Peace is a question of will - Enhancing transatlantic co-operation in peacebuilding

National Press Club

Washington D.C., 7 April 2009

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank the National Press Club for inviting me to address this distinguished audience. It always gives me great pleasure to visit the United States as I lived here for over
ten years during my career at the United Nations. During those years I learned to appreciate the rich intellectual debate on government policies whether they were on foreign, security or economic policy.

I have always argued that Americans, as such a
vibrant society, have the ability to correct their mistakes and change their policies. If they go in one direction and the people feel that they need to change course, they will. In Europe we tend not to have such vigorous debates, but I think we are catching up. I was involved in the establishment of the European Council for Foreign Relations in 2007. The Council promotes awareness of the need for a more coherent and vigorous European foreign policy, and the need to increase debate over key challenges.

******

As I said in my Nobel Peace Prize lecture last December, I firmly believe that all conflicts can be solved. Peace is a question of will.
My long international career has taught me that it is very difficult to find a solution to any conflict without constructive support from the United States. In the long process towards the Namibian independence, which was achieved in 1990, I worked with several US administrations. In the Kosovo status process, the firm support of the US government was crucial in finding a solution.

I am an ardent promoter of transatlantic co-operation. The United States and the European Union enjoy an exceptionally broad and deep commonality of interests and values. Our relationship has to be such that we can remind each other if we start deviating
from those values. Multilateralism remains the legitimate and often also the most effective foundation for conflict resolution. The US played an instrumental role in establishing the multilateral
organisations that today work to maintain peace, stability and manage emerging crises in the world.

Multilateralism strives for common security. Some issues are inherently multilateral and cannot be managed without the help of other countries. This holds true for a long list of security threats: the instability of global financial markets, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, trafficking of humans and drugs, international organised crime, transnational terrorism, the spread of pandemics and climate change.


Whether our democracies can rise to these global challenges will depend on our ability to build more ambitious transatlantic co-operation. It is in the common interest of both Europe and the US to promote global stability and peace. The US and the EU are now
presented with an ideal moment to strengthen their co-operation in conflict prevention and resolution. Both sides now agree to a large extent on the major challenges facing them.

We have a common interest and challenge in integrating Russia into cooperative frameworks. The success or failure thereof will have a lasting impact on transatlantic relations as well. We all want to see a stable, democratic and prosperous Russia that is
integrated with global and European cooperative structures. One positive outcome of the current financial crisis that I see is the increased willingness for co-operation between the major powers, including the US, the European Union, China and Russia. There is a silent acknowledgement that we all need each other to survive this economic downturn. We need to use this momentum to engage all of key players for the purposes of conflict resolution. However, at this point I would like to remind you that the fields of conflict resolution and peace-building are not only the domain of governmental agencies. Civil society organisations also have a key contribution to make. We should foster transatlantic cooperation on these issues also at the level of think tanks and NGOs.

An excellent example of this kind of co-operation was the organization of meetings of key Iraqi political leaders in Finland in 2007 and in 2008. This process led to the signing of the Helsinki II
Agreement, outlining 17 principles that define a framework for future reconciliation in Iraq. This meeting was organized by a peace-building organization I established after my term as President of Finland, called the Crisis Management Initiative. We worked together with the John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies at the University of Massachusetts and the Institute for Global Leadership at Tufts University, Massachusetts.

******

Today, I would like to discuss two conflicts in particular, the Middle East and Afghanistan that are at the very core of global peace and stability. I see these regions as priority areas for transatlantic co-operation in conflict resolution and peace building. Progress in
resolving them requires strong political will and a determined joint strategy from the international community as a whole.

We need to untie the Middle East knot

The most challenging peace-building project ahead of us is finding a solution to the conflicts in the Middle East, which have continued for decades. The tensions and wars in the region have been going on for so long that many have come to believe that the Middle
East knot can never be untied.

Conflicts are never fundamentally ideological or religious; they are human-made disputes over power and resources. Therefore conflicts can be solved by addressing the concerns and interests of both the parties in a mutually satisfactory manner.


As for the Middle East, reaching a transatlantic understanding is especially important as the previous regional policy, which was based on the coercion and isolation of Iran, Syria, and non-state actors such as Hamas and Hizbollah, is being reworked. The transatlantic partners should find means for bridging regional divides, instead of deepening them.

Engagement with Iran, support for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations, and dialogue with Hamas are all steps that require meticulous policy coordination and a joint effort to achieve the desired results. One of the more immediate concerns is that the potential Israeli violations of human rights during the Gaza incursion are thoroughly investigated. These violations cannot be ignored by international organizations or the leading world powers; and I am confident that we will see a change of direction regarding what comes to the blind support for Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza – policies, which also I see as harmful for Israel itself.

The fact that all conflicts can be solved should be remembered by those who play a role in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been perceived as unsolvable within the immediate future – or at least within one term of office. Because of this, both
international and regional actors have resorted to policies that aim to manage and contain the conflict, instead of solving it. As a result, the conflict has become subject to the constant intermingling of national interests – interests that are often completely unrelated to that particular conflict. Iranian, Syrian, Western and moderate Arab governments are all guilty of this to a varying degree. This has complicated peacemaking. Any serious attempt to solve the conflict starts by untying these interests from Israel and Palestine.

The concerns of both the parties in the conflict must be equally acknowledged, otherwise peace cannot prevail. Nor can the conflict be solved if there is no dialogue with all parties who have support among population. Hamas is no exception. Dialogue must also be
supported within both sides, not only between them. Successful peace negotiations require partners, who have the broadest possible coalition behind them. Otherwise those excluded
can disrupt the peace process.

It is difficult to think that this conflict could be solved unless the Palestinian side gets its act together: to find a representative coalition for the negotiation, to stop the missile attacks and suicide bombings. The violence simply leads to the escalation of the conflict. It is high time for both parties to settle the situation. The international community has the right and the responsibility to demand it from both parties. I wholeheartedly support the
recent initiative by Paul Volcker and other sagacious signatories.
In the current political climate, I find it of utmost importance that the transatlantic partners pressure both parties to accept the two-state solution. I am in accord with President Obama; the two-state solution has been and should remain the basis for further discussion.

A broader regional approach is needed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace on all fronts should be put on the agenda. The Syrian-Israeli peace track has been taken hostage
by the Israeli-Palestinian peace track and vice-versa. Actors in the region should support it without conditions.
Solving the conflict over the Golan Heights would have a beneficial impact for Israeli and Syrian security and help to enhance Lebanese sovereignty, domestic stability and stabilize
the border areas. As has been argued several times before, a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement would also help to separate both Syrian and Iranian ambitions from the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

The benefits of peace are too numerous to be ignored. A comprehensive regional approach requires dealing with Iran. Iran’s drive for nuclear power is a destabilizing factor that has to be urgently addressed. All countries in the region deserve to live in security. As it stands, Iranian ambitions can only be contained and
managed. To change the root causes behind these nuclear ambitions, Iran’s security and energy deficit must be addressed. Iran also deserves to live in security. It is realistic to think that engagement and a normalization of relations with Iran could occur
simultaneously with containing Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions. This is why the initiation of contacts between the US and Iran as well as lifting of a ban on diplomatic relations would be positive steps that pave the way for a possible broader engagement.

The key to advancing regional stability in the Middle East more generally is acknowledging and addressing the security concerns of all parties involved. The region needs a new security architecture – one that seeks to support peace and stability. The need is acute after the failure of the isolation policy, which sought to contain Iran and Syria, and only resulted in an increase of unconstructive behavior by these actors and a deepening of divisions in
the region. After the Iraq war the balance of power in the Gulf is still in the making.

In reformulating policies regarding these two fundamental regional conflicts, external actors have the power and the responsibility to create the foundations for the new order that the region desperately needs in order to dilute differences, raise confidence and – ultimately - to resolve conflicts.

Afghanistan – need to renew our long-term commitment

Afghanistan remains another key challenge for the transatlantic partnership. It presents a mixed picture, with both progress and setbacks. There is clear progress in several areas; the central government’s institutional and human capacity has improved; economic growth and a more open business environment have improved the general health of the Afghan economy, investments by the international community have enhanced social services and infrastructure, there has been a major increase in school enrollment and a significant drop in child and maternal mortality.

Afghanistan remains, however, an infinitely complex and fractured society. It has become one of the most dangerous places in the world and a source for regional instability. Seven years after the start of the war in Afghanistan there is still no solution on the horizon. In fact, the security situation appears to be regressing.
The recent months have seen a resurgence of the Taliban, posing mounting challenges for the U.S.-led multinational force in Afghanistan.

The rise in violent extremists operating out of Pakistan and the eroding legitimacy of the Afghan government is a dangerous
combination. To save Afghanistan from the current downward spiral and counter these negative trends a more focused effort is required. I welcome the new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is indeed rather a comprehensive civil-political effort to improve basic services, accountability, and overall governance in order to defeat the hard-core Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters at the heart of the insurgency. This emphasis on the civil and political sectors is a welcome development.

There has also been a steady growth in EU contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, from development aid to police training – although not every EU Member State is yet pulling its full weight. Although there is frequent talk about the importance of
non-military instruments, many European governments have failed to provide staff for civilian bodies like EUPOL, the Office of the EU Special Representative to Afghanistan, or the NATO Civilian Representative’s Office.

We should not fool ourselves. There are no quick fixes in Afghanistan. What is needed in Afghanistan is the opening of negotiations with “reconcilable” Taliban insurgents, more
civilian reconstruction, a development-based approach to counter-narcotics, more training for the Afghan security forces to enable them to lead the counter-insurgency effort, and regional initiatives that include not only Pakistan but also India and China. It is also vital to engage Afghanistan's neighbors, including Russia and Iran, to help stabilize Afghanistan.

Even if we all acknowledge that there is no military solution we have to be equally clear that from a transatlantic perspective, we cannot afford to let NATO fail in Afghanistan. NATO is the embodiment of transatlantic co-operation in peace keeping. The failure of its first-ever deployment beyond its immediate perimeter would seriously undermine the organisation. I believe this has been acknowledged now on both sides of the Atlantic. The
United States is not alone - the last few years have seen something of a European troop surge in Afghanistan. Since late 2006, 18 of the 25 EU countries participating in the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), NATO’s Afghan mission, have increased their troop contributions. As a result EU Member States now account for 43% of ISAF’s total deployment.

Despite slow progress, the international community needs to remain committed to Afghanistan. Failure to do so would cause this country to slide backwards with disastrous consequences for the region. Afghanistan needs time, patience and relentless effort. This is not the time to give up. It is the time to remain fully engaged so that existing positive developments can be built upon and produce long-term results. The core of the transatlantic long-term commitment in Afghanistan should be; an increased focus and resources on state-building and rule of law while ensuring adequate
military support, addressing the regional dimension of the instability and engaging Afghanistan’s neighbours, including Iran and Russia.

*******

These multiple near-term emergencies cannot occupy all the attention of the transatlantic community. Transatlantic co-operation must also cover shared strategies and preparedness for long-term challenges that are unconfined by political geography. These
challenges include climate change, environmental degradation, widening regional conflicts rooted in ethnic/religious divides and competition over resources, organised crime and trafficking, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.


However, the problem with the greatest impact is the growing rich-poor gap. It has grown even worse. Three billion people now live on less than $2 a day. The physical, political, psychological and moral consequences of this disparity are enormous. The current global financial crisis has further increased the risk of growing inequality.

Many of the regions and countries most affected by the withdrawal of capital from emerging markets and the collapse of international trade are already fragile, with many only just emerging from years of conflict. Growing inequality between countries and within society exacerbates existing cleavages. The loss of welfare and employment opportunities easily leads to a loss of hope and faith in the future among the most vulnerable. This in turn fosters the rise of fundamentalism and violence, and creates breeding-grounds for crime, terrorism and war. We risk losing a generation to this financial crisis.

And with globalization and increased interdependence among countries, violence in one region will have an impact in another part of the world. I am gravely concerned with the lack of human development in both of the Middle East and Afghanistan. They are held hostage by conflicts and short-term national and societal
interests. In particular, the World should pay attention to the potentially explosive unemployment rates in the Arab countries.
Over the next decade, the International Labor Organisation expects 1,2 billion young people to enter the global labor market. By traditional means we can employ only 300 million of them. The inability to support one’s self and care for one’s family, to see a future with prospects and opportunities will prove costly not only for these youths, but for their societies and their entire region as well. We should also make better use of economic, social and environmental indicators to assess possible future conflicts, so that in the long term we can plan how to prevent them.

Conclusions

The United States and Europe carry enormous responsibility for global peace and human security. We are responsible both for our citizens and the citizens of war-torn countries. It is our responsibility to act – to prevent violence, to resolve conflicts and to help rebuild. This responsibility means commitment – we cannot choose to come and go based on national interests or economic considerations. What we need is staying power – the ability to commit to and guide war-shattered countries in the long-term through the rebuilding and reconciliation process.

Peace needs everybody. We cannot pick and choose our partners for peace – we have to speak with all parties that have popular support; whether it is Hamas in Palestine or the Taliban in Afghanistan. In this respect national interests should not intervene in the sensitive process of peace building, for peace is the supreme national interest.

Peace requires compromise, also from external actors for the benefit of common interests. Conflict zones are no place for competition, otherwise peace will fail. Peace in conflict zones should be a primary goal for the transatlantic partnership. Quite logically, peace also has the power to secure the interest of other powerful nations. Raising the necessary consensus for peace, however, is the task of all member states of the United Nations, and particularly that of the main actors.

For our long term benefit, we need to get serious about preventive action. Preventive action on key challenges, such as the ever-widening gap between the rich and poor, requires commitment. Commitment requires resources. We have to stay committed to
development co-operation through the economic downturn as well. Conflicts do not cease because of downturns.

Ladies and gentlemen, peace is a question of will. The transatlantic partnership has a major role in creating that will and transforming it into action.