Britannia Radio

Near East: Remarks at the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs
<http://www.state.gov/s/d/2008/111320.htm>
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:
Remarks at the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs

*John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State
*Baltimore, Maryland
October 16, 2008

*DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:* Thank you, Dr. Burd, for the very kind
introduction. It’s a pleasure to be with all of you tonight, and I also
want to thank Lockheed Martin and your chairman, Mr. Robbie Harris for
having sponsored this event, and all who – others who were involved in
its preparation.

Across the country and, of course, here in Baltimore, Americans are
preparing to vote in just three short weeks. And a new administration
will take office in just three short months. With the prospect of change
on the horizon, I want to focus my remarks this evening on several
foreign policy priorities that will likely, and in my view, should
remain important issues for the next president, whomever that may be. An
increasingly globalized and multi-polar world holds major challenges and
opportunities for our nation. And how successfully we deal with them
will determine the shape of the international order and the nature of
American power, security, and prosperity in the years ahead.

Let me start by discussing the war on terror. Our goal, as you know, is
to defeat al-Qaida and to diminish the appeal of violent extremism.
Clearly, our most pressing need is to prevent existing extremists from
launching attacks and kinetic action; that is, action to capture and
kill extremists and to prevent them from communicating, traveling, and
moving money has achieved good progress towards that end. But as
Secretary of Defense Gates has said, we cannot kill or capture our way
to victory in this war. Defeating extremism will require denying
extremist groups safe havens and new recruits by supporting the growth
of societies that are governed by law with accountable, transparent
institutions that respond to the needs of people.

And although this will be a generational struggle, we have already seen
populations from Pakistan to Jordan to Iraq to Saudi Arabia turn against
al-Qaida. In large part due to the atrocities al-Qaida has inflicted on
fellow Muslims, the appeal of extremist ideologies is at a low ebb in
the Muslim world. Across the broader Middle East and beyond, moderate
forces are resisting the extremists who are trying to hijack their
peaceful region. Nevertheless, major challenges lie ahead. Foremost
among them is reinforcing Iraq’s recent progress and helping it overcome
remaining obstacles to its success.

Our goal is an Iraq that is federal, plural, pluralistic, democratic,
and unified, an Iraq that is at peace with itself, with its neighbors,
and with the international community. Every day, in ways big and small,
Iraqis are advancing towards that goal, and we are supporting them. They
are rejecting extremism, pursuing reconciliation, expanding opportunity,
and assuming control of their country’s future.

Iraq’s progress is fragile and reversible, but it is also significant
and hopeful. For some perspective, consider the challenges Iraq faced
when I arrived there as Ambassador in June of 2004: an increasingly
widespread and lethal insurgency; a weak central government unable to
provide security or public services; extremist infiltration of key
institutions, including security forces; heavy foreign debt; and
profound reluctance by neighboring states to recognize, much less engage
with Iraq’s new government.

Consider the situation today. The citizens of Al Anbar province have
made decisive progress in expelling al-Qaida from their province.
Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia extremist, has declared a ceasefire. Iraq’s
government is asserting its sovereignty through successful operations in
Basra, in Sadr City, Mosul and elsewhere. Iraq’s economy is growing by
approximately nine percent this year. Political reconciliation is
progressing and several of Iraq’s neighbors have named ambassadors to
Iraq while several more have made high-level official visits.

The significant progress of the past 20 months does not mean our work in
Iraq is over. The reconciliation process in particular requires time and
patience, and depends on the security situations -- security situation
continuing to improve. Sustaining United States’ involvement, both
military and diplomatic, is vital. In addition, Iraq must overcome
several hurdles of its own along the road to success.

*First*, it must pass meaningful hydrocarbon legislation that equitably
divides oil revenue among Iraq’s regions. *Second*, it must hold
successful provincial elections which will allow Iraqis, and
particularly Sunnis, who largely boycotted the first provincial
elections in 2005 – that is, to say the elections that were conducted
while I was Ambassador there – to participate in selecting their local
councils. *Third*, Iraq must continue professionalizing its security
forces and must make good on its promise to give jobs to the 100,000
so-called sons of Iraq who are contributing to local security.

*Fourth*, Iraq and the United States must provide for the continued
presence of United States forces after December 31^st of this year by
concluding a status of forces agreement. And *fifth*, Iraq’s government
and the Kurds must manage the status of Kirkuk and other mixed Arab-Kurd
cities in the oil-rich north.

These challenges are both a measure of how far Iraq has come and of how
far it yet has to go. But as Iraqis work through these challenges,
what’s already clear is their overwhelming rejection of extremists’
bleak vision for their country. Al-Qaida has suffered an ideological and
strategic defeat. It is in retreat in Iraq and it is – and its
deliberate, unrestrained killing of fellow Muslims, both Shia and Sunni,
is discrediting its ideology throughout the Muslim world. Usama bin
Ladin once called Iraq the perfect base and sought to establish a
footing there for al-Qaida’s offensive presence in the Arab world.
Today, al-Qaida increasingly has no base in Iraq. In losing Al Anbar
Province, it also will lose its most significant toehold in the Arab
world. Al-Qaida cannot be allowed to regain it.

The emerging sovereign Iraqi state also represents a setback for Iran.
Iran’s regime hoped Iraq would serve as a platform for projecting
Iranian influence into the Arab world. But through its actions against
Iranian-backed militias, Iraq has made two things clear. It will not be
a client state of Tehran and it will not be a theocracy. Iraq’s leaders
do not see the world as Iran’s do. For Iraq’s leaders, the main
distinction is not between Sunni and Shia, but between moderates and
extremists. The emerging Iraq reflects this world view: pluralistic,
democratic, and a partner in regional stability.

In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, when the people have had an opportunity to
choose a course for their nation, they have voted overwhelmingly, and
often at great personal risk and sacrifice, for a future of democracy,
law, prosperity and modernity. The Taliban’s theory of victory is not to
prevail on the battlefield or simply to win Afghan hearts and minds. It
is to undermine the elected Afghan Government, fracture the
international coalition, and outlast us in Afghanistan.

Our theory of victory and our counterinsurgency strategy to achieve it
recognizes that defeating the Taliban on the battlefield is not enough.
Working with our Afghan and international partners, we can render the
Taliban obsolete by supporting an effective, accountable Afghan state
that can provide for human security through good governance, the rule of
law and economic opportunity. What – where the Afghan Government and its
armed forces working with our international partners has been able to do
so, for instance, in the north and the east of Afghanistan, the Taliban
is in retreat. The Taliban can only prevail if the international
community and our Afghan partners lose our will and our commitment to
help the Afghan people build their new nation.

One of the main challenges to a stable Afghanistan, and more broadly, to
defeating global terrorism is the trajectory of Pakistan. Pakistan is a
vitally important nation. It is the world’s third most populous Muslim
state. It is a nuclear power. It is situated in the strategically
crucial neighborhood of India, Iran, Afghanistan and China, and it is a
frontline state in the war on terrorism. United States and our allies
face near-term challenges from Pakistan’s reluctance and inability to
roll back terrorist sanctuaries in the tribal region. And we must
balance the need to address those challenges with our longer-run
interest in partnering with Pakistan’s moderate, civilian leaders to
build an effective democratic state capable of co-opting or defeating
its internal adversaries.

This objective requires supporting Pakistan’s democratic institutions
and civil society groups that have their own interests in taking on
violent extremism. It requires a long-term partnership with the
Pakistani Government in a broad effort to promote the key elements
necessary to Pakistan’s long-term stability, including, among other
things, security, education, economic opportunity, good governance, and
rule of law, especially in the tribal regions where the absence of
adequate security forces and governance enable terrorists to find
sanctuary. Supporting moderate political forces against extremism is
also crucial to achieving lasting peace in the Middle East. And progress
towards this purpose, in turn, reinforces the vision of moderate,
nonviolent forces throughout the region.

The Administration – this Administration has helped to launch and
support a negotiations process between the parties that will provide our
successor with a foundation on which to seek a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace. The process between Israelis and Palestinians
recognizes the need for progress on several tracks at once: settlement
of permanent status issues, support for Palestinian security, governance
and economic institutions, and fulfillment of Roadmap obligations.

We are hopeful of success because the Israelis and Palestinians now have
leaders who share a commitment to peace. On the Palestinian side, we are
supporting responsible leaders in an unprecedented effort to realign
their society around the values of nonviolence. Of course, Hamas’
control of the – of Gaza is deeply troubling and threatens both Israeli
security and the Palestinians’ well-being. But that control also means
that Hamas and other violent extremists can no longer hide in the
shadows destroying all prospects for peace without bearing any
consequences for their actions. They are now being forced to make the
fundamental choice they have always refused to make. Either you’re a
terrorist group or you’re a political party, but you cannot be both.

All of the challenges I mentioned intersect with another major challenge
in the region: Iran. Our current focus shared by the international
community is on ending Iran’s production of fissile material that can be
used to make nuclear weapons. We are also working to end Iran’s other
weapon of mass destruction and long-range missile programs and to push
Iran to abandon its support for terrorists and insurgent groups –
destabilizing democratically elected governments in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

Finally, we continue to support the great and proud Iranian people in
their pursuit of human dignity, human rights, and greater liberty. We
view the Iranian people as a natural friend of the United States. We
affirm our friendship at every opportunity and we emphasize to the
Iranian people the grave cost of their government’s policies: deeper
isolation for their country and a worse quality of life for themselves.

We have made clear to the Iranian regime the potential benefits of
changing course and rejoining the community of nations as a responsible
constructive member. Those benefits include cooperation on peaceful
nuclear energy, including light water reactors; increased trade and
investment; deepening integration into the global economy; growing
financial and technological assistance; and an opportunity to build
better relations with the international community, including the United
States. But if Iranian leaders continue to support terrorists, continue
to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, and continue to subvert their
neighbors, we will rally the international community to deepen its
isolation.

In addition to the challenges posed by weak states and those posed by
Iran, the United States is increasingly moving into a multidimensional
world with more centers of power than in previous decades. Different
powers present different sets of challenges and opportunities. But as a
general matter, the United States welcomes the rise of strong, capable
partners willing to assume their fair share of responsibility as
stakeholders in the international system. We are particularly eager to
build close strategic partnerships with large pluralistic democracies
like Brazil and India.

Earlier this month, we achieved a milestone in our relationship with
India when President Bush signed the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
into law. This agreement culminates eight years of steady progress,
strengthening the natural bonds between our two countries. Such
partnerships with fellow democracies are a platform for projecting
influence and for cooperating on the full panorama of common interests.
Those interests include long-term challenges of international
governance, such as free trade and climate change. We cannot reach
effective solutions to such challenges without consensus among both
developed and developing major economies, especially India and China.

Building that consensus has not been easy. The Indians and the Chinese
are understandably concerned about sustaining economic growth, and
shielding their populations and industries from the dislocations of
global trade. Indeed, many Americans have similar concerns. But as major
stakeholders in the international system, especially in the global
trading system from which they, as much as anyone, are benefitting,
India and China should join us in leading the way towards a successful
conclusion of the Doha trade round, that is to say the World Trade
Organization round of talks, and the post-Kyoto framework on climate
change. On trade especially, the United States Congress should exercise
leadership of its own by ratifying our free trade agreements with
Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.

Finally, let me say a few words about Russia. Recent events, of course,
have focused attention on Russia’s international role. Russia’s invasion
and occupation of Georgia, or of parts of it at least, a violation of
international agreements, and the recognition of Abkhaz and Ossetian
independence all call into question Russia’s commitment to the
international order. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union. Its
prosperity depends on participation in the international economy. And
Russia stands only to gain from further integration into the
international, political, and economic architecture.

Russia’s leaders need to decide what future they want for their country.
We and our European allies are willing to support Russia’s deepening
integration into global markets and institutions, but only if Russia
respects the rules of the game. We will not let Russia recreate a sphere
of influence where sovereignty is ignored, democracy is subverted, and
weak states live at the mercy of strong ones.

I want to conclude by emphasizing the importance of America’s
leadership. Whether we are discussing challenges arising from particular
countries or global governance challenges such as climate change, free
trade, or energy security, American leadership will be necessary to
rally capable powers to uphold the international order on which we all
depend. Sustaining that leadership will, as ever, be a challenge for the
Department of State. And President Bush and Secretary Rice have begun
the long process of equipping our Department to meet that challenge by
increasing our resources and adjusting our diplomatic posture to reflect
the emergence of new international and regional powers.

Sustaining American leadership is also a matter of sustaining the will
among Americans to lead, to accept responsibilities, and bear the
burdens that global leadership entails. Americans must understand the
stake of United States leadership, the challenges and opportunities our
country faces in responding to and shaping a dynamic, globalizing world.
Spreading that understanding is the work not only of those of us in
government, but of organizations such as this that educate fellow
citizens about international affairs.

So let me once again thank the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs for
hosting me and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you
very much.

(Applause.)

Released on October 27, 2008