The 2010 Inaugural Martti Ahtisaari Symposium on European Security in Global Perspective
Address by President Martti Ahtisaari “The Middle East Conflict and Challenges to European Security”; Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Washington D.C., 9 March 2010
Mr Chairman, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,
This institution bears the name of one of the great Americans who had faith in a better world. President Woodrow Wilson is often described as an idealist. He was well aware of that epithet and he did not object to it. He took pride in it. Sometimes that word is used as if idealism would be synonymous with being naive. That is not the way I see it. Idealism can be a powerful source of inspiration in efforts to alleviate some of the serious hardships and problems the mankind faces. Without idealism, balanced with realism, there is always the risk of elapsing into cynicism. Nothing good has ever come from that.
European security is a very personal matter for me. In the speech I held when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2008 I stated the following:
“I too was a child affected by war. I was only two years old when, as a result of an agreement on spheres of influence between Hitler´s Germany and Stalin´s Soviet Union, war broke out, forcing my family to leave soon thereafter the town of Viipuri. Like several hundred thousand of fellow Karelians we became refugees in our own country as great power politics caused the borders of Finland to be redrawn and left my home town as part of the Soviet Union. This childhood experience contributed to my commitment to working on the resolution of conflicts”.
Not so long ago the issue dominating the international scene was the looming conflict between the East and the West. One symbol for what has changed is that we no longer use these words. What used to be politically the East is in modern parlance Central and Eastern Europe. The word “East” – if used in a political context – makes one to think about the past, not the present. The key word on these relations today is not confrontation but cooperation, not conflict but partnership.
It would however be an oversimplification as a description of the relationship between Russia and the European Union to ignore some realities that are less than satisfactory. There still are unresolved problems related to human rights and a number of economic issues. But one thing is very clear. No observer of international affairs believes in the probability, not even the possibility of an armed conflict between Russia and her Western neighbors. For once Russians can feel safe as far as their long Western border is concerned. It is no less important that the same can be said on the other side – or this side - of the border. The existing and outstanding differences can be settled without resorting to violent means. The common interests clearly outweigh the issues that separate the parties.
All members of the European Union are not equally confident of this when assessing developments in Russia and its relationship with some of its neighbors. While the risk of a military conflict is very remote indeed there are other less violent forms of conflict as we have seen. Deliveries of gas to the Western European markets have not always been running normally. From time to time it has been anything but farfetched to see political motives behind such phenomena.
Russians seem to find it difficult to accept that all sovereign states have the right to choose their company as they seek to strengthen their security. The enlargement of NATO is seen as constituting a danger to Russian security. “Danger” is the very word they use in their very recently published document called the Military Doctrine. Such an attitude is a carry over from the days of the Cold War. Then the question is – why to think in terms of a Cold War as it has been confined to history. There cannot be any justification for a “laager” or “corral”- mentality. There are no hostile intentions in the policies of Russia´s European neighbors.
As I see it we have to go pretty far back in history in order to find another era when the situation has been as calm as it is today in Europe and the risks for military conflict or confrontation as remote as they are today. As a matter of fact we see more and more signs of voluntary mutual interdependence. We could see more. Many of the real threats Europeans face, just as much in the European Union as in the Russian Federation have common roots. Politically motivated terrorism, with religious overtones is a real problem. The grow ground for it is not going away, neither in Russia nor in the Western parts of Europe. We all, indeed globally, have a very good reason to worry because of the ever more serious problems of drug smuggling and drug trade, escalating into drug wars in some parts of the world. That is something closely linked to several forms of organized crime. And last – but certainly not least – the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in particular nuclear weapons, should be the common concern of all mankind.
Joint efforts to put an end to organized terrorism and to drug related very serious crimes are an important part of the reasons why such a large coalition is today fighting in Afganistan. That is a protracted campaign and the efforts have been less than has been hoped for. The long duration of the conflict has already put a severe strain on the body politic in some of the countries parties to the coalition. Very serious domestic political considerations have made governments to loose their support. The Finnish government has faced an animated debate in the Parliament on the issue of our participation in the operation. The government has, however, decided, with the consent of the parliament, that we will increase, not diminish, our number of troops. We are, of course, not speaking about large number of troops but the signal is clear: we believe that this is the time to strengthen the operation.
In doing so we strongly stress that a crisis such as the one we face in Afganistan has no military solution. The military have an important part to play in enabling the civilian crisis management to do what they do best. Here is an interesting special feature to the way how Finnish troops operate in situations of this kind. Except for the senior officers the Finnish peace keepers are recruited from civilian life. That does not mean that they would have no military training. They have served within the Finnish compulsory system of universal service. Many of them have specialized training. But they are not career soldiers. They have spent the better part of their lives as plumbers or carpenters, drivers or teachers. In other words these soldiers come with a civilian mentality and with skills useful in winning the confidence and the respect of the local population. They are organized as military units, they observe military discipline but they are proficient in skills needed in civilian life. And what is even more important – they apply their skills to the benefit of the local population.
Some of the most serious security problems we face in Europe today have their origins in the Middle East. There they have many causes. We are all familiar with the history of the key issue, the unending confrontation between the State of Israel and its neighbors. That is a problem we have tried to deal with since the first years after the Second World War. Another problem, no less important and just as old as the one in the Middle East is the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In both cases nuclear weapons are part of the setting. Now we see a new confrontation emerging – between Iran and almost the rest of the world – again, nuclear weapons or the risk of proliferation are present. My point is, to put it simply: the Cold War is over, the risks of a nuclear Armageddon brought about through a thermonuclear war between East and West – as we knew them during those years – is over. But new risks, no less menacing are unfolding very close to Europe.
The heinous crimes committed by terrorists in New York, London, Madrid or just across the Potomac have caused death and destruction. Even more frightening perspectives are opened should nuclear weapons come into the hands of terrorists. If we understand that achieving a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East is not only about stabilizing the region but dramatically reducing the risks presented by nuclear weapons globally then, I believe, the incentives of global actors to solve their differences and rapidly seek for solutions in the Middle East would change.
One cannot look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in isolation. Next to it are long-standing strategic conflicts or tense relationships, such as those between Israel and its neighbors, Iran, Iraq and Saudi-Arabia, as well as India and Pakistan, just to mention a few. What is important in these conflicts is that in all of them there is a nuclear weapons element. That is the factor that makes these conflicts or tense relationships of major relevance globally. We cannot see these conflicts as being only regional. It does not call for much imagination to see that a world scale conflagration would be a real risk should nuclear proliferation continue or should nuclear weapons get into wrong hands.
In order to solve these conflicts however we need to have a more regional approach. For example although Iranian aspiration for nuclear capability has deep roots in the country’s confrontation with the US, much of Iran’s underlying security deficit is also based on its regional isolation and competition of regional hegemony. Therefore I strongly support the idea of “a Helsinki process”, a dialogue on a collective security arrangement in the Gulf, which would serve as a better foundation for especially Iran-Saudi relations. This should be naturally accompanied by serious international engagement with Iran, based on a commitment to end Iranian isolation if the country drops fully its nuclear ambitions. Finding a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear drive would significantly reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons during this decade.
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is, as I see it, one in which Europeans and Americans should have the greatest contributions to offer. Geographic proximity to Europe is only one of the factors. The strategic significance of the region in world affairs, including the supply of energy to the rest of the world is another. Of course it is true that the Europeans are not the only ones having important interests to safeguard in the region. Because of historical and cultural reasons they acknowledge their special responsibility to try their best to bring about a peaceful settlement of the outstanding issues.
The members of the European Union have not been as good as they should have been in tackling issues that present common challenges to them. As is well known in the early phases of European political cooperation foreign policy was not one of those where governments would have been prepared to share any of their sovereignty. It is never easy. There are several painful examples of those early difficulties. We saw much of it as it came to dealings with the breakup of Yugoslavia. More recently we have seen it in the context of the campaigns in Iraq and – to a lesser degree – in Afganistan. For a number of years part of the problem has been an institutional one. It has been difficult if not impossible to frame a common foreign and security policy as long as the institutions for it have been insufficient and weak.
Today, however, we have a new situation. The rather fragile machinery for cooperation in foreign and security policy has been strengthened as the Lisbon treaty entered into force in December last year. Now the European Union has proper instruments for the conduct of a common foreign and security policy. The instruments are there but from that there is still quite some distance to a genuinely shared policy with common goals and common methods of work. It may be unrealistic to expect that the members of the union would always find common positions. It is still true, and remains so, for quite some time, that due to the historical, geographic, cultural and other factors there will be differences in their perceptions and in their interests. These institutional new arrangements are , however, a leap towards a real European political union. Such a union should be capable of giving a larger contribution to the resolution of the major issues of our time.
However, it is my experience from the conflicts that I have been able to monitor at close range that without an active commitment of the United States nothing can be achieved. This is even more so in the Middle East than perhaps anywhere else. There the United States has a unique position and more influence.
There has been a great deal of political fatigue in some parts of Europe as governments and voters are contemplating their role in these conflicts in the Middle East. This is true not just concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. That fatigue makes people downplay the seriousness of the issues involved so that they could justify a lesser role in the conflict.
In the case of Iran there is wide public awareness of the dangers of having one more unstable nuclear weapons power in the region. But the fact that Iran is not the only one presenting nuclear risks in the Middle East and Central Asia is often overlooked. If people would better understand that we are here not dealing with a regional issue but with issues of global importance, even potentially with catastrophic risks for all of us, then – I believe – they would be prepared to commit more resources, dedicate more attention and feel more urgency in working for a peaceful settlement of the many complex issues I have described.
The other global problem we face but are ill aware of is a demographic one. The number of youth entering the labor market – or more accurately – trying to enter the labor market is growing enormously in most of the developing countries. Their prospects of finding gainful employment are frustrating. Their numbers are staggering. They are 1,7 billion between the ages of 15 and 29 years. Some 85 per cent of them live in developing countries. In the course of the 10 last years their number has grown by more than 10 per cent but their employment only 0,2 per cent. Of these 1,7 billion youth some 1,2 billion are seeking jobs, according to the International Labor Organization. A quarter of these youth come from the Middle and North Africa. What this will mean for the political stability of this region is obvious. Their fate will be a human tragedy. But they may also be used in bringing about much havoc. From past experience we know that frustrated and desperate youth are easy pray to various radical political movements.
The plight of Palestinians is fueling the minds of the radical elements throughout the Islamic world. For some the conflict is about serious and genuine issues of rights and injustice as well as religious and cultural values. For some on the other hand, the conflict is a convenient front, an excuse, for political activities which have very little if anything at all, to do with the issues of the rights of Palestinians or the control of holy places. The Palestinian cause is not only hijacked for political purposes by extremist groups but also by many mainstream Muslim leaders alike. This does not really help in solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The emotional nature of the issue for publics makes clear analysis of the real issues almost impossible.
This is why I strongly believe that the key to any lasting and firm construction for peace is the settlement to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If the conflict is not settled, the hopes for finding a solution to many other problems will be much more difficult, if not outright impossible. The two state solution must remain the basis for peace. However developments on the ground, especially continuing settlement expansion and the division between the West Bank and Gaza poses serious challenges for the two-state solution. International support for state-building efforts in West Bank has been impressive. However we should not be blind to the negative effects that the striking imbalance between our treatment of West Bankers compared to Gazans causes for the peace process. Palestinian reconciliation is a precondition for successful peace talks. Based on my wide experience of peace processes, without consensual support for peace negotiations on both sides, the talks are determined to fail.
Often political crisis and conflicts tell us more about human nature than the genuine political interests at play. One of the problems we face is the demonization of parties to the conflict. As long as the other party is seen as unreasonable, unreliable even dishonest any peaceful settlement will be beyond reach. There is much talk of the need for confidence building. In my view confidence is best build if the parties to a conflict see real interests for themselves in finding solutions. Sometimes, however, a protracted conflict may serve the parochial and selfish interests of some of the parties to the conflict. There are those whose position in their societies and their influence and standing entirely depends on the prolongation of the conflict. Often there is not enough will for peace. This is why an enlightened public opinion is so important. There will be no peace unless those suffering from the conflicts make a determined effort to win peace.