People all over the world should have freedom from fear and want and live in dignity. Societies have become more interconnected and more interdependent. And as the events of September 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004 show, the United States and the European Union have also become more vulnerable to threats which are more diverse, less visible, and less predictable.

Fighting terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with the risk that such weapons could be acquired by terrorists, remain our greatest security challenges. In this context, we recall the 2004 Dromoland Castle Declarations on Combating Terrorism and on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which still provide the framework for our cooperation. We are fully committed to strengthen and support the important role of the United Nations in assisting member states in combating both challenges.

We reaffirm our commitment to cooperate in our efforts to combat global terrorism in full respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to address the underlying conditions that terrorists can seize to recruit and exploit to their advantage. We pledge to intensify our efforts to strengthen international cooperation to encourage the global and effective implementation of UN conventions and protocols on terrorism. We also work together with a view to adopting the Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism. We broadly support the principles of the comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy as proposed by UNSG Annan at the Madrid Conference in March 2005.

Our bilateral cooperation extends to developing comprehensive and efficient border security processes, more secure travel documents, contacts between our law enforcement agencies and improved information-sharing abilities. We will reinforce and expand our cooperation in the fight against terrorist financing. We will continue to strengthen the abilities of our legal systems to prosecute terrorists and will enhance our judicial cooperation in criminal matters. We will also continue our work to enhance the capacities of other countries to combat terrorism.

We will further strengthen measures against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by state and non-state actors. In this context, we reaffirm our support for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and will continue to work together to strengthen it. We pledge to intensify our collaboration and coordination in promoting strict implementation of and compliance with relevant treaties, agreements and commitments on non proliferation. We will enhance the security of weapons-usable materials, facilities, and technology. We reaffirm also our willingness to work together to strengthen and universalise the disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and regimes that ban the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

We will assist other states around the world to build stronger legal, regulatory, enforcement and other institutional capacity against proliferation. And we will work for more effective responses to address proliferation threats and prevent or remedy non-compliance. Our shared commitment to address proliferation threats is reflected in the "US-EU Joint Programme of Work on the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We remain united in our determination to see the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program resolved. Towards that end, we reconfirm our full support for the ongoing European efforts to secure Iran's agreement to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is intended for exclusively peaceful purposes. As those discussions proceed, we urge Iran to abide fully by the terms of the November 2004 Paris Agreement and by the November 2004 IAEA Board of Governors resolution, including the need to suspend fully and verifiably all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. We reiterate the need for Iran to cooperate fully with IAEA requests for information and access, to comply fully with all IAEA Board requirements and resolve all outstanding issues related to its nuclear programme. Finally we call on Iran to ratify without delay the Additional Protocol and, pending its ratification, to act in accordance with its provisions.

We note with deep concern the DPRK's nuclear weapons program and its 10 February statement that it has manufactured nuclear weapons. The DPRK has clearly violated its commitments under the NPT and its IAEA safeguards agreement and other international non-proliferation agreements. The DPRK must comply fully with its non-proliferation obligations, and dismantle its nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programs in a permanent, transparent, thorough, and verifiable manner. We stress that the Korean Peninsula should be free from nuclear weapons, the security and stability on the Peninsula be maintained and the nuclear issue be peacefully resolved through dialogue and negotiations. We fully reaffirm our support for the Six-Party Talks and believe this represents an important opportunity to achieve a comprehensive solution to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joint Statement by the European Union and United States on the Joint Program of Work on the Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction




Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems continue to be a preeminent threat to international peace and security. This global challenge needs to be tackled individually and collectively, and requires an effective global response. We are fully committed to support in that respect the important role of the United Nations Security Council and other key UN institutions.

The United States and the European Union are steadfast partners in the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and will undertake several new initiatives to strengthen our cooperation and coordination in this important arena, even as we enhance our ongoing efforts.

Building Global Support for Nonproliferation: The European Union and the United States will enhance information sharing, discuss assessments of proliferation risks, and work together to broaden global support for and participation in nonproliferation endeavors. We will increase transparency about our nonproliferation dialogues with other countries to ensure, to the extent possible consistency in our nonproliferation messages.

We reaffirm our willingness to work together to implement and strengthen key arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, agreements and commitments that ban the proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems. In particular we underline the importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. We will increase our effort to promote, individually or, where appropriate, jointly, the universalisation of these Treaties and Conventions and the adherence to the Hague Code of Conduct against the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

Reinforcing the NPT: The EU and the US reaffirm that the NPT is central to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The EU and the US stress the urgency to maintain the authority and the integrity of the Treaty. To that end, the EU and the U.S. recommit to fulfill our obligations under the Treaty while working together in order to strengthen it. We will evaluate lessons learned from the 2005 Review Conference and continue to stress the importance of compliance with and universal adherence to the NPT.

Recognizing the Importance of the Biological Threat: The EU and the US will work together in advance of the upcoming BTWC- Review Conference in 2006, in order to strengthen the Biological Weapons and Toxin Weapons Convention.

Promoting Full Implementation of UNSCR 1540: We will coordinate efforts to assist and enhance the work being done by the UNSCR 1540 Committee, and compliance with the resolution. We will work together to respond, where possible, to assistance requests from States seeking to implement the requirements set by the UNSC Resolution 1540 and in particular, to put in place national legal regulatory, and enforcement measures against proliferation.

Establishing a Dialogue on Compliance and Verification: The European Union and the United States renew their call on all States to comply with their arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation agreements and commitments. We will seek to ensure, through regular exchanges, strict implementation of compliance with these agreements and commitments. We will continue to support the multilateral institutions charged with verifying activities under relevant treaties and agreements. We will ask our experts to discuss issues of compliance and verification in order to identify areas of possible cooperation and joint undertaking.

Strengthening the IAEA: The U.S. and the EU welcome the steps taken earlier this month by the Board of Governors of the IAEA that created a new Committee on Safeguards and Verification, which will enhance the IAEA's effectiveness and strengthen its ability to ensure that nations comply with their NPT safeguards obligations. We will work together to ensure all States conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement and an Additional Protocol with the IAEA. We agree that the Additional Protocol should become a standard for nuclear cooperation and non-proliferation.

Advancing the Proliferation Security Initiative: As we enhance our own capabilities, laws and regulations to improve our readiness for interdiction actions, we pledge to strengthen the Proliferation Security Initiative and encourage PSI countries to support enhanced cooperation against proliferation networks, including tracking and halting financial transactions related to proliferation.

Global Partnership: The U.S. and the EU reaffirm our commitment to the Global Partnership Initiative Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. We will assess ongoing and emerging threats and coordinate our nonproliferation cooperation, including with other participating states, to focus resources on priority concerns and to make the most effective use of our resources.

Enhancing Nuclear Security: We intend to expand and deepen cooperation to enhance the security of nuclear and radiological materials. We welcome the establishment of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) and will cooperate closely to implement this important new initiative, including by exploring opportunities under the GTRI to reduce the threat posed by radiological dispersal devices and by identifying specific radiological threat reduction projects that could be implemented.

Ensuring Radioactive Source Security: We remain concerned by the risks posed by the potential use of radioactive sources for terrorist purposes. We will work towards having effective controls applied by the end of 2005 in accordance with the IAEA Guidance on the Import and Export of Radioactive Sources. We will support IAEA efforts to assist countries that need such assistance to establish effective and sustainable controls.

Rationalizing Multilateral Disarmament Work: We will continue to cooperate in order to overcome the stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament and pursue reforming of the UN General Assembly's First Committee on disarmament and international security. These initiatives are part of our broader efforts to streamline and make the multilateral disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation machinery more responsive.

The U.S. and the EU take special note of the Conference to Consider and Adopt Amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) that will take place at the IAEA, July 4-8 2005, and we urge all States Parties to the CPPNM to attend and fully support adoption of an amended Convention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EU-US Declaration on Working Together to Promote Peace, Stability, Prosperity, and Good Governance in Africa




We remain committed to combining and accelerating our efforts in support of Africa and its leadership, while acknowledging its ownership of present and future African development.

We share the same belief that solidarity is an essential principle that should guide our action and that we, together with all other members of the international community, have an obligation to assist African efforts in the quest for peace, stability, democracy and prosperity. We share the same objectives with poverty eradication as the primary aim of our relations with the developing world and we therefore undertake to increase our efforts to assist Sub Saharan Africa in its efforts to achieve sustainable economic growth and reach the internationally agreed goals contained in the Millennium Declarations.

We share the same hope built on the realisation that today there is an environment and leadership in much of Africa with a genuine commitment to better governance and a new resolve to take care of Africa's own conflicts.

We are working to support Africa's efforts to expand peace and security across the continent. In this context, we welcome that an increasing number of African nations are committing themselves to holding democratic elections, thereby paving the way for more representative government. Improving respect for human rights and governance, consolidating democratic processes and reforming the security sector are central prerequisites for development. African nations are undertaking increased efforts to resolve conflicts and have achieved important progress in establishing their own security structures through the African Union and its Peace and Security Council as well as at the sub-regional level.

Together we have been working to strengthen the African Union and other regional organisations that aim to improve stability in Africa and we are collaborating on the G8/African Union action plan to enhance capacity for peace support operations. We are committed to continue to assist African peace support operations as the EU has done through its African Peace Facility and contributions from its Member States and the US through the Global Peacekeeping Operations Initiative by increased contributions to enhance the Peace Support Operations capacity and support for ongoing operations in Africa.

The African Union/NEPAD have provided Africa with an ambitious vision and strategy for the 21st century. We will work closely with the African Union as a key political interlocutor in our relations with Africa.

The African Union and the sub-regional organisations have decisively assumed responsibility and leadership for resolving many of the armed conflicts that for so long have marred the continent. We are prepared to contribute to these efforts through:

Supporting broad and inclusive processes of implementing the comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan, capable of reconciling and accommodating the aspirations of all sectors of society and all regions of the country, while ensuring that the fight against impunity from violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law is sustained. To end the continuing violence and suffering of hundred of thousands in Darfur is an immediate priority. We reaffirm our strong support for the AU leadership in resolving the crisis and urge the parties to commit themselves wholeheartedly to resolve the conflict peacefully and engage constructively in the AU-sponsored negotiations in Abuja.

Reaffirming our continued support to the Somalia reconciliation process and assisting the Somali people and institutions, in their efforts to re-establish stability and governance. We are also committed to support efforts to resolve the border stalemate between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Both processes have much to contribute towards stability, development and security in the strategic region of the Horn of Africa.

Combining support for stability in the Great Lakes region, including through the disarmament of armed groups, Security Sector Reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo, assistance in the organisation of the coming democratic elections in Burundi and the DRC and international observation thereof, and participation aimed at a successful outcome of the International Conference on the Great Lakes region. We have instructed the Joint Contact Group to continue to work together in order to address the problems in the region.

Continuing to support a regional approach to peace and security in West Africa, with a view to enhancing conflict management in ECOWAS and particularly by supporting United Nations and African efforts to consolidate transition processes in C te d'Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau and encouraging national reconciliation in Togo.

Effective and well-governed states are critical to a peaceful and secure environment and protecting human rights; encouraging transparent and accountable public management and private sector growth delivering essential services and allowing resources to be used effectively. We will support the African Peer Review Mechanism as an important tool for peer learning and reforms it will trigger at the country level.

The U.S. and the EU note with deep concern the continuing governance and human rights crisis in Zimbabwe, which has led to a near breakdown of the economic situation of one of the most promising economies in Africa and caused huge flows of Zimbabweans to flee to neighbouring countries. We call upon the Government of Zimbabwe to reverse anti-democratic policies and to open a genuine dialogue with all stakeholders. We also note that serious food shortages are looming in Zimbabwe, and we stand ready, as in the past, to assist the Zimbabwean people with food aid and other humanitarian assistance.

Life expectancy is increasing in every continent except Africa, where it has fallen for the last 20 years. HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis continue to affect too many people in Africa. We are committed to continue our support for the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria. We recognise the importance of education and gender equality for life expectancy and agree to intensify efforts in this regard.

We commit to work together to address both the immediate needs and the underlying causes of natural disasters and complex emergencies which plague the continent, including through collaboration on the assessment process, to ensure that needs are identified in an accurate and timely fashion, that assistance is appropriately targeted and arrives in time to save lives. Together, we commit to urgently increasing both our funding and engagement in these humanitarian emergencies.

To ensure a longer-term solution to the problem of famine and poverty in Africa, we will work with AU/NEPAD to support implementation of its Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Plan, which will help expand production and market opportunities, enhance agricultural productivity, and thus reduce the risk facing Africa's poorest farmers. We further commit to support AU/NEPAD's efforts to increase regional economic integration in Africa as an important element of efforts to increase agricultural productivity, open our market to allow African exports to enter duty free until 2015 and, in this regard, will undertake efforts to promote accession of African countries to the WTO.

These commitments require resources. These should come from many sources, as set out at Monterrey, including increased foreign direct investment, trade, remittances, public aid and private charitable contributions. We recall the responsibility of developing countries for their own development through good governance, the rule of law, and sound policies, and the crucial importance of national ownership for development strategies. We stand ready to increase our financial assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa to meet urgent needs, promote development and economic growth, reinforce sound policies and good governance and support their efforts towards meeting the Millennium Goals.

In today's globalised world, developments in one continent often have immediate and far-reaching repercussions on life in other continents. Peace, stability and better economic prospects for all people in Africa are therefore in the interest of Americans and Europeans alike. The long road towards sustainable social, political, and economic development in Africa is a road that Africa should not be left to walk alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joint Statement by the United States and the European Union Working Together to Promote Peace, Prosperity and Progress in the Middle East




At our Summit in Dromoland last year, the United States and the European Union pledged our support to the governments and the peoples of the Middle East who have expressed their determination to meet the challenges of modernization, to advance political, social and economic progress, to strengthen democracy, and to respect and promote human rights. We offered this support in a spirit of partnership as well as respect and friendship.

Since then, we have strengthened our dialogue on our respective efforts towards promoting progress and stability in the Broader Middle East and the Mediterranean.

At the June 2004 Summit, we reaffirmed our commitment to a just, comprehensive, and lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our common vision of the co-existence of two states, Palestine and Israel, by the creation of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state with contiguity in the West Bank living side by side with Israel and its neighbors in peace and security.

Since then, we have witnessed the successful election of a new leader by the Palestinian people. We are now at a moment of opportunity, and, with our partners in the region, we must seize it. In order to achieve and maintain a lasting peace, we recognize the importance of building a climate of mutual trust and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.

We endorse the May 9, 2005, declaration of the Quartet. We stress the importance of a complete and peaceful Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the northern West Bank in a manner consistent with the road map. We urge the parties to respect their commitments and to refrain from unilateral actions that could prejudge final status issues. We further pledge our full support to the mission of the Quartet s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement James Wolfensohn, and we will work with him and the parties to promote viable economic and social development.

We support the holding of free, fair, and transparent multi-party legislative elections in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, under the scrutiny of international observers and with full freedom of movement for candidates and voters, as another vital step forward on the path towards building a reformed and accountable Palestinian Authority.

We desire that the Israeli and Palestinian people live in a secure and stable environment. We affirm our support for the mission of General William Ward and will pursue in close coordination our respective efforts to assist the Palestinian security forces. As is required under the roadmap, there must be effective action against terrorism, dismantling of terrorist infrastructure, a freeze on all settlement activity, and dismantling of outposts.

The United States and the European Union share the objective of a peaceful, secure, democratic, and prosperous broader Middle East and Mediterranean region. With close to 3 billion annually in grants and loans from the EU and approximately $2.2 billion in assistance and loan guarantees from the U.S., we are the major donors of assistance to the region.

Through our respective efforts, we seek to promote, in close cooperation with our partners, human rights and democracy, increased access to education and economic opportunities through modern and open societies, closer integration within the region and with the global economy. Our ongoing cooperation to promote peace throughout the region will help our partners to reap the full benefit of their efforts and our support.

We welcome the accomplishments of the Barcelona Process which were reviewed at the 7th Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Luxembourg ahead of the 10th anniversary leaders meeting in November, as well as the U.S. Middle East Partnership Initiative, launched in 2002. We reaffirm our support for the G8 s Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative. We welcome in particular the establishment of the Forum for the Future and look forward to its next meeting in Bahrain this autumn.

We have instructed our respective experts on the region to intensify their cooperation in order to strengthen further our support for reform and democratic development.

We welcome the successful elections that have recently taken place in Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq and Lebanon.

While notable progress has been made in a number of countries, significant challenges remain. We welcome the amendment to the Egyptian constitution as progress towards a more broadly-based representative government and encourage the Government of Egypt to play a leadership role by opening its forthcoming elections to international observers. In these, as in all other elections, we stress the importance of freedom of speech, freedom of association and unfettered access to the media, for all candidates.

We share the goal of a peaceful, united and stable Iraq and will continue our cooperative efforts towards this end. The confirmation of the Iraqi Transitional Government following the successful election in January represents an important landmark in the political reconstruction of Iraq. We condemn the terrorist acts of forces seeking to disrupt the lives of the Iraqi people and the political transition process.

Two days from today, at the request of the Iraqi Transitional Government, we will co-host a conference of nations to express international support for Iraq s political transformation, economic recovery, and reconstruction, and strengthening of public order and the rule of law, in accordance with UNSCR 1546 (2004). We have worked closely together to prepare for this important event and we will pursue these efforts in following up the Conference. Working with the Iraqi authorities, the UN, and other relevant actors, we will seek to contribute to the constitutional process and to support the elections which will take place on the basis of the new Constitution.

We recognize the withdrawal of Syrian military personnel from Lebanon as a positive first step toward Syria s compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559. We remain insistent that Resolution 1559 be implemented in its entirety, including the disarming of all militias, and the complete and full withdrawal of all Syrian intelligence operatives, as well as an end to interference in Lebanon s internal affairs. We reaffirm our full support for the United Nations efforts towards these ends.

We urge full cooperation by all parties with the independent international commission of enquiry of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, established by UNSCR 1595 (2005).

We welcome the events that have taken place this year in Lebanon in furtherance of the democratic process, including the recent elections. We recognize the inherent difficulties facing the new government and remain committed to working with the people of Lebanon to strengthen democratic institutions and promote peace and stability.

Once the Lebanese government has defined its reform agenda and should it so request, we will consider convening an international conference to consolidate support for the Lebanese people and the new government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EU-US Declaration on the 60th Anniversary of the Signing of the San Francisco Charter




Sixty years ago, on June 26th, 1945 the San Francisco Charter creating the United Nations was signed. Born out of the desire "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice... has brought untold sorrow to mankind" (Preamble of the Charter of the UN), the United Nations has ever since provided the framework for the nations of the world to strive for peace and security, prosperity and international cooperation based on respect of international law. We salute the groundbreaking work accomplished six decades ago by the authors of the Charter and we rededicate ourselves to the noble principles and values embodied in this fundamental text.

Today, the world faces threats and challenges, both old and new, which can only be addressed in common, based on a spirit of cooperation, shared institutions, and a rule-based international system as exemplified by the United Nations.

True to the inspiration of the San Francisco Charter, the nations of the world are called to define a new international consensus on the ways and means to manage together the burning questions of our time. In this respect, the High Level Event on Millennium Review in September of this year provides an opportunity to assess the implementation of the commitments of the Millennium Declaration and the results of the major UN Summits and Conferences.

It also offers the occasion for the international community to promote the emergence of a United Nations better oriented towards the threats and challenges of our time, more responsive to the needs of its members and more efficient and effective in the way it operates.

The United States and the European Union share the objective of such a renewed United Nations and are willing to cooperate closely in order to contribute to a balanced and ambitious outcome of the September High Level Meeting. They share, inter alia, the perspective that the interlinked dimensions of peace and security, human rights, rule of law, democracy, and development need to be addressed coherently, within more efficient and transparent institutions and procedures.

Satisfactory solutions need to be found in the crucial areas of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The creation of a properly configured Peacebuilding Commission can provide useful and timely guidance for the management of post-conflict situations.

Achieving the development goals of the Millennium Declaration will require significant additional resources, which should come from many sources, as set out at Monterrey, including increased foreign direct investment, trade, remittances, public aid and private charitable contributions. Developing countries will need to make concerted efforts in their own development through good governance, the rule of law, respect for human rights and sound policies that promote sustainable development and empower individuals to participate more fully and freely in economic activity. We underline the importance of national ownership for development strategies. We stand ready to increase our financial assistance to countries with good governance and sound policies and transparent, ambitious and accountable strategies to achieve long-term economic growth and reach the internationally-agreed development goals in the Millennium Declaration.

The strengthening and mainstreaming of the dimensions of human rights, rule of law and democracy should be achieved, inter alia, through the creation of a new, effective and credible Human Rights Council and the establishment of a UN Democracy Fund.

The improvement of the overall performance of the UN system will imply major reforms in the budget and management areas, including accountability and oversight mechanisms

On these issues as well as on other questions that will be on the agenda of the High-Level meeting, the US and the European Union will consult closely in the weeks and months to come in order to contribute to a successful and substantive outcome in September.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

President Bush Welcomes European Union Leaders
to the White House for 2005 U.S.-E.U. Summit


"During the conversation our talks reminded me about the importance of our partnership and the fact that this partnership is based on common values and shared aspirations; a partnership that really has helped build a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. The United States continues to support a strong European Union as a partner in spreading freedom and democracy and security and prosperity throughout the world. My message to these leaders and these friends was that we want Europe strong so we can work together to achieve important objectives and important goals."

-- President George W. Bush
June 20, 2005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mullah$' $ugar Daddie$



Persian Caption reads: Gambling with Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Iran's circumstance exists in context. Question....I understand folks anger at the EU for having relations with the mullahs, but why is it that I see very little regarding other nation's trade in arms, and economic agreements..?..Russia for one..North Korea, China, ......everything from sniper rifles to anti-aircraft ...to nuclear weapons development.. their biological weapons research...

Why is there no outcry against those supplying arms and technical help to the IRI....?

As for the EU....I think this provides some food for thought.....a perspective on how the US is dealing with the EU on this subject....

----------

Forging a Broader Alliance For Freedom


Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Remarks at the Hotel Talleyrand
Paris, France
September 1, 2005

As prepared

Minister Vedrine, Ambassador Stapleton, honored Ambassadors, and guests, please
accept my thanks for joining with me in this dialogue on what I would like to
call the U.S.-European imperative to support democratic reform and democratic
reformers in the Middle East. There is no better place for such a discussion
than France a center of European thinking, a center of global strategic
thinking, and a center of expertise about the Middle East.

Let me begin this discussion by recalling earlier and formative discussions
about democracy led by French-speaking intellectuals at the beginning of the
modern era.

In the 18th century, the ideas of democracy and nationalism took shape in the
West. The views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau reigned supreme among what we would
call today "progressive elites." For Rousseau, representative government could
only triumph as a sort of "boutique democracy" that's my phrase, of course --
in small countries where the citizenry would more or less share the same
culture and be bound together as would a large tribe. This view, though
accepted by most at the time, proved to be limited.

The views of Alexis de Tocqueville, in the early 19th century, proved more
perceptive. He saw that big countries, like America, with widely divergent
cultural traditions could also become successful "universalist" democracies,
again, in my phrase.

Rousseau and de Tocqueville were both trying to describe the conditions
necessary for democracy to take root and flourish. This is an essential
question today, and my own government has thought this through as well,
including with respect to the modern Middle East. This is not for us a question
of political theory, but of central strategic importance.

Some Americans, and some Europeans, think like Rousseau: essentially, that
democracy is a fragile flower that needs special conditions to take root and
flourish. But others, including my government, believe de Tocqueville had it
right: democracy is robust, and its applicability is potentially universal.

Let me be even more specific: there are those who believe that democracy can
take root only in European cultures, or the descendents of European cultures.
This is nonsense: democracy answers universal human needs and can take root in
all cultures and religious traditions.

In a National Endowment for Democracy speech in November, 2003, President Bush
said that..."time after time, observers have questioned whether this country,
or that people, or this group, were 'ready' for democracy as if freedom were
a prize you win....It should be clear to all that Islam the faith of
one-fifth of humanity is consistent with democracy. Democratic progress is
found in many predominantly Muslim countries in Turkey and Indonesia, Senegal
and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of
South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of
America."

But it is not American opinion that matters. In the Arab press and media, in
Arab countries and in the West, Arabs are engaged in an intense dialogue about
democracy. As de Tocqueville knew in his own era, and as the dictators in the
Arab world should know today, the ancien regime is in profound retreat.

In a recent interview, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian scholar and human
rights activist, described the beginnings of the democratic process in his own
region, "...in 1982 there was no single Arab country that had electoral
politics, competitive elections or even the pretense of elections, but today
there are 10-11 Arab countries with varying degrees of democratic
politics...30...organizations that have the words human rights in their
title...So if you persevere, and if you persist, you will see results. And we
have seen results in my lifetime. That's why I am an incurable optimist, in
spite of all that I have seen."

Though it has occurred in different times and in different forms, the advance
of democracy is a historic experience that America, Europe, and the Muslim
world are beginning to share.

I've just arrived from Poland where I commemorated the 25th anniversary of
Solidarity; a place where democratic change has been recent and profound.
Founded in 1980, Solidarity was repressed in 1981. But when I worked on the
Polish desk at the State Department in 1989, momentous change was underway. The
democratic advance that year was as sudden as it was unexpected to experts on
both sides of the Atlantic. I was fortunate at that time to have had a
colleague and mentor who believed with me that these determined people could
bring democracy to their nation, despite the prevailing and massive skepticism.

Condoleezza Rice, then my colleague and now my boss, has frequently said that
what seems impossible one day becomes inevitable the next. Solidarity began
with demands for justice and dignity by millions of people. The democratic
aspirations of Solidarity's leaders drew people of all backgrounds together.
Their combined courage and persistent efforts brought historic change after
decades of tyranny and upheaval. The Poles achieved democracy through their own
efforts, but they had support from abroad: from Western European and America,
from a beloved pope, and from Ronald Reagan, whose demand to tear down the wall
the Poles still remember.

The Poles made their own democracy. But they did not do so alone. Indeed,
Solidarity's political achievement of 1989 built on forty years of common
purpose by Europeans and Americans, and followed from a determined
Euro-Atlantic strategy to combat totalitarian ideologies and to forge bonds
with the people of Eastern Europe who sought freedom and justice for themselves
and their nations. This transatlantic bond whether practiced by Monnet,
Truman, Kohl, Kennedy or Reagan formed a long network of interwoven
institutional and political arrangements meant to build Europe, whole, free,
and at peace.

The achievement of freedom in Poland is a success story for Europeans,
Americans and, above all, the Poles themselves. But we in free nations cannot
rest while others lack freedom. While throughout the Cold War and after 1989 we
fought and achieved freedom for nearly all of Europe, we afterwards let down
our vigilance, or indulged our prejudices, elsewhere. Though WE are free, we
cannot enjoy freedom or security while others, especially in the Middle East,
live under tyranny. We cannot flourish in a comfortable isolation.

September 11th was our frightening wake-up call. That call screamed to us that
we could not live with the status quo in the Middle East. In a 2003 speech in
London, President Bush asked that "we shake off decades of failed policy in the
Middle East" because "in the past we have been willing to make a bargain, to
tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us
to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring
stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered
ideologies of violence took hold."

Americans thought there were sound strategic reasons for the United States to
seek stability at the expense of freedom. We thought that freedom and security
were separate. But we were wrong. Security and freedom are indivisible. Because
we were wrong, young Muslims could not look to the U.S. with confidence that we
would oppose despotism. While the people of Poland found some hope in VOA radio
broadcasts, for too long the people of the Middle East did not. For far too
long we were deaf to a growing call for reform.

We learned the hard way, as did many Europeans and many Muslims, that the
rising totalitarian, extremist ideology that grew through decades of political
oppression and lack of economic opportunity or social mobility made us less
secure by the day. And we paid dearly: on 9/11, on 3/11, in London, in Bali, in
Beslan, Istanbul, and Sharm El Sheik. Sadly, this is our common threat.
Europeans, Americans, the people of the Middle East.

When we ask ourselves why the terrorists came after us, the reasons are clear.
The democratic world is their target because it offers individuals basic
freedoms to make their own destinies, while the terrorists and the totalitarian
thinkers who inspire them embrace an ideology of hate, blood, and coercion.

During the Cold War, faced with the challenge of totalitarian communism, Europe
and America forged an alliance of democracy; an alliance of common values and
principles, and we succeeded. In this era, Europe and America must now forge an
alliance of common values, pushing beyond our borders to meet and join with
reformers in the broader Middle East.

Just as we achieved security through democracy and strength after two World
Wars in the last half of the 20th century, so we can achieve it in the first
half of the 21st. The totalitarian ideologies we wrestled with were in Europe;
though our work in Europe is not complete, today's challenges are now beyond
our borders, and our action and efforts must be directed far from our shores.

The Euro-American alliance must stand with reform and reformers in the Broader
Middle East and beyond. Gathering in Gdansk were democracy activists from
around the world: from China, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Russia,
Belarus, and Cuba. They spoke out about what Solidarity had meant and still
means to them, and urged the democratic community, now including Poland, not to
forget them.

They are right. Together Euro-American efforts must turn outward; together we
must support the future "Solidarities" and all the reformers of the Middle
East. Now is the time for us to support peoples who are trapped by economic
mismanagement and oppressive political regimes.

Some of you may see this call as an example of famous yet excessive American
idealism. But isn't a wager on freedom a higher realism? Have we not learned
that betting on the status quo of oppression is simplistic cynicism,
guaranteeing future tyranny and a faux-Islamic radicalism?

Let us remember as well that democracy is as natural as the marketplace.
Democracy by its nature is not imposed. Dictatorship is imposed by secret
police and prison

Some ask whether the United States is prepared for democratic elections that
extremist parties might win. Democratic elections are not fixed in advance and
neither my country nor any country can pick winners. But democracy is not just
one election. A democratic system includes rule of law, guaranteed freedoms,
economic opportunities, and elections that are free and fair and regular.
Europeans and Americans need to trust that in most places, and in all places
over time, radicalism will lose out to a human desire for justice. But we must
also demand that extremist groups that seek the privileges of a democratic
political process accept the democratic rules: respect for oppositions and the
inalienable rights of all citizens. A party cannot hold the ballot in one hand
and the gun in the other.

A wager on democracy is realism. Democratic advance sometimes slow, sometimes
surprisingly swift is upon us. In the 1970s there were about 40 democracies
in the world; today there are over 120 with more on the way:

-- In Ukraine democracy advanced in Kiev's Maidan as the world watched.

-- In Georgia, democracy advanced through a rose revolution.

-- And in the Middle East, too, the wave of democracy is now arriving:

-- In Lebanon, democracy took the form of a courageous public defiance of the
status quo and the first free elections in decades.

-- In Syria, human rights activists have stepped forward to assert their right
to a political life free of terror and tyranny.

-- In Egypt, the largest Arab country, we are witnessing the most vibrant
discussions of democracy in a hundred years.

-- In Gaza, the withdrawal of nearly 8,000 settlers a courageous act by the
Israeli democratic government will allow the Palestinians there to govern
themselves, and free parliamentary elections for all Palestinians are due in
January.

-- Women have attained the vote in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait, and now serve in
cabinet posts.

-- And women will vote in national elections for the first time next year in
Oman.

-- In Saudi Arabia, we anticipate the first municipal elections in forty years,
with an expectation that women should be able to vote in the next Saudi
elections. (However, as my colleague Liz Cheney says, "Let's hope women will be
able to drive themselves to the polling places.")

-- In Iraq, that country's nascent democratic institutions, especially the
parliament the democratically-elected Iraqi parliament have debated
federalism and the role of religion in politics. Iraqis are deciding their own
constitution for the first time in history. It is a messy process, taking place
under the skeptical eye of the world media and under threat of violence from
totalitarian insurgents. But while the future is unclear, Iraqis' future lies
in Iraqi hands; and they are not waiting for Saddam to haul them off to a mass
grave.

Whatever our differences, Europe, America, and the nations of the Middle East
must support Iraqis as they build their institutions of freedom. We must help
them with economic reconstruction and development. We must help them through
political support, and not make them the objects of our differences over
tactics. And those of us who are willing must stay by their side to provide
security until Iraqis themselves can meet these needs.

Earlier generations of Europeans and Americans confronted hateful ideologies by
remaining strong and united, and reaching to support reform and reformers
throughout all of Europe. That must be our goal today, and we must act beyond
Europe, especially in the broader Middle East. But the Euro-American alliance
remains critical. As President Bush made clear just before his trip to Europe
last February, "Security and justice and prosperity for our world depend on
America and Europe working in common purpose."

Do Europeans and Americans always agree? Of course not. Are some conversations
difficult to have? Yes. Do the pundits like to declare our alliance "dead"?
With regularity. But we are preparing ourselves to deal with the challenges of
the new century, once again reaching out to advance the cause and the
proponents of freedom.

In Afghanistan, an alliance of free nations, working through NATO, provide
security for Afghanistan's young democracy.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both Europe and America have a common
vision: two peaceful, democratic states living side by side. Two peoples at war
for decades now have a chance to find peace. Gaza disengagement gives us
something new on which to build. On critical practical matters like building
Palestinian security forces, we are working together effectively. Yet a key to
peace is the building of effective, responsible, capable and, yes, democratic
Palestinian state institutions. And Europe and America will help.

In Lebanon, through President Chirac's leadership, close Franco-American
cooperation, and a UN Security Council Resolution, America and Europe have
helped Lebanon regain its sovereignty and free itself from Syrian occupation.

On the troubling question of Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations, we work
closely with our European partners through the EU-3 process. Yet here, too, we
cannot forget the Iranian people and their democratic rights and aspirations.
The appearance of elections did not fool us. The Iranian people want greater
liberty and the chance to vote for candidates not chosen by the ruling clerics.

Even as Europe and the United States seek to resolve the critical conflicts in
the broader Middle East, we must mobilize ourselves to support reform and
reformers everywhere in the region. Like-minded nations of the G-8 and the
region created the Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative to forge a
common purpose with reformers of the region. And through its Barcelona process,
the European Union has sought to do this for over a decade, and we applaud
these efforts.

Ministers from the nations that compose the "Forum for the Future," and
representatives of civil society throughout the region, will meet in Bahrain in
November to decide on ways to help activists, reformers trying to build working
democratic institutions, and small business owners seeking economies free of
the cartels and corruption that prevent economic change.

That same month, EU leaders will gather in Barcelona to celebrate the 10th
anniversary of The Barcelona Process. Let us come out of both of these events
by affirming our common hopes and pursuing our common objectives together.

At the U.S.-EU summit in June, our leaders urged the Government of Egypt to
open its forthcoming elections to international observers. And we stressed the
importance of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and unfettered access
to the media for all candidates. We hope that the Egyptian government has been
listening.

We must be bold in ambition and practical in what we seek every day. Through
its Middle East Partnership Initiative, the United States supports economic,
political and educational reform and the empowerment of women. Projects include
training of Lebanese election observers, teaching Yemeni and Moroccan women to
read, providing over 2 million children's books translated into Arabic, funding
a study of Women's Freedom in the Arab World, and training for newly
independent media outlets.

When Condoleezza Rice was here in February, she told her Parisian audience that
"Our work has only begun. In our time we have an historic opportunity to shape
a global balance of power that favors freedom and that will therefore deepen
and extend the peace. And I use the word 'power' broadly, because even more
important than military and indeed economic power is the power of ideas, the
power of compassion, and the power of hope."

A woman in the audience asked her why she had chosen Paris to give her speech.
She highlighted the alliance of values that moved Europe from the horrors of
the 20th century to the peaceful, prosperous and democratic Europe of today.
She told the woman that France has a great tradition of debate, of intellectual
ferment.

So, I'll save you the effort of asking me the same question. I'm here for the
same reasons, and this is a good time for me to participate in the French
tradition of debate. I'd be delighted to take some questions. But before that,
I look forward to hearing Minister Vedrine's comments on these issues.



************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interview With Adam Garfinkle and Dan Kennelly of The American Interest


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
July 25, 2005

(3:30 p.m. EDT)

QUESTION: We've seen from the Cold War that strong states were the source of
most international security problems. Nowadays, a lot of people argue that weak
and failing states are the larger source of problems because they leave room
for non-state bad guys to plot and plan. Do you think that's really true? And
if it is true, is it a passing blip or is this a real structural change in
world politics, that instance?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I do think it's true at this particular
point in time that while there are strong states that have conflictual issues
from time to time, there are no really underlying conflictual interests that
would drive to the kind of animosity that we had between the Soviet Union and
the United States during the Cold War, for instance. And so, if you look at
most of the great powers out there, they actually have, perhaps, more in common
than they have in conflict.

Now, the really interesting question is, will that last over time or will this
kind -- is this a sort of structural, you know, (inaudible) period in which you
will see the re-emergence of great state conflict. I happen to think that
because international politics is partly about agency, not just grand events
moving or grand forces moving, that if we're smart about it then, in fact, you
can probably get to a position where you would not foresee great power conflict
for years, decades, maybe even longer to come. And if you go back to the
President's national security strategy, it essentially foreshadows that and
says that you could come to a time where great power conflict doesn't exist and
wouldn't exist again in the future.

Now, the flipside of that is the weak state theory, which I think is clearly
true for the time being, that the inability of states to engage in what people
have called responsible sovereignty, to do things like guard their borders, to
have police forces or border guards that are not corrupt, to manage their
internal affairs in a way that does not permit the growth of cells -- terrorist
cells and the like -- the ability to manage trade and flow, so that you don't
get trade and flow and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials
or the like. All of those are difficult for any state, but particularly
difficult for weak states. And so, the ability to strengthen the capacity of
states -- we had a long period in which I think we thought of globalization and
transnationalism as positive trends. And for the most part, when you talk about
trade and people and openness, they are positive trends. But there's a downside
to it, too, which is that if you don't have -- if sovereignty is breaking down
or if the ability to control those aspects and those elements that we associate
with sovereignty -- if that's breaking down, then you're very vulnerable. So, I
think for this moment in time, yes, I would say that's right.

QUESTION: Okay. The second one's a little bit more (inaudible), I guess. The
diplomacy of the Iraq war has suggested to many that we and some of our allies
-- I won't name them -- lack a basic consensus over what is a legitimate use of
force and what role international institutions, including the UN Security
Council, have in defining what the legitimate use of force is. Now, how serious
a lack of consensus is this? And I ask, because one contemplates NATO; how can
NATO be an effective organization in the long run if its members disagree about
first principles every time a serious crisis arises? What do you think that the
basis of this lack of consensus and what, if anything, can we do to reconcile
it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I would be careful about extrapolation from a single
case. Iraq is a fairly, I think, unique phenomenon, in that you've had a
consensus about the problem and about the threat and about the outlaw status of
Saddam Hussein's regime or you would not have had 17 UN Security Council
resolutions and you would not have had sanctions on the Iraqis that we now know
were working -- not working very well, but nonetheless, the sanctions regime
that was completely supported in theory by the international community. So, I
don't think there was any disagreement about the threat of Saddam Hussein or
about the outlaw status of that regime. I don't think it's -- and so, that, in
a sense makes Iraq a bit unique. But I also don't think that there is anything
in history that suggests that you're always going to have consensus about the
timing of the use of force. When you think about the Kosovo situation, for
instance, you also didn't get a UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: And NATO is good enough.

SECRETARY RICE: So NATO -- you've got a NATO resolution, but you were not able
to get a Security Council resolution at that time. So, the only times in which
you were actually able to get a UN Security Council resolution on the use of
force was the Korean crisis when, of course, the Russians had walked out of the
room. And the Gulf War in 1991, which I think was potentially well, possibly,
a kind of crack in time where you've had such an egregious behavior by the
Iraqis and also the fact that the Russians were in a particular state at that
point that you got agreement on the use of force.

So, I think that the Iraq situation is, in many ways, unique. But the fact that
you can't get consensus on the use of force is actually not really unique in
international history. So, it means that at any given time, you may be
operating with a coalition of the willing. In fact, NATO was a -- was not a UN
Security Council resolution either. And so, I mean, NATO acted not -- without
any UN Security Council resolution as well. So, I think this is, in many ways,
an argument that's more theoretical than practical.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: You'd obviously always like to have the widest possible support
for the use of force, but -- you know, when you have 17 violated security
council resolutions and when you have a state that has wreaked as much havoc in
a region as important as the Middle East as Iraq has, then I think somebody
sometimes has to take a decision to act and it was a coalition that took a
decision to act.

QUESTION: Okay. Let's move to Asia now for a moment, okay. A lot of observers
of Asia see a trend toward Pan-Asian attitudes and institutions at the expense
of Trans-Pacific ones. You have the ASEAN plus three and the summit coming up.
And I know you know about this because it was the main theme of your Tokyo
speech in March.

SECRETARY RICE: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is this a problem for the United States? And if it is, how many
options do we have to actually do anything about it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't think it's a problem that there is an identity
that is Pan-Asian, no. I think it would be a problem if it becomes an
exclusivist identity. And I don't think that all the states in that who are a
part of that identity wanted to be exclusivists. I don't think Japan wants to
be exclusivists. In talking to a number of the Southeast Asians, they don't
want to it be exclusivist. The Australians most certainly don't want it to be.
And so, the idea that you would have existing, side-by-side organizations that
are Pan-Asian or organizations that are Trans-Pacific, I think, is
unproblematic. The advantage to the, sort of, Trans-Pacific ones is that it
brings together democratic forces as well and so, that needs to be kept in
mind.

But I think there are plenty of institutional possibilities to strengthen those
Trans-Pacific ties and the United States has a lot of leverage and considerable
influence by which to do that.

QUESTION: You have stressed transformational diplomacy. That's the phrase that
we've heard a lot and as I understand it, that's the determination to actually
fundamentally solve the problem when you can, as opposed to just tinkering with
it or managing it. But obviously, potential judgment has to come to bear
because not every problem has a solution. So, assuming that there's such a
thing as a bridge too far in foreign policy, how do you know when you're on the
near side of one?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't think you can think of it in those terms. I think
you have to decide what is critical to American interests and American security
interests and you have to go after those problems. And I also think that, you
know, the other part of transformational diplomacy is that what you're trying
to do is to increase the capacity of states to deal with these -- with problems
as well and it goes back to the first point about weak states.

If you don't believe that you can tolerate a situation in which weak states
become either breeding grounds for terrorism or transit ports for terrorism or
unable to control the environment and therefore, have a spillover effect in the
international system, then you have to do something to increase capacity. And
so, part of it is -- part of transformational diplomacy is actually working
with other states to increase their capacity, to change people's lives, to
change state capacity, to actively transform in that -- actively transform
other states in their capacity in people's lives.

And you're not going to be able to do it in every case, no. But clearly, there
are enough key places that you're going to have to be able to do that -- Middle
East (inaudible), Africa. And I actually think if you have it as a goal that
it's not just up to the United States to do this, but that you have partners
and that you actually have willing states as well who want to be a part of
this, that it doesn't overstretch your capacity to try and do it. No, you're
not going to dissolve every problem, but if you manage to do well in some
percentage in those cases, you're going to leave a better world -- a lot better
off than if you hadn't tried.

QUESTION: Absolutely. Next question. The hallmark of President Bush's second
term was established in the inaugural -- second inaugural, which is the spread
of democracy worldwide as America's mission. So in that light, what do you make
-- what do you make of the arguments that we've all heard from time to time
that if electoral democracy comes too soon before the institutions of liberal
democracy are established, you can end up with a populist demagogy. And I'm
sure you also know of the data, which suggests that young democracies correlate
with both interstate and civil war.

So presumably, the application of this mission, which I don't think anybody
would doubt, has to be done with some care. How does that actually apply in the
real world say, in the Middle East where its focus is today?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the first thing is that democracy is not just elections.
Democracy is, in fact, also the creation of liberal institutions, the
strengthening of civil society, because most of our democracy programs are
actually aimed at those sorts of elements. It's fairly later into the process
that you get into election assistance. We've been working in a lot of these
places for a long time on civil society development and institutional
developmental.

You look at a place like Ukraine. I was in Ukraine in 2001. You would never
have guessed that the Orange Revolution in 2001, you would never have guessed
that the Orange Revolution was actually going to be led by a combination of
opposition and civil society. But those groups have been strengthened and
supported over a period of time.

So, democracy is more than just elections. It is also institutions in civil
society and you have to work in all elements of it. But I also reject the
notion that because democracy is hard and because there are risks associated
with democratization, to sort of then decide -- the question I always have for
people is: "Okay, then, what is the answer? Is it continued authoritarianism?"
Well, that hasn't gotten us very far, particularly in the Middle East where all
it's done is bred opposition outside of reliable channels or outside of
legitimate channels, so that you get, instead, extremism.

It clearly isn't the case that the United States of America ought to argue that
"Well, those people just aren't ready for democracy." And from that side, is
that the answer to -- there might be risks associated with democracy. And when
it comes to the question of whether you might, in fact, get extremists elected,
which is another way that this is somehow sometimes put, I think you have to
ask yourself if you are better off in an situation in which extremists or
Islamists or others get to hide behind their mask and operate on the fringes of
the political system, because there is no accountability in the political
system or which actually, you'd rather have an open political system in which
people have to actually contest for the will of the people and who does best in
a contestation for the will of the people. To a certain extent, you have to
trust these values and you have to believe that while democracy is very hard,
it is certainly not an easy system to bring into being. I would have two
answers: first, it's certainly better than anything else that we can point to
and secondly, what's the alternative?

QUESTION: Okay. During the Cold War, we were all familiar with varieties of
anti-Americanism, mostly on the left. A lot of people now say that not only is
anti-Americanism greater, but that its sources are more diverse, it's coming
from other places on the political spectrum than the left. Do you think that's
so? And if you do, where does this come from? Is it just, you know, a reaction
to American conduct after the 9/11 attacks or is -- is there something -- is it
because we're "number one" and there's a natural envy? What do you think
accounts for this?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think you have to be a little bit more -- people have
to be more rigorous in what they mean by anti-Americanism. Clearly, this is
still the most popular place in the world to come if you are a student or want
to come and be educated or if you want to emigrate, this is still a pretty
popular place, the United States. American culture, both good and bad, is very
much sought after abroad.

So -- and I still think that the values that the United States espouses are the
most universal of all values. Now, I do think that we've gone through a period
of time in which the United States has had to do very difficult things as the
most powerful state in the international system, if you will, to decide that
you were going to have to shape the environment so that things began to change.
And I would give a couple of examples where those decisions were wildly
unpopular at the time but now have become almost common wisdom.

The decision that we weren't going to deal with Yasser Arafat because he was a
failed, bankrupt leader and there was going to be no peace in the Middle East
until the Palestinians had new leadership. Now, it's almost common wisdom. But
when the President said that in June of 2002, it was considered an outrageous
statement.

QUESTION: It made me happy.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: You're unusual. For most people it was, "How can you do that?
You have to deal with Arafat. You'll never get a peace without him." Well,
we've learned something very different.

QUESTION: Well, we may not get a peace without him, but we certainly weren't
going to get one with him.

SECRETARY RICE: And the President's point was that the Palestinian people
deserved better. They deserved a government that was democratic and not corrupt
and transparent and all those things. Now, everybody talks about transparency
in the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians, by the way, talk about
transparency in the Palestinian Authority. So that's just an example of taking
a difficult course.

QUESTION: Yeah. He changed the whole conversation.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. And he completely changed the conversation about that. So
that's the kind of thing where the United States has to take a difficult
decision. We had to take a difficult decision in Iraq. Not everybody likes it.
I do think now, though, if you go, like I did to the Brussels conference, and
you have a list of people talking about how a stable, democratic Iraq at peace
with its neighbors and at peace with itself could change the entire structure
in the Middle East, it's now common wisdom that that is the case.

So, the United States has had, from time to time, to take difficult decisions.
And when you have to take difficult decisions, sometimes people want to shoot
the messenger. And on some of these hard things that have had to be said,
that's the way it's been. But it's also the case -- and here, I think, 60 years
of American policy is somewhat at fault. And I don't try now to go back and
prejudge or to judge, in retrospect, the decisions that were taken over the
whole history of the Cold War about the Middle East and authoritarianism. But
the sense that the United States was associated with authoritarian regimes and
that there was a kind of Middle East exceptionalism when it came to democracy,
I think that has hurt us. But the President is on a different course now and I
still -- I do think it's appreciated.

QUESTION: I wish I had time to go into more detail on that particular matter
because there's some things that I -- well, let me ask you one thing.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, does that mean, for example -- just take one example out of
dozens you can think of. Does that mean that the President thinks or that you
think possibly that putting the Shah of Iran back in his peacock throne in 1953
was a mistake and that that did not bring stability for 25 years?

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, like I said, -- and listen, I'm sure at the time it was a
very tough decision because what you can't do very effectively is go back in
time and try to put yourself in the context of what everybody was dealing with
at that particular point in time. You take decisions in a particular political
and temporal context. And I have never been one to go back and say, "Well, they
made a mistake in X, Y or Z," because I understand. But the cumulative effect
of policies over a long period of time, where not only did we not speak out
about authoritarian practices, but where those practices then denied a
legitimate channel to descent, have indeed come back, I think, to haunt us.

QUESTION: Right. Well, you and I both went to graduate school, inundated with
arms control and (inaudible) and all that stuff. And now there's no more Soviet
Union.

SECRETARY RICE: Right.

QUESTION: And now people are talking about the second nuclear age of incipient
medium power-- all that stuff that we learned in graduate school.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it worth a hoot?

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is any of it useful or does some of it actually get in the way of
clear thought?

SECRETARY RICE: I always say that I'm clearly a dinosaur, since the first book
that I wrote was called "The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army" and
neither of those countries exist anymore, so, I'm 0 for 2.

I do think that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a break in the old system
and the beginning of a new one. I don't think we really I've always thought
that the end of the Soviet Union and 9/11 were kind of bookends. There was that
period in between where we didn't really know what the shape of international
conflict was going to look like and so -- but I found that what was useful from
studying as a political scientist and earlier in economics and then in
political science as a graduate student was, you gained certain analytic tools
about the international system.

You know, you learn to understand how incentives are imprinted on the
international system by the most powerful states and how states respond to them
or don't. I mean, those are the kinds of things that I think are useful. But,
yeah, much of the arms control theory that we learned, I think, is probably
it goes the way of people who studied early ancient text. But the key is to
make current policy respond to the new threats on the proliferation side, not
to remain

QUESTION: Stuck.

SECRETARY RICE: stuck in the past. I mean, I remember the debates at the time
of the United States' decision, the President's decision, to move beyond the
ABM Treaty and to finally decide that the ABM Treaty should be put out of its
misery. And I remember having discussions with people from time to time and
they would say, "But, you know, it's prevented war." And I would think, "No, it
hasn't prevented war."

Actually, to the degree that it was a part of a system that had mutually
assured destruction at its core, okay, maybe. But on what grounds today would
you expect that the United States and Russia would engage in suicidal nuclear
war? So nothing so even if you want to grant that at the time of the Soviet
Union and the United States -- when really, the only thing that we agreed about
was that we would prefer not to annihilate each other.

And by the way, that's why, when there would be summits, everything was focused
on arms control, because the summit between Brezhnev and Carter or -- you know,
Reagan and Gorbechev was an opportunity to reassure the rest of the world that
we actually didn't want to annihilate each other and, by the way, them as well.

And so, this was a system, this kind of -- this system of strategic stability,
which I wrote papers on and I'm sure you did too. The strategic stability was a
system that came out of a particular political context in which the United
States and the Soviet Union were mortal enemies but essentially didn't want to
annihilate each other and so, they created strategic stability as the content.

When you lost the political venom that was underneath the U.S.-Soviet
relationship, you no longer needed this system of strategic stability, but
people couldn't let go of the ABM Treaty because it was a part of strategic
stability. That, to me, was a good lesson in why you have to be able to move
beyond whatever it was you were taught in graduate school.

QUESTION: Great. Next question. Dr. Kissinger said a couple of months ago that
he thought it might be a good idea if the world's main energy consumers sat
down together and sort of thought through, in concert, how they might avoid
beggar-thy-neighbor, 19th century-style competitions for resources. What do you
think of this idea of sitting down privately in a sort of Metternichian concert
diplomacy? Is it a good idea or not? Do you think we yet have a coherent
diplomacy of global resource policy?

SECRETARY RICE: It's an interesting question and I don't I do think that
energy is becoming an increasingly important part of the diplomatic calculus
and I'm not quite sure that we have fully accounted for it in our diplomacy.
The President has begun to do that because when he talks to nations about
economic growth and development, energy is always a part of his discussion with
them. It's also the case that this cannot simply be competition for fossil
fuels. If it's competition for fossil fuels, you are back into a kind of 19th
century world of scarce resources with everybody trying for the same pie. And
it seems rather antiquated in a world in which, you know, oil is a traded
commodity, it's where -- because you're not in the same situation where people
are simply trying to put their stake on this field or that field, but it has
that feel when you think of just competition for fossil fuels.

If you'd think of it, though, in a more 20th century post-World War II, the way
that we can see that the global trading system, which was not zero-sum, but
rather one in which you could have additive policies, there are ways to
approach this in which the pie of energy expands; now, not in the immediate
term, but technology for instance, so that -- I thought that what came out of
the G-8 on global climate change had advantages not just for the environment,
but advantages on the energy side that you would have commitment to trying to
find clean sources of energy through technological innovation. It gives you a
whole different way to think about the energy problem.

You're obviously going to have to solve the nuclear energy problem if states
are going to be able to diversify their energy sources, which is why we're
exploring, as you know, with India, civil nuclear energy. You simply can't be
in a position in which you have huge growing economies like China and India and
others where the energy supply is finite. And so, the combination of increasing
the exploration and production of fossil fuels -- I mean, this sort of thing
that Saudi Arabia has promised to do in the longer run -- but also making that
energy resource less finite through the applications of new technologies and
the engaging of civil nuclear, I think, are all ways that you can avoid the
kind of 19th century competition for resources that underlay the whole collapse
of the concert system.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. STEVENS: You have time for about one more question.

QUESTION: One more question. I only have two left, doing pretty good. Here's a
question that loops back to the failed-state issue, but it starts from a
different direction. When the international environment, one of the things we
all learned in school I hoped you learned in school when the international
environment changes, governments need new skill sets to deal with those
changes. And sometimes, to get those new skill sets, we have to reorganize
ourselves. And so, we've seen in recent years, a Homeland Security Department,
a new intelligence arrangement, it's quite logical and normal.

Well, one of the skill sets that everybody acknowledges we need is how to deal
with weakened, failing states in post-conflict situations. And, I mean, we know
how to, you know, set up a hospital. We know how to, you know, do basic sort of
like well, wait, we don't know how to create viable, self-sustaining real
institutions in a lot of the countries that don't have it. So, we have a new
office in this building that Carlos Pasqual is running. And I know you voiced
very strong support for that, that whole effort.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: So, how is that office coming along so far, and how far does it have
to go until you are satisfied that it has the operational capacity you think we
need?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Carlos is doing a terrific job with it and I think it's
coming along. It's got great support in our committees on the Hill, but it's
going to have to get larger.

And I have a second point that I want to make about its connection to others in
the international system, but let me take on the point of skills first. It's
absolutely the case that when I sit here, whether I'm talking to the
transitional Liberian leadership or talking with people about Haiti or talking
with John Garang, who I talked to recently about Sudan, or talking to the
Iraqis or talking to the Afghans, you know, the same issues keep coming up.
These are states without reliable police forces, for instance. They are states
without a reliable system of border and customs management. They are states
that haven't quite yet figured out a number of the economic issues that they
have to deal with. I mean, it's just capacity, capacity, capacity and it's the
same issues time and time again.

And we're talking about states that are in the Caribbean, states that are in
the Middle East, states that are in Africa, the Palestinians. It doesn't
matter. It's the same set of issues. They don't have reliable and -- you know,
reliable civilian-controlled security forces. You can go (inaudible.) And we
haven't been organized to help them do it.

So what we've done every time one of these has come out -- and by the way, the
first came to light in Bosnia. So what we did was we had ad hoc arrangements
for each one. And so finally, you say to yourself, "Okay, when are we going to
realize that this is not an ad hoc problem? This is a problem that's going to
continue to occur," and that's when you start to get institutional capacity
inside the Department of State. And the Defense Department would be the first
to tell you the military can do some of these things on a temporary basis, but
it's not their forte and they certainly don't want to have to do it on a
long-term basis.

Now to my mind, not only do we need to strengthen our own capacity, but we also
need to strengthen -- we need to have other states strengthen their capacity.
So, one thing that Carlos has been talking to other states about is who can
create the equivalent of a civil -- a kind of civil reserve -- civilian reserve
in civil servants who can help with all these various elements. It's sometimes
as simple as, how do you setup and maintain a ministry. You've got a minister,
now what's underneath him? And so, getting other states to do this too will be
very crucial.

And then there has to be some kind of international coordinating mechanism. And
there are different stages that states go through, but particularly when
they're coming out of a post-conflict situation. They need immediate help in
some of these areas and then they need medium-term help and then they need
longer-term help. And I'm really hopeful. It's one of the issues of this
peace-building commission that the UN is talking about as a part of UN reform
could really deal with how do you get that immediate help into the field. It's
one of the reasons that we've pushed so hard that you've got to have broad UN
reform and not just UN Security Council reform.

QUESTION: Absolutely.

SECRETARY RICE: Because while everybody's talking about, you know, the Security
Council and, in fact, you know, Security Council reform is important. But I was
out in Sudan looking at the need to build a comprehensive to sustain the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south of Sudan, solved the
Darfur problem and began to deal with Darfur as a part of this, thinking,
"Where is the capacity, internationally, to do this?" So yes, these
transformations of the international first of all, of our foreign ministries
and the State Department have to get done and then, I think we have to have
better international capacity as well.

MR. MCCORMACK: This will be your last question

QUESTION: One more, yes. I've only got one left.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: This is a soft policy.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: In January of 2009, I think it is, there'll be a new President. We
don't know if he's going to be a Democrat or a Republican or whatever. And it's
a long time from now.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: You know, but still, from the vantage point of the summer of 2005,
what do you think, though, are the one or two principal legacies of these two
terms will be or, even better, what would you like them to be?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Well, I really do think that the President's second
inaugural will stand as one of the most important statements of American policy
of many, many, many years.

QUESTION: I agree.

SECRETARY RICE: And the response to that has been pretty dramatic around the
world if you look at, (inaudible), the kind of multiple democratic sprouts that
are out there now. And so, I think the real issue is, can you leave a
foundation in which those sprouts are beginning to grow into something more
sustainable. I do not believe for a minute that by 2009, you will have stable
democracies in all of these places. I just don't see that. You didn't have a
stable democracy in the United States for a fair number of years and forget
after 1776; after 1789.

And it takes institutions have to grow not just in capacity, but in
legitimacy and it takes kind of repeated interaction by the population with
those institutions to believe in them and to begin to channel their problems
through those institutions instead of outside of them. That's all the process
of democratic consolidation. But what the legacy has to be is to leave the
foundation in place for that and to leave an American policy and American
institutions that can support and sustain that process of democratic
consolidation. So, I really think that's where it is. I do think that there are
-- you know, the other major issues will be the progress on the new
proliferation agenda. You know, we were laughing a few minutes ago about angels
dancing on a head of an SS-18 when we were in graduate school.

QUESTION: Well that was a big bust.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, which was -- listen, you know, a lot of angels could
dance on the head of that thing. But now, you know, the kinds of challenges are
very different, where you're talking about secretive regimes, dual-use
technologies, not something you can necessarily see the national technical
means, not necessarily something that they parade through the streets. How do
you deal with that proliferation challenge? How do you deal with the A.Q. Khan
phenomenon? Those are major issues. And then finally, on the terrorism front, I
think when people talk about it, you know, being able to deal with to break
up these organizations like al-Qaida and the like, that's all critical; defend
the homeland, that's all critical.

But again, when we have laid a foundation in which moderate Islam is on the
ascendant, if I look at places like Pakistan, I know that in 2001, it was, I
think, on its way to extremism. It's now pulled back from that brink and you
have a president in Pakistan who's trying to move it in a different direction.
There are stories like that across the broader Middle East and the moderates
have to win.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.
2005/830



Released on September 1, 2005

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 1, 2005


(excerpt)


QUESTION: Thanks. I was just doing the favor to the -- our Asian colleagues
here, (Laughter) because they've waited for this for months. Anyway, my
question on Iran is the IAEA has come out with sort of a new assessment of
Iran's programs and I wonder if you had anything to say about this and also
about sort of the stages now leading up to the Security Council we have seen
the Europeans, particularly the French, talk about in the last couple of days?

MR. MCCORMACK: With respect to the IAEA, we're waiting for their report on
September 3rd, so we look forward to reviewing it with the other members of the
Board of Governors. But prior to September 3rd, an actual release of the report
of the IAEA, I'm going to defer any comment. And as for the state of play on
the negotiations with -- between Iran and the EU-3, as well as Iran's
cooperation with the IAEA, we have been in close contact this week, intensive
contact with members of the EU-3. Under Secretary Burns has been working on
this issue very intensively over the past months. Yesterday he had a long
digital videoconference with his counterparts in the EU-3 countries. They
talked about the way forward on this issue. And again, we underlined our
support for the EU-3 efforts. We, again, call on Iran to engage with the EU-3,
take the offer that's on the table. But what we are going to be looking for in
the weeks ahead is at the next IAEA Board of Governors meeting, that the Board
of Governors refer the issue of Iran to the Security Council. And I think we
are in absolute lockstep with the EU-3 on this issue and we will continue to
stay in close contact with them.

Teri.

QUESTION: EU Foreign Ministers now say that they are all unified and agree that
if the IAEA report shows what we expect it to show, that they agree that it
should be referred, that Iran should be referred to the Security Council. But
the Swedish Foreign Minister also said that she didn't think it was appropriate
to talk about sanctions against Iran. What is -- does the U.S. believe that a
mere referral to the Security Council is basically toothless and that sanctions
would definitely have to be employed?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we're taking this one step at a time and we will also --
we would be working with our colleagues on the Security Council on what steps,
once the issue is referred to the Security Council, what steps the Security
Council will take. So -- but we're going to take this one, one step at a time
right now.

QUESTION: Well, what does a referral mean without sanctions?

MR. MCCORMACK: The first step is for it to be referred to the Security Council
and then we're going to be consulting closely with colleagues on the Security
Council on what is the appropriate action.


************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ for all daily press briefings
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Friday, September 02, 2005
Tehran Warned by EU on Talks

Raf Casert, The Associated Press thru http://www.regimechangeiran.com/:

The European Union yesterday urged Iran to return to the negotiating table to discuss its nuclear program and threatened to take Tehran to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions if it did not.

At a meeting of EU foreign ministers, Britain, France and Germany briefed the bloc's nations on the collapse of negotiations with Tehran and said intervention by the United Nations could well become the only option.

"We are ready to go to New York if necessary," said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

The 25-nation European Union would give Iran up to the Sept. 19 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Austria, to return to the negotiating table on some of its atomic activities that also can be used to make nuclear weapons. Tehran insists the program is only for generating electricity.

"We cannot take a timeout when it comes to our security," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, underscoring the need for urgency. READ MORE

Although the Security Council has the power to impose sanctions, China opposes bringing the issue before the council and could use its veto power to block a resolution punishing Iran.

An emergency IAEA meeting on Iran last month did not report Tehran to the council, and instead asked the nuclear agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report to the agency board members by tomorrow on Iran's activities.

After discussing the issue with the foreign ministers, EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner insisted yesterday that the negotiating door remained open for Tehran.

"We are still ready to seek a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue. But the Iranians should not make the mistake of underestimating the strength of ... Europe. Nobody wants to go to the Security Council, but it might become unavoidable if they don't cooperate," she told reporters.

In London, the National Council of Resistance of Iran said Tehran obtained 44 pounds of beryllium from China last year. Beryllium can be used in the development of nuclear weapons, reducing by as much as a third the need for enriched uranium or plutonium.

There was no comment from Iran's government. Officials at the IAEA, which is probing Iran's nuclear activities for signs of a weapons program, said they had no comment on the assertions.

posted by DoctorZin @ 8:27 AM
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Friday, September 02, 2005


U.S., Europe Must Forge Broader Alliance, Says State's Fried

September 01, 2005
The Washington File
Embassy of the U.S., London



America and Europe must work together to support democratic development throughout the broader Middle East, just as they supported the democratic aspirations of pro-democracy movements in central and Eastern Europe, says the State Department’s Daniel Fried.

Speaking in Paris September 1, the day after attending a commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the founding of Solidarity in Gdansk, Poland, Fried said the Polish people “achieved democracy through their own efforts, but they had support from abroad,” including from Western Europe, America, and even Pope John Paul II.

After freedom was achieved for most of Europe, said Fried -- the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs -- Americans accepted the status quo in the Middle East and were willing “to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability.” But President Bush has frequently pointed out that “decades of failed policy in the Middle East” did not bring stability or safety, Fried noted.

Now Europe and America, just as they did during the Cold War, must “forge an alliance of common values, pushing beyond our borders to meet and join with reformers in the broader Middle East,” Fried said.

He disputed claims that democracy can only take root in certain cultures. “This is nonsense: democracy answers universal human needs and can take root in all cultures and religious traditions,” he said.

Fried noted that in the Arab press and media “Arabs are engaged in an intense dialogue about democracy.”

“Though it has occurred in different times and in different forms, the advance of democracy is a historic experience that America, Europe and the Muslim world are beginning to share,” he said.

He cited democratic advances in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other Middle East countries, including Iraq.

“Whatever our differences, Europe, America and the nations of the Middle East must support Iraqis as they build their institutions of freedom,” Fried said. “And those of us who are willing must stay by their side to provide security until Iraqis themselves can meet those needs.”

Initiatives such as the Forum for the Future, the Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative, the European Union’s Barcelona Process, and the Middle East Partnership Initiative help support economic and political reform, he said.

He concluded by quoting from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s remarks at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques-Sciences Politiques de Paris in February. Europe and America, she said, “have an historic opportunity to shape a global balance of power that favors freedom – and that will therefore deepen and extend the peace. And I use the word ‘power’ broadly, because even more important than military and indeed economic power is the power of ideas, the power of compassion, and the power of hope." (See related story.)

Fried spoke to a French audience interested U.S.-European-Middle East dialogue, according to a State Department staff member.

Following are Fried’s remarks in Paris:

(begin transcript)

FORGING A BROADER ALLIANCE FOR FREEDOM

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Remarks at the Hotel Talleyrand
Paris, France
September 1, 2005

As prepared

Minister Vedrine, Ambassador Stapleton, honored Ambassadors, and guests, please accept my thanks for joining with me in this dialogue on what I would like to call the U.S.-European imperative to support democratic reform and democratic reformers in the Middle East. There is no better place for such a discussion than France – a center of European thinking, a center of global strategic thinking, and a center of expertise about the Middle East.

Let me begin this discussion by recalling earlier and formative discussions about democracy led by French-speaking intellectuals at the beginning of the modern era.

In the 18th century, the ideas of democracy and nationalism took shape in the West. The views of Jean-Jacques Rousseau reigned supreme among what we would call today "progressive elites." For Rousseau, representative government could only triumph as a sort of "boutique democracy" – that’s my phrase, of course -- in small countries where the citizenry would more or less share the same culture and be bound together as would a large tribe. This view, though accepted by most at the time, proved to be limited.



The views of Alexis de Tocqueville, in the early 19th century, proved more perceptive. He saw that big countries, like America, with widely divergent cultural traditions could also become successful "universalist" democracies, again, in my phrase.

Rousseau and de Tocqueville were both trying to describe the conditions necessary for democracy to take root and flourish. This is an essential question today, and my own government has thought this through as well, including with respect to the modern Middle East. This is not for us a question of political theory, but of central strategic importance.

Some Americans, and some Europeans, think like Rousseau: essentially, that democracy is a fragile flower that needs special conditions to take root and flourish. But others, including my government, believe de Tocqueville had it right: democracy is robust, and its applicability is potentially universal.

Let me be even more specific: there are those who believe that democracy can take root only in European cultures, or the descendents of European cultures. This is nonsense: democracy answers universal human needs and can take root in all cultures and religious traditions.

In a National Endowment for Democracy speech in November, 2003, President Bush said that..."time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, were ‘ready’ for democracy – as if freedom were a prize you win....It should be clear to all that Islam – the faith of one-fifth of humanity – is consistent with democracy. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries – in Turkey and Indonesia, Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America."

But it is not American opinion that matters. In the Arab press and media, in Arab countries and in the West, Arabs are engaged in an intense dialogue about democracy. As de Tocqueville knew in his own era, and as the dictators in the Arab world should know today, the ancien regime is in profound retreat.

In a recent interview, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian scholar and human rights activist, described the beginnings of the democratic process in his own region, "...in 1982 there was no single Arab country that had electoral politics, competitive elections or even the pretense of elections, but today there are 10-11 Arab countries with varying degrees of democratic politics...30...organizations that have the words human rights in their title...So if you persevere, and if you persist, you will see results. And we have seen results in my lifetime. That’s why I am an incurable optimist, in spite of all that I have seen."

Though it has occurred in different times and in different forms, the advance of democracy is a historic experience that America, Europe, and the Muslim world are beginning to share.

I’ve just arrived from Poland where I commemorated the 25th anniversary of Solidarity; a place where democratic change has been recent and profound. Founded in 1980, Solidarity was repressed in 1981. But when I worked on the Polish desk at the State Department in 1989, momentous change was underway. The democratic advance that year was as sudden as it was unexpected to experts on both sides of the Atlantic. I was fortunate at that time to have had a colleague and mentor who believed with me that these determined people could bring democracy to their nation, despite the prevailing and massive skepticism.

Condoleezza Rice, then my colleague and now my boss, has frequently said that what seems impossible one day becomes inevitable the next. Solidarity began with demands for justice and dignity by millions of people. The democratic aspirations of Solidarity’s leaders drew people of all backgrounds together. Their combined courage and persistent efforts brought historic change after decades of tyranny and upheaval. The Poles achieved democracy through their own efforts, but they had support from abroad: from Western Europe and America, from a beloved pope, and from Ronald Reagan, whose demand to tear down the wall the Poles still remember.

The Poles made their own democracy. But they did not do so alone. Indeed, Solidarity’s political achievement of 1989 built on forty years of common purpose by Europeans and Americans, and followed from a determined Euro-Atlantic strategy to combat totalitarian ideologies and to forge bonds with the people of Eastern Europe who sought freedom and justice for themselves and their nations. This transatlantic bond – whether practiced by Monnet, Truman, Kohl, Kennedy or Reagan – formed a long network of interwoven institutional and political arrangements meant to build Europe, whole, free, and at peace.

The achievement of freedom in Poland is a success story for Europeans, Americans and, above all, the Poles themselves. But we in free nations cannot rest while others lack freedom. While throughout the Cold War and after 1989 we fought and achieved freedom for nearly all of Europe, we afterwards let down our vigilance, or indulged our prejudices, elsewhere. Though WE are free, we cannot enjoy freedom or security while others, especially in the Middle East, live under tyranny. We cannot flourish in a comfortable isolation.

September 11th was our frightening wake-up call. That call screamed to us that we could not live with the status quo in the Middle East. In a 2003 speech in London, President Bush asked that "we shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East" because "in the past we have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered ideologies of violence took hold."

Americans thought there were sound strategic reasons for the United States to seek stability at the expense of freedom. We thought that freedom and security were separate. But we were wrong. Security and freedom are indivisible. Because we were wrong, young Muslims could not look to the U.S. with confidence that we would oppose despotism. While the people of Poland found some hope in VOA radio broadcasts, for too long the people of the Middle East did not. For far too long we were deaf to a growing call for reform.

We learned the hard way, as did many Europeans and many Muslims, that the rising totalitarian, extremist ideology that grew through decades of political oppression and lack of economic opportunity or social mobility made us less secure by the day. And we paid dearly: on 9/11, on 3/11, in London, in Bali, in Beslan, Istanbul, and Sharm El Sheik. Sadly, this is our common threat. Europeans, Americans, the people of the Middle East.

When we ask ourselves why the terrorists came after us, the reasons are clear. The democratic world is their target because it offers individuals basic freedoms to make their own destinies, while the terrorists and the totalitarian thinkers who inspire them embrace an ideology of hate, blood, and coercion.

During the Cold War, faced with the challenge of totalitarian communism, Europe and America forged an alliance of democracy; an alliance of common values and principles, and we succeeded. In this era, Europe and America must now forge an alliance of common values, pushing beyond our borders to meet and join with reformers in the broader Middle East.

Just as we achieved security through democracy and strength after two World Wars in the last half of the 20th century, so we can achieve it in the first half of the 21st. The totalitarian ideologies we wrestled with were in Europe; though our work in Europe is not complete, today’s challenges are now beyond our borders, and our action and efforts must be directed far from our shores.

The Euro-American alliance must stand with reform and reformers in the Broader Middle East and beyond. Gathering in Gdansk were democracy activists from around the world: from China, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Russia, Belarus, and Cuba. They spoke out about what Solidarity had meant and still means to them, and urged the democratic community, now including Poland, not to forget them.

They are right. Together Euro-American efforts must turn outward; together we must support the future "Solidarities" and all the reformers of the Middle East. Now is the time for us to support peoples who are trapped by economic mismanagement and oppressive political regimes.

Some of you may see this call as an example of famous yet excessive American idealism. But isn’t a wager on freedom a higher realism? Have we not learned that betting on the status quo of oppression is simplistic cynicism, guaranteeing future tyranny and a faux-Islamic radicalism?

Let us remember as well that democracy is as natural as the marketplace. Democracy by its nature is not imposed. Dictatorship is imposed – by secret police and prison

Some ask whether the United States is prepared for democratic elections that extremist parties might win. Democratic elections are not fixed in advance and neither my country nor any country can pick winners. But democracy is not just one election. A democratic system includes rule of law, guaranteed freedoms, economic opportunities, and elections that are free and fair and regular. Europeans and Americans need to trust that in most places, and in all places over time, radicalism will lose out to a human desire for justice. But we must also demand that extremist groups that seek the privileges of a democratic political process accept the democratic rules: respect for oppositions and the inalienable rights of all citizens. A party cannot hold the ballot in one hand and the gun in the other.

A wager on democracy is realism. Democratic advance – sometimes slow, sometimes surprisingly swift – is upon us. In the 1970s there were about 40 democracies in the world; today there are over 120 with more on the way:

-- In Ukraine democracy advanced in Kiev’s Maidan as the world watched.

-- In Georgia, democracy advanced through a rose revolution.

-- And in the Middle East, too, the wave of democracy is now arriving:

-- In Lebanon, democracy took the form of a courageous public defiance of the status quo and the first free elections in decades.

-- In Syria, human rights activists have stepped forward to assert their right to a political life free of terror and tyranny.

-- In Egypt, the largest Arab country, we are witnessing the most vibrant discussions of democracy in a hundred years.

-- In Gaza, the withdrawal of nearly 8,000 settlers – a courageous act by the Israeli democratic government – will allow the Palestinians there to govern themselves, and free parliamentary elections for all Palestinians are due in January.

-- Women have attained the vote in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait, and now serve in cabinet posts.

-- And women will vote in national elections for the first time next year in Oman.

-- In Saudi Arabia, we anticipate the first municipal elections in forty years, with an expectation that women should be able to vote in the next Saudi elections. (However, as my colleague Liz Cheney says, "Let’s hope women will be able to drive themselves to the polling places.")

-- In Iraq, that country’s nascent democratic institutions, especially the parliament – the democratically-elected Iraqi parliament – have debated federalism and the role of religion in politics. Iraqis are deciding their own constitution for the first time in history. It is a messy process, taking place under the skeptical eye of the world media and under threat of violence from totalitarian insurgents. But while the future is unclear, Iraqis’ future lies in Iraqi hands; and they are not waiting for Saddam to haul them off to a mass grave.

Whatever our differences, Europe, America, and the nations of the Middle East must support Iraqis as they build their institutions of freedom. We must help them with economic reconstruction and development. We must help them through political support, and not make them the objects of our differences over tactics. And those of us who are willing must stay by their side to provide security until Iraqis themselves can meet these needs.

Earlier generations of Europeans and Americans confronted hateful ideologies by remaining strong and united, and reaching to support reform and reformers throughout all of Europe. That must be our goal today, and we must act beyond Europe, especially in the broader Middle East. But the Euro-American alliance remains critical. As President Bush made clear just before his trip to Europe last February, "Security and justice and prosperity for our world depend on America and Europe working in common purpose."



Do Europeans and Americans always agree? Of course not. Are some conversations difficult to have? Yes. Do the pundits like to declare our alliance "dead"? With regularity. But we are preparing ourselves to deal with the challenges of the new century, once again reaching out to advance the cause and the proponents of freedom.

In Afghanistan, an alliance of free nations, working through NATO, provide security for Afghanistan’s young democracy.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both Europe and America have a common vision: two peaceful, democratic states living side by side. Two peoples at war for decades now have a chance to find peace. Gaza disengagement gives us something new on which to build. On critical practical matters like building Palestinian security forces, we are working together effectively. Yet a key to peace is the building of effective, responsible, capable and, yes, democratic Palestinian state institutions. And Europe and America will help.

In Lebanon, through President Chirac’s leadership, close Franco-American cooperation, and a UN Security Council Resolution, America and Europe have helped Lebanon regain its sovereignty and free itself from Syrian occupation.

On the troubling question of Iran’s nuclear weapons aspirations, we work closely with our European partners through the EU-3 process. Yet here, too, we cannot forget the Iranian people and their democratic rights and aspirations. The appearance of elections did not fool us. The Iranian people want greater liberty and the chance to vote for candidates not chosen by the ruling clerics.

Even as Europe and the United States seek to resolve the critical conflicts in the broader Middle East, we must mobilize ourselves to support reform and reformers everywhere in the region. Like-minded nations of the G-8 and the region created the Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative to forge a common purpose with reformers of the region. And through its Barcelona process, the European Union has sought to do this for over a decade, and we applaud these efforts.

Ministers from the nations that compose the "Forum for the Future," and representatives of civil society throughout the region, will meet in Bahrain in November to decide on ways to help activists, reformers trying to build working democratic institutions, and small business owners seeking economies free of the cartels and corruption that prevent economic change.

That same month, EU leaders will gather in Barcelona to celebrate the 10th anniversary of The Barcelona Process. Let us come out of both of these events by affirming our common hopes and pursuing our common objectives together.

At the U.S.-EU summit in June, our leaders urged the Government of Egypt to open its forthcoming elections to international observers. And we stressed the importance of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and unfettered access to the media for all candidates. We hope that the Egyptian government has been listening.

We must be bold in ambition and practical in what we seek every day. Through its Middle East Partnership Initiative, the United States supports economic, political and educational reform and the empowerment of women. Projects include training of Lebanese election observers, teaching Yemeni and Moroccan women to read, providing over 2 million children’s books translated into Arabic, funding a study of Women’s Freedom in the Arab World, and training for newly independent media outlets.

When Condoleezza Rice was here in February, she told her Parisian audience that "Our work has only begun. In our time we have an historic opportunity to shape a global balance of power that favors freedom – and that will therefore deepen and extend the peace. And I use the word ‘power’ broadly, because even more important than military and indeed economic power is the power of ideas, the power of compassion, and the power of hope."

A woman in the audience asked her why she had chosen Paris to give her speech. She highlighted the alliance of values that moved Europe from the horrors of the 20th century to the peaceful, prosperous and democratic Europe of today. She told the woman that France has a great tradition of debate, of intellectual ferment.

So, I’ll save you the effort of asking me the same question. I’m here for the same reasons, and this is a good time for me to participate in the French tradition of debate. I’d be delighted to take some questions. But before that, I look forward to hearing Minister Vedrine’s comments on these issues.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group