Desire for freedom holds NATO together

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Washington, U.S.

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 Sept. 11? 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?

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.

Sept. 11 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 Sept. 11, terrible though it was, is but a pale shadow of what will happen if terrorists use weapons of massive destruction.

Our approach has to aim at prevention and not merely punishment. We are at war. The only defense against terrorism is to "take the war to the enemy"; the best defense is a good offense. 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.

No one who has seen the images of Sept. 11 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.

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.

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. Yet, there are already important lessons to be learned from what has been accomplished so far. 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."

As a corollary, there will not be a single coalition, but rather different coalitions for different missions, "flexible" coalitions, as the Secretary calls them. In fact, our policy in this war has been to accept help from countries on whatever basis is most comfortable for 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.

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 through 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-Qaeda and the Taliban. To the country, they abhor terrorism and the way that the terrorists have not only hijacked airplanes but also attempted to hijack 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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. That spirit is still alive and strong twenty years later.

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."

This article was abridged from the writer's address to the Munich Conference on European Security Policy on Feb. 2 in Munich, Germany.