*EPF503 06/28/2002
Transcript: Amb. Sobel Remarks in The Hague on the War on Terrorism
(Cites new threats, challenges facing freedom loving nations) (3860)

U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Clifford M. Sobel outlined the progress made by the international community in the war on terrorism since the September 11 attacks, as well as the challenges ahead, in a speech to representatives from the Dutch banking community and the Dutch government June 27 in The Hague.

The ambassador stressed that "the threats of the 21st century are far more dangerous than their forerunners." Terrorists and their sponsors "want to use our technology against us, whether in the form of Internet communications, airliners turned missiles, or nuclear physics. The most ruthless of these groups seek not just to assassinate or kidnap individuals but to undermine governments and to disrupt entire societies."

One of the major points he wanted to make, Sobel said, is that "the threats we face come not only from transnational terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, but from rogue governments actively working to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear arms. This is a threat we had all better take seriously, and we had all better take it seriously -- now."

"It is an unacceptable risk to tolerate states that support terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Sobel thanked the Dutch government for its contributions to the war on terrorism and urged its continuing engagement with "the growing family of nations that have come together to fight terrorism and to promote tolerance, social justice and democracy."

Noting that "today's humanitarian problem can become tomorrow's strategic threat," he discussed the importance of integrating more nations into the global trade community, and of increasing military and economic cooperation, scientific and humanitarian initiatives, and investment and development assistance in poorer countries.

And the ambassador quoted President Bush on the need to promote "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity; namely, rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, equal justice, and religious tolerance."

Sobel also pointed out that homeland security is as important to the Netherlands as it is to the United States, and praised the Dutch government's participation in counterterrorism programs such as the Embassy's Safe Borders Initiative, and the U.S. Customs Service's Container Security Initiative.

In outlining some fundamentals of U.S. foreign policy, he stressed the importance of American leadership as well as partnership "with other freedom-loving nations." Furthermore, "we will not be shackled by past animosities," he said, "and so we will continue to integrate Russia, China, India, the Arab world, the African countries, and others, into our efforts to create a better future based on our common values."

And Sobel reminded his audience that "on the war on terrorism, we are making progress. But we have much to do and it requires our long-term commitment."

Following is a transcript of his remarks provided by the U.S. Embassy in The Hague:

(begin transcript)

Museum Het Paleis
The Hague
Thursday, June 27, 2002

WAR ON TERRORISM; THE PROGRESS THUS FAR, THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

U.S. Ambassador Clifford M. Sobel

Thank you for that kind introduction. And my congratulations to you, your colleagues, and SNS Bank on the initiation of this lecture series. And my thanks to all of the distinguished guests who have joined us this evening.

President Bush has described this 21st century war as a war against "Terrorism with a global reach." Your presence here tonight is a reflection of the international community's commitment to win this war.

Tonight, there are several points I want to emphasize:

-- First, the Dutch have been important contributors to date, but the new government has much to consider.

-- Homeland security is as important to the Netherlands as it is to the United States.

-- The Dutch must stay engaged with the growing family of nations that have come together to fight terrorism and to promote tolerance, social justice and democracy.

-- It is important to keep in mind that the threats of the 21st century are far more dangerous than their forerunners. It is an unacceptable risk to tolerate states that support terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction.

-- Finally, American leadership and partnership with other freedom loving nations must be the building blocks of our eventual success.

Last month, the Dutch people suffered a blow with the pointless murder of Pym Fortuyn. On May 6th, for the first time in modern Dutch history, an assassin's bullet not only struck down a human life, but also the image of the Netherlands as a country removed from political violence. This tragedy marked the end of the belief that "it can't happen here."

For our part, the tragic events of September 11th forced Americans to see clearly that our oceans and our military power alone do not make us safe. We were faced with the reality that if we do not engage with the world, the world will engage with us.

Let there be no mistake -- today's battles are just the beginning of a struggle between good and evil, fought by those who cherish democratic institutions and values and those who seek to impose their ideology by terror. As President Bush said after the attacks of September 11th: "This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom."

Since September, the global community has responded magnificently. The battle against terrorism has brought together countries of different cultures, politics, and religions, united in a common effort. Terrorism cast its shadow across the globe, but the world's resolve to defeat it has never been greater. Working together, we have achieved initial results that many of the skeptics said were impossible.

On the diplomatic front, the UN, the EU, the OSCE, and other multilateral bodies are working actively to deny the terrorists support and safe haven. Our joint military commitment is strong and effective. Seventy countries are supporting the war, 20 of which have deployed military forces. In Afghanistan alone, our coalition partners are contributing more than 7,000 troops.

Nine months ago, Afghanistan was in the grip of a ruthless regime that terrorized its own citizens. Skeptics were warning that Afghanistan was an impregnable fortress. But last week, representatives from all regions and strata of a liberated Afghanistan selected a representative government.

The case of Pakistan is particularly dramatic. Faced with a stark decision, President Musharraf made the courageous choice to stand with the United States and the rest of the international community against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Our enemies' scheme to destabilize Pakistan did not succeed. Instead, Pakistan today is a vital ally in the war on terrorism.

The United States has expanded long-standing programs to train and equip the counterterrorist forces of countries in danger, such as Georgia and the Philippines. Police and intelligence organizations are working harder, smarter, and closer. More than 90 nations have arrested or detained over 2,400 terrorists and their supporters. More than 180 countries have offered or are providing assistance in the war on terrorism. Several countries that remain on the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism have taken positive steps since September 11th.

The Syrian government, for example, has cooperated with the United States and with other foreign governments in investigating al-Qaeda. The Sudanese government has stepped up its counterterrorism cooperation with the U.S. and has investigated and apprehended terrorists. Around the world, governments and individuals are rejecting the bankrupt concept that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

American policy on this issue has been crystal clear. When we talk about terrorism, we are talking about the premeditated murder of innocent civilians. There can be no peace when political differences and grievances are used to justify the murder of the innocent.

Permit me to review the Dutch contribution: Dutch troops are in Afghanistan. Dutch ships are seeking out terrorists and Dutch aircraft are involved in allied efforts. Closer to home, the Dutch government and financial institutions are moving against terrorist financial networks. Terrorist suspects have been arrested.

In the critical field of counterterrorist border security, the U.S. and the Netherlands are moving with unprecedented speed to implement model programs under the umbrella of the Embassy's Safe Borders Initiative.

The Netherlands has three distinctions which make it an excellent country for model programs whose aim is the secure movement of people and products:
- First, the Netherlands has a critical role in global trade;
- Second, the longstanding trust and cooperation between our law enforcement agencies; and
- Third, the high level of Dutch technological innovation.

America's Director of Homeland Security, Governor Tom Ridge, supports our Safe Border Initiative. He recently met with a group of Parliamentarians to discuss the program and has asked to be kept closely informed of our progress. The Safe Borders Initiative is already achieving important results.

A few months ago, U.S. Customs Commissioner Bonner called me to propose the deployment of U.S. Customs officers to the Port of Rotterdam as the spearhead of a global program to prevent terrorist use of commercial shipping. This program is called the "Container Security Initiative." Two days ago, I was present here in The Hague as Finance Minister Zalm and Commissioner Bonner signed a Declaration of Principles making this proposal a reality. U.S. Customs officers are already at work beside their Dutch colleagues at this vital world port.

On the aviation security front, beginning this week, thanks to Justice Minister Korthals and the IND, Schiphol Airport is hosting U.S. Immigration officers, who are working with Dutch counterparts to further improve airline security at Schiphol.

The Embassy is also working with the Finance Ministry and the National Bank. Our aim is to develop innovative means of exchanging data on terrorist financial movements -- a program with the potential to be a model for other nations. And, we are consulting on further avenues of cooperation, such as development of new biometric technologies to identify travelers.

The Netherlands has much to offer in the global struggle against terrorism. Our bilateral cooperation is most definitely a two-way street. I commend your efforts to redirect the BVD -- now the AIVD -- to be more outward-looking and to build up your abilities to respond to chemical and biological attacks. In these areas, and in all other areas of increasing security, we are pleased to cooperate and work with you.

Regarding further security steps, both America and the Netherlands are having to respond to one of the toughest challenges that free nations face in wartime -- how to focus the power of a country without sacrificing the freedoms of its citizens. The need for fresh thinking is clear.

For example, existing policy guidelines prevent the government from using so-called criminal infiltrants -- including defectors from terrorist organizations. It is time for these guidelines to be reexamined in the context of the terrorist threat.

In the U.S., we have developed a concept of "Homeland Security." President Bush has outlined four main tasks for our proposed new Cabinet-level Department. In other countries, many of these functions would be carried out by an interior ministry. The four tasks include:
- First, to control U.S. borders and prevent terrorists and weapons from entering.
- Second, to work with state and local authorities to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies.
- Third, to develop technologies to detect biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and to develop new drugs and treatments. This is an area that is so important, it cannot be left to a committee or task force for future consideration.
- The fourth task of homeland security is to review intelligence from all government agencies to produce a single daily report on terrorist threats and make sure it is reviewed by senior members of government.

The new Dutch government is going to have to give immediate and serious consideration to the homeland security in the Netherlands. Are resources sufficient? Should responsibilities be consolidated among ministries? And, should the 46-point action plan announced by the government after September 11 be reevaluated or updated?

So far, I have addressed the events of September 11th and progress to date. Now, I need to turn to the even greater threat we still face, and how we need to deal with it.

Terrorists are still capable and determined to carry out further attacks, most probably in the U.S., Europe, or in the Middle East. We must work on improving existing means of international cooperation against them, and on devising new ones. While avoiding complacency, we can take heart from our successes so far against future threats. Deploying economic, diplomatic and military leverage, the U.S. and its partners have driven some nations to cease or severely curtail their use of terror as a tool of statecraft.

In other cases, the mere threat of being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism - of having the spotlight shined on their activities - has been sufficient to move governments away from terrorist sponsorship. Compared with earlier generations of terrorists, the transnational 21st Century terrorist organizations and the hard core of state sponsors pose more severe challenges.

The dozens of transnational groups we face today are well funded, mobile, and clever. They are far more dangerous than their forerunners. They want to use our technology against us, whether in the form of Internet communications, airliners turned missiles, or nuclear physics. The most ruthless of these groups seek not just to assassinate or kidnap individuals but to undermine governments and to disrupt entire societies.

It was once said that terrorists wanted "a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead." Those rules have changed. In Afghanistan, we found confirmation that al-Qaeda is seriously interested in nuclear and radiological weapons, and in biological and chemical agents.

You will have read of the most recent arrest of an al-Qaeda operative entering the U.S. with the intention of carrying out a radiological attack. Morever -- and this is perhaps the most important point I wish to leave with you tonight -- the threats we face come not only from transnational terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, but from rogue governments actively working to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear arms. This is a threat we had all better take seriously, and we had all better take it seriously -- now.

We are especially concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that would develop and stockpile such weapons. The entire world community should see this as unacceptable. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we have a dictator who is clearly pursuing these deadly capabilities -- defying the U.N. resolutions he agreed to and throwing U.N. weapons inspectors out of his country. Saddam has also shown that he is willing to use weapons of mass destruction. He used them in his war against Iran, and has used them against his own people.

As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said earlier this month, Iraq has chemical weapons and continues to develop them. Iraq has an active program to develop nuclear weapons. And the Iraqis are actively developing biological weapons. The gathering danger requires a careful, deliberate, and decisive response by America and its Allies. A regime that has gassed thousands of its own citizens must never be permitted to threaten us with such weapons.

President Bush has stated the need for the United States and our allies to be prepared to strike first in the face of nuclear, chemical or biological threats from "terrorists and tyrants." Cold war policies of deterrence and containment do not fit current realities.

It is noteworthy that Iraq's willingness to accede to international inspections of its weapons program rises and falls according to the level of unified pressure from the world community. When Iraq perceives that the pressure is diminishing, Baghdad's willingness to accept inspections falls as well.

Together, we must break this pattern. We do not know how long this struggle will continue, but we do know how it must end.

Let me quote President Bush again: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they will follow that path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends; in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."

But what of the future that we need to build now? As the Dutch philosopher Spinoza said, "Peace is more than the absence of war." We have much work before us if we are to build a world free from fear and want. In the 21st century, we are faced both with the continuation of 20th century conflicts, and by the emergence of new transnational challenges.

It is for this reason that in the 21st century, America's foreign policy is committed to building peace, prosperity and justice for a global society by means of integration. Integration is bringing nations together through frameworks of cooperation. Through the process of integration, we seek to help bring into the globalized world those who have previously been left out. In this era of globalization, our destiny is intertwined with the fate of others, so our success must be a shared success.

Across the spectrum of endeavor from military and economic cooperation to scientific and humanitarian initiatives, we seek to develop "coalitions" on the governmental level and, where appropriate, as public-private partnerships.

It is important to bear in mind what President Bush has termed "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity; namely, rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, equal justice, and religious tolerance." These are universal values that people everywhere would benefit from.

As Secretary Powell likes to point out, we live in a time of historic opportunity. With war between great powers almost unthinkable, we can turn our efforts from containment and deterrence to consultation and cooperation. We can move from a balance of power to a pooling of power.

We are doing this in NATO -- where the new themes include new capabilities, new members, and new relations -- and also in the Organization of American States, the United Nations, and numerous other organizations. Our relationship with our European allies are evolving. The bonds across the Atlantic are being stretched in new ways -- at times, even strained -- but the bonds remain strong.

Dutch leadership -- political, economic, and moral -- can play a pivotal role in this process. To cite one avenue: in 2003 the Netherlands will take on the chairmanship of the OSCE. Under Dutch leadership, the organization has a unique opportunity in the Balkans to strengthen judicial and police structures, to ease tensions, and create conditions for prosperity.

Regarding global economic development, the Bush Administration is aggressively promoting trade as a way to integrate more nations and peoples into a stable, prosperous and equitable international order. Some nations are not yet able to tap into the benefits of the globalized economy because of their institutional and economic weaknesses. It would be morally repugnant -- and defy our nation's deepest values -- to ignore the plight of the citizens of such countries. And, as Afghanistan has taught us all too well, it would also be unwise to look away when states begin to fail.

Today's humanitarian problem can become tomorrow's strategic threat. It is for reasons such as these that the United States is pressing for fundamental reforms in how the World Bank handles development assistance. And, that is why President Bush announced a bold initiative to dramatically increase our core assistance by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in a $5 billion [$5,000 million] annual increase by 2006.

The Millennium Challenge Account will be allocated according to criteria that stress the connections among good governance, the rule of law, investment in people, open markets, and poverty reduction. President Bush stated in Monterrey that we seek to support governments "that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom." The President pointed out that when nations adopt reforms, each dollar of aid attracts two dollars of private investment.

I am sure that the Netherlands will continue to be a major donor of development aid. I look forward to working cooperatively with the government on programs that provide early seed money for those most in need. Considering the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy in its entirety, you can see how basic principles of multilateralism are helping us implement our goals for an integrated global society. Certain fundamentals of American foreign policy are already clear.

First and foremost: American leadership is essential. We are aware that with power comes great responsibility. We take our responsibility seriously. Yet leadership demands, as President Bush has emphasized on many occasions, a sense of humility. We have no monopoly on wisdom.

Second, in pursuing multilateral initiatives in this era, we will not be shackled by past animosities. Ultimately, we are interested in results. And so we will continue to integrate Russia, China, India, the Arab world, the African countries, and others, into our efforts to create a better future based on our common values. This is an era of new partnerships and new relationships.

Third, we do not expect every nation to make the same commitment to every coalition. Instead, we should expect our coalitions to be dynamic and embrace the benefits of division of labor.

And fourth, the United States has unique responsibilities. Our desire to work cooperatively with others does not imply a willingness on our part to agree to unsound efforts just because they are popular. We will listen, learn, and modify policies when we hear compelling arguments. We may not always agree on the approach, but we will keep moving toward the same goals.

As I conclude with you tonight, I want to emphasize:
- The Dutch have been important contributors to date, but the new government has much to consider;
- Homeland security is as important to the Netherlands as it is to the United States;
- The Dutch must stay engaged with the growing family of nations that have come together to fight terrorism and to promote tolerance, social justice and democracy;
- It is important to keep in mind that the threats of the 21st century are far more dangerous than their forerunners. It is an unacceptable risk to tolerate states that support terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction;
- Finally, American leadership and partnership with other freedom-loving nations must be the building blocks of our eventual success. On the war on terrorism, we are making progress. But we have much to do and it requires our long-term commitment.

President Franklin Roosevelt, 60 years ago, used words that are as relevant today as they were then, when he said: "Future generations will know that here, in the middle of the 20th century, there came a time when men of good will found a way to unite, and produce, and fight, to destroy the forces of ignorance, and intolerance, and slavery, and war."

Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents