Stichworte zur Sicherheitspolitik

Veröffentlicht am 13. Februar 2002 12:56 Uhr

Sonderausgabe Februar 2002

Inhalt
XXXVIII. Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik

• Vortrag von Bundesminister der Verteidigung, Rudolf Scharping
• Vortrag des stellvertretenden US-Verteidigungsministers Prof. Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz (engl.)
• Vortrag von Frau Dr. Angela Merkel, MdB, Parteivorsitzende der CDU Deutschlands
• Vortrag des NATO-Generalsekretärs Lord George Robertson (engl.)
• Vortrag von US-Senator John McCain
• Vortrag von US-Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (engl.)
• Vortrag des italienischen Außenministers, Prof. Antonio Martino (engl.)
• Vortrag des spanischen Verteidigungsministers, Federico Trillo-Figueroa y Martinez-Conde (engl.)
• Vortrag des stellvertretenden chinesischen Außenministers Wang Yi (engl.)
• Vortrag des stellvertretenden Premierministers von Singapur Lee Hsien Loong
• Vortrag von Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary des Premierministers und nationaler Sicherheitsberater Indiens
• Vortrag des pakistanischen Außenministers Abdul Sattar (engl.)

Bei der o. a. Konferenz fand ein Live-Streaming statt.
Die Chat-Mitschnitte mit:

• Dr. Horst Teltschik, Vorsitzender der Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik,
• Angelika Beer, MdB,
• Dr. Wolfgang Gerhardt, MdB; Vorsitzender der FDP-Bundestagsfraktion,
• Harald Kujat, Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr,
• General Dieter Stöckmann, stv. SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, NATO),
• Dr. Holger H. Mey, Direktor des Instituts für Strategische Analysen e.V. (ISA)

XXXVIII. Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik

Vorträge

Rede von Bundesminister der Verteidigung, Rudolf Scharping
Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren,
liebe Kollegen,
die Bemerkungen von George Robertson und Sergej Ivanow - signalisieren eine erhebliche Veränderung.
Ich erinnere mich ganz gut daran, dass ich vor rund 10 Jahren das erste mal hier bei dieser Konferenz war und ich will gar nicht soweit zurückgreifen. Vor 3 Jahren saßen wir hier zusammen und überlegten, wie können wir am Rande dieser Konferenz uns darauf verständigen, eine Extraction-Force in Mazedonien für zivile Beobachter im Kosovo. Wie organisieren wir das?
Wenn damals, ich sage das als deutscher Verteidigungsminister, Angesichts von damals ca. 2300 deutschen Soldaten in Bosnien, wenn damals vor 3 Jahren jemand prophezeit hätte, innerhalb von 3 Jahren, werden wir so schreckliche Ereignisse, wie den 11. September in New York und Washington sehen. Aber wir 3 werden auch sehen, dass die NATO darauf gemeinsam reagiert. Dass sich eine internationale Koalition gegen den Terrorismus bildet. Und wir werden sehen, dass die Deutschen, die noch 1994, 95 sich vor ihrem Verfassungsgericht darüber gestritten haben, ob deutsche Besatzungen in Flugzeugen über den Balkan möglich seien.
Wir werden sehen, dass die Deutschen in dieser kurzen Zeit nicht nur in Bosnien, im Kosovo, in Mazedonien, auf der arabischen Halbinsel, in Tschebuti, in Kenia, in Afghanistan, stationiert und engagiert sein werden, dass sie gemeinsame Operationen durchführen werden, bis hin zu Spezial-Forzes. Jeder hätte das für völlig undenkbar gehalten. Ich finde, wir sollten bei der Erörterung aller aktueller Fragen, einen Moment innehalten, um zu überlegen, wie war denn die Entwicklung der letzten 3, 4, 5 Jahren. Auf welchen Fundamenten stehen wir? Wo soll es hingehen? Ich teile es ausdrücklich, ohne es zu wiederholen, in meinen eigenen Worten, was George Robertson über die NATO gesagt hat. Ich ergänze allerdings, wer den Charakter europäischer Gesellschaften kennt, der weiß, dass die innere Legitimation militärischen Handelns, von der Multinationalität, der politischen Strategie und der militärischen Operation abhängt, zu glauben, dass wir auf Dauer in den europäischen Gesellschaften, andere kann ich nicht so gut beurteilen, dass wir auf Dauer in den europäischen Gesellschaften, ohne die Grundlage internationalen Rechts, ohne die Rolle der Vereinten Nationen, ohne die Multinationalität der politischen Strategie und des militärischen Handelns, wenn es notwendig wird. Dass wir ohne diese Grundlagen, die Legitimation, die Unterstützung, die Mehrheit in der Bevölkerung dauerhaft erhalten könnten, das halte ich für naiv.  Das zweite ist, in Europa und in Deutschland ist oft diskutiert worden, dass militärischen Krisenmanagement umso weniger notwendig sei, je besser die Prävention funktioniere. Das mag ja so sein, aber manche haben geglaubt, man brauche nur Prävention. Das ist eine Illusion die sich in den letzten Jahren und insbesondere noch einmal nach den tragischen Ereignissen des 11. September als falsch herausgestellt hat. Zivile politische Prävention und die Fähigkeit zur militärischen Aktion bedingen einander. Erfolgreiche Prävention ohne die Fähigkeit zu militärischen Handeln ist gar nicht denkbar, jedenfalls nicht gegenüber Staaten, die diktatorisch regiert werden, und auch nicht gegenüber terroristischen Organisationen oder Gruppen die Menschenverachtung und Mord zum Prinzip ihres Handelns gemacht haben. Ich will damit sagen, dass wir uns nach dem Ende des Ost-West-Konfliktes einer immer komplexeren und immer weniger berechenbaren Herausforderung gegenüber sehen und dass dazu selbstverständlich der internationale Terrorismus gehört.
Allerdings, wir sollten im Sinne einer langfristigen Überlegung auch nicht übersehen, dass natürlich zu diesen beunruhigenden und schwer berechenbaren Entwicklungen dass Potential an biologischen und chemischen, radiologischen und nuklearen Kampfstoffen gehört. Die Entwicklung ballistischer Trägermittel und die Tatsache, dass wir mit Formen der asymmetrischen Kriegsführung konfrontiert sind, und dass neue Konfliktformen hinzutreten, wie wir alle wissen. Netwar, Cyberwar, dass ist nicht nur denkbar sondern auch schon erkennbar.
Meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kollegen.
Es mag angesichts einer Situation in der wir alle auf den Terrorismus konzentriert sind, etwas unpopulär erscheinen, notwendig ist es dennoch. Wir dürfen auch nicht vergessen, dass Unterentwicklung, Armut, ungebremste Bevölkerungsexplosion, Recourcenverknappung ebenfalls zu Kriegsursachen werden können.
Und wenn diese sozialen, ökonomischen, ökologischen Probleme in Verbindung geraten mit einem unseligen Nationalismus mit ideologisch religiösem oder ideologisch ethnischen Fanatismus, dann sind sie in der Lage ganze Regionen zu destabilisieren und damit globale Sicherheit zu beeinträchtigen. Will sagen, so notwendig die militärische Dimension des Handelns und die Fähigkeit zu militärischem Handeln ist, ohne Überwindung von Tiefenspaltungen auf unserem Globus ohne eine zufriedenstellende ökonomische und soziale Perspektive in der südlichen Emirsphäre der Erde ohne eine Begrenzung des Bevölkerungswachstums, ohne eine Sicherung politischer und gesellschaftlicher Strukturen, werden wir globale Stabilität auf Dauer nicht Erreichen können. Wir sollten diese langfristige Dimension unseres Handelns nicht vergessen in einer Situation in der zurecht viele von uns sehr stark mit fragen des Terrorismus und seiner Bekämpfung beschäftigt sind.
Ich will noch eine kurze Bemerkung machen, im Zusammenhang mit dem Zusammenwirken von Prävention und militärischer Reaktion. Wir haben das ja auf dem Balkan erfahren. Wir haben zu spät, viel zu spät reagiert in Bosnien, gerade noch rechtzeitig reagiert in Kosovo, und wir haben präventiv reagiert in Mazedonien. Und man sollte nicht vergessen, dass unter Beteiligung des amerikanischen Präsidenten und einer großen Zahl von Regierungschefs Europas in Sarajevo im Juli 1999 ein Stabilitätspakt geschlossen worden ist, der die notwendige Ergänzung und die notwendige Konsequenz aus dem militärischen Handeln gewesen ist und dass ist der Grund weshalb George Robertson und andere völlig zu Recht sagen können, wir haben dort keine frustrierten, keine hasserfüllten Menschen hinterlassen, sondern eine ganze Region auf den Weg zum Frieden und zur Demokratie bringen können. Insofern ist der Stabilitätspakt beides, nämlich Prävention von Krisen und zugleich sinnvolle Krisennachsorge. Was bedeutet das alles im Zusammenhang mit unseren Streitkräften und im Zusammenhang mit der NATO und der europäischen Union. Ich hatte 4 schon darauf hingewiesen für die politische ...? und die militärische Interoperagilität ist die NATO für die transatlantischen Partner völlig unverzichtbar. Es ist modern geworden, europäische Schwächen in diesem Zusammenhang zu beklagen.
Ich füge ein paar wenige Zahlen hinzu:
Die Europäer, soweit sie Mitglied der europäischen Union sind stellen 6 % der Weltbevölkerung, sie stellen 30 % des Weltsozialproduktes, sie stellen 20 % aller regelmäßigen internationalen Operationen durch die vereinten Nationen oder andere eingesetzten Soldaten und Polizeikräfte, sie stellen 40 % des Budgets der vereinten Nationen, 50 % der Programmbudgets der vereinten Nationen, über 60 % der Soldaten in Bosnien oder in Mazedonien, über 80 %, Entschuldigung, Kosovo und in Bosnien, über 80 % der Soldaten in Mazedonien, und fast alle Soldaten der International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
Wenn es eine europäische Schwäche gibt, und es gibt sie, dann hat sie mit der mangelnden, politischen Entschlossenheit der Europäer zu tun, ihre Streitkräfte besser zu harmonisieren, ihre finanziellen Kräfte besser zu pulen und ihre Ausrüstung besser zu standardisieren und auf diese Weise einen effizienteren und ökonomischen Gebrauch von ihren finanziellen Recourcen zu machen. Insofern ist das viel beschriebenen Technology-Gap die Frucht von zwei schwierigen Entwicklungen. Mangelnde Fähigkeit und mangelnde Bereitschaft der Europäer zum Investment unter vernünftigen Bedingungen und oft genug auch mangelnde Bereitschaft unserer amerikanischen Freunde, transatlantische Projekte zu identifizieren, sie gemeinsam zu verwirklichen und den dafür notwendigen Technologietransfer auf der Grundlage gemeinsamer Technologießentwicklung zu organisieren.
Wir müssen auf beiden Seiten des Atlantik an der jeweils eigenen Ursache des Problems etwas tun, und auch die Tatsache, dass in Deutschland mittlerweile 30 % mehr in die militärische Ausrüstung organisiert wird, die Truppen mobiler gemacht werden, Spezial-Forzes, spezielle Operationen, Luftbewegliche Operationen und anderes schrittweise möglich werden oder schon möglich sind, ändert an diesem grundsätzlichen Zustand nichts. Ich will noch eine letzte Bemerkung machen, warum mir der transatlantische Verbund in dem Sinne, den George Robertson geschildert hat auch mit Blick auf eine intensivere Zusammenarbeit mit Russland und anderen Staaten völlig unverzichtbar erscheint. Wir sollten uns auf beiden Seiten des Atlantik keine Illusion machen. Zusammen stellen wir 15 % der Weltbevölkerung. Wir reden immer von einer globalisierten Welt. Wenn wir unsere Interessen und unsere Werte, unsere Integration, unsere Multinationalität nicht aufrecht erhalten, dann schwächen wir unsere eigene Kraft, aber wir tun noch etwas anderes, was ganz gefährlich ist. Wir gefährden das Beispiel, dass die europäische Integration dass der transatlantische Verbund das die NATO für die Welt geben kann.
Wir werden niemals mit unseren Kräften in der Lage sein, weltweite Sicherheit und weltweite Stabilität alleine zu garantieren. Wir brauchen dafür Partner im transatlantischen Verbund und in einem globalen Rahmen.
Wir müssen ein Interesse daran haben, dass regionale Sicherheitsstrukturen in anderen Teilen der Welt gestärkt werden. Oder glaubt jemand im Ernst, wir würden mit unseren Kräften auf der Grundlage der Entscheidungsmechanismen der Fähigkeiten demokratischer Gesellschaften alleine in der Lage sein, die weltweiten Konflikte zu beherrschen, wenn wir dafür nicht Partner finden und wenn wir nicht in der Lage sind, mit unserem eigenen Beispiel zu motivieren, dass regionale Sicherheit in einer multipolaren Welt von denen in die Hand genommen wird, die zurzeit eher für instabile Regionen stehen, ganz egal wo, ob dass das südliche Amerika, das südliche Afrika, der Nahe Osten oder anderes ist.  Wenn es nicht gelingt, auch mit dem eigenen europäischen und transatlantischen Beispiel dafür zu werben, dass internationale Sicherheit und ihre Organisationen und regionale Kooperation und Kooperationen zwischen den Regionen der Erde gestärkt werden, dann werden wir uns auf Dauer einer eher instabilen Welt gegenüber sehen. Also, wir unterstützen völlig uneingeschränkt und sehr konsequent als Europäer und auch als Bundesrepublik Deutschland den Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus. Wir dürfen aber dabei nicht übersehen, und wir wollen auch nicht übersehen, dass noch viel mehr zu tun ist. In der Stärkung regionaler Kooperation, in der Stärkung regionaler Sicherheit, in der Begrenzung von Massenvernichtungswaffen in der Verifikation die konsequent sein muss und vieles, was in diesem Zusammenhang erwählt wird. Meine Damen und Herren, wenn ich mich erinnere, was wir so hier an Entwicklung in München bisher diskutiert haben, dann will ich diese nüchternen und eher ergänzenden Bemerkungen, dass ist ja nicht mein Ehrgeiz jetzt hier noch eine dritte systematische Rede zu halten, sondern ein paar ergänzende Bemerkungen zu machen.  Ich denke wenn wir klug beraten sind, die aktuellen Gefahren im Lichte langfristiger Entwicklung zu betrachten und die Entschlossenheit zu stärken, auf allen Seiten der Herausforderung das zu tun, was demokratische Gesellschaften auszeichnet, nämlich gemeinsam, entschlossen und mit allen zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln für eine friedliche und sichere Welt einzutreten und dafür Partner zu entwickeln und aufzubauen und sie zu unterstützen wo sie Unterstützung brauchen. Vielen Dank.

Vortrag des stellvertretenden US-Verteidigungsminister Wolfowitz (engl.)
Ten years ago, at the end of the Cold War, many people-on both sides of the Atlantic- said that we didn't need NATO any more. Some said that the threat had gone away. Others said that America's involvement in European security was no longer needed. Yet ten years later, NATO continues to be the key to security and stability in Europe, most notably in the Balkans, where, as President Bush said in Warsaw last June, "we went in ...together, and we will come out together." And now, for the first time in its history, NATO has invoked Article V, not because of an attack on Europe, but because the United States itself has been attacked by terrorists operating from abroad.  Following the attacks of September 11th, those who might have consigned NATO to oblivion can no longer question the value of this alliance of nations dedicated to freedom. The ensuing war on terror has underscored that our transatlantic ties are not obsolete. They are essential.
From this podium last year, Secretary Rumsfeld said that even though "the landscape changes ... the mandate [of NATO] remains the same: it is to preserve peace and security and to promote freedom and democratic ideals." September 11th was a stark reminder that mortal threats to national security did not end with the Cold War or with the passing of the last century. New challenges to national security can be expected to surprise us again.
But, the response of NATO to September 11th demonstrated that this alliance of democracies can deal with uncertainty and uncharted territory. This alliance has proven itself a flexible instrument, adapting even as the challenges change dramatically.
As we have waged this war on terror, we have been harvesting the fruits of more than 50 years of joint planning, training and operations in the NATO framework. Today, NATO as an Alliance and NATO members individually are playing important roles in the war on terror.  For the first time in the Alliance's history, AWACS from NATO are helping to monitor U.S. airspace to prevent further terrorist attacks. Currently, seven NATO AWACS, flying out of Tinker Air Force Base, are patrolling the skies of the United States, relieving a significant burden on the U.S.  AWACS fleet, which is strained by operations in two theaters. In Afghanistan itself, individual NATO countries, along with many others from around the world, are contributing to the war effort and to the post-Taliban reconstruction effort.
In Afghanistan alone, our coalition partners are contributing 3,500 troops to Operation Enduring Freedom and to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, nearly half of the 8,000 non-Afghan forces in the country today. In fact, because we have been deliberately trying to keep our footprint in that country small, we have had far more offers of help than we have been able to use so far-but the campaign is far from over.
Twenty-seven coalition partners now work together at the United States Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, and sixteen nations serve side by side in the theater. Most are NATO allies but others, notably Jordan and Australia, also have significant forces. Another 66 nations have contributed various forms of support throughout the campaign. And we could not possibly have achieved what we have so far without the support and assistance of a number of countries in the region, most importantly, Pakistan.
Today, I want to focus on four questions that are important in addressing the security challenges that we face today:
What have we learned from the events of September 11th?
What can we learn from the conduct of the war on terrorism so far?
How can we expand the alliance against terrorism, particularly within the Muslim world?
And how can we build a stronger security foundation for the 21st Century?
What Have We Learned From the Events of September 11th?
For too many years, the international community treated terrorism as an ugly fact of international life, one with tragic and occasionally terrible consequences, but something we had to live with-and something we could manage to live with. Often terrorism was treated simply as a problem of law enforcement. The goal was to catch terrorists, try them, and punish them, hoping that doing so would deter others-although it didn't. People spoke frequently of retaliation-but rarely acted. And when they did act, it was more often against the lower-level perpetrators of terrorist acts than against those who were ultimately responsible. It would be an overstatement to say that terrorism came to be regarded as nasty but "acceptable," but we were far from a policy of zero tolerance for terrorism.  September 11th changed all of that. On that day we learned, at enormous cost, that the problem goes beyond crime and punishment. The attacks of that day not only demonstrate the failure of previous approaches, they also underscore the dangers we will face if we continue living with terrorism. What happened on September 1 ln,terrible though it was, is but a pale shadow of what will happen if terrorists use weapons of massive destruction.
As President Bush made clear, "Every nation now knows that we cannot accept-and we will not accept-states that harbor, finance, train, or equip the agents of terror. Those nations that violate this principle will be regarded as hostile regimes. They have been warned, they are being watched, and they will be held to account."1
Our approach has to aim at prevention and not merely punishment. We are at war. As Secretary Rumsfeld said recently, self-defense "requires prevention and sometimes preemption." It is not possible to defend against "every threat, in every place, at every conceivable time." The only defense against terrorism is to "take the war to the enemy"; the best defense is a good offense. The terrorists' great advantage is their ability to hide, not merely in the mountains of Afghanistan, but in the towns and cities of Europe and the United States. We need to hunt them down relentlessly, but we also need to deny them the sanctuaries in which they can safely plan and organize and to deprive them of the financial and material resources they need to operate- as Secretary Rumsfeld has said, "to drain the swamp" in which they live.
To meet this goal, President Bush has mounted a far-reaching campaign, a campaign that is not just military, but one that integrates all the elements of national power. As the President said in his address to the nation following the attack, "We will direct every resource at our command-every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of Jaw enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war-to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network." No one who has seen the images of September 11th can doubt that our response must be wide-ranging; nor should anyone doubt the far greater destruction terrorists could wreak with weapons of greater power. As President Bush has noted, what has been found in the caves of Afghanistan indicates the scope of what we could face: diagrams of American nuclear power plants and water facilities, maps of our cities and descriptions of landmarks, not just in America but around the world, along with detailed instructions for making chemical weapons.
Those who plotted in the caves share a kinship with states who seek to export terror. They pose a clear and direct threat to international security that could prove far more cataclysmic than what we have experienced already. After September 11th, we have a visceral understanding of what terrorists can do with commercial aircraft, in a way that seemed remote and hypothetical before. We cannot afford to wait until we have a visceral understanding of what terrorists can do with weapons of mass destruction, before we act to prevent it.
Facing that danger, countries must make a choice. Those that stand for peace, security and the rule of law-the great majority of countries in the world-stand united with us in this struggle between good and evil.
Those countries that choose to tolerate terrorism and refuse to take action-or worse, those that continue to support it-will face consequences. As President Bush said last Tuesday, "Make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will." Nations cannot afford to act like those neutral nations 60 years ago, of whom Winston Churchill so acidly observed: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last."
What can we learn from the conduct of the war on terrorism so far?  President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have repeatedly emphasized that the war on terrorism will be a long struggle. Although much has been accomplished already in Afghanistan and in attacking terrorist cells worldwide, even in Afghanistan there is still much work to be done.  Yet, there are already important lessons to be learned from what has been accomplished so far, with implications not only for the war on terrorism, but for the transformation of our military.
From the beginning of the campaign against terrorism, Secretary Rumsfeld has emphasized the importance of setting the key goals and the key concepts of the operation correctly.  Recently, he made a list of those that have been critical to the campaign so far. It's a long list, but let me share with you today a few of the most significant ones.
One of the most important concepts concerns the nature of coalitions in this campaign and the idea that "the mission must determine the coalition, the coalition must not determine the mission." Otherwise, as the Secretary says, the mission will be reduced to "the lowest common denominator."
As a corollary, there will not be a single coalition, but rather different coalitions for different missions, "flexible" coalitions, as the Secretary calls them, This means that the coalition will not "unravel" if some country stops doing something or fails to join in some missions. As Rumsfeld expressed it, "Since no single coalition has ,raveled,' it is unlikely to unravel." In fact, our policy in this war has been to accept help from countries on whatever basis is most comfortable to them. Some will join us publicly; others will choose quiet and discrete forms of cooperation. We recognize that it is best for each country to characterize how they are helping, instead of doing it for them. Ultimately, this maximizes their cooperation and our effectiveness.  Perhaps our most important coalition partners were the Afghans themselves.  Because of the historic Afghan hostility to foreign invaders, we strived from the beginning to keep our footprint small and emphasized that we were not in Afghanistan to stay. Instead, we leveraged the desire of the Afghan people to be liberated from the Taliban and to be rid of the foreign terrorists who brought so much destruction to their country. After the liberation of Mazar-e Sharif, the Afghan people greeted the arrival of their liberators with joy. That was a sentiment that soon echoed throughout Afghanistan. And from the very first day, we emphasized humanitarian operations as part of our military effort.  Another key concept was not to rule out anything, including the use of ground forces. From the beginning, we understood this would not be an antiseptic, "cruise missile war." We were willing to put "boots on the ground" where and when appropriate.
Indeed, military success in this campaign was only truly achieved when we inserted Special Forces on the ground, dramatically improving the effectiveness of the air campaign.  Jointness in peacetime allowed us to achieve jointness in wartime. We saw soldiers armed with rifles, maneuvering on horseback, using advanced communications to direct strikes by 50-year-old bombers. When reporters asked Secretary Rumsfeld about the reintroduction of the horse cavalry in modern war, he said: "It's all part of my transformation plan."
How can we expand the alliance against terrorism, particularly within the Muslim world?
The fight against terrorism is not just a fight of the Western countries, but of all who aspire to peace and freedom throughout the world, and most emphatically in the Muslim world itself. From my own experience in Indonesia, a country with the largest Muslim population of any in the world, I know that the vast majority of the world's Muslims have no use for the extreme doctrines espoused by such groups as Al Qaida and the Taliban. To the contrary, theyabhor terrorism and the way that the terrorists have not only highjacked airplanes but also attempted to highjack one of the world's great religions.  To win the war against terrorism we have to reach out to the hundreds of millions of moderate and tolerant people in the Muslim world, including the Arab world. They are on the front line of the struggle against terrorism. We not only have an obligation to help them. By helping them to stand up against the terrorists without fear, we help ourselves. Equally important, we help to lay the foundations for a better world after the battle against terrorism has been won.
Our goal should be more than just defeating the terrorists and eliminating the terrorist networks. As President Bush said in his State of the Union message, "we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.... Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. We have no intention of imposing our culture. America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror." No leader has taken greater risks in the struggle against terrorism than President Musharraf of Pakistan and no country has more at stake in the fight. This past week, in his address to the American people, President Bush commended President Musharraf's strong leadership. Pakistan's success will be a success for all of us in the fight against terrorism and Pakistan deserves support from us all.  Right here in NATO we have an ally, Turkey, that is a model for the Muslim world's aspirations for democratic progress and prosperity. Turkey, too, deserves our support. Those who would criticize Turkey for its problems confuse what is problematic with what is fundamental, focus too much on where Turkey is today and ignore where it is going.
What is fundamental is Turkey's democratic character. It changes its leaders at the ballot box, and stood with us during the long struggle of the Cold War. A Turkey that overcomes its present problems and continues the progress that country made over the course of the last century can become an example for the Muslim world-an example of the possibility of reconciling religious belief with modern secular democratic institutions.
Indonesia is another important example of a nation seeking to build a democratic government based on a culture of tolerance. But it does so in the face of severe economic obstacles. If we are serious about opposing terrorism we should also be serious about helping that country, with the largest population in the Muslim world, in its quest for a stable democracy.
And, we need more examples of success in the Arab world itself. Where countries are struggling to make progress, as Jordan and Morocco are doing, they need our support. (It is no accident that Jordan today is making one of the largest contributions to the coalition in Afghanistan, or that King Abdullah has condemned terrorism in clear and heart-felt language.) Our support should extend beyond governments to those "brave men and women" President Bush spoke of. As Prince Talal bin Abdulaziz, one of the son's of the founder of the Saudi monarchy, said recently, speaking of his own country and the Arab world: "We need movement because the world is changing and the world around us is changing. Kuwait has elections, Qatar has communal elections, there's change in Bahrain, Oman, Yemen. . . The system has to progress and evolve
..."
How can we build a stronger security foundation in Europe for the 21st Century?
As difficult as it is to think about other challenges in the middle of this great effort, it is important to think beyond the war on terrorism if we wish to build a solid foundation for peace and security in this century.
Strengthening and enlarging NATO and building a new relationship with Russia are key to building that foundation in Europe.
In Warsaw last June, President Bush emphasized the importance of "NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibility that NATO brings." That is as important today as it was before September 11th.
Contradicting the gloomy predictions that were heard at the time, the first round of NATO enlargement did not build a new wall down the middle of Europe. It has built new structures, but these are bridges, not walls.
It has provided incentives for countries to reform their political systems, strengthen their relationships with their neighbors, and bring their military forces under civilian control.  As we plan for the Prague summit, we should heed President Bush's call that we should "not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom." All those countries that aspire to be members of NATO need to work seriously to meet the standards of membership, and the standards for membership should be kept high. But experience has shown that NATO enlargement has strengthened security and promoted stability throughout Europe. All countries have benefited from this process, including Russia. Further enlargement will also result in improving relations among NATO members and between members and non-members.
Today we have an historic opportunity to build a new relationship with Russia. Recently, the United States and Russia have engaged in a new dialogue that we hope will fashion a new strategic relationship-one that puts Cold War animosities behind us, and that also contributes a new role of Russia in Europe.
We have made a conscious decision to move beyond a relationship with Russia centered on preserving the mutual threat of massive nuclear destruction to a relationship that is based instead on common security interests: a relationship that is normal among states that no longer regard themselves as deadly rivals. One expression of that is our common interest in fighting global terrorism. In moving toward a normal, healthy relationship, we have been able to set aside the fears of the past and plan for radical reductions in the legacy nuclear forces of the Cold War.
NATO as an alliance has a crucial role to play in integrating Russia into the framework of European security.
As President Bush also said in Warsaw, "The Europe we are building must also be open to Russia ... we look for the day when Russia is fully reformed, fully democratic and closely bound to the rest of Europe." In the Joint Statement issued after their November meeting in Crawford, President Bush and President Putin affirmed their determination to "work,together with NATO and other NATO members, to improve, strengthen, and enhance the relationship between NATO and Russia." NATO has seized this opportunity by resolving to find ways for the Alliance and Russia to work together "at 20." It is important that we get started with practical, concrete forms of cooperation that build on NATO's and Russia's mutual security interests. It is also essential, as NATO and Russia work together where we can, that NATO retain its independent ability to decide and act on important security issues.
As NATO enlarges, and builds a new relationship with Russia, we must not forget that NATO is fundamentally a military alliance. And NATO's credibility and ability to prevent war depends critically on its military strength.
To ensure NATO can deal with surprise and uncertainty in the decades ahead, NATO must improve its structures and capabilities. A key objective for the Prague summit should be to launch a military transformation agenda.
A key component of that agenda should be to develop NATO's capacities in counter-terrorism. Fighting terrorism, which has been so clearly linked to weapons of mass destruction, is part of NATO's basic job description: Collective Defense.
The Prague summit also provides an appropriate time to launch a reform of the Alliance command structure to make it leaner, more streamlined, more cost efficient, and, above all, more flexible.
These initiatives should be buttressed by an even more fundamental reform, one that would have profound implications for how the Alliance has done business over the last fifty years. During the Cold War, NATO sized and shaped its forces against specific geographic threats. The only Article V attack in NATO's history came from an unexpected source, in an unexpected form. What this tells us is that our old assumptions, our old plans, and our old capabilities are out-of-date. Article V threats can come from anywhere, in many forms.
9
Rather than trying to guess which enemy the Alliance will confront years from now, or where wars may occur, we should focus on what capabilities adversaries could use against us, on shoring up our own vulnerabilities, and on exploiting new capabilities to extend our own military advantages. This is the essence of a capabilities-based approach to defense planning.  We are in a new era, facing new risks, and we must have new capabilities.
This should be our main objective as we approach the Prague summit.
Conclusion
At the heart of the NATO's success and its ability to continue to play such a crucial role in greatly changed circumstances is not only its military strength but the values that are at its core. What Ronald Reagan called "man's instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination" has brought about extraordinary and wonderful change over the last twenty years-the end of the Cold War and of the tragic division of Europe, the demise of totalitarian and authoritarianregimes, on both sides of the Cold War divide. Today, the desire for freedom is a powerful force in the war on terrorism.
The democracies of the world govern by the rule of law and the consent of the governed. The Taliban, like other tyrants, ruled by terror. It is not an accident that every state that sponsors terrorism also terrorizes its own people.
But that is a fundamental weakness of those regimes and a fundamental advantage for us in the fight against terrorism. People who are terrorized by their rulers can become our best allies pressuring those rulers to get out of the business of supporting terrorism.
The desire for freedom and self-government is also what has held this Alliance together for more than half a century. As President Reagan said on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day Invasion: "We are bound today by what bound us [then]-the same loyalties, traditions, beliefs. We were with you then; we are with you now.
Your hopes are our hopes; and your destiny is our destiny."
That spirit is still alive and strong twenty years later.  Just two weeks after September 11th, a German Navy destroyer, the Lutjens, asked for permission to come alongside the USS Winston Churchill. When Lutjens drew close enough, the U.S. sailors were moved to see an American flag flying at half-mast. As the Lutjens drew even closer, her entire crew could be seen manning the rails in their dress uniforms, displaying a sign that said, "We Stand By You." One young American Naval officer, calling it "the most powerful thing I have seen in my entire life," reported back home: ".. .there was not a dry eye on the bridge as they stayed alongside us for a few minutes and we cut our salutes. .. .The German Navy did an incredible thing for this crew.... [T]o see the unity that is being demonstrated throughout Europe and the world makes us all feel proud to be out here doing our job."
As an alliance, we have never been stronger. We have never been more united.  We have never been more resolved to move forward together. Let us make this journey with the promise of one ally's sailors to another:
"we stand by you."
Thank you very much.

Vortrag von Frau Dr. Angela Merkel, MdB, Parteivorsitzende der CDU Deutschlands
International Terrorism - The European Impact
Es gilt das gesprochene Wort!
[Anrede], in Deutschland war es in den vergangenen Jahren schon zu einem Ritual geworden, jede Rede zur Sicherheitspolitik mit einem Hinweis auf die veränderte weltpolitische Lage nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges und die Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands zu beginnen. Dieses Paradigma trägt heute nicht mehr.
Die terroristischen Anschläge vom 11. September haben die außen-, sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitischen Konstellationen erneut grundlegend verändert. Es ist spätestens mit den Anschlägen auf das World Trade Center und das Pentagon offenbar geworden, dass der internationale Terrorismus eine der großen Herausforderungen der Zukunft ist. Natürlich gibt es heute auch Stimmen, die sagen, die Gefahr durch den Terrorismus sei auch vor dem 11. September vorhanden gewesen. Dies stimmt. Doch müssen wir einräumen, dass wir diese Gefahr in ihrer Dimension nicht erkannt haben, dass die Tragweite des Terrors, wie er sich in New York und Washington gezeigt hat, für die meisten von uns in dieser Form nicht vorstellbar gewesen ist.
Der 11. September 2001 markiert eine historische Zäsur. Auch wenn wir uns nun vor hektischem Aktionismus hüten müssen, kommen wir nicht umhin, unsere sicherheitspolitischen Dispositionen einer grundlegenden Prüfung zu unterziehen. Wir müssen feststellen, dass wir auf die Herausforderung des internationalen Terrorismus nur unzureichend vorbereitet sind. Welche Schlussfolgerungen müssen wir also ziehen? Lassen Sie mich hierzu 5 Thesen aufstellen:
1. These: Die Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus ist eine Aufgabe, der sich niemand entziehen darf!
Die Anschläge vom 11. September trafen zwar das World Trade Center in New York und das Pentagon in Washington - doch letztlich zielten sie auf die Werte, für die die westlichen Gesellschaften stehen: Die Würde und Freiheit jedes einzelnen Menschen, Demokratie, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Toleranz. Die Staaten der Europäischen Union können sich nicht zurücklehnen und die Bekämpfung des Terrors den USA überlassen. Dieses Vorgehen ist für uns keine Alternative - aus Gründen der Solidarität mit den Vereinigten Staaten, aber nicht zuletzt auch aus ureigenem Interesse daran, dem Terror auch in unseren Ländern keine Chance zu geben.
Die Tatsache, dass terroristische Schläfer auch von Deutschland aus die Anschläge geplant haben, macht nur allzu deutlich, dass unsere Gesellschaft, aber auch andere europäische Staaten vom internationalen Terrorismus bedroht sind. Unsere offenen, liberalen Gesellschaften haben sich für Terroristen als nützliche Rückzugsräume erwiesen. Die Attentäter nutzten die ihnen gebotenen bürgerlichen Freiheiten aus, ohne aber die mit dieser Gesellschaftsordnung verbundenen Werte auch nur in Ansätzen zu verinnerlichen. Es ist erschreckend, dass scheinbar mit Hamburg eine deutsche Stadt zu einem Knotenpunkt im Netzwerk von AI Qaida hat werden können. Die Möglichkeit, dass noch immer Schläfer in Deutschland, aber auch in anderen Ländern nur auf eine Gelegenheit warten könnten, zeigt, dass die terroristische Gefahr nach dem militärischen Sieg in Afghanistan keineswegs gebannt ist. Nötig ist deshalb, ein neues Gleichgewicht zwischen liberalen, bürgerlichen Rechten einerseits und Maßnahmen zum Schutz und zur Sicherheit der Bürger andererseits zu finden.
Dies gilt nicht zuletzt für Europa, wo effiziente Maßnahmen im Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus noch immer durch die Vorbehalte der Nationalstaaten, zugunsten der Union auf Souveränitätsrechte zu verzichten, verzögert oder verhindert werden. Zwar haben sich nach dem 11. September mehrere Europäische Räte intensiv mit der Frage der Terrorismusbekämpfung beschäftigt und hierzu auch Beschlüsse gefasst, die für die EU einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit bedeuten.  Doch unter dem Strich mussten wir feststellen, dass es nach den Terroranschlägen von New York und Washington nicht mehr, sondern weniger Europa gegeben hat. Die einzelnen Länder gingen vielfach daran, in einer Art Schönheitswettbewerb ihre jeweils nationalen Beiträge zur Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus anzubieten und zu demonstrieren. Ministerpräsidenten, Kanzler und Außenminister waren vor allem bemüht, ihre engen bilateralen Beziehungen mit den USA zu demonstrieren. Die EU als ganzes blieb - vor allem im bilateralen Verhältnis zu den USA - weitgehend auf der Strecke.
Allerdings muss angesichts der Dimension der Krise und der daraus folgenden militärischen Aktionen die Frage erlaubt sein, ob es realistisch ist zu hoffen, dass die EU ausgerechnet in dieser Phase der Geschichte bei der anstehenden Frage über Krieg und Frieden - alle nationalen Widerstände überwinden und effektive europäische Entscheidungs- und Handlungsstrukturen entwickeln kann. Ist es nicht nahe liegend, dass diejenigen aktiv werden, die in einer Situation über die Ressource verfügen, die dringend benötigt wird - nämlich die Nationalstaaten mit ihren jeweiligen Streitkräften? Wir sollten uns also davor hüten, die EU wegen ihrer außenpolitischen Schwäche im Moment der schwersten Krise an den Pranger zu stellen.
Vielmehr sollten wir alle Anstrengungen darauf richten, der EU die Mechanismen und Instrumente an die Hand zu geben, die sie befähigen, zukünftig bei ähnlichen Krisen schnell und effektiv zu reagieren.
Es stellt sich also mehr denn je die Frage, wie die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union und die Kohärenz ihrer Politik in den Feldern der inneren und äußeren Sicherheit gestärkt werden kann. Bei der Sondertagung des Europäischen Rates in Brüssel am 21. September des vergangenen Jahres wurde der EU zwar eine zentrale Rolle im Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus zugewiesen, doch ist noch unklar, inwiefern diese Bekenntnisse bei der Regierungskonferenz im Jahr 2004 Eingang in die Europäischen Verträge finden werden.
2. These: Die Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der inneren Sicherheit sind in der EU bereits vorangekommen, müssen aber noch verbessert und ausgeweitet werden.
Innere und äußere Sicherheit lassen sich immer weniger voneinander trennen.
Der internationale Terrorismus kann weder mit den Instrumenten der inneren noch der äußeren Sicherheit allein erfolgreich bekämpft werden. Deshalb müssen nicht nur in diesen beiden Politikbereichen Fortschritte gemacht, sondern darüber hinaus müssen sie auch eng miteinander verzahnt werden.  Das europäische Projekt, bis 2004 einen "Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts" zu schaffen, muss erfolgreich umgesetzt werden. Wir benötigen auf europäischer Ebene solche Institutionen und Instrumente, die unsere Freiheit und die Sicherheit unserer Bürger effizient schützen können.
Einige Erfolge kann die EU bereits vorweisen:
. An erster Stelle steht der Aktionsplan zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus, der insbesondere eine Intensivierung der polizeilichen und justiziellen Zusammenarbeit vorsieht.  . Nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September konnte man sich auf einen europäischen Haftbefehl einigen.
Die Entscheidung für einen solchen europäischen Haftbefehl war überfällig, denn die schwerfälligen Auslieferungsverfahren innerhalb der EU behinderten die Strafverfolgung und damit auch die Bekämpfung des Terrorismus.
Die neue Geldwäsche-Richtlinie sowie der Rahmenbeschluss zur Beschlagnahme des Vermögens terroristischer Organisationen sind ebenfalls effektive Instrumente der Terrorismusbekämpfung.
. Bereits auf dem EU-Gipfel von Tampere im Oktober 1999 forderten die Staatsund Regierungschefs eine gemeinsame Definition des Begriffs Terrorismus. Diese Forderung wird nun in die Realität umgesetzt.
Dennoch bleiben zahlreiche, noch zu erledigende Aufgaben:
. Das Europäische Kriminalamt Europol muss im Bereich Terrorismus besser ausgestattet werden.
. Die enge und teilweise auch sehr gute Zusammenarbeit der einzelnen nationalen Sicherheitsbehörden reicht bei den heutigen Bedrohungsszenarien nicht mehr aus. Deshalb benötigen wir einen eigenen europäischen Geheimdienst.
Um eine rasche Handlungsfähigkeit der EU und eine wirksame demokratische Kontrolle durch das Europäische Parlament in der Innen- und Rechtspolitik der EU zu gewährleisten, muss auch in diesem Politikbereich die Vergemeinschaftung der Kompetenzen vorangetrieben werden.
. Schließlich sollten wir ein Abkommen zwischen Europol und dem FBI anstreben, das den Austausch von Daten und die Zusammenarbeit im Kampf gegen das internationale Verbrechen, Geldwäsche und den internationalen Terrorismus verbindlich regelt.  3. These: Eine überzeugende gemeinsame Außenpolitik setzt eine schlagkräftige Europäische Sicherheits-und Verteidigungspolitik voraus.
Während der 11. September im Bereich der Innen- und Rechtspolitik durchaus einen integrationspolitischen Schub gegeben hat, ist davon in der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik wenig zu spüren. Doch auch in der GASP und in der Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik - ESVP - brauchen wir spätestens 2004 entscheidende Schritte nach vorne. Die Bilanz der europäischen Sicherheitspolitik ist bislang traurig. Die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union, die sich immer wieder als ein disharmonischer Chor präsentieren, geben rund die Hälfte dessen aus, was die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika für ihre Verteidigung aufwenden. Wirklich beschämend ist aber, dass die EU-Staaten damit lediglich etwa 10% der militärischen Schlagkraft der USA erzielen. Die Kleinstaaterei in sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitischen Fragen kostet die EU-Staaten nicht nur viel Geld, sondern auch militärischen und vor allem politischen Einfluss.
Allerdings sollten wir unsere sicherheitspolitischen Anstrengungen nicht allein an den Verteidigungsausgaben messen. Der europäische Beitrag für die wirtschaftliche und politische Stabilisierung der jungen demokratischen Staaten in Mittel- und Osteuropa, die Bemühungen bei der Friedenssicherung und beim Wiederaufbau Südosteuropas sowie die Aufnahme von Kriegsflüchtlingen aus dieser Region, der Finanztransfer nach Russland, z.B. im Zusammenhang mit dem Abzug der russischen Truppen aus Deutschland, die Anstrengungen der EU in Bezug auf die südlichen Mittelmeeranrainer und jetzt beim Wiederaufbau des seit Jahrzehnten von Bürgerkrieg und Chaos geschundenen Afghanistan - all dies muss in einer sicherheitspolitischen Gesamtbilanz beachtet werden.  Dennoch bleibt die These richtig, dass Europa im transatlantischen "Burden-Sharing" zu wenig leistet und dass dafür nicht nur die zu geringen Haushaltsansätze, sondern auch strukturelle Defizite verantwortlich sind.
Die EU muss endlich eine wirksamere Außenvertretung bekommen, damit Europa seinem politischen Willen, Frieden, Sicherheit und den Schutz der Menschenrechte zu gewährleisten, auch glaubhaft Nachdruck verleihen kann. Mit den bisherigen Instrumenten gelingt dies nicht. Zurzeit stehen der halbjährlich wechselnde Ratsvorsitzende, der zuständige Kommissar und der Hohe Vertreter für die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik für die gemeinsame Vertretung der Europäischen Union nach außen. Zudem versuchen sich die nationalen Außenminister, in allen wichtigen Fragen nach Kräften zu profilieren.
Zwischen dem zuständigen Kommissar und dem Mr. GASP kommt es nur deshalb nicht ständig zu Kompetenzkonflikten, weil diese Ämter derzeit von zwei hervorragenden Persönlichkeiten besetzt sind. Doch letztlich werden mit dem derzeitigen Zuschnitt der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik dramatische Effizienzverluste in Kauf genommen. Die alte Forderung, der amerikanische Außenminister müsse wissen, wer sein Pendant in der Europäischen Union sei, ist noch immer nicht erfüllt. Deshalb sollten die beiden Ämter des Hohen Vertreters für die GASP und des EU-Außenkommissars zusammengelegt oder zukünftig in Personalunion vergeben werden. Ein solch gestärkter Außen-Vertreter der EU sollte auch den Vorsitz im Rat der Außenminister innehaben.
Solange die Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der EU noch so starken Veränderungen unterliegt wie derzeit, ist die Nutzung und Weiterentwicklung der Instrumente der "verstärkten Zusammenarbeit", der konstruktiven Enthaltung und der Nichtbeteiligung - des "Opting out" - erforderlich, um die Ausweitung der gemeinschaftlichen Institutionen, Mechanismen und Instrumente zu ermöglichen. Längerfristig sollte die GASP aber vergemeinschaftet werden, auch wenn vielen der Abschied gerade von diesem Bereich der nationalen Souveränität schwer fällt.
Nötig ist zudem der Ausbau von "OCCAR" (Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d'Armement) zu einer Rüstungsagentur der Union, um für die EU-Staaten eine gemeinsame Beschaffungspolitik zu entwickeln, die zu großen Synergieeffekten und damit auch zu geringeren Systempreisen führen kann. Die EU-Staaten können es sich nicht länger leisten, parallel weitgehend identische Waffensysteme zu entwickeln und zu beschaffen. Auch gemeinsame Rüstungspolitik ist ein wichtiger Teil der europäischen Sicherheitskooperation.
Im Sinne einer ausgewogeneren Lasten- und Verantwortungsteilung zwischen Europa und Nordamerika müssen wir auch die Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik ausbauen. Die Entscheidung, eine europäische Eingreiftruppe ins Leben zu rufen, ist vollkommen richtig. Diese Eingreiftruppe darf jedoch nicht zum Papiertiger werden. Auf dem Gipfel in Laeken erklärten die Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU, die Union sei "nunmehr in der Lage, einige Operationen zur Krisenbewältigung durchzuführen." Bis 2003 soll die volle Einsatzbereitschaft der Eingreiftruppe erreicht sein. Tatsächlich ist die EU aber noch weit davon entfernt, über 60.000 einsatzfähige Soldaten verfügen zu können. Damit ist auch die im EU-Vertrag geforderte Fähigkeit, "humanitäre Aufgaben und Rettungseinsätze, friedenserhaltende Aufgaben sowie Kampfeinsätze bei der Krisenbewältigung einschließlich friedensschaffender Maßnahmen"[1] durchführen zu können, noch nicht im ausreichenden Maß vorhanden.  Eine Nagelprobe für die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik wird sein, ob es gelingt, in den nächsten 10 Jahren den Balkan nachhaltig zu stabilisieren und damit die Voraussetzungen für eine schrittweise Reduzierung unserer dortigen Truppenpräsenz zu schaffen. Der Anspruch, auf der Weltbühne eine herausgehobene Rolle zu spielen, verliert an Glaubwürdigkeit, wenn es den Europäern nicht gelingt, vor ihrer eigenen Haustür Sicherheit, Frieden und Ordnung zu schaffen.  4. These: Die Bundeswehr muss wieder voll bündnis- und einsatzfähig gemacht werden.
Auf absehbare Zeit werden die Soldaten der europäischen Eingreiftruppe werden von den Mitgliedstaaten gestellt, es wird also in naher Zukunft keine wirklich eigenen europäischen Streitkräfte geben. Dies bedeutet zugleich auch, dass die Europäische Eingreiftruppe nur so gut und schlagkräftig sein kann, wie die von den Nationalstaaten zur Verfügung gestellten Komponenten.  Gerade hier gibt es enorme Defizite - wie bedauerlicherweise ausgerechnet das Beispiel Deutschland zeigt.
Es stellt sich die Frage, ob Deutschland überhaupt noch in der Lage ist, seinen internationalen Verpflichtungen nachzukommen. Seit 1998 wurden der Bundeswehr in einem Maße neue Aufgaben übertragen, wie es noch vorwenigen Jahren nicht vorstellbar gewesen wäre.
Zugleich entzieht die
Bundesregierung dem Verteidigungsetat im Vergleich zur letzten mittelfristigen Finanzplanung der CDUgeführten Bundesregierung innerhalb von vier Jahren etwa 10 Milliarden Euro. Diese dramatischen Haushaltskürzungen seit 1998 haben bei den Streitkräften deutliche Spuren hinterlassen. Deutschland ist inzwischen bei den Verteidigungsanstrengungen zu einem Schlusslicht der NATO geworden. Spätestens seit den Anschlägen vom 11. September sollte jedoch jedem klar sein, dass der Abwärtstrend des Verteidigungsetats nicht nur gestoppt, sondern umgekehrt werden muss. Dies gilt auch für andere europäische Länder - aber vor allem für Deutschland. Eine Trendwende bei der Finanzierung der Bundeswehr wäre auch das richtige Signal an unsere Partner.
Notwendig sind aber umfangreiche Investitionen, um das bestehende Material erhalten und modernisieren sowie neue Projekte realisieren zu können. Hierfür hat die derzeitige Bundesregierung keine finanzielle Vorsorge getroffen. Besonders deutlich wurde diese Tatsache an der jüngsten Diskussion über die Beschaffung von 73 militärischen Lufttransportflugzeugen vom Typ Airbus A-400M. Es ist unumstritten, dass die veralteten Transall-Maschinen der Bundeswehr den zunehmenden Aufgaben nicht mehr gerecht werden und neue Lufttransportkapazitäten beschafft werden müssen. Der gerade angelaufene Afghanistan-Einsatz der Bundeswehr hat diese Notwendigkeit noch einmal nterstrichen. Zugleich hat die Beschaffung des A-400M - ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt mehrerer EU- Staaten - eine hohe europapolitische Bedeutung, denn die gemeinsame Beschaffung kann als eine Nagelprobe für die Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik gesehen werden. Um so wichtiger ist es, dass die in den kommenden Jahren aufzubringenden Mittel von den beteiligten Regierungen bereits heute rechtsverbindlich zugesagt werden, damit sich alle Partner sowie die Industrie auf eine berechenbare Grundlage stützen können.
Deutschland hat sich mit seiner Unterschrift unter die ,Defence Capabilities Initiative' und die "European Headline Goals" ausdrücklich dazu verpflichtet, weitere Ausrüstungsdefizite zu beheben: Es besteht dringender Bedarf in den Bereichen Führungsfähigkeit und Kommunikation, Aufklärung, Minenschutz oder beim persönlichen ABC-Schutz der Soldaten. Leider ließe sich diese Liste beliebig verlängern[2].
Letztlich kommen wir nicht umhin, die Bundeswehr materiell, personell und finanziell angemessen auszustatten. Denn wenn einige Mitgliedstaaten der EU ihre verteidigungspolitischen Anstrengungen vernachlässigen, kann auch die europäische Eingreiftruppe kein Erfolg werden.
In diesem Zusammenhang steht Deutschland vor einem besonderen, aus seiner Historie erwachsenen Problem. Aus gutem Grund verfügt der Deutsche Bundestag bei der Entscheidung über den Auslandseinsatz deutscher Soldaten über den so genannten Parlamentsvorbehalt. Doch die sehr weitgehenden Restriktionen, denen die Bundesregierung bei der Planung und Durchführung von Auslandseinsätzen unterliegt, können sich insbesondere dann, wenn es um multilaterale Missionen geht, zu einem Hindernis für reibungslose und schnelle Reaktionen auf sicherheitspolitische Herausforderungen entwickeln. Dies gilt auch für die europäische Eingreiftruppe, für die die Bundeswehr 18.000 Soldaten bereitstellen soll. Deshalb sollte der Deutsche Bundestag prüfen, ob in der nächsten Legislaturperiode das Verfahren für die Entsendung deutscher Truppen in Auslandseinsätze neu geregelt werden muss. Ein "Parlamentsbeteiligungsgesetz" über die Beschlussfassung von Auslandseinsätzen der Bundeswehr sollte zum Ziel haben, der Regierung mehr Flexibilität sowie schnellere Handlungsmöglichkeiten zu eröffnen, ohne dabei die Rechte des Parlaments entscheidend einzuschränken.  5. These: Die europäische Integration ersetzt nicht die transatlantische Kooperation. Diese muss vielmehr ausgebaut und gestärkt werden.
Die Ereignisse des 11. September haben deutlich gemacht, dass weder die Nationalstaaten noch die EU als ganzes imstande sind, unsere Freiheit und Sicherheit zu schützen. Der Bedrohung durch den internationalen Terrorismus werden wir nur mit einer funktionierenden internationalen Zusammenarbeit begegnen können, wobei die transatlantische Partnerschaft von überragender Bedeutung ist.
Für die CDU ist die europäische Einigung die eine Seite der Medaille. Die andere Seite ist die transatlantische Partnerschaft. Spätestens seit dem 11. September 2001 wissen wir, dass die transatlantische Partnerschaft keine Einbahnstraße ist. Es zeigte sich, dass auch die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika als einzig verbliebene Supermacht nicht unverwundbar sind. Beide Partner - die EU und die USA - sind aufeinander angewiesen.
Deshalb darf und wird die ESVP die transatlantische Partnerschaft nicht schwächen, sondern sie muss zu einer gerechteren Lastenteilung und damit auch zu einer gewichtigeren Rolle der EU in der Welt führen. Die EU sollte mit ihrer Eingreiftruppe nur dann tätig werden, wenn die NATO als Ganzes nicht aktiv werden will, wie es das "Strategische Konzept" der NATO vom April 1999 vorsieht. Ebenso wenig darf der Aufbau europäischer Verteidigungsstrukturen zu unnötigen Duplizierungen führen.  Dazu muss die EU auf NATOPlanungskapazitäten und Kommandostrukturen zurückgreifen können. Beim Aufbau der ESVP muss immer der Grundsatz gelten, ein geeintes, handlungsfähiges und demokratisches Europa als starken Partner, nicht als Konkurrent der Vereinigten Staaten zu schaffen.
Denn es sind die gemeinsamen Ziele, die Europa und die USA verbinden:
Menschenrechte, Toleranz, Freiheit, Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Der russische Präsident, Wladimir Putin, hat am 25. September des vergangenen Jahres im Bundestag eine bemerkenswerte Rede gehalten, in der er - im Hinblick auf die Anschläge von New York und Washington und die sich daran anschließende Kooperation zwischen Russland und dem Westen - feststellte: "Heute müssen wir mit Bestimmtheit und endgültig erklären: Der Kalte Krieg ist vorbei." Damit hat Präsident Putin zweifelsfrei Recht. Doch lassen Sie mich hinzufügen: Der Kalte Krieg ist deshalb vorbei, weil sich in der ideologischen Auseinandersetzung Werte wie Freiheit, Toleranz, Pluralismus und Rechtssicherheit gegenüber Unterjochung, Willkür und staatlicher Bevormundung als die überlegenen herausgestellt haben. Diese Werte werden wir - nun gemeinsam mit unserem Partner Russland - auch zukünftig vertreten, nicht überheblich, aber selbstbewusst.
Wir werden dies im Dialog, in der Diskussion tun - doch falls nötig müssen Deutschland, die EU und die NATO auch bereit sein, Sicherheit und Werte auch militärisch zu verteidigen.
[1] Art. 17. Abs. 2 EU-Vertrag. Der Wortlaut wurde im Vertrag von Nizza beibehalten.
[2] z.B. Anschaffung des minensicheren Fahrzeugs Dingo. Für weitere Bereiche mit Handlungsbedarf s. das Papier "Sicherheit 2l"der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion vom 8.10.2001, S. 9f.

Vortrag des NATO-Generalsekretär Lord Robertson (engl.)
"NATO's Future"
Ladies and Gentlemen,
A week ago, the Wall Street Journal argued that if security were a marketable product, it would be hard to find a better brand name than NATO.
Dr. Teltschik, the same applies to this conference. Munich is a leading trade name in its field, a venue where the most serious security issues are debated openly and honestly, among experts and key decision makers.
Today, the most serious security issue facing us all is the campaign against terrorism. At ground zero and elsewhere in New York earlier this week I was told repeatedly that NATO's response to September 11 had reaffirmed the importance of the transatlantic partnership.  But we have all seen in the past month that a succession of commentators have started to argue that NATO has been marginalised and that its future is in doubt.  This is not the first time that predictions of this kind have been made.  When the Berlin Wall fell, some critics suggested that NATO had completed its mission, and could pack it in. Then, after the success of the Gulf War coalition, they suggested that all future operations would be exactly like Desert Storm - and that, as a result, NATO wasn't needed to meet modern challenges.  The critics were wrong. During the 1990s, NATO's members transformed the Alliance to deal with instability in Southeast Europe, to provide security across the European continent and to spearhead the modernisation of their armed forces.
NATO prospered, expanded and even won its first military campaign, in Kosovo. was, by any standards, a huge success. We won in 78 days, with minimum casualties and none on the Allies side, without a legacy of bitterness or terror, and with all our objectives met.  Every time I visit Kosovo, I meet people who would not be alive today but for NATO's planes and soldiers.
You don't hear them bleating about "war by committee." Today, NATO is keeping the peace in trouble spots in Southeast Europe; and cooperating more and more deeply with Russia, Ukraine, and 25 other countries in Europe and Central Asia. And as a sign of NATO's popularity, nine countries are queuing to join this year.  Make no mistake, in 2002, there is simply no credible alternative forum to NATO for transatlantic security coordination. Nor is there any credible alternative for ensuring the military and political interoperability on which all coalition operations depend.
There is no other means than NATO to ensure that European Defence strengthens our collective capacity.
And there is no other organisation which can provide stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area and prevent the danger of re-nationalising defence in Europe.  But September 11th changed the world. As a result, some critics now argue that NATO has no role in dealing with the new threats that confront us all. Or that it could have a role but lacks the political will to seize it.
I totally disagree. The critics were wrong after the Cold War and the Gulf War. They are wrong now. NATO is not only a part of the campaign against terrorism - it is an essential part.  Start with the declaration of Article 5. We must not let revisionists cast doubt on the fundamental importance of that decision. By declaring that this attack was an attack against them all, NATO's 19 members triggered the same collective defence arrangements for the United States which Europeans had counted on during the Cold War.
This decision demonstrated that the mutual trust and commitments on which the Alliance has been based for 52 years remain tangible, real and reciprocal.
But Article 5 is not just a statement of solidarity. It is also a commitment by Allies to offer practical support and it was a unique signal to the world of terrorism that they had crossed a serious threshold with their attack.
At the outset of the crisis, the United States was quickly granted a range of specific measures, such as enhanced intelligence support; blanket overflight rights, access to ports and airfields, and so on.
Most significant, of course, was the move of seven NATO AW ACS aircraft across the Atlantic to patrol US airspace.
As President Bush said in his joint press conference with me in the White House Rose Garden on 10 October: "This has never happened before, that NATO has come to help defend our country, but it happened in this time of need and for that we are grateful". A high point indeed in the transatlantic relationship.
It is true that NATO did not lead the campaign against the Taliban and Al-Qaida because, as in the case of Desert Storm in the Gulf, a larger, more diverse coalition was needed for that phase of the attack on terrorism. But NATO's political, military and logistic support has nonetheless been crucial.
Furthermore, European members are leading the international stability force now deploying to Kabul. As in Desert Storm, their ability to work effectively with each other and with the United States is the result of decades of cooperation in NATO.
It is a striking fact that because of NATO's emphasis on multinational interoperability, British tanker aircraft over Afghanistan can refuel US Navy fighters, but US Air Force tankers cannot. Without a core of practical interoperability, we would rapidly be forced to rely on conditions of the willing but incapable.
And NATO's role stretches even further - because it has made a vital contribution to building the coalition that the United States needs to win this campaign. For years, NATO has been building partnerships and trust with Central Asian partners.
Now these same countries are providing airspace and bases without which effective operations in Afghanistan would have been impossible. That would not have been feasible without those years of cooperation with NATO.
Afghanistan reinforces the fact that no modern military operation can be undertaken by a single country.
Even superpowers need allies and coalitions to provide bases, fuel, airspace and forces. And they need mechanisms and experience to integrate these forces into a single coherent military capability.
NATO and its partners in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council are the world's largest permanent coalition.
And NATO is preeminently the world's most effective military organisation.  It will not be in the lead in every crisis. But it has a vital role - in my view the vital role - to play in multinational crisis prevention and crisis management.
Nonetheless, to maintain that role, NATO must continue to evolve. The context for our security is changing, and everybody in the security business has to adapt. What people do not seem to know is that we are already on the job.
We have a clear mission, set down at our autumn ministerial meetings, to make November's Prague summit a focus for adaptation and change.
Thus the Alliance is becoming the primary means for developing the role of armed forces to defeat the terrorist threat. NATO forces have already destroyed dangerous Al-Qaida cells in the Balkans.
Now our nations are examining ways to improve our forces' abilities to protect themselves against the use of weapons of mass destruction. And we are looking at using the military's unique skills and capabilities more effectively to protect our populations, and to assist in civil emergencies.  We are engaging non-NATO countries, including Russia, in the process.
Tomorrow, I will host, along with Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov, a major meeting to jointly look at how our militaries can do more, and do more together.
This is an important symbol of NATO's deepening relationship with Russia, built on more issues than terrorism. We intend to work together as equal partners, in new ways which benefit both sides but still safeguard NATO's cohesion and the autonomy of action of both sides. If we succeed, and I am confident that we will, the strategic picture will be transformed as fundamentally for the good as it was for evil on September 11th.
We are also redoubling our efforts to complete the modernisation of European and Canadian forces. They must be able to take on a greater share of the burden of maintaining our common security - including dealing quickly with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.  The United States must have partners who can contribute their fair share to operations which benefit the entire Euro-Atlantic community. This is the best possible way to build on the emotional and practical strengthening of transatlantic bonds caused by the terrible attacks last year.
But the picture on burden sharing, is frankly a very mixed one. In practical terms, America's Allies are pulling their weight. In the Balkans, for example, more than 85% of the peacekeeping troops are European. The European Union is paying the lion's share in reconstruction and development.  Javier Solana and I have a polished political EU-NATO double-act to keep the peace in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[1].
And in the coming months, we will see increasing efforts by the Europeans to reduce the burden on American shoulders in some of these Balkan operations.  Unfortunately, the longer term picture is less optimistic. For all the political energy expended in NATO and in the EU, the truth is that Europe remains militarily undersized.
Orders of battle and headquarters wiring diagrams read impressively. Overall numbers of soldiers, tanks and aircraft give a similar impression of military power. But the reality is that we are hard pressed to maintain those 50,000 European troops in the Balkans. And hardly any European country can deploy useable and effecitive forces in significant numbers outside their borders, and sustain them for months or even years as we all need to do today.
For all Europe's rhetoric, and an annual investment of over $ 140 billion by NATO's European members, we still need US help to move, command and provision a major operation.  American critics of Europe's military incapability are right. So, if we are to ensure that the United States moves neither towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all European countries must show a new willingness to develop effective crisis management capabilities.  I am therefore redoubling my clarion call of "capabilities, capabilities, capabilities". This will not make me popular in some capitals. I hope it will, nonetheless, be listened to, especially by Finance Ministers.
Yet the United States must do much more too. Not in terms of soldiers on the ground or aircraft in the air. But in facilitating the process of European defence modernisation. By easing unnecessary restrictions on technology transfer and industrial cooperation, Washington can improve the quality of the capabilities available, and diminish any problems our forces have in working together.  If the US does not act in this way, the huge additional investment it is making in defence will make practical interoperability with Allies, in NATO or in coalitions, impossible. The gap between American forces on the one hand and European and Canadian forces on the other will be unbridgeable . For Washington, the choice could become: act alone or not at all, and that is no choice at all.  Finally, we are beginning the modernisation of NATO's decision-making processes. NATO has an unique ability to take and implement quick decisions. We showed it last summer, when within five days of the political decision we deployed 4,000 troops to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to supervise a crucial disarmament process, and help prevent a civil war.  That kind of quick action will be necessary in future -including, potentially, to respond to terrorism. We must therefore ensure that it can still be done after any NATO enlargement in November.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I welcome a renewed debate on NATO's future. The Alliance has a proud record and the proven ability to adapt as risks change.
In an uncertain world, NATO is not an optional extra. It is the embodiment of the transatlanic bond, the fundamental guarantor of Euro-Atlantic stability and security, and the essential platform for defence cooperation and coalition operations.
As a result the Alliance remains as busy and as relevant to the 21st century as it was to generations in the last one.
Thank you.

Es gilt das gesprochene Wort !
 

Rede von US-Senator John McCain
From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order
American delegates to this conference have stood at this podium in the past and fiercely debated the nature and extent of America's obligations in Europe and the world. Lively exchanges about America's role in the new Europe, the continuing relevance of NATO, the establishment of an exclusively European security identity, the division of labor over Balkan peacekeeping, and the ups-and-downs of a tumultuous relationship with Russia have obscured the strategic clarity America and our European allies enjoyed during the Cold War.
No longer. We live in a new era. We share a common purpose, and enjoy a unique opportunity: to forge a world order maintained not by force of arms or foreign occupation but by a shared commitment to the values that unite us, backed by our collective military might, and driven by our determination that never again shall innocents on the soil of our nations be slaughtered. Central to this task is a´new American internationalism motivated by these goals: to end safe harbor for terrorists anywhere, to aggressively target rogue regimes that threaten us with weapons of mass destruction, and to consolidate freedom's gains through institutions that reflect our values.
The horror of September 11th, and the existence of al Qaeda cells in this and over 60 nations around the world, dispel any notion that America's commitment to the defeat of our enemies is mere rhetoric. Just ask the Taliban. The successful military campaign we and our allies waged against the government that harbored our enemies sends what I hope is a clear signal to leaders in Tehran, Damascus, Khartoum, and elsewhere that sponsoring terrorism places national survival at risk.  Let me be clear to our European friends: Americans believe we have a mandate to defeat and dismantle the global terrorist network that threatens both Europe and America. As our President has said, this network includes not just the terrorists but the states that make possible their continued operation. Many of these are rogue regimes that possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction which threaten Europeans and Americans alike. We in America learned the hard way that we can never again wait for our enemies to choose their moment. The initiative is now ours, and we are seizing it.  We now know that despite the prosperity and peace we enjoyed since the end of the Cold War, there existed a time bomb waiting to go off. The next explosion may occur in Europe or America; it could even involve the use of weapons of mass destruction developed under state sponsorship.  Several years ago, I and many others argued that the United States, in concert with willing allies, should work to undermine from within and without outlaw regimes that disdain the rules of international conduct and whose internal dysfunction threatened other nations. Since then, two rogue regimes have fallen after military intervention by American-led allied coalitions:
Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia and the Taliban's Afghanistan. In both countries, liberal reformers are now in power, and the threat each nation posed to its neighbors ended with the downfall of the tyrants who ruled them.
Just this week, the American people heard our President articulate a policy to defeat the "axis of evil" that threatens us with its support for terror and development of weapons of mass destruction. Dictators that harbor terrorists and build these weapons are now on notice that such behavior is, in itself, a casus belli.
Nowhere is such an ultimatum more applicable than in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.  Almost everyone familiar with Saddam's record of biological weapons development over the past two decades agrees that he surely possesses such weapons. He also possesses vast stocks of chemical weapons and is known to have aggressively pursued, with some success, the development of nuclear weapons. He is the only dictator on Earth who has actually used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his neighbors. His regime has been implicated in the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center. Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with Al Qaeda. These were probably not courtesy calls.  Americans have internalized the mantra that Afghanistan represents only the first front in our global war on terror. The next front is apparent, and we should not shirk from acknowledging it. A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.  A day of reckoning is approaching. Not simply for Saddam Hussein, but for all members of the Atlantic community, whose governments face the choice of ending the threat we face every day from this rogue regime or carrying on as if such behavior, in the wake of September 11th, were somehow still tolerable. The Afghan campaign set a precedent, and provided a model: the success of air power, combined with Special Operations forces working together with indigenous opposition forces, in waging modern war.
The next phase of the war on terror can build on this model, but we also must learn from its limitations. More American boots on the ground may be required to prevent the escape of terrorists we target in the future, and we should all be mindful that such a commitment might entail higher casualties than we have suffered in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration understands that history will judge this campaign favorably not only for our commendable success in Afghanistan, but also for our firm purpose in fulfilling our larger mission of eliminating terror at its source. Our success in Afghanistan has put Al Qaeda on the run, and diminished their ability in the near term to organize and execute mass atrocities as they did in New York and at the Pentagon.
But the campaign's organizing purpose is to put terrorists permanently out of business, and defeating or otherwise transforming the regimes that harbor them.
The combined examples of regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq would likely compel several other state sponsors of terror to change their ways or go out of business, accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms. These nations -Syria and Sudan, for instance - have a choice, and it is in their interest to make the right one. As President Bush has said, Iran and North Korea remain question marks - rogue regimes where a few leaders hold their people hostage, and where aggressive development of weapons of mass destruction has gone unchecked. It can go unchecked no more. The consequences of inaction, of allowing our enemies to choose their moment, are far greater than the costs we will incur in taking action against this clear and present danger.
The most compelling defense of war is the moral claim that it allows the victors to define a stronger and more enduring basis for peace. Just as September 11th revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand freedom.
As we work with our European friends and allies to go after the networks of terror that threaten our countries, let us expand the security umbrella that distinguishes Europe, the Europe of common values forged through war, from all other regions. We do not seek to expand NATO for expansion's sake alone; proponents of enlargement, of which I am an enthusiastic one, occasionally fall into the rhetorical trap of arguing that we must keep adding new members to NATO to sustain its dynamism, in the same way that you must keep moving on a bicycle to avoid falling off it.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, history's most successful military alliance, is not so fragile. We do not require the mere ceremonies of enlargement, and the new faces it brings to our councils, for fear of institutional failure, or for simple lack of some higher purpose. We must enlarge this Alliance to complete the task we started in 1948: to create an impregnable zone of stability, security, and peace in Europe that is upheld by our joint military power, rooted in our resolve to defend this territory against aggression, and inspired by our commitment to the principles of liberty, to which we pledge our sacred honor.
I believe the hand-wringing in Washington academic circles and the corridors of Brussels about the Alliance's existential crisis is misplaced. It is a subject fit for debate between disputatious lawyers but has no standing in the court of leadership. Rather than engaging in a stifling, bureaucratic debate about NATO's purpose, we should devote our attention to sustaining the success our Alliance has enjoyed in deterring Soviet aggression, bringing a stable peace to the Balkans, and uniting our community of values. Our task is to invigorate the Alliance with this premise: that the Atlantic community is not a group of Cold War-era military allies looking for new missions to stay relevant, but a political community of like-minded nations that is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to fostering a continent where war is unimaginable, security is guaranteed, and prosperity unbounded. This pledge reflects our common values, which are universal, and whose potency is multiplied, not diluted, as more and more people share in them.
The events of September 11th have already served to clarify NATO's role and mission. American leadership within NATO has been enhanced by our leading role in the ongoing war. The terrorist assaults have bound the Alliance more closely together, with NATO assets helping to defend the American homeland and forces of member and aspirant nations working together in Central Asia. I hope it has helped us put aside our previous differences over an emerging, if unrealized, European security identity in favor of NATO's existing security architecture. It has laid a strong foundation for NATO's future relations with Russia.
The terrorist attacks, and the West's common response, have also highlighted the critical contributions of Turkey. Turkey is a front-line state in the war on terrorism, as was Germany a front-line state during the Cold War. Turkey has made important contributions to securing the peace in Afghanistan and will be integral to any campaign against Iraq. It is also central to our objectives of ending terrorism and promoting democratic stability in Central Asia. A tolerant Muslim nation with a secular government, Turkey's strong support and active cooperation demonstrate the fallacy our enemies would have the world believe: that our campaign against terrorism is a war against Islam. The support of Turkey, a loyal friend and ally, lays this myth to rest and stands in stark contrast to the disappointing cooperation we have received in this campaign from another erstwhile Muslim "ally," Saudi Arabia.
For too long, Europe has held Turkey at arm's length. NATO's southeastern expansion would secure Europe's southern flank, enhance stability in the Western Balkans, and end Turkey's strategic isolation from the Alliance. It would help diminish continuing frictions in Turkey's relationship with the EU, minimizing Turkish grievances over ESDP and opening the door to the development of effective coordination between the EU and NATO. A visionary enlargement of the NATO Alliance to the south combined with the EU's historic expansion to the east would bring about a new and welcome cohesion of Turkey to Europe. This is in the interests of Turkey, the European Union, the United States, and NATO.  The Prague Summit's task will be to institutionalize these changes, laying the foundation for an invigorated Euro-Atlantic alliance. If Prague is to provide a foundation for a stronger and more coherent alliance, the summit cannot be ambiguous about its purpose or temporize about the size and membership of the community it commits to defend. That said, our alliance is strong: we defeated Slobodan Milosevic's rogue regime, and we stand shoulder-to-shoulder as peacekeepers in the Balkans - where American troops should remain for as long as they are needed. Our continuing operations to consolidate Balkan peace reflect both America's commitment to our European partners and our joint responsibility to uphold a boots-on-theground leadership role in Europe.
These are two pillars of ordered freedom in this new age: the overthrow or forced conversion of rogue regimes that harbor terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction, and the consolidation of a continent of secure peace unified in freedom's defense - a community that serves as a beacon to those who suffer in freedom's absence, as do many peace-loving people in war-torn Chechnya. To our Russian friends here today, I echo the words of President Bush on Tuesday: "America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them.... America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity."
This campaign for freedom and against terror across the globe is a joint endeavor that will commit the United States and our friends and allies across Europe. But a necessary condition for its success is an assertive, and distinctively American, internationalism that will propel a global campaign to reorder international relations, just as a new, more just order emerged from the ashes of this war-torn continent under American leadership in 1945.
America has been attacked, in a way we have never been attacked before; the American people's support for defeating terror by force of arms has not flagged since we went to war in Afghanistan in October; and our President properly uses every opportunity to remind us that Afghanistan represented only the first front in a global campaign that will not end until we have defeated global terrorism and the states that support it.
Rarely have Americans been tested in this way. Never have we been better prepared to help forge a new world, in which we all live in safety and freedom.  We stand now before history with this mission. We ask you to stand with us.  A better world is already emerging from the rubble of September 11th. A world free from terrorism's scourge, a world in which peaceloving nations no longer face blackmail or attack by rogue regimes, a Europe whole and free...these are the objectives of our age. We are worthy of them.
[1]Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name.

 

Vortrag von US-Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (engl.)
Introduction: Winning the Wider War Against Terrorism
Thank you.
I want to thank Dr. Horst Teltschik and his team for inviting me to speak and for their vision in making this Munich Conference such a relevant and valuable international security forum, year in and year out. The course of human events seems never to leave us without an agenda of pressing matters to discuss, and that is unfortunately true again this year.
Let me say here in Munich that the people of the United States are particularly grateful to the German people for the moral, material, and personal support they have provided since September 11th. Ambassador Dan Coats, my former colleague in the Senate, has spoken with us of the outpouring of emotion for America he has witnessed here. We also thank Ambassador Ischinger for establishing the German-American Solidarity Fund, which has sent a clear and poignant message that it was not only the American people but all free people who were attacked on September 11th.
I thank all of America's friends, new and old, who are represented in this room for your steadfast support and solidarity since September 11th.
In the middle of the last century Winston Churchill said of the Nazi threat, "We shall not escape our dangers by recoiling from them." What was true of Nazism and Fascism soon became true of Communism. The formation of NATO in 1949 was an act of tremendous vision and courage in the face of Communism's grave and growing threat to the sovereignty of our individual nations and the security of the wider world. Since then NATO's principled strength has not only protected the peace and freedom of the Trans-Atlantic community, but has built a world that is vastly more free, more democratic, and more prosperous. In fact, the number of democracies in the world has surged from 22 in 1950... to 40 in 1970... to an inspiring 120 today.
The Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Post-Cold War world ended on September 11th, 2001. On that date we began a world war against terrorism which directly responds to the newest global challenge to the swift spread of freedom- extremist Islamic terrorism. In 1946, Churchill described the Communist domination of Eastern Europe as an Iron Curtain that had descended across Europe, from Stettin (Shtet-TEEN) in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic. Today, from the terrorist camps in the hills and valleys of Central Asia, to the sands of Somalia, Sudan and Saudi Arabia to cells in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and many other places including Europe and America, the fanatical forces of Jihad are trying to build a Theological Iron Curtain to divide the Muslim world from the rest of the globe.
But this is not, in my view, a war of Islam against the rest of the world.  It is first a civil war within the Islamic world, between the militant and violent minority and the moderate and peaceful majority. We are all now caught in the crossfire of that bloody confrontation, and must therefore strengthen the moderate majority as we wage war against the fanatical minority. If the wrong side should win this civil war, the new Iron Curtain that would fall would imprison behind it hundreds of millions of people just as the old Iron Curtain did.
Al Qaeda is our immediate enemy, but it is surely not our only target in the war against terrorism. The United States and our coalition partners must be firm and unequivocal in pursuing and preempting other terrorist groups that threaten to turn regional conflicts into global security crises.  And we cannot claim victory in our war against terrorism until we decisively address the profound threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. As President Bush declared on Tuesday in his State of the Union address, "America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
The new wall our Islamist antagonists would construct is built from bricks of poverty and repression and sealed with the mortar of religious fanaticism and hatred. So, we must match our military campaign to drain the swamp with an equally dedicated non-military campaign to seed the garden-to confront and combat the poverty and despotism in the Islamic world that fanatics exploit. That means aggressively encouraging Muslim nations to open their economies to a freer flow of goods and services... their cultures to a livelier flow of information... their societies to greater human rights... and their politics to the institutions on which civil society, and democratic governments, are based.  General George Marshall said it well after the Second World War when describing the plan to reconstruct and renew Western Europe: "Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos." So too our policy today should be directed not against any religion, but against the hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos that lead to fanaticism and terrorism.
The best way to fight those poisons is with their antidotes: freedom and opportunity-exactly the values NATO is based on. If we stand together as an Alliance and apply our moral, political, economic, and, when necessary, military might with patience and precision, we will not fail.  That work was advanced greatly by the generous commitments made in Tokyo to support Afghanistan's reconstruction, but that is just the beginning of what we need to seed the garden. And that is why the presence of the United States and our NATO allies in the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan is so critical. Only with the security we can create there will the stability be maintained that is the precondition of Afghanistan's recovery and rebirth..
Renewing NATO to Overcome the New Threats
Fifty-three years ago, our nations answered a grave threat to our security by forming NATO. Today, I believe we can meet the new global threat of terrorism if we reform NATO, and its sense of itself, in four ways.
First, the attacks of September 11th and the response thus far in Afghanistan should settle the question, with which America once again recently flirted, of whether unilateralism can be an adequate answer to the array of threats we all face in the world today. The answer is "no." The United States has carried the bulk of the military load in Afghanistan to date, but the ongoing cooperation of coalition partners has been critical and will continue to be so. One good way for our Administration in Washington to express its gratitude for the multilateral support we are receiving from our NATO and non-NATO allies would be for it to act more multilaterally in other important areas such as global climate change.  Second is NATO's proper role and reach. For years, physical defense of member nations' home soil, as defined under Article V, has been the core of our alliance. That changed with Bosnia and then Kosovo, as NATO applied necessary force just outside its immediate borders for the common good of stability in Europe.
The awful events of September 11th prompted another evolution, as NATO invoked Article V, responding to the attacks on American soil by supporting a war against an enemy half a world away from America.
Technology has collapsed geographical distinctions to the point that today, a plot conceived in North Africa, South America or Southeast Asia can pose just as serious a threat to NATO members' security as an aggressive military movement by a nearby nation. NATO must accept this new reality and embrace a more expansive geographical understanding of its mission.  Third, we must close the growing gap in armed forces capabilities between the United States and our European NATO partners. The gap isn't just lingering. It is widening.  Allowing it to persist threatens your security, puts a disproportionate burden on us, and creates an awkward imbalance in our alliance.
America's military is the best in the world for a simple reason: we spend a lot to train our forces and to buy the sophisticated weapons systems they employ in combat. It's time for all NATO nations to overcome internal political resistance and place an immediate priority on upgrading their capabilities. And together we should develop new mechanisms within NATO to assure more effective war fighting together.
Fourth, NATO membership should be opened to a large number of nations. If it is, NATO can become an even more potent protector of trans-Atlantic and global security from threats including terrorism, a better facilitator of regional conflict resolution, and a more influential incubator of democracy.
Any democratic European nation that meets NATO's criteria and is able to be a net contributor to the security of the whole should be admitted to the Alliance. I support welcoming into NATO at the Prague summit as many candidate nations as meet these criteria. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania have made impressive progress in that direction.  Since September 11, NATO's members and Russia have grown closer than ever.  We must now create new institutions that will engage us more consistently and beneficially with our great neighbor to the East.
Conclusion
It's fitting that the next NATO summit will take place in Prague, because it is in that city, and Budapest, that the brave advocates of democracy began their most potent and passionate resistance against the forces of Communism 30 years ago. A rising tide of successive and expanding waves of freedom has now brought us to this unprecedented moment in human history, where no force rivals democracy. We should celebrate the fact that the collective will of millions of individuals, expressed through their democratic governments, is the single greatest power in the world today.
That power cannot and will not yield to the terrorists' evil designs and deeds. That power can and will empower and elevate the great majority of people in Islamic countries who want to join the new world, not wage Jihad against it.
The historian Edward Gibbon wrote that, "The greatest success of Mohammed's life was effected by sheer moral force without the stroke of a sword." So too will the greatest success of this long and noble struggle against terrorism we have begun with our allies in the Islamic world be effected by moral force. That is NATO's new mission. I have no doubt that together we can and will achieve it.
Thank you very much.

Es zählt das gesprochene Wort !

Vortrag des italienischen Außenministers, Antonio Martino (engl.)
International Terrorism: the European Impact
The lessons we have learned from the events of September 11th demand a systematic and conceptual examination of our security and defence policies in order to tailor them to a new and different situation.
Lesson one: terrorist threats may come from any part of the world. This means that we can no longer set geographic limits on the scope of our responsibilities, and must define a global defence and security concept to stand alongside the present regional concept. We must therefore uphold the legacy that the Atlantic Alliance has built up in half a century of collective defence, enhanced by our ten-year experience with peacesupport operations, and incorporate into it a new NATO and European Union strategy to combat terrorism.
Lesson two: the terrorist attacks have caused substantial economic damage to every country - rich, emerging and poor alike. This requires us to define more accurately another "primary public asset" that we have to defend in addition to the security of our citizens and our institutions: global market stability.
Lesson three: this entails a far larger increase in military and security expenditure than anyone could possibly have foreseen only a few months ago. The peace dividend that was to follow the end of the Cold War, which had already been put at risk by the numerous regional tensions and conflicts of the past ten years, has finally been exposed as an illusion. At the same time, the ability to share these new costs by adopting forms of broader and more closely integrated international cooperation will obviously lighten the burden and make it more sustainable for each individual country.
Lesson four: events have shown how difficult it is to predict the threat, and how intrinsically vulnerable we are to unforeseeable events. But it is also the case that the threats tend to develop in particular areas, either because they are lawless and are ideal bases for the establishment of terrorist networks, or because they are ruled by governments that are hostile to us or that have not yet been taught the need for peaceful coexistence. I think it is obvious that it is our collective responsibility to bring order and good sense to these places, which is the main way we can prevent new threats from emerging. In short, the lesson is that we can no longer afford to leave "political vacuums" unfilled anywhere in the world. Such work clearly requires a well thought-out scale of priorities and a combination of diplomatic initiatives, deterrence and contributions to the development of the countries concerned. We cannot ignore the complexity of this new task, because it demands closer coordination among different sectors of national governments as well as within international organisations.
Lesson five: the attacks of September 11th signal the risk of much more serious and destabilising possible future threats: nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical. A prospect of this kind forces us to delineate priorities under what I would like to call the "broad prevention" concept, and take urgent measures to deal with these threats. This problem also raises the need to reorganize our systems of civil protection and international cooperation in order to manage mass emergencies more effectively.
Lesson six: finally, NATO and the EU each within their own spheres of competence, have demonstrated a formidable political cohesion and a strong capacity for operational mobilisation. The lesson we have learned here is that the future development of any global security and defence system must also be based on these two pillars, and not only on ad hoc coalitions. Once again, we are confronted by the problem of how to reduce the imbalance between the United States' military capabilities and those of Europe, because the new global defence and security tasks are on such a scale that they cannot be managed by the United States alone, and require that Europe makes a greater contribution.  I should now like to try to draw on these general remarks to see what consequences they might have in terms of the development of the European security and defence environment.  Europe must become less inward-looking and more outward-reaching. This process has certainly been taking place for some time already. But so far it has been viewed in terms of exporting security to the areas that border on the European Union. Italy attaches priority to ensuring stability in the Balkans, but our national interest would also be greatly served by completing the concept of regional security, focusing pan-European and Atlantic resources on extending security within the Mediterranean area.  A debate should therefore be initiated on how to combine our regional defence mission with the new demands for a larger European contribution to the stability of a broader area of concern.  We all know that, at the present time, we lack the technical facilities we need to perform this broad security and defence mission effectively, even if we were in political agreement that we should embark upon it. But the EU must achieve such a capability without fail, by 2003. It is therefore not unrealistic to start including possible wider-ranging missions in our military-resource planning.  This leads to the issue of relations with the United States. What I have just said implies that a common interest has already been established among America, Europe and Russia - an agreement on global defence and security. This being so, Europe's approach should be to work towards a more balanced relationship.
Since we share identical interests and have similar economic dimensions, there must be a fairer sharing of responsibilities and costs, and hence of rights over decision-making regarding our common defence and security missions. The destinies of Europe and North America are so closely interwoven that any ideological discussion about greater or lesser European autonomy in our external action is an irrelevance: the strength and credibility of Europe will be achieved by establishing a less unbalanced relationship with the United States, enabling us to make a tangible and wider contribution to the world's security. It will obviously take time to acquire the capabilities that will be needed. But even beginning to think along these lines could produce positive results, such as enhancing the power for deterrence for all the Western democracies, a major precondition for any security policy, light or heavy, with effects that reach everywhere.
In my opinion, terrorism is driving us towards forms of closer European and Atlantic integration rather than towards more nationalistic security policies In conclusion, NATO must continue to stabilise and monitor the Balkans, establish permanently sound relations with Russia, step up the Mediterranean dialogue - to include the operational dimension - and  embark on a reform of the structures and procedures needed to tailor ist military capabilities to the new challenges and to strengthen the coordination of intelligence. The European Union must move more quickly toward the Helsinki objectives. It must more effectively link its new military capabilities to its political, economic and development aid capabilities. And it must solidify the judicial and police cooperation that is currently being finalised.

Vortrag des spanischen Verteidigungsministers, Federico Trillo-Figuero (engl.)
Please allow me not to extend myself on many expressions of gratitude for this invitation, nor congratulations to those responsible for the organisation of this Security Conference in Munich, which is now the 38th.
Actually, there are few minutes available and the subject I have been entrusted to deal with is very ambitious. Many ideas come to our minds when we are proposed to talk about "International Terrorism: the global impact" and even more if the speaker is Minister of Defense of Spain, representing the current Presidency of the European Union.
1.Consequences of September 11
Anyhow, I cannot avoid starting to talk about the consequences of the attacks of September 11. This is not a time to turn to the great conceptual debates that we have lived during these last few months and that we could summarize with the expression of "the fall of the myths". I believe that in this Forum it is enough to insist on the consequences for us all and for the world in general of the unexpected and brutal coming into play of a terrorism conceived and designed beyond any reality ever imagined.  I would like to repeat, this is why I do so once more, that not only the myth of security and invulnerability of the Western world has fallen in this period of post Cold War, but also and mainly another myth has fallen, on which we wished to go on working, as was the universal validity of the moral principles, democratic values and of the human rights that sustain our civilization. Today, we are already aware that, in spite of globalisation, this is not so and , therefore that we are not arbitrators because our values are still at stake.  The new terrorism that acted against the United States, reminds me of the experience lived by Spain in the last few years, and to reiterate my firm convictions which are receiving more and more worldwide recognition:
? All terrorism is the same, there is neither better nor worse, nor good or bad, they are all abominable. Therefore, there are no distinctions to be made, simply all of them are terrorist.
? Victims are always innocent, no matter if it is in New York or Madrid.
? The means used are always premeditated, criminal and disproportionate,
? And the causes invoked are never sufficient, proportionate, or fair.
? It is a profanation of religion to proclaim oneself a terrorist in God's name, to commit violence on his behalf against mankind [1]
This is why in Spain, we will continue fighting against terrorism with the following principles: full respect to the rule of law, the working of the legal system and of the security forces; maximum support and social mobilisation and, finally maximum international cooperation. Undoubtedly, we must do exactly the same in the international field, promoting, also within this domain, processes more and more necessary of international cooperation.
Now, I will start to analyse the reactions of the main International Organisations devoted to Security and Defense issues.

2. United Nations
I will first refer to the United Nations which has consolidated, throughout he last crisis, its image of universal reference point.
It is true that the United Nations has a long tradition of antiterrorist pronouncements. In the last few years, the General Assembly has approved twenty five Resolutions condemning and adopting measures against terrorism. The Secretary General has devoted eighteen reports to the same subject, and eight documents, with specific measures against International Terrorism, have been approved by the Sixth Committee.
However, now it is still necessary to promote a great International Agreement against terrorism, setting aside the variety of frustrating attempts in this field.
Nevertheless, the Security Council has been especially active since September 11, and directly and through its special Committee, it has assumed new proposals aiming at blocking movements of capital that enable a more and more dangerous terrorism to continue flourishing and consolidating its position.
3. North Atlantic Alliance
The Atlantic Alliance, as we all know, has given a great example of immediate transatlantic solidarity, and it has taken advantage of the important innovations introduced in the allied strategic conception in the Washington Summit. We, the Ministers of Defense of the allied nations, described then the new threats and considered terrorism as one of them. The corresponding paragraph 24 was immediately invoked, and led us to the adoption of urgent measures of legitimate allied defence, in agreement with what was established in article 5 of the Treaty.
All the common elements of the Alliance were made available for the war against terrorism, AWACS, STANAVFORMED STANAVFORCLANT, etc.. Besides, several nations, individually, offered their support to the United States. In the case of Spain the use of the support facilities was especially fruitful, as were the use authorisations of the American forces in our country, according to the Bilateral Defence Cooperation Agreement which has linked both countries since 1953.  As for the future, it is obvious that the Atlantic Alliance is paying maximum attention to the struggle against terrorism, and so several Forums have been created to deal with this issue.  It is necessary to reach a consensus on such a complex concept as is terrorism, but it is also essential to increase our defence assets, some of which have proved to have important shortfalls in the "Defense Capabilities Initiative".
As I have already stated several times within the Atlantic Council in Brussels, the Alliance also has to consolidate our common ideological foundations even more, so that it can be a uniting element both for its current 19 member nations, and for the future countries who will undoubtedly accede to the allied structure in an immediate future.
I believe that the relation with Russia, which is extremely important now in all the forums is today one of the issues of main debate in NATO. Spain not only supports a deeper dialogue, but also the search for formulas of real cooperation. The progress is already meaningful, but we are aware that the new scheme of cooperation between Russia and the Alliance should be built on very solid pillars, without any concession that may distort future relations. The debate and means to struggle against terrorism have to respond to a conception, both democratic and respectful of the rule of law by everyone.
The steps taken by Secretary
General, Lord Robertson, in Brussels, fortunately go in this direction.
4. The European Union
We now reach the last point of my address, where I wish to make a special
reference not only to what has
been done by the European Union, since September 11, but also to our immediate goals.
There is already a real "Action Plan against terrorism", which was listed as one of the main goals in the European Council in Laeken. A series of actions adopted against terrorism were then approved.
As for the Third Pillar, relating to legal and home affairs, decisions, such as the adoption of the Eurorder to arrest terrorists beyond internal borders, had been adopted. And also, measures of strict control of external borders have been announced. Some other adopted measures affected the First Pillar of European Integration, as it imposed the embargo of properties and goods belonging to associations and people related to terrorism.
But a pending issue was still the formulas that could be adopted in this fight against terrorism within the security and defence field corresponding to the Second Pillar.  The Ministers of Defence had already entrusted the Secretary General/ High Representative in Brussels on October 12 to set in motion new mechanisms in two especially important fields in order to enhance the struggle against terrorism. First of all cooperation between the intelligence services and, second the adoption of stronger protection measures against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
After this legacy received from the Belgian Presidency, the Spanish Prime Minister, José Ma Aznar, stated emphatically, in the European Parliament at the beginning of our mandate, that: "Spain is committed to start the debate so that the struggle against terrorism also becomes a goal of the security and defence policy".
25
As for this goal, we should also recall the question posed in the "Laeken Declaration" on the Union's future "asking if the Petersberg Missions should be updated .  We are all aware that the Second Pillar on PESD are limited to the Petersberg Missions listed by the Ministers Council of the already defunct "Western European Union", held in Bonn in June 1992 and textually included in the Amsterdam Treaty. The missions listed as "humanitarian relief and rescue, peace keeping and intervention of combat forces in crisis management, including peace enforcement", do not include military missions against the terrorist threat. In this particular regard, the European Union is clearly at a disadvantage vis a vis the Atlantic Alliance which has, as we saw before, a strategic conception that does include terrorist threats.
I will conclude by mentioning the three initiatives that Spain intends to promote so that the commitment stated by the Prime Minister can come into being.  First of all, we will continue to promote the studies on the basic conceptual elements of the European Defence, entrusted to the "Institute for Security Studies in Paris, which is today a European Union Agency.
Second, and through the "Spanish representative in the European Convention" we will study together with the other allied countries, possible reforms to enlarge the Petersberg missions of our Forces in the struggle against terrorism.
We are aware that the first two initiatives, due to their strong legal and conceptual nature will demand a long maturing period, the Spanish Presidency has decided to move towards a more political and pragmatic third direction. We wish to promote the approval, in one of the forthcoming European Councils under our Presidency, in the cities of Barcelona or Seville, a Declaration on the struggle against terrorism.
In this declaration we will include not only the principles that lead us to act in this direction but also the specific measures that we intend to apply. On the one hand, a more active cooperation of the intelligence services. Along with this, that new policy, which European citizens demand from us, in the field of defence against weapons of mass destruction (NBQ). And third, the practical exploitation of the new reality that is going to be imposed in Europe of a unified airspace, so that it can contribute, with the necessary technological support, to increase the security of us all.
I would not like to finish my address without assuring all of you, during our presidency , that we will strictly apply, especially in these antiterrorist issues, the demands of non-duplicity and of full complementarity between both the European and Atlantic realities, so closely linked and so well established in this prestigious "Wehrkunde".
Thank you.
[1] Message of John Paul II in the Day of World Peace Es zählt das gesprochene Wort !

Vortrag des stellvertretenden chinesischen Außenministers Wang Yi (engl.)
New Challenges, New Approaches
Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very glad to have the opportunity to attend this meeting. Given the new changes and new challenges in the international situation, it is of special significance for us to address the subject of international security, the issue of counter-terrorism in particular.
Four months have passed since the September 11 incident, but its impact on the international community remains profound. It shows that while the traditional security concerns triggered by disputes over territory, resources and other interests are far from being allayed, a host of non-traditional security problems represented by international terrorism have become increasingly serious. We are faced with a new situation in which traditional security factors intertwine with non-traditional ones as the threat from the latter is constantly on the rise.
With the emergence of non-traditional security problems, the international security situation we are faced with has assumed some new characteristics and come across some new challenges. Non-traditional security problems are best known for their largely transnational and trans-regional feature and their widespread damage to the stability of many countries. Especially in recent years, terrorist activities around the world have markedly increased, posing a real threat to international peace.  Non-traditional security problems usually have a very complicated background, as they are derived from a combination of political, economic, ethnic and religious conflicts, and also many of them have deep-rooted historical and cultural dimensions.
Poverty, development gap, and a variety of social injustice are, too, fertile breeding ground for the growth of non-traditional security problems. Mr. Chairman, New challenges call for new approaches, and for joint endeavor by countries rising above their traditional beliefs.
In the face of the new challenges, we hold that, countries should step up international co-operation and co-ordination, rather than go in for unilateralism. They should take a combination of political, economic, diplomatic, military and legal measures, rather than resort to military force only. They should work hard to resolve the increasingly grave issue of development instead of continuing to widen the gap between the rich and poor. They should endeavor to settle regional conflicts in a fair and reasonable manner, and promote understanding and dialogue among different countries and ethnic groups instead of instigating the conflict between different civilizations. In one word, countries should cultivate a concept of seeking security through co-operation and dialogue, through mutual trust and development.  It is gratifying to note the fruitful counter-terrorism co-operation across the world after the September 11 attacks, including closer consultations, exchange of intelligence, and better financial co-operation in freezing the assets of terrorist organizations. These are just examples of how the international community has successfully met the new challenges of maintaining common security through co-operation under the new situation. This is of important significance.  China has all along stood for a new security concept. At the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting in 1996, China proposed that the cold-war mentality be discarded in favor of the trend of the times while working together to cultivate and promote a new security concept based on co-operation. In the latter half of the 1990s, Chinese leaders explicitly put forward a new security concept centred around mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and co-operation. They urged that the purposes of the UN Charter and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence be made the political basis for international security, and mutually beneficial cooperation and common development its economic guarantee. They called for the common efforts of all countries to create a secure and dependable international environment of long-term stability.
Based on such new security concept, China's security policy aims, first and foremost, at preserving the country's state sovereignty, unification and territorial integrity, while serving its economic development by maintaining a stable international environment and in particular a surrounding environment. This policy has three objectives: one, to maintain China's own stability and development; two, to maintain peace and stability in the surrounding areas; three, to promote international security dialogue and co-operation. On the basis of safeguarding our sovereignty and ensuring development, we stress the peaceful nature of our foreign policy, the defensive nature of our military strategy, the co-operative nature of our international security policy, while recognising and respecting the diversity of the world.
The birth and growth of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation embody the practice of the new security concept by China, Russia, and some central Asian countries. It has played a positive role in maintaining peace and stability in the region and made due contribution to the ongoing international co-operation against terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, China is opposed to terrorism of all forms and manifestations. Terrorism harms the life, dignity and safety of innocent people. China is also a victim of terrorism. The "East Turkistan" elements, which carry out terrorist activities in China, have long been trained, armed and funded by international terrorist organizations and in particular, the al-Qaeda group. The fight against the "East Turkistan" forces is, therefore, a component of the international counter-terrorism campaign. Proceeding from the common interests of people of all countries and the indivisible security of the international community, we should take the same resolute position against terrorism no matter when, where and in what form it occurs, or at whom it is targeted. In no circumstances should double standard be allowed.  Combating terrorism calls for fuller play of the primary role of the UN and its Security Council. And all actions must comply with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and other recognised norms of international law. There should be convincing evidence, clearly-defined targets and special care to avoid harm to the innocent. The scope of operations must not be arbitrarily enlarged.  Terrorism is a crime committed by a handful of extremist elements of evil and one should not equate it with any specific ethnic group or religion.
Fighting terrorism needs to address both its symptoms and root cause, taking into consideration solving the current problems and looking for permanent solutions in the long-run at the same time. An important prerequisite in this connection is to resolve the question of development and narrow the gap between the North and the South. Given the new circumstances, it is all the more urgent for the international community to focus itself on the development issue.
As a contest between peace and violence, our fight against terrorism is not a conflict between ethnic groups, religions or civilisations. We stand for the recognition of the diverse civilisations in the world and the respect for every country's cultural background, religious belief and specific model of development. We stand for the long-term coexistence of different social systems and civilisations, their complementing one another amidst competition and comparison and their common development with efforts to seek common ground while putting aside differences.
China actively supports and participates in the international struggle against terrorism.
Even before the September 11 attacks, China was already party to the great majority of the international conventions against terrorism. China and other members of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization concluded The Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism and have taken joint steps to fight terrorism through closer regional multilateral co-operation.
After the September 11 incident, China voted in favor of the series of anti-terrorism resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, implemented them in earnest, acceded to The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, signed The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and participated in anti-terrorism consultations and dialogues with countries concerned. As the host of APEC 2001, China played an active role in co-ordinating the making of The APEC Economic Leaders' Statement on Counter-Terrorism and facilitated a special meeting of foreign ministers in Beijing of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation in which a joint statement was issued.
All this testifies to China's strong position and firm resolve in supporting the world-wide fight against terror.
Mr. Chairman, It is of critical importance to both the current international fight against terrorism and world peace and security that Afghanistan regains peace and economic development so that the country will no longer be a hotbed for terrorism, extremism and drugs production. At present, thanks to the concerted efforts of the international community and all parties in the country, Afghanistan has before it a major historic opportunity, an opportunity of ending protracted wars and turmoil, realising national reconciliation and bringing about lasting peace. It is imperative that the international community continue to support a UN's leading role in Afghanistan, respect its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, support its interim government in effectively exercising its power, work on the various Afghan factions to act in the interest of the nation, of peace and of the people, and preserve peace and stability, and launch the process of national reconstruction. As a neighbor of Afghanistan, China has for years worked tirelessly for a peaceful settlement of the Afghan question. China's policy on Afghanistan is clear-cut. That is: we hope that Afghanistan becomes a peaceful country, a country that cooperates with the international community and maintains friendly relations with its neighbors, and a country where people of all ethnic groups can live in harmony. Not long ago, Chairman Karzai paid a successful visit to China during which China pledged, in addition to the emergency assistance already provided, another aid program of US$150 million for Afghanistan's reconstruction. China is ready to do its utmost, along with the international community, in supporting the Afghan people and actively participate in their country's post-war reconstruction. China is also committed to developing long-term, stable good-neighborly relations with Afghanistan in accordance with the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Pakistan has been on the frontline of the international fight against terrorism. It as close ties with Afghanistan not only in history and religion, but also in economic relations. Pakistan's active role and its domestic stability are key requirements for a smooth progress in the political settlement of the Afghan issue and the country's reconstruction. In his televised speech on January 12, President Musharaf made it clear the resolve of the Pakistani Government to continue to actively join the international counter-terrorism cooperation and at the same time firmly crack down on extremist forces at home. His speech is consistent with the long-term interest of the Pakistani people and the correct direction of the country's development. It is also conducive to easing the existing contradictions and conflicts in the region, maintaining peace and stability in that part of the world and pushing forward international cooperation against terrorism. South Asia, Afghanistan included, and Central Asia are where various religions, ethnic nationalities and cultures meet.
We sincerely hope that all countries there can, in line with the new security concept, work to resolve existing differences through dialogue and consultation, maintain regional peace and make concerted efforts to promote economic development and prosperity of the region.
Mr. Chairman,
As mankind has entered the 21st century, we should be wise and capable enough to maintain our common security and on the basis of that, promote progress and development of mankind. As a responsible member of the international community, China is ready to strengthen its co-ordination and co-operation with all other countries in the conduct of international affairs, security included, and work vigorously towards a world that enjoys lasting peace and universal prosperity with a fair and equitable new international order.
Thank you.

Vortrag des stellvertretenden Premierminister von Singapur
Lee Hsien Loong
Global war on Terrorism - The View from Singapore
Introduction
1. The battle in Afghanistan is drawing to a close, with the Taliban routed and an interim government formed. But that is not the end of the global war on terrorism. The virus has already spread. Terrorism, especially by extremists invoking the name of Islam, or what Francis Fukuyama called "Islamo-fascism", is a long-term problem. Let me share  Singapore's views on this global struggle, from the perspective of a country located in South East Asia. The Southeast Asian Backdrop
2. Put simply, the problem in South East Asia is as follows. In countries with large Muslim populations, there are small minorities at the fringes who are inclined toward extremist views and terrorist methods.
Globalisation and easy foreign travel enabled them to come into contact with the extremist teachings of militants abroad, and to become part of an international terrorist network.
Some attended religious schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and went on to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. When they returned to South East Asia, they brought the virus with them. They organised cells, made contact with neighbouring countries, spawned new groups, and so expanded the international network.  3. Terrorism, therefore, is not indigenous to South East Asia. It is a problem imported from abroad, but the danger is that it may become endemic to the region.  4. I should emphasise that the extremists form a very small minority, and the vast majority of Muslims in South East Asia are moderate, peaceful, and condemn terrorism. These Muslim populations have experienced a strong revival of Islam in recent decades. This Islamic revival is part of a worldwide trend, dating back to the 1970s. It is not the cause of the problem of terrorism, but it makes it harder for governments to deal firmly with terrorists who invoke Islam to justify their crimes.
29
5. In Indonesia, for example, former President Soeharto had, for many years, restricted the role of Islam in politics. He cracked down on Islamic militants and kept a tight lid over Islamic political parties. He understood that Indonesia was a diverse, multi-religious and multi-ethnic country, and that it might break apart if the extremists gained the upper hand. With Soeharto's fall, however, the restrictions on mixing religion and politics were removed. Political Islam became a significant force. At the same time, as law and order slackened, Islamic militants, many of whom had studied and trained abroad, seized the opportunity to enter the fray. One such armed group, the Laskar Jihad, joined the fight between Muslims and Christians in Maluku. They were aided by Afghans and other non-Indonesian militants.  6. The Indonesian government has acted circumspectly in dealing with extremist religious groups and their leaders. First, it has had to watch its flanks, to avoid being attacked by political opponents for acting too harshly against fellow Muslims. Second, elections are due in 2004, and potential contenders are wary of souring the Muslim ground, which form 90% of the population. Third, the slackening of law and order in Indonesia post-Suharto has made it harder for any government to enforce its will in this country of 13,000 islands. Finally, the armed forces is the strongest institution which can safeguard the unity of the country. But the armed forces are wary of being accused of human rights violations, if they act against the militants as they had done in the past.
7. President Megawati has restored a measure of normality to Indonesia since she took office last August. After September 11, she was among the first to condemn the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
But dealing with extremist terrorist groups, enforcing order and restoring confidence calls for deft handling by her government. Its success in this critical task will not only stabilise the situation in Indonesia, but will also prevent the extremist groups from using Indonesia as a base, to cause trouble elsewhere in the world.
8. Malaysia also has uncovered extremist militant groups among its majority Muslim population. Some of their members had trained in Afghanistan in mountain warfare tactics, and even fought alongside the Mujahiddin against the Russians. They returned to Malaysia, and applied the techniques they had learnt in Afghanistan to organise themselves and plot armed revolt.  9. The Malaysian government has acted firmly, arresting and breaking up the groups. Most importantly, it succeeded in neutralising this security threat without alienating the Muslim ground. Before September 11, the opposition Islamic Party (PAS) was gaining ground at the government's expense, pressing for greater Islamisation of Malaysian society and politics. Post September 11, PAS was put on the defensive, and the government was able to persuade Malaysians that it actions against the militants had legitimate and compelling justifications.
10. Internationally, Malaysia has struck a delicate balance. It has taken a clear stand against international terrorism, while distancing itself from the aerial bombing in Afghanistan on humanitarian grounds. Malaysia's case demonstrates that this is indeed a war against terrorism, and not against Islam.
11. Singapore, located in the middle of South East Asia, and with a significant Muslim minority, cannot expect to be immune from these problems. Indeed, we recently uncovered and detained a terrorist group, called the Jemaah Islamiyah (Jl), which had developed plans to bomb US assets in Singapore, including the embassy and US warships. The group had links with Al Qaeda. Several of its members had trained in Afghanistan. A videotape made by the group was recovered in Afghanistan, in the rubble of the house of an Al Qaeda leader. It was a detailed reconnaissance of a proposed target - a mass transit station used by US servicemen in Singapore. A group member had gone to Afghanistan to brief Mohamed Atef, the Al Qaeda leader, on the plan.
12. The JI group originated in Indonesia, but had set up units in Malaysia and Singapore. Jl leaders moved back and forth between the countries, preaching, collecting followers and organising clandestine cells. Its emir, Abu Bakar Bashir, is an Indonesian militant preacher who has praised Osama bin Laden as a "true Muslim fighter" who has "bravely represented the world's Muslims in their fight against the arrogant United States of America and their allies". Abu Bakar Bashir continues to preach in Indonesia.
13. Had the Jl group succeeded in setting off bombs in Singapore, it would have caused damage beyond injury to life and limb. More importantly, it would have seriously damaged our racial and religious harmony and destabilised our society. Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Racial and religious harmony is vital to us. Such an attack would have caused suspicions between Muslim and other Singaporeans, and resulted in tensions and conflict which could easily tear our society apart.  Luckily, our security agencies discovered the plot before harm could be done.
14. Fortunately also, the Muslim community in Singapore came out promptly and clearly to condemn the plotters and repudiate what they did. This denied the extremists legitimacy and tacit support, and reassured other Singaporeans that Singapore Muslims are moderate, rational and peaceful, and that the crazy actions of a handful of extremists should not affect relations between Muslims and others.
15. But we are not taking any chances. We are taking steps to strengthen confidence between different communities, so that should any mishap happen we can act quickly to contain the damage. We have a vested interest in not allowing the war against terrorism from becoming a generalised conflict with Islam. If ever there is a clash of civilisations between the Islam and the West, the front lines will run right through Singapore society, and will split it apart. Responding to the Challenges
16. Developments in South East Asia will have ramifications beyond the region. After the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, terrorist groups are looking to establish beachheads in new locations. South East Asia offers plausible possibilities. Terrorist groups must not be allowed to take root here.
17. In Pakistan, the world was fortunate to find at the critical moment the government of President Musharaff, which made a courageous strategic decision, and committed itself unreservedly with the international coalition against terrorism. Governments in South East Asia face different domestic situations, but generally they are secular and modernist in outlook. They should be helped to tackle the sensitive but urgent problems of international terrorism. For instance, even though the Americans had broken off military cooperation with Indonesia because of problems in places like East Timor and Aceh, they now recognise the need to maintain some level of interaction with the Indonesian military, in order to try to help equip them for anti-terrorist action.
18. Europe should also remain actively engaged with South East Asia. We should cultivate links between governments, links between business communities, and also people-to-people links. We should also make full use of ASEAN. ASEAN is by no means an ideal regional organisation. It has its share of problems, especially now that the member countries are preoccupied with their own problems. Nevertheless, as the only regional organisation which includes all ten countries of Southeast Asia, ASEAN contributes significantly to regional stability. Without stability, there can be no economic development. And without economic development, there would be political chaos and abject poverty, the ideal conditions for extremism. It is thus in Europe's interest to help South East Asian countries integrate successfully into the global economy.
Conclusion
19. There can be no final victory in the war against terrorism.  Nevertheless, by focussing on practical and achievable measures, we can tighten the net around terrorist networks, limit their financing and make it harder for them to operate.
20. Singapore stands firmly with the international community in the war against terrorism. We have a vested interest in its success. Singapore is an open society, totally dependent on the globalised economy and an orderly, predictable international environment for trade and a living. Terrorism which strikes at this global system directly undermines our prosperity and security. This is why Singapore has taken a clear stand and contributed our part to the international effort. We hope other countries, with similar stakes in the global order, will do the same.

Erklärung von Herrn Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary des Premierministers und Nationaler Sicherheitsberater Indiens
Terrorismus und demokratische Gesellschaften
Danke für diese Gelegenheit, meine Ansichten über eine schreckliche Realität der heutigen Welt mit Ihnen teilen zu dürfen, die Realität der Bedrohung der demokratischen Gesellschaften durch die Globalisierung des Terrors.
Es macht mir keine Freude zu sagen, dass wir in Indien diese Realität über viele Jahre hinweg erfahren haben. Es musste erst der 11. September kommen, um das globale Ausmaß des Terrorismus in dramatischer Weise in das kollektive Bewusstsein der Welt zu rücken.  Die Welt erkennt jetzt, dass Terrorismus nur dann effektiv bekämpft werden kann, wenn man global und umfassend gegen ihn vorgeht. Die Resolution 1373 des UNO-Sicherheitsrates deutet die richtige Richtung an, aber die Demokratien in der Welt müssen wirksam bei ihrer Verwirklichung zusammenarbeiten und ihre Einhaltung durch andere Länder sicherstellen. Das erfordert einen kollektiven politischen Willen, der nicht von kurzfristigen politischen oder ökonomischen Gesichtspunkten verwässert werden darf. Was auch immer unsere politische Vorliebe oder unsere strategischen Berechnungen sein mögen, wir können nicht den Terrorismus in irgendeiner Region dulden und ihn woanders verdammen, denn diese Nachsicht wird auf uns alle zurückfallen. Wir müssen die drei lebenswichtigen Säulen der Terrorgruppen bekämpfen: Verstecke, Geldquellen und Waffen.
Es ist nur zu verständlich, dass demokratische multikulturelle Gesellschaften das Primärziel des Terrorismus sind. Gleichzeitig sind sie natürlich am leichtesten verwundbar. Terroristen beuten die zivilen Freiheiten, religiöse Toleranz und kulturelle Vielfalt in unseren Ländern aus. Sie versuchen, unser demokratisches Gewebe zu zerstören, indem sie sektiererische Bestrebungen unterstützen, kulturelle Spannungen fördern und uns letztendlich unserer ursprünglichen Freiheit berauben, die sie selber ausgenutzt haben.
Es ist auch Tatsache, allerdings oft außer Acht gelassen, dass die Förderung, die Grundlagen und die Finanzierung des Terrorismus von totalitären Militär- oder theokratischen Regimes kommen. Sie nähren und unterstützen extremistische Terrorgruppen, um so ihre politischen Ziele durchzusetzen. Im Gegenzug machen sich diese Gruppen für die Regimes unentbehrlich, indem sie durch externe Kampagnen und Ablenkungsmanöver von den Unzulänglichkeiten ihrer inneren Systeme ablenken.  Hier sind die Wurzeln des Terrorismus zu finden. Jene, die auf den "Entstehungsgründen" des Terrorismus herumreiten, sollten anerkennen, dass sie im militärischen Abenteuertum und in religiösem Extremismus, die von totalitären Regimes gefördert werden, zu finden sind.  Demokratien sind anfälliger gegenüber dem Terrorismus, auch weil unsere Werte effektive antiterroristische Aktionen verhindern. Aufdringliche Überwachung, Beschneidung der Freiheiten, Einschränkung der Bewegungsmöglichkeiten und andere derartige anstrengende Sicherheitsprozeduren sind höchst unbeliebt, weil sie unsere Lebensqualität beeinträchtigen. Heute müssen wir uns mit einigen Beschränkungen unserer Rechte und Freiheiten abfinden, so dass wir der weitaus destruktiveren Bedrohung durch den Terrorismus entgegenwirken können. Wir müssen entschiedene, strenge und energische Schritte gegen die Terroristen einleiten, die sowohl bestrafende als auch abschreckende Wirkung haben.
Sogar während wir Selbstbeschränkung und Fairness von unserer Polizei und den Sicherheitsbehörden fordern, sollten wir anerkennen, dass außerordentliche Umstände effektive Maßnahmen erfordern.
Die Menschenrechte der Terroristen können nicht über die ihrer Opfer gestellt werden, nicht nur die, die von Ihren Geschossen getroffen werden, sondern auch die Generationen, denen ein normales Leben und wirtschaftlicher Fortschritt durch das Vorherrschen des Terrorismus verwehrt wird.  Manchmal wird zwischen verschiedenen Akten des Terrorismus unterschieden. In einigen Fällen will man uns Glauben machen, dass es nicht Terrorismus ist, sondern Freiheitskampf.
Es wird auch behauptet, dass der Kampf gegen den Terrorismus ein Kampf um die Herzen und Hirne der Bevölkerung ist, die den Terroristen Unterschlupf gewährt. Diese oberflächliche Argumentation widerspricht jeder Logik. Sie behaupten, dass Osama bin Ladens Verbündete Freiheitskämpfer sind, wenn sie in einem Land aktiv sind und Terroristen, wenn sie woanders operieren. Sie deuten auch an, dass Freiheitskämpfer rücksichtslos Zivilisten massakrieren können, die sie zu befreien beabsichtigen, ohne dass sie die Unterstützung der Bevölkerung verlieren. Sie ignorieren die Tatsache, dass es nicht Unterstützung der Bevölkerung ist, sondern eine Angstpsychose der Gewalt, welche die schweigende Mehrheit in diesen Gesellschaften unterdrückt. Wir haben das in Indien im Falle von Punjab sehr deutlich gesehen, wo terroristische Separatisten in den achtziger Jahren zuschlugen und von außen großzügige Unterstützung in Form von Zuflucht, Finanzen, Waffen und Ausbildung erhielten. Fortgesetztes entschiedenes Handeln unserer Sicherheitskräfte hat diese Bedrohung abgewendet und die demokratischen Prozesse in Punjab wiederhergestellt. Bezeichnenderweise hat keine dieser sogenannten Volksgruppen versucht, ihre Unterstützung in der Bevölkerung zu überprüfen, indem sie an Wahlen teilnahmen, obwohl ihnen diese Möglichkeit offenstand. Gleichermaßen bezeichnend besteht die Bewegung für Khalistan, wie die Separatisten ihren Wunschstaat nannten, heute nur außerhalb Indiens, und es überrascht kaum, dass viele ihrer Anführer im selben Nachbarland leben, welches ihre terroristischen Aktionen gesponsert hat. Seit mehr als einem Jahrzehnt werden wir derselben Bedrohung in Jammu und Kaschmir ausgesetzt.
Die internationale Koalition gegen den Terrorismus muss sich immer bewusst sein, dass der Terrorismus ein globales Netz besitzt. Es wäre falsch, all unsere Anstrengungen auf ein einziges Genie des Übels zu konzentrieren, auf Osama bin Laden als ob seine Ausschaltung die von ihm aufgebaute Organisation tödlich treffen würde. Unsere Aufmerksamkeit sollte nicht nur darauf gerichtet sein, wie er entwischt ist. Wir sollten uns fragen, wohin und wie die große Mehrheit der Taliban- und AI Kaida-Kämpfer nach dem 7. Oktober entkommen ist. Wo sind die tausenden von ausländischen Kämpfer und Berater der Taliban, die in Kunduz in der Endphase der Militäraktion eingeschlossen waren und dennoch eine glückliche und mysteriöse Fluchtroute fanden. Das sind Fragen von langfristiger Bedeutung für die internationale Kampagne gegen den Terrorismus. Jeder, der die Landkarte der Region betrachtet, versteht, warum das für Indien eine Frage unmittelbarer Sicherheitsbedenken ist. Deshalb möchte Indien auch konkrete Beweise einer Verringerung der terroristischen Aktivitäten jenseits seiner Grenzen haben, bevor es zu militärischer De-Eskalation übergeht.
Die wichtigste Lehre für die demokratische Welt aus dem 11. September ist die Notwendigkeit engerer operativer Zusammenarbeit und stärkeren Austausches von nachrichtendienstlichen Erkenntnissen zur Bekämpfung des Terrorismus. Es erinnert mich an ein Fernsehinterview, in dem unser Außenminister vor kurzem beschrieb, wie Indien vier Terroristen freilassen musste, um die Freilassung von über 150 Passagieren eines Flugzeuges der Indian Airlines zu erreichen, welches im Dezember 1999 nach Kandahar entführt worden war. Es war bekannt, dass die freigelassenen Terroristen in Verbindung mit Osama bin Laden standen. Der das Interview führende Journalist bemerkte witzelnd, dass Indien durch die Freilassung der Terroristen zumindest teilweise für die Angriffe vom 11. September verantwortlich war! Das ist natürlich eine lächerliche Behauptung. Aber es bedarf nicht all zuviel Phantasie zu verstehen, dass bei engerer Zusammenarbeit der Sicherheitskräfte und Geheimdienste demokratischer Staaten im vergangenen Jahrzehnt durchaus das Anwachsen der internationalen Terrormaschine zu dem Frankenstein von heute hätte vermieden werden können.
Nationale Geheimdienste sind traditionell unwillig, ihre Informationen mit ihren Gegenübern selbst in eng verbündeten Ländern auszutauschen. Dieser Unwille entsteht aus der Sorge um gegenwärtige oder künftige Konflikte nationalen Interesses oder weil das die Beziehungen mit anderen Ländern beeinträchtigen könnte.
Wir müssen erkennen, dass die demokratische Welt heute beim Terrorismus der größten existenziellen Einzelbedrohung ihrer Ideologie und ihrer Lebensart gegenübersteht. Ein nationales Schubladendenken kann unser kollektives Ziel der Zerschlagung des Terrorismus nicht voranbringen, da er ein nahtloses Netz internationaler Verbindungen hergestellt hat. Informationsaustausch auf Echtzeitbasis und ein operatives Zusammenwirken kann helfen, die unterschiedlich gesammelten Datenfetzen zu integrieren und ein miteinander verbundenes koherentes Puzzle zusammenzusetzen. Die Analyse der Daten kann dadurch bereichert werden, dass diejenigen einbezogen werden, die sich mit den kulturellen Feinheiten und den örtlichen Gegebenheiten auskennen.
Ich möchte noch einen letzten Gedanken in die Waagschale werfen. Wir sollten es dem Terrorismus niemals gestatten, uns zu erpressen und uns in die Unterwerfung oder Lähmung drängen lassen. Nach den Terrorangriffen auf den Landtag von Jammu und Kaschmir im vergangenen Oktober und auf das Parlament im vergangenen Dezember, hat Indien entschieden, den grenzübergreifenden Terrorismus mit Macht zu bekämpfen, da er untragbare Ausmaße angenommen hat. Wir schätzen zutiefst das Verständnis und die Unterstützung der internationalen Gemeinschaft bei diesem Vorhaben. Wir hoffen, dass wir unser Ziel ohne Anwendung unnötiger Gewalt erreichen werden. Aber es ist wichtig, nicht nur in unserem nationalen Interesse, sondern auch für die weltweite Kampagne gegen den Terrorismus, dass die Entschlossenheit beibehalten wird, bis sie das gewünschte Ziel erreicht. Zu keiner Phase in dieser oder jeglicher anderer Situation sollten wir den Kräften des Terrorismus den Eindruck vermitteln, dass der Wille zu entschiedener Reaktion entweder durch Angst vor den Folgen oder durch Uneinigkeit innerhalb der internationalen Gemeinschaft gebrochen werden könnte.

Es zählt das gesprochene Wort !
 

Vortrag des pakistanischen Außenministers Abdul Sattar (engl.)
International Terrorism
The horror of September 11 shocked the world. The United Nations condemned the outrage. The world community was also galvanised. It agreed with President Bush: "It is time for action.". A large number of States joined the Coalition against terrorism.  The Coalition has been in action. Its members are working together "urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks." Military action has been necessary to eradicate the terrorist infrastructure from Afghanistan. At the same time, the world community recognizes that military action alone is not enough. It has simultaneously embarked upon a farsighted policy to address the underlying causes - anarchy and poverty in Afghanistan.
UN Security Council Resolution 1378 of 14 November 2001, the Bonn Agreement of 5 December and the decision of donors to commit nearly five billion dollars for relief, recovery and reconstruction of Afghanistan are all necessary components of a farsighted strategy.  The Interim Administration under Chairman Hamid Karzai promises to bring peace and unity to Afghanistan.
Deployment of the International Security Assistance Force is an essential prerequisite for success.
The ISAF needs to be retained for a period sufficient to create, equip and train an Afghan national army to ensure unity and integration of the country. To that end the United States has given a welcome pledge of enduring support.
But the task requires wider participation. As Minister-President Stoiber said, Europe has to play a due part.
So also Japan, Canada and other countries. We hope they will continue the military and economic assistance.
Peace, unity and reconstruction will bring an end to the travail of the Afghan nation. That will be a blessing not only for Afghanistan and its people but also for other countries. The world can expect relief from the twin scourges of terrorism and narcotics trafficking.
Pakistan will be a major beneficiary. After more than two decades, we can expect relief from the economic and social burden of three million refugees.

II - Domestic Scene
Our Government's decision to join the Coalition was prompt but it was not easy. A section of opinion, misconstruing the war on terrorism as war against Afghanistan, argued that participation in the Coalition was inconsistent with Pakistan's obligations to a friendly and fraternal neighbour. Extremists threatened demonstrations.
Bringing courage to convictions, President Musharraf took the case directly to the people. Most opinion leaders agreed with the logic of the policy of joining the Coalition. The broad masses gave silent support by refusing to join the opposition. Demonstrations, which drew only a fringe section of our people.. The scenes of happiness of the Afghan people at their liberation from oppressive restrictions further undercut the extremists. Their claim to strength on the streets was exposed as overblown.  The collapse of the extremist bubble gave encouragement and strength to our government. We decided to move faster and more vigorously to implement the policy of curbing extremism and militancy.
That policy was actually conceived before September 11. Its implementation had started in June, when the government prohibited public display of firearms and called for surrender of unlicensed weapons. On August 14 the government banned two militant groups and warned two others to mend their ways.
Three weeks ago, on 12 January, President Pervez Musharraf banned five more militant groups, froze their bank accounts, seized assets, locked their offices, prohibited misuse of mosques for inflammatory propaganda and announced reforms of madrassas (religious schools) so that they impart wholesome education.
We have to address problems of poverty and ignorance which make people vulnerable to preachers who like Brother Tetzel 500 years age, offer passports to paradise in exchange for support to their financial or political agendas.
The vast majority of our people hold firm to the path of religious moderation and tolerance. Only thus can we achieve a modern and dynamic Islamic State envisioned by our founding fathers for Pakistan.
III - Terrorism: A Worldwide Scourge
The Coalition forces have made good progress to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. The Taliban have been ousted. Al Qaeda has been decimated. Terrorist training camps have been destroyed.
Terrorists have to be brought to justice. Terrorism requires deeper analysis. I agree with Mr. Wang Yi that terrorism is a complex phenomenon. We need to diagnose the disease and eradicate it root and branch.
Historically, a common motivation for violence has been political.  Repression by rulers and their refusal to redress just grievances provoked violence by people driven to hopelessness and desperation. The revolution in France was idealist in conception. It discredited itself when it resorted to terror.
Some Colonial powers were violently repressive. Some liberation movements responded in kind Vestiges of such behaviour persist. The blame cannot be attributed to one side.  Terrorism is not an ideology. It has no religion. It is a vicious phenomenon. It has proliferated and assumed new forms and manifestations.
Carlos the Jackal and the Oklahoma Bomber were individual terrorists who drove themselves to irrationality by their obsessions. Nihilism provided the rationale to the Red Brigade and Aum Shinrikyo.
In the name of religion, the Taliban blew up the magnificent Buddha sculptures in Bamian. The historic Babari Mosque in Ayodhya was destroyed by mobs incited by atavistic ideologues. Two thousand people were killed.
Al Qaeda network organized the most heinous acts of terrorism. It was led by an angry dissident, who combined inherited wealth, megalomania and perverse messianism to organize an unprecedented campaign of hate and violence against the United States.  In the wake of September 11, statesmen have emphasized that terrorism should not be equated with Islam.
President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have taken pains to quote from the Quran to remind audiences that the killing of innocent persons is abhorrent to Muslims as well. Islam emphasizes the sanctity of human life. It is a religion of peace, of tolerance, of diversity and respect for other faiths. Secretary Powell said to me after President Musharraf's speech of 12 January: "We in America are learning about Islam." I said, so also are we Muslims. As Mr. Wolfowitz said, correct understanding is the key to a stronger alliance with the Muslim world.
The doctrine of Jihad has been mistranslated and misunderstood. Actually, as explained by respected Quranic scholars, Jihad means struggle or striving for noble ends. The term "holy war" is alien to Islam, which forbids aggression. Even a war of self-defence was termed by the Prophet as "Lesser Jihad". The "Greater Jihad" is the struggle of the soul or the collective struggle for the benefit of the community. Thus, one can speak of Jihad against ignorance, poverty or other social problems.
Most importantly, as Chancellor Schroeder has said, the war against terrorism must be fought under the banner of justice.
IV - Pakistan Opposes Terrorism
On the international plane, Pakistan has always taken a clear and consistent stand against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We supported declarations of the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement against terrorism. We have contributed to the development of international law for the prevention of crimes of terrorism.
Pakistan has signed and implemented a large number of conventions against terrorism, including the OIC Convention which is unique in that it contains a consensus definition of terrorism - an issue that obstructs the conclusion of the Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism in the UN General Assembly.
Of course no one condones terrorism. The problem of definition arises when some countries with skeletons in their closets exploit the label of terrorism to discredit legitimate movements for self-determination.
Today, it is clear: Freedom fighters must not commit acts of terrorism. But the label of terrorism must not be exploited to justify state terrorism.
Nations are torn by the controversy encapsulated in the phrase ,one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Bhagat Singh was convicted and hanged in 1931 after he had shot and killed a Police Inspector of the colonial power and thrown a bomb in the Legislative Assembly in Delhi. He was immediately proclaimed as "The Great Martyr". What would Bhagat Singh be called today?

V - Self-determination
The right of "self-determination of peoples" is affirmed in the UN Charter. It was reiterated in the UN Millennium Summit Declaration of September 2000. Woodrow Wilson proclaimed support for selfdetermination.
Ronald Reagan called freedom and self-determination "man's instinctive desire."
According to Amnesty International "The population of Jammu and Kashmir has been subjected to high level of violence over a decade. Since 1989 approximately 34,000 people, including thousands of civilians, have reportedly died." The Human Rights Watch has reported arbitrary arrests, torture, staged ,encounter killings' disappearances, unprovoked and indiscriminate firing by Indian security forces killing participants in peaceful demonstrations.
The festering issue of Kashmir has blighted the life of the Kashmiri people. It has also been the root cause of tension in Pakistan-India relations. The issue can and should be settled by peaceful means. Last July President Musharraf and the Prime Minister of India met at Agra. Pakistan was ready to sign a Declaration providing for a comprehensive dialogue process for settlement of Kashmir and all other issues.
Pakistan remains ready to pick up the threads and move forward to a purposeful dialogue.
Current Crisis
The terrorist attack at the Indian Parliament on December 13 was condemned by Pakistan. We also offered to cooperate in an objective inquiry and to take action if any group in Pakistan was implicated.
The two countries could discuss an agreement to criminalize the use of their respective territories for terrorist attacks against the other.
Allegations of infiltration across the line of control in Kashmir should be impartially verified by the UN Observers Group which could be strengthened.
Instead, India has massed a million troops on our borders. Tension is dangerously high. Efforts of common friends to defuse the crisis have led to a certain political de-escalation.  But the deployment of such large forces in close proximity has inherent dangers.  At a time when a spark can ignite a conflagration, the situation calls for exercise of restraint and responsibility. India's decision to test-fire two ballistic missiles was both unwise and unwarranted. It deserved international criticism and censure.
A sagacious approach to a better future for people in South Asia as elsewhere is distilled in the principles of UN Charter. To save people from the scourge of war, settlement of international disputes should be brought about "by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law."
Progress of human civilization is measured by the extent to which society outlaws imposition of solutions by force, and ensures fair solutions of differences through negotiations impartial means on basis of equity.
I cherish the hope that such a future can be realized.  Montesquieu argued for equity in society. We need to discover a new Age of Reason to ensure equitable settlement of disputes between States. That is humanity's dream road to security and civilization.
We the participants in this Conference can play a part.

---

Chat-Mitschnitte des Live-Streamings der XXXVIII. Münchner Konferenz für Sicherheitspolitik

Am 3. Februar stellte sich der Strategie-Experte Horst Teltschik den Fragen der User.
Hier Auszüge aus dem Chat zum Nachlesen:
Frage: Wie bewerten Sie den Verlauf der Konferenz?  Horst Teltschik: Ich bewerte die Konferenz insgesamt sehr positiv. Es wurde hier deutlich, dass der 11.
September die Welt wieder ein Stück näher zusammen geführt hat. Terror können wir nur gemeinsam überwinden.
Frage: Was war für Sie das Highlight der Konferenz?  Horst Teltschik: Es gab nicht nur ein Highlight. Ich fand den ukrainischen Verteidigungsminister sehr beeindruckend. Er ist noch nicht lange im Amt, und er hat sich hier die Mühe gemacht, englisch zu sprechen.
Er hat außerdem klar gemacht, dass sich die Ukraine den westlichen Staaten verbunden fühlt.
Frage: Wie viel haben Sie persönlich von dem mitgekriegt, was in der Stadt während der Konferenz los war?
Horst Teltschik: Ich bin darüber regelmäßig unterrichtet worden. Wo Demos stattgefunden haben und wie sie abgelaufen sind, habe ich immer mitbekommen.  Frage: Werden Sie im nächsten Jahr auch Teilnehmer aus sogenannten Schurkenstaaten zur Sicherheitskonferenz einladen?
Horst Teltschik: Ich will nur darauf hinweisen, dass heute ein Land sehr kritisch angesprochen worden ist:
Weißrussland. Ob ich einen Vertreter von Nord-Korea, Irak oder Iran einlade?
Das ist unwahrscheinlich.
Denn es fängt ja damit an, dass wir nur bestimmte Sprachen dolmetschen können.
Frage: Was sind Ihre Beweggründe dafür, die Leitung dieser Konferenz zu übernehmen? Ist doch sicher sehr viel Stress...
Horst Teltschik: Im Leben geht ja nichts ohne Arbeit. Diese Konferenz ist natürlich sehr arbeitsintensiv. Es gibt ein entscheidendes Motiv: Ich bin noch im Krieg geboren und habe selbst Hunger erlebt. Das soll nie wieder geschehen, darum bin ich in die Politik gegangen. Diese Konferenz ist nach meinem Verständnis eine Friedenskonferenz.

Am 2. Februar stellte sich Angelika Beer, die verteidigungspolitische Sprecherin von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, den Fragen der User.
Hier Auszüge aus dem Chat zum Nachlesen:
Frage: Grün, und dann Verteidigung und Sicherheit: Wie passt das zusammen?  Angelika Beer: Wir Grünen sind zwar aus der Friedens- und Anti-Atombewegung entstanden. Allerdings haben wir im Kosovo gelernt, dass Militäreinsätze als ultima ratio leider nicht ausgeschlossen werden können.
Frage: Was hat so eine Konferenz heutzutage noch für einen Sinn? Was erwarten Sie sich davon?
Angelika Beer: Es ist in Deutschland die erste internationale Konferenz zu den Konsequenzen, die wir aus dem 11. September 2001 ziehen müssen. Hier kommen Parlamentarier aus der ganzen Welt zusammen, und wir suchen nach einer Antwort.
Frage: Ich habe das Gefühl, die Politiker beraten mehr denn je in einem abgeschotteten Rahmen, und der kleine Mann kriegt gar nichts mehr mit. Können Sie mein Gefühl verstehen?  Angelika Beer: Gerade die Tatsache, dass diese Sicherheitskonferenz ja live im Internet übertragen wird, ist ein Versuch, die Sicherheitspolitik einem breiteren Publikum zugänglich zu machen.
Frage: Präsident Bush will weiter in seinen Krieg ziehen. Ziehen die Grünen wieder mit?
Angelika Beer: Sicherlich nicht pauschal. Es gibt keine grenzenlose, sondern nur eine kritische Solidarität.
Wir Grünen haben auf einige Fragen andere Antworten als die US-Administration.
Frage: Hallo Frau Beer, sind die gefangenen Talibankämpfer auf Cuba Kriegsgefangene oder nur Terroristen?
Angelika Beer: Es gibt internationales Kriegsvölkerrecht. Danach sind diese Menschen menschenwürdig zu behandeln, egal, auf welcher Seite sie gekämpft haben.  Frage: Was sagen Sie dazu, dass alle Gegendemonstrationen verboten worden sind? Schließlich haben die Grünen ja auch mal mehr mit Autonomen zu tun gehabt als mit Generälen und Sicherheitspersonal...
Angelika Beer: Ich hätte mir für München einen anderen Weg gewünscht. Nach den Ereignissen in Genua hätte man die Schwierigkeiten voraussehen können. Vielleicht wäre ein anderer Tagungsort besser gewesen. Die Anwendung von Gewalt bei Demonstrationen muss allerdings auf jeden Fall unterbunden werden.
Frage: Warum werden unsere Bürgerrechte beschnitten, ohne unsere wirkliche Sicherheit zu verbessern?
Angelika Beer: Ich glaube, dass wir die Sicherheit tatsächlich verbessert haben. Es gibt einige Mittel, deren Effizienz allerdings noch aussteht, wie zum Beispiel die Rasterfahndung.  Frage: Wie lange wird der Terror noch anhalten?  Angelika Beer: Wenn wir das wüssten, wäre die internationale Lage sehr viel einfacher. Es gibt keine zeitliche Einschränkung, deshalb müssen wir uns politisch gegen den Terror wappnen.
Frage: Frau Beer, sehen die Grünen jetzt vor der Wahl eine negative Auswirkung der Öko-Steuer für ihre Wiederwahl?
Angelika Beer: Nein, das glaube ich nicht. Auch wenn Herr Stoiber die Öko-Steuer wieder abschaffen will:
Diese Steuer hat sich als sehr sinnvoll erwiesen.
Frage: Was wollen die Gegner der Globalisierung?
Angelika Beer: Es gibt Differenzen innerhalb der Globalisierungsgegner.  Einige wollen in der Gesellschaft soziale Gleichheit verwirklichen, ohne sich den wirtschaftlichen Konsequenzen zu stellen.

Am 2. Februar stellte sich Wolfgang Gerhardt, der Fraktionschef der FDP im Bundestag, den Fragen der User.
Hier Auszüge aus dem Chat zum Nachlesen:
Frage: Hallo Herr Gerhardt. Was erwarten Sie von dieser Konferenz? Probleme können da doch nicht wirklich gelöst werden, oder?
Wolfgang Gerhardt: Jedenfalls wird um Probleme nicht herumgeredet. Sie werden benannt, und man kann die Interessenlagen ausmachen. Wir sind hier zwei Tage zusammen, mit einem Publikum, das sich täglich mit Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik befasst.
Frage: In München sind ja nun überhaupt keine "Krawalle" oder ähnliches.  Kann man die Polizei jetzt nicht endlich abziehen und den Münchnern ihren Sonnenschein lassen?  Wolfgang Gerhardt: Ich glaube, dass die Polizei hier sehr zurückhaltend operiert. Die Münchener können sich in ihrer Stadt frei bewegen.
Frage: Sind Sie und die FDP zufrieden mit dem Sicherheitspaket der Bundesregierung?
Wolfgang Gerhardt: Nein. Ich glaube, die Bundesregierung hat überhaupt noch keine klare Entscheidung über die zukünftige Struktur der Bundeswehr gefällt. Nach meiner Überzeugung könnte die Bundeswehr kleiner sein, aber sie müsste dann logistisch viel besser ausgestattet sind.  Frage: Sicherheit verdrängt immer mehr Bürgerfreiheiten und -rechte. Wo bleibt der Kampf der liberalen Partei dagegen?
Wolfgang Gerhardt: Wir haben das ja auch abgelehnt. Es gibt aber eine Mehrheit im deutschen Bundestag, die dieses Sicherheitspaket beschlossen hat. Da geht oft Tempo vor Sorgfalt.
Frage: Was ändert sich alles, wenn die CDU und die FDP die Wahlen im Herbst gewinnen?
Wolfgang Gerhardt: Über die Frage des Koalitionspartners äußere ich mich jetzt nicht. Wenn wir hier Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten bekommen, wäre das erste: den Arbeitsmarkt zu öffnen. Wir möchten wieder 630 Euro-Jobs einführen. Wir wollen auch das Gesetz gegen die Scheinselbständigkeit wieder zurück nehmen.
Da gibt es eine ganze Kette von Chancen, wie Beschäftigungsdynamik entfaltet werden kann.
Frage: Was denken Sie: Wie viele Prozente bekommt die FDP bei den Wahlen?  Wolfgang Gerhardt: Ich glaube, dass wir bei der Bundestagswahl zweistellige Zahlen erreichen können.
Frage: Wie viel Geld braucht Ihrer Ansicht nach die Bundeswehr in den nächsten Jahren? Wird dies Steuererhöhungen nach sich ziehen?
Wolfgang Gerhardt: Ich glaube, dass Steuersenkungen zu mehr Beschäftigung führen. Damit hätten wir dann höhere Steuereinnahmen und bräuchten die Steuern nicht zu erhöhen. Grob gesagt glaube ich, dass die Bundeswehr ungefähr um die 50 Milliarden Mark beziehungsweise einen entsprechenden Betrag in Euro braucht.
Frage: Was glauben Sie - ist der Einsatz der US-Armee in Afghanistan noch sinnvoll?
Wolfgang Gerhardt: Wir haben ja in den letzten Tagen gemerkt, dass die Fernsehbilder die Zustände in Afghanistan doch eher schönen. Mein Wunsch ist, dass die Militärpräsenz bleibt, weil die neue afghanische Regierung das Land jetzt noch nicht allein sicher regieren kann.

Am 2. Februar stellte sich Harald Kujat, der Generalinspektor der Bundeswehr, den Fragen der User.
Hier Auszüge aus dem Chat zum Nachlesen:
Frage: Glauben Sie, dass die Bundeswehr in ihrer heutigen Struktur den gewachsenen Anforderungen überhaupt gerecht werden kann?
Harald Kujat: Nein. Das glaube ich nicht nur nicht, sondern das weiß ich.
Deshalb sind wir jetzt ja in einer
Reformphase.
Frage: Glauben Sie, dass Deutschland seinen Wehretat in Zukunft erheblich aufstocken muss, um mit den anderen Bündnispartnern gleichzuziehen?
Harald Kujat: Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass das notwendig ist. Diese Entscheidung muss aber von den Politikern getroffen werden.
Frage: Wo hat die Bundeswehr ihre größten Mängel?  Harald Kujat: Wo soll ich da anfangen? Der entscheidende Mangel besteht darin, dass die Bundeswehr zur Zeit noch nicht die richtige Struktur hat. Wir müssen die Einsatzkräfte erheblich aufstocken.
Frage: Haben wir in Deutschland bald eine Kriegsarmee? Ich dachte, wir treten nur im Verteidigungsfall militärisch in Erscheinung..
Harald Kujat: Die Bundeswehr entwickelt sich nicht zu einer Kriegsarmee. Sie entwickelt sich von einer Ausbildungs- zu einer Einsatzarmee. Wir führen ja nicht Krieg, sondern sorgen für ein sicheres Umfeld, zum Beispiel auf dem Balkan.
Frage: Vernachlässigt die Bundeswehr nicht ihr eigenes Territorium bei all den Auslandseinsätzen?
Harald Kujat: Nein, sie vernachlässigt ihr eigenes Territorium nicht. Die Bundeswehr ist nach der Verfassung zur Verteidigung aufgestellt. Das ist nach wie vor eine prioritäre Aufgabe für unsere Armee, und das wird auch in der neuen Strukturplanung berücksichtigt.  Frage: Wie lange wird Ihrer Meinung nach die Wehrpflicht in ihrer heutigen Form noch Bestand haben?
Wenn sich die Wehrpflicht ändert, welche Lösung halten Sie für die wahrscheinlichste ?
Harald Kujat: Ich kann nicht sagen, wie lange die Wehrpflicht noch bestehen bleibt. Ich hoffe aber, dass das noch lange der Fall sein wird. Denn die Wehrpflicht ist sehr wichtig, um die Einsatzbereitschaft der Bundeswehr sicher zu stellen. Ohne die Wehrpflicht könnte die Bundeswehr ihre derzeitigen Aufgaben nicht erfüllen.
Frage: Wie wird das zukünftige Reservistenkonzept der Bundeswehr aussehen?
39
Harald Kujat: Das ist eine gute Frage. Wir sind im Augenblick dabei, dieses Konzept zu erarbeiten, und es wird bald fertig sein. Wir werden die Reservisten nach wie vor dringend benötigen: einmal für den Verteidigungsfall, aber auch für Einsätze, insbesondere für Spezialverwendungen.
Frage: Wann kommt die Bundeswehr aus ihrem Einsatz in Afghanistan zurück?  Harald Kujat: Der Einsatz ist nach dem Petersberger Abkommen geplant. Die Sicherheitspräsenz soll maximal für zwei Jahre erfolgen, zunächst aber für sechs Monate. Ich gehe allerdings fest davon aus, dass das Mandat verlängert wird.
Frage: Auf welchen Rang würden Sie im internationalen Vergleich die Bundeswehr stellen, was Leistungsfähigkeit und Effizienz angeht?
Harald Kujat: Das ist sehr schwierig. In der Bundesliga ist das einfacher, da braucht man nur die Tore zu zählen. Ich bin der Auffassung, dass unsere Soldaten und auch die Mannschaftsleistung ganz hervorragend sind. Wir haben allerdings Defizite in der Materialausstattung, was natürlich die Leistungsfähigkeit beeinträchtigt.
Frage: Was für eine Rolle spielen die Diensthunde der Bundeswehr in dem Sicherheitskonzept?
Harald Kujat: Die Diensthunde sind vierbeinige Kameraden der Soldaten. Wir haben mit diesen Tieren hervorragende Erfahrungen gemacht. Sie sind unser "Frühwarnsystem".

Am 2. Februar stellte sich Dieter Stöckmann, der stellvertretende Befehlshaber der NATO in Europa, den Fragen der User.
Hier Auszüge aus dem Chat zum Nachlesen:
Frage: Fühlen Sie sich als Teilnehmer an einer Friedenskonferenz? Oder geht es nur um den Krieg (gegen den Terror)?
Dieter Stöckmann: Ich fühle mich als Teilnehmer einer Friedenskonferenz.  Denn das, was wir hier besprechen, soll dem Frieden dienen. Am Anfang steht aber eine Bestandsaufnahme über die tatsächlichen Gefahren des Terrorismus.
Frage: Hallo Herr Stöckmann, haben Sie sich mit den Gegnern der Konferenz mal an einen Tisch gesetzt und diskutiert?
Dieter Stöckmann: Ich habe mich noch nicht mit denen an einen Tisch gesetzt, die die Forderung gestellt haben: "Entglast München!". Dazu bin ich auch nicht bereit. Allerdings würde ich gern mit jedem einzelnen darüber sprechen, der Argumente bringt und kritisch ist.  Frage: Die USA nehmen eine sehr aktive Rolle im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus ein. Es wurde der Bündnisfall ausgerufen. Muss man befürchten, dass sich die NATO von den USA eventuell entmachten und übergehen lässt?
Dieter Stöckmann: Ich höre das immer wieder. Wir Europäer neigen dazu, die Amerikaner als übermächtig zu sehen. Aber wir müssen auch fragen: Sind die Europäer eigentlich gleichwertige Partner für die USA?
Frage: Was denken Sie über die Terroranschläge auf Amerika und die Reaktion auf diese Anschläge?
Dieter Stöckmann: Ich denke, dass wir zum ersten Mal in schlimmster Form wachgerüttelt worden sind. Wir sahen vorher immer ein Spektrum von Bedrohungen. Eine Situation wie die vom 11. September konnten wir uns aber nicht vorstellen. Die erste Reaktion war: Das kann nicht wirklich sein. Danach kam die verzweifelte Frage: Was haben wir falsch gemacht?  Frage: Wie wollen Sie die Lage in Afghanistan bewältigen?  Dieter Stöckmann: Diese Frage setzt voraus, dass wir die Lage in Afghanistan gemeinsam bewältigen müssen. Wir werden auf absehbare Zeit dort mehr Kräfte benötigen, um eine Chance zu haben. Dafür brauchen wir eine erweiterte Auftragserteilung. Dann könnten wir mit einer multinationalen Truppe einen echten Friedensauftrag erfüllen. Wir sollten hier auf jeden Fall die Russen mit an Bord haben.
Frage: Welche Rolle soll die Bundeswehr künftig in der Nato spielen?  Dieter Stöckmann: Eine kurze Antwort: die gleiche Rolle wie bisher. Ich glaube nicht, dass man die Bundeswehr stärker integrieren kann, als sie es bis jetzt schon ist.
Frage: Was machen Sie bei der Nato?
Dieter Stöckmann: Die Frage ist einfach zu beantworten. Als stellvertretender Befehlshaber der NATO in Europa bin ich verantwortlich für die Vorbereitung aller Aufträge, wo Truppen international zusammen gestellt werden müssen.
Frage: Wie bequem ist eigentlich so eine NATO-Uniform?  Dieter Stöckmann: Es gibt keine NATO-Uniform, sondern wir behalten unsere nationalen Uniformen an. Die Damen beklagen bisweilen, dass die immer gleich aussehen.

Am 3. Februar stellte sich der Strategie-Experte Holger Mey den Fragen der User.
Hier Auszüge aus dem Chat zum Nachlesen:
Frage: Ist die Diskussion um den Terrorismus nur vorgeschoben, um weltweite Aufrüstung zu ermöglichen?
Holger Mey: Nein, sie ist ja nicht vorgeschoben. Der Angriff auf das World Trade Center war real. Ich glaube, es ist auch klar, dass sich allein durch diplomatische Mittel nicht alle Terroristen von ihren Anschlägen abhalten lassen.
Frage: Ist es nicht ein arrogant von den USA, als Weltmacht von den europäischen Mittelmächten ein ebenbürtiges militärisches Engagement zu verlangen?  Holger Mey: Ich glaube nicht, dass die USA eine weltweite Präsenz von den Europäern verlangen.
Vermutlich wäre das den Amerikanern nicht einmal recht. Es geht mehr darum, dass die Europäer fordern mitzuentscheiden. Dann müssen sie aber auch mitmachen.  Frage: Haben die Kritiker der Konferenz, die dem Westen "Kriegspolitik" vorwerfen, nicht Recht?
Holger Mey: Wesentlich ist, dass man vernünftig und friedlich miteinander redet. Solange Demonstrationen gewaltfrei sind, akzeptiere ich sie als demokratisches Ausdrucksmittel einer politischen Meinung.
Frage: Herr May, ist es möglich, dass Terrororganisation wie die Bin Ladens demnächst über Atomwaffen verfügen können?
Holger Mey: Es ist sicherlich nicht auszuschließen. Aber für den Bau von Atomwaffen braucht man nach unserer Erfahrung einen Staat. Während für den Bau biologischer Waffen ein paar Experten ausreichen. Es gibt Hinweise, dass sich El Kaida um die Beschaffung taktischer Atomwaffen bemüht hat.
Frage: Soll Deutschland die Wehrpflicht behalten?  Holger Mey: Ich glaube, ja. Aber in einer anderen Form. Nicht jede Form der Verteidigung hängt an Waffenträgern. Wir werden wahrscheinlich mehr Gerätebediener und Spezialisten, Logistiker benötigen.
Frage: Braucht Deutschland einen Flugzeugträger?  Holger Mey: Nein. Deutschland allein braucht ihn nicht. Aber im europäischen Rahmen sollten wir schon über diese Mittel verfügen. Es wäre gut, wenn die Europäer hier mehr Arbeitsteilung praktizieren würden.
Frage: Wie wird die arabische Welt auf eine mögliche Vergeltungsmassnahme der USA auf den Irak reagieren
Holger Mey: Ich denke, dass die arabische Welt hier gespalten ist. Denn es gibt wohl nur wenige Araber, die sehr begeistert von Saddam Hussein sind. Gleichzeitig werden sie aber auch nicht begeistert davon sein, dass eine externe Macht vor ihrer Haustür interveniert. Wir dürfen auch eins nicht vergessen: Die Hauptopfer des islamischen Terrorismus sind Muslime.
Frage: Vor über zehn Jahren, beim Fall der Mauer, hofften die Menschen auf eine friedlichere Welt. Jetzt scheint das Gegenteil einzutreten. Wie, glauben Sie, wird die Welt in zehn, zwanzig Jahren aussehen?
Holger Mey: Ich glaube, dass wir uns da sehr warm anziehen müssen. Wir beobachten jetzt eine Demokratisierung der Bedrohung. Es wird nicht einfach sein, den Frieden auf der Welt zu erhalten. Diese Aufgabe erfordert Ursachenforschung, aber auch das Eingeständnis, dass wir nicht alle Probleme lösen können.

Zum Anfang. Zur Startseite von Hoppetosse- Netzwerk für kreativen Widerstand. Zur projektwerkstatt.de.