Speech Verhagen bij Atlantische Commissie
Gelegenheid:Mister Bukman, ladies and gentlemen,
In her ‘memo to the president elect’, Madeleine Albright gets down to business right away. Immediately after congratulating the new president, she warns of the renewed danger of ‘nuclear Armageddon’ .1
We recognise the phrase from the Cold War. It referred to the threat of an all-out nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union, each of which had a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the other many times over. But that threat practically no longer exists. So what does Albright mean?
1. Global vision, global values
The danger entailed by the possession of nuclear weapons has become more complex in the twenty-first century. There are more countries today that have nuclear weapons, or are trying to develop them, than when the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968. India and Pakistan are publicly known to possess nuclear arms. We suspect that other countries are developing nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT. For example, Iran still has not made full disclosure of its past nuclear research programme, and refuses to accept full oversight by the IAEA. It resists implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, and is pursuing its enrichment programme. Iran’s attitude is forcing the international community to impose more and more extensive sanctions. A new resolution was adopted earlier this month calling on Iran to cooperate or face more sanctions.
States are not the only major risk factors. There is also a danger that nuclear weapons, or the technology to develop them, will end up in the hands of non-state actors such as terrorist groups. There is a serious chance that this will happen.2 This is what Albright is talking about when she speaks of a renewed danger of nuclear Armageddon: not the nuclear danger inherent in a war between two superpowers, but the prospect of the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons in regional conflicts or by terrorists. We need to be aware of this real danger and protect ourselves against it. Without exaggerating, we should be vigilant.
The world is more complex now than it was during the Cold War. This is not only because the bipolar balance of power is a thing of the past. It is also the result of globalisation, which is confronting us with new, troublesome questions. Globalisation undeniably has major benefits. It is a source of economic prosperity, growth, new technologies and greater opportunities to exchange information. But it also has a downside.
Firstly, not everyone benefits from globalisation. The world is divided into countries that are fully integrated into the process and others that are not. This gap no longer follows the lines of the old East-West divide or the North-South split. Instead, the main dividing line of the twenty-first century runs between countries or societies that are functioning within the system and countries or societies that are outside it.
Secondly, not only good things, like products, investments, knowledge and culture, are spreading rapidly around the world. So are bad things: a handbook for suicide attacks can be put on the internet as easily as a recipe for chicken soup. The world is a smaller place for everyone now, whether they’re in search of capital, people, ideas or weapons. Everyone, whatever their intentions, is able to harvest the fruit of globalisation – including the bitter fruit.
Today our security is threatened mainly by regions and groups of people that, for whatever reason, feel excluded from the dynamic of globalisation. As US security strategist Thomas Barnett says, ‘Disconnectedness defines danger. ’3 The Netherlands’ participation in the NATO mission in Afghanistan follows directly from this reality. Instead of preparing for a conventional war on our own soil and defending the Peel-Raam line against invading neighbours, our armed forces must be deployed to defend our freedom and security where they are actually being threatened. Among other places, this includes the Hindu Kush in southern Afghanistan. The transformation of our military after the fall of the Wall – from a defensive force to a rapidly deployable expeditionary army – is a response to globalisation, which has made the world a smaller place. Almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War, we are still getting used to the new paradigm – and the new demands being made on us.
We do not have unlimited time to let the new reality sink in, however. The challenges of the twenty-first century demand responses. In today’s globalised world, the challenges are international. Terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, an arms race in space, climate change, mass migration from non-integrated countries to the globalised core countries: this is the menacing face of the twenty-first century. These challenges can constitute security risks; they can be breeding grounds of conflict. They affect Dutch interests, sometimes even our direct security interests. How can we protect ourselves against these threats?
Because the challenges of the twenty-first century transcend borders, they demand a concerted response. None of our countries on its own can protect itself against terrorists, prevent climate change or stop human trafficking. We need one another to find solutions. This is why the Dutch government has an international orientation. Instead of hiding behind our dikes, we choose to be active in the wider world. I am convinced that this is best way to serve the interests of our citizens.
Ladies and gentlemen,
In my policy, I look for partners first and foremost among allies who share our values. Over the past sixty years, shared values have been a powerful engine of dynamic international partnerships. Take the European Union, a community of values that champions the cause of freedom, democracy and human rights. Take the transatlantic alliance NATO, a political alliance with a military capacity, which was established to defend freedom and democracy. The preamble to its founding treaty affirms in so many words that its members ‘are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law’ .
These values are more than mere words to me. They are the cornerstones of my foreign policy. It is no accident that I have given human rights ─ the embodiment of our universal values ─ a central place in Dutch foreign policy. Though some may find this view controversial, I believe that NATO and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are logical extensions of each other. It is no accident that both will soon be celebrating their sixtieth anniversaries: the Universal Declaration this year and NATO next year. Both spring from the same values. These values must be upheld, especially where they are under threat, because they are at the heart of our civilisation. We have seen what happens when these values are abandoned: the bounds of civilisation are transgressed, and humanity descends into barbarism: the Shoah, Rwanda, to name two of the darkest pages of our history.
Leadership by the United States is still indispensable in this rapidly changing world. Without the Americans there can be no hope of progress in the Middle East, on disarmament, on climate change or in Afghanistan. The US and Europe - together with other partners - should be ‘the decisive force for good in the world’.4 Together we must show moral leadership to push the world in the right direction. I am not saying this out of misplaced feelings of superiority or complacency. I say it because values like freedom, equality, democracy and human rights are deeply rooted on both sides of the Atlantic, and they appeal to people around the world. For the West, this role-model status entails great responsibilities.
Many people are critical of the current US government; many of them live in the United States. I have never made a secret of the fact that human rights should be respected in the fight against terrorism. Europe and the US sometimes seem to have grown apart since 9/11. Many reservations have been expressed in Europe about the US approach; I don’t deny it. But for me, this does not imply that our relationship is fraying. If you read Albright’s book, you will see how deeply rooted values like freedom, democracy and human rights are in American society. I am certain Ivo Daalder can confirm what I say!
In my eyes, the transatlantic relationship still serves to galvanise positive developments, such as the Afghanistan mission and our joint efforts in the Balkans. Even when we disagree, we don’t fundamentally disagree. This is not something we can always say of other relationships. The transatlantic partnership remains a cornerstone of Dutch foreign policy. I join in Albright’s call to ‘remind ourselves of who “we” are and what Europeans and Americans can accomplish together’.5
Ladies and gentlemen,
When NATO turns sixty next year, how should we assess its record? US Secretary of Defence Gates recently caused a commotion by pressing for more troops in Afghanistan and urging a number of allies to lift the restrictions imposed on their troops’ deployment. His message was clear: all the NATO allies have to pull their weight if the alliance is to be capable of performing adequately. NATO too still needs to adapt to its new tasks in a world marked by globalisation. It took a big step after the fall of the Wall, but its transformation is not yet complete. We can learn some important lessons from the Afghanistan mission.
One lesson is the need to work with other organisations. Today’s security risks cannot be dealt with by military means alone. At the same time, military means are an indispensable component of our integrated approach. This means that NATO will have to work more with organisations that have civilian capacities, like the EU and UN, than it did in the past. At the Bucharest Summit next week, we will discuss option to this effect. NATO will work more closely not only with international organisations and NGOs, but also with allies outside the Euro-Atlantic region like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, South Africa and Latin American countries. In the past NATO hardly ever discussed security issues with these countries, because the great geographical distance between us made a joint threat seem unlikely. But today the nature of the threats to our security has changed, making closer practical cooperation with these countries not only useful but necessary.
I think it would be a good idea for the alliance to speak out about the values that unite us in NATO, and how much they unite us with many countries outside NATO. We face the challenge in the coming years of giving concrete shape to the defence of our values together with our natural partners, the countries that share these values with us. I am not arguing that NATO should be a global policeman. But I am arguing for cooperation with those countries that see the same risks and dangers that we do and that have the same interest in defending freedom and democracy. We could start a process in Bucharest by laying the groundwork for a declaration along these lines, which could also play a role in updating NATO’s Strategic Concept.
In this connection, the Netherlands would like to see NATO take a more vocal stand on the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. NATO member states should emphasise the importance of arms control in their security policies. This requires greater transparency within the alliance, however. The Netherlands is backing a German-Norwegian proposal to jumpstart this discussion within the alliance.
2. Disarmament and non-proliferation
This brings me back to the subject that is our focus today: disarmament and non-proliferation. Concerns about the use of weapons of mass destruction, and especially nuclear weapons, are at least as old as the weapons themselves. So the call for arms control is not new; but history shows that results are hard to achieve. Now, however, there are some initial hopeful signs of a new momentum.
This momentum flows from the dawning realisation that today nuclear arms are more of a liability than an asset for the countries that possess them. That clearly applies to the two powers that together account for 95% of all nuclear weapons stocks: the US and Russia. During the Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction – with the telling abbreviation MAD – was a source of stability: the weapons were never used because the prospect of a nuclear counterattack was simply too frightful to contemplate. The two superpowers held each other in check, and the world could sleep easy. But nuclear weapons no longer play this role in the complex world of 2008. As Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in 2007, ‘it is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security; in fact, with every passing year, they make our security more precarious’.6 The insight that nuclear arms are ‘increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective’ is gaining ground.7 This is creating a window of op portunity. I fully support NATO’s Strategic Concept, but this should not prevent us from working towards the ultimate objective of elimination of all nuclear arms.
I therefore endorse the call by four American elder statesmen for a world free of nuclear weapons. They recently followed up this call with an article in the Wall Street Journal listing several concrete ways of bringing that goal closer.8 Among other things, they propose strengthening the international non-proliferation regime, of which the NPT is still the backbone. The Netherlands strongly supports such strengthening. We take every opportunity to call for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We particularly urge the Annex 2 states to ratify the CTBT, as their ratification is necessary for the treaty to enter into force. There is also room for improvement in implementing the Hague International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. I observe that the confidence-building measures that this Code provides for, such as giving advance notice of missile launches, are being taken less and less often. I am writing to the foreign ministers of the Code’s 128 subscribing states asking them to observe it and demonstrate a greater commitment to it.
The NPT’s Achilles heel is its distinction between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. When the NPT was signed in 1968, there were already five declared nuclear weapon states, and their position was recognised in the treaty. The criticism heard from many non-nuclear weapon states is that the nuclear weapon states are not taking the quest for a world without nuclear weapons seriously enough, while non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the treaty are forbidden to acquire nuclear arms. This threatens to make permanent a distinction that was meant to be temporary. Many members of the Group of Non-Aligned Countries say that that they do not accept, or no longer accept, their different status. These countries feel that the distinction between the haves and have-nots is discriminatory. There are now nine nuclear weapon states in the world. India and Pakistan have never acceded to the NPT; North Korea denounced it in 2003. To close the loopholes in the NPT, deals are being made that bypass its provisions, such as the nuclear cooperation agreement between the US and India now in the works.
I favour a multilateral approach. Every country should endeavour to move closer to our ultimate goal, worldwide abolition of nuclear weapons. We are right to call non-nuclear weapon states to account for their conduct and take action when they fail to meet their treaty obligations to the IAEA. Iran, for example, has now had its knuckles rapped by the UN Security Council for the third time. If this fails once more to get the necessary results, I support more far-reaching measures against Tehran.
At the same time, the nuclear weapon states need to take serious steps towards disarmament and non-proliferation. Earlier this month I was in Geneva for the Conference on Disarmament, where I stressed the need for progress on this front. In this area too, the West has to play an exemplary role. We need to take the moral high ground. Signs from the UK that it is prepared to be more open, cooperate with verification and reduce the number of nuclear weapons are a welcome first step. President Sarkozy’s recent decision to reduce the number of French warheads is another positive example. However, the Americans and Russians hold the key to further disarmament: their massive stocks of nuclear arms give them a special responsibility. We should seize the opportunity of the NPT Review Conference in 2010 to show new resolve to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons.
The Netherlands also attaches importance to discussing the NPT’s third pillar – peaceful use of nuclear energy – at the 2010 Review Conference. This is a crucial discussion, because the role of nuclear energy is increasing worldwide. At present there are about 440 nuclear power plants in operation and over 200 planned or under construction. Some of them are in Europe. There is no doubt that nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance.
The right to peaceful use of nuclear energy is enshrined in the NPT, on the condition that the parties respect the internationally accepted principles of non-proliferation. There is currently a discussion within the IAEA on how the fuel cycle can be organised as safely as possible: that is, how to minimise the risks of proliferation without infringing on countries’ right to their own fuel cycles. The Netherlands is participating actively in this discussion. Last year, together with our Urenco partners Germany and the UK, we issued a statement proposing to give the nuclear fuel cycle a multilateral character, in a system that would include guaranteed deliveries of nuclear fuel. Such a system would of course have to include security and non-proliferation safeguards, in line with the NPT. On 17 and 18 April the three Urenco countries will be holding an international conference on nuclear fuel in Berlin, which we hope will have a positive effect on the discussion.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I think it safe to say that outer space is remote from most people’s daily concerns. But the US success a few weeks ago in destroying one of its own, defective satellites, and China’s earlier destruction of one of its weather satellites, demonstrate that space is impossible for us to ignore. Satellites make possible many of our daily routines, like using mobile phones or car navigation systems – to say nothing of international communications and connections. Imagine what would happen if conflicts were fought out in space. Besides knocking out communication equipment – and possibly putting nuclear weapons sites out of control – this would probably also mean a serious blow to the global economic system. Hardly an attractive scenario! So the secure use of space merits a high priority on the international agenda.
In my view, international agreements are by far the most suitable means of safeguarding the secure use of space. There have already been various initiatives to this end. For example, Russia and China recently proposed a treaty to prevent an arms race in space. The Netherlands favours such a treaty in principle, but at the moment we think a politically binding instrument is more likely to succeed than a treaty. The EU is currently working on a code of conduct for the use of space for peaceful purposes. As the host country of ESA-ESTEC, the Netherlands is also exploring the possibility of organising a meeting in 2009 on the peaceful use of space.
3. In conclusion
Ladies and gentlemen,
I will conclude with an announcement that should underscore how important non-proliferation is to the Dutch government: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be giving grants to three PhD students pursuing research on this subject. We are gladly funding these three research positions, because we believe that topical research with policy relevance can contribute to a fruitful discussion of non-proliferation. The pursuit of knowledge in this field is crucial to strengthening our country’s position in international disarmament forums. We are taking this step now because we want to give a fresh impetus to disarmament and non-proliferation. We all need to work together to move the discussion forward. High-quality research will help; political will will be decisive. I am ready to do my part. Thank you.
1: Madeleine Albright, Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership (New York: Harper Collins, 2008), p. 11.
2: See Michael Levi, On Nuclear Terrorism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
3: Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Putnam, 2004), pp.107ff.
4: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (New York: Basic Books, 2007), p. 187.
5: Albright, op. cit., p. 166.
6: Mikhail Gorbachev, ‘The Nuclear Threat’, Wall Street Journal, 31 January 2007.
7: George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, ‘A World Free of Nuclear Weapons’, Wall Street Journal, 4 January 2007.
8: George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, ‘Toward a Nuclear-Free World’, Wall Street Journal, 15 January 2008.