Embassy Events

Common Security Challenges for Slovakia and U.S.: Chargé Eddins in Liptovský Mikuláš

U.S. Security Policy under President Obama

Speech by Chargé d’Affaires Keith Eddins

I am honored to represent my still-new President today; in November 2008 the American people voted for a change in policy, a change in direction.

President Obama has only been in office five months, but he and his administration are setting a new tone in Washington, and in America's global relationships.

Our policies are rooted in the need for America and our allies to meet common challenges; addressing these challenges represents an absolute necessity for the U.S., NATO, the EU, and entire global community.

Speaking to a security conference at a military academy, I would normally begin by discussing issues of physical security – bombs and missiles, if you will. But this year, more than ever before, we know that our physical security and our economic security are indivisible.

As nations and as individuals, we continue to confront a global threat to our economies that could erode the progress we've made in improving the lives of all our citizens.

In the United States we have taken aggressive action to stabilize our financial systems and to stimulate our still-ailing economy; we've investing in job creation, and – in the process – seeking to boost productivity and long-term competitiveness.

In the U.S. we hope to double the production of alternative energy over the next few years and once again invest in science, research, and technology – all of which spur innovation.

We have largely stabilized U.S. and global financial markets and institutions by injecting considerable capital, purchasing some assets, and guaranteeing others.

And although our remedies are not identical to those chosen by Europe – not to mention individual states within the EU, such as Slovakia – we have nevertheless cooperated closely to ensure that our actions have been complementary, not contradictory.

But even as America has grappled with a financial crisis and economic recession, President Obama also confronted wars he inherited in Afghanistan (now in its eighth year) and Iraq (now well into its sixth year). He inherited an uncertain relationship with Russia. He inherited a very difficult relationship with Iran. And he has long recognized that the United States must acknowledge the need to address a warming planet.

But in meeting security challenges, the United States will be guided by a simple principle: There is no conflict between our security and our ideals. We believe they are mutually reinforcing.

From the very moment we unilaterally declared our independence from Great Britain, we laid out to the world the values behind our revolution and the conviction that our policies must be informed, as we said at the time, by a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind."

Our Founders understood then, and the United States believes now, that the example of our power must be matched by the power of our example. And that is why President Obama’s administration rejects a false choice between our safety and our ideals.

As hard as we try, we're sure to fall short of our ideals in the future, just as we have at times in the past. But the Obama administration will strive every day -- every day -- to honor the values that animate American democracy and, I might add, that bind us to Europe, to Slovakia, and to all of you in this room.

But tough choices lie ahead – and we recognize that we'll need Europe’s help. We'll need your help.

Our security is shared. And so is our responsibility to defend it. As we are doing today in Afghanistan.

NATO will continue to pursue a stable Afghanistan that's not a haven for terrorists. We look forward to sharing that commitment with the government and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and with all of our allies and partners, because a deteriorating situation in the region poses a security threat to much of the world.

At the NATO Summit, we agreed on key aspects of a plan for greater military and civilian cooperation. Our allies – including Slovakia – pledged some 3000 troops for election support and established a NATO monitoring and training mission for Afghanistan.

We continue to believe that our key NATO allies – as Slovakia plans to do – need to lessen the caveats and restrictions they have placed on some of their troops. And, as they U.S. has done, we believe they need to increase the number of combat troops there as we move to get the security situation under firmer control.

But we also hope that our allies will – as Slovakia plans to do – increase they civilian presence in the region, with a particularly focus on reconstruction and stabilization. And we all must focus more attention and support on Pakistan, to bolster the civilian government in Islamabad and encourage its efforts to combat the Taliban and other extremists along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Russia. As a diplomat, I spent two years in Moscow in the mid-1990s, then spent two more years working directly on our Russian policy from Washington.

I can assure you that the United States has long rejected the notion that NATO's gain is Russia's loss, or that Russia's strength is NATO's weakness.

To use the jargon of political science, relations between Russia and the West are not a zero-sum game; they never have been.

Unfortunately, however, the past few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of our Alliance. President Obama has thus sought – both bilaterally and through NATO – to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working more closely together with Russia.

Our Russian colleagues long ago warned about the rising threat of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Today, NATO and Russia can, and should, cooperate to defeat this common enemy.

We can and should cooperate to secure nuclear weapons and any loose fissile materials to prevent their spread, to renew the START Treaty, and then to go beyond existing treaties to negotiate deeper cuts in both our arsenals.

In this regard, let me be clear: The United States and Russia have a special obligation to lead the international effort to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. And I can assure that we take that obligation seriously.

But we will not agree with Russia on everything. For example, the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

And it will remain our view that sovereign states – such as Ukraine and Georgia – have the right to make their own domestic and foreign policy decisions and to choose their own alliances, if any.

And we believe that any formal talks on creating a new European security treaty belong within the framework of the OSCE, which is – of course – based on principles of the Helsinki Final Act. And those are principles that we hold dear and certainly do not want to call into question – even if some others might.

But the United States and Russia can disagree and still work together where our interests coincide. We welcome a dialogue with President Medvedev and Foreign Minister Lavrov, as President Obama and Secretary Clinton have already begun. Because, in many – if not most – areas, our interests coincide with Russia’s. And while we will never shy away from a serious discussion of our disagreements, it is those common interests that the U.S. wants and needs to cultivate at this time.

Although I know this is a security conference, I began by talking about the global economic situation. Now I would also like to address climate change – briefly – given the huge implications it has for Earth’s future.

President Obama and the United States are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet. Once again, we are prepared to lead by example. America will act aggressively against climate change and in pursuit of energy security with like-minded nations.

The economic stimulus package that we adopted in February includes long-term investments in renewable energy. Our House of Representatives has just passed a bill that mandates reductions in carbon emissions and allows American companies to trade carbon credits while lowering overall carbon pollution over the coming decades.

The bill's passage is testament to the changing dynamic in the American public, which has become far more convinced of the dangers of global warming. As President Obama said Friday: "There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It's happening. And there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy." They will.

For that reason, one of the President’s first appointments was a climate change envoy, who is working closely with his colleagues in the European Union to achieve a follow-on agreement to the Kyoto Protocols.

Working together, we can ensure that at Copenhagen later this year we are able to adopt a truly global approach to global warming. Such an approach will include the reduction of greenhouse gases, while not simply preserving jobs but actually creating them.

Let me wrap-up by addressing the situation in Iran.

The Persian civilization is a great civilization. But the Iranian government has long pursued policies that are neither conducive to peace in the region nor to the aspirations of its own people. Recent developments represent one clear manifestation of this approach. Iran’s illicit nuclear program represents another.

Before he took office, President Obama clearly stated the U.S. would review its policy toward Iran; above all, he said we were willing to talk. Before June 12, we had made some significant steps forward – at least in diplomatic terms – meeting with senior Iranian officials on the margins of international conferences, and even inviting Iranian ambassadors to our July 4 receptions.

Our basic message presented a clear choice to Iran: Remain on your old course and there would be continued pressure and isolation; abandon your illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism, and there could be meaningful incentives, concrete steps forward.

What has happened since June 12 – what is still happening – is a step backward, not just for possible dialogue and engagement, but for the Iranian people.

We do not know how events in Tehran will end; we do not know how many more students will be beaten or jailed; we do not know how many more young Iranian women will die. But we do know that we stand with those seeking justice in a peaceful way. We stand with those who believe that the voice of the people should be heard.

Iranian demonstrators have shown bravery in the face of brutality; if the Iranian government wants the respect of the international community, it must respect the rights and heed the will of its people. And thus direct U.S. engagement with Iran over its nuclear program will have to wait until the situation there becomes clearer. I don’t know when that will be, but Iran cannot count on the world community turning a blind eye to the violence.

And, whatever the government or the clergy in Tehran may say, we all know that this is not the U.S. or the EU or the West versus Iran; this is Iran’s ruling class versus its own people.

President Obama is committing to recapturing the totality of America's strength, starting with diplomacy.

America will extend a hand to those who will, as President Obama said in his inaugural address, unclench their fists. The United States of America does not believe in a clash of civilizations; there is nothing inevitable about that. We'll do everything in our collective power to help the forces of tolerance prevail.

Hundreds of millions of hearts and minds in the Muslim world share the values we hold dearly. We must reach them. As President Obama made clear in his recent speech from Cairo, we seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

And that renewed commitment to respect and engagement extends not just to the Moslem world, but to the whole world.

Thank you.