Press Releases
|
|
|
Print this page |
REMARKS BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN AT THE DEAN ACHESON LECTURE AT U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE
May 19, 2011
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will receive the 4th annual Acheson Award and deliver the Acheson Lecture at the United States Institute of Peace today, Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. ET in Washington, D.C.:
“Thank you, Dick [Solomon], for that kind introduction. And thank you for your leadership of the U.S Institute of Peace. I appreciate the essential work that USIP is doing, both here in Washington and out in the field, to help prevent conflict, which is directly relevant to and supportive of our men and women in uniform.
“I also want to thank Dick for acknowledging that this event and my remarks tonight on the Middle East were planned in advance of the President’s speech at the State Department today. It is impossible to upstage any president, especially one as eloquent as President Obama. So anyone who is tempted to see a conspiracy in tonight’s program has a far higher estimation of my speechmaking prowess than I do – and a far lower estimation of Dick Solomon’s judgment than is appropriate. But one thing I think we can all agree on is that I certainly got the nicer venue.
“I am honored to have this opportunity to deliver USIP’s Dean Acheson Lecture. I am a great admirer of Acheson, but as a career legislator, I’m not supposed to have any kind words for him. After all, here is how Acheson described his interactions with Congress: ‘In making our calls, particularly in the Senate,’ Acheson wrote, ‘we learned to bear the irrelevant with more than patience as it ate up precious time. Those who assert that I do not suffer fools gladly…do me less than justice for these anguishing hours.’ Some things never change.
“I am especially honored to speak with you this year, on the tenth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. And I am very pleased that Osama bin Laden won’t be around to mark the occasion. The President deserves the credit he is receiving for that superb achievement. And I especially commend him for ordering a raid, rather than simply turning bin Laden’s compound into a smoldering crater. That took real courage. The risks of failure were far higher, as were the dangers to our troops, but the President’s decision spared many innocent lives, preserved an intelligence windfall, and ultimately gave us the certainty that bin Laden is dead.
“This is a major setback for the global terrorist movement, but it is another recent development that could prove to be the real deathblow. I am referring of course to what some are calling the Arab Spring – the massive and almost entirely peaceful uprisings for freedom and justice that have swept across the Middle East and North Africa this year. And perhaps the most remarkable thing about this movement? It is not about us. Though millions of people have taken to the streets in protest, passionately, zealously, often filled with outrage, I cannot recall seeing one American flag burned. Nor can I recall seeing one Israeli flag burned.
“Instead, the demonstrations have been a collective demand for human dignity, economic opportunity, and peaceful political change. In this way, the Arab Spring is the profoundest repudiation imaginable of everything Osama bin Laden ever stood for. It should also put to rest the ugly claim, heard all too often over the past decade, that the Arab world is somehow condemned to despotism – that unlike people everywhere else, Arabs are not ready, not capable, or not fit for democracy.
“Though we did not initiate it or lead it, the Arab Spring should be a clarifying event for the United States. It is now clear that, in the decade since the September 11 attacks, the old regional order in the Middle East has been in a steady state of collapse. And now, many of the last remaining pillars have either fallen or are badly shaken. This should certainly give us pause. If history teaches us anything, it is that revolutionary moments like this one always have the seeds of chaos and conflict sewn within them. And indeed, we can already see the dark forces of sectarian strife, religious radicalism, and rapacious regional powers lurking in the background, eager to exploit this hopeful moment for their own sinister ends.
“We cannot be paralyzed by this tectonic change. Instead, we must work to shape it. In the last few months, I have visited nine countries in the Middle East and North Africa, in addition to Israel and the West Bank. Among the many democracy advocates and young revolutionaries I have met, there is definitely a degree of skepticism, even a certain amount of anger, toward the United States. Many of them believe that we stuck too long with the rulers they were trying to overthrow. But this does not mean that they want America to be neutral or non-aligned. To the contrary, they want American leadership, and they want us on their side, and for their cause – not dictating to them, but supporting them and assisting them.
“I believe this Arab Spring is the most consequential geopolitical event since the end of the Cold War, perhaps since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. And it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for the United States to better align our interests and our values in a region where they have often diverged. It is an opportunity to rebuild the bipartisan consensus that existed in this country just a few years ago: that promoting human rights and democracy in the Middle East is not only in our moral interest, but also in our strategic interest. Just as Dean Acheson joined forces with Senator Arthur Vandenberg to solidify the Cold War consensus of containing communism and supporting free peoples, this is a moment that calls for similar national unity. This is a moment when we must clearly define what we stand for, not just what we are against. In short, this is a moment when America must lead.
“The question for us now is, what will be the contours of the new regional order in the Middle East? And how can we support our friends and allies in building it? I would submit to you that we should focus our efforts on four strategic objectives.
“The first objective is the peaceful change of regimes that are irreconcilably tyrannical, anti-American, and hostile to the democratic regional order that we seek to build. Put simply, these are regimes that are incompatible with a freer, more peaceful Middle East. And at the top of the list is the current government of Iran.
“It should be clear for all to see that the Iranian regime has no plans to bargain away its nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, it is using this threatening pursuit to further its hegemonic ambitions in the region. Iran operates a network of terrorist proxies and military-intelligence forces that use every means at their disposal to destabilize our friends, disrupt democratic transitions, and stoke sectarian conflict. Though the Arab Spring is a repudiation of Iran’s goals and could serve as a check on its power, Iran is doubling its efforts to sew chaos at this critical time. That is why our strategy should be to squeeze Iran through the toughest sanctions we can muster, set back its nuclear progress as much as possible, and speed up the moment when the Green Movement inside Iran is able to peacefully change the regime.
“In addition to Iran there is Syria. Now, I know some have entertained the belief that Bashar al Assad is a reformer. But at this point, with Assad’s tanks, and artillery, and shock troops terrorizing cities across the country…after countless peaceful dissidents have been detained and disappeared…with the Assad regime soliciting counsel in oppression from the rulers of Iran…and with the death toll in Syria now closing in on one thousand civilians, to believe despite all of this that Bashar al Assad is a reformer is an exercise in gross self-deception.
“Lest we forget, this is a regime that has the blood of hundreds of U.S. troops and countless Iraqi civilians on its hands…that serves as the main gateway for Iranian influence and weapons into the Levant…that is a major state sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah in the region…that has sought to develop nuclear weapons before and may be doing so again now...and that is seeking to divert attention away from its own internal unrest by fomenting attacks on Israel’s borders. For those worried about whom or what might follow Assad, I would just ask: How can it be worse?
“Indeed, the strategic impact of regime change in Syria could be enormous: It could blunt Iran’s reach into the Levant, remove a long-standing threat to Israel, diminish Hezbollah’s access to money and arms, and reinforce Lebanon’s independence. We must do all that we can, short of military action, to help the Syrian revolution succeed. I commend the President for imposing additional sanctions on top Syrian officials, including Assad himself. And I would urge the administration to continue ratcheting up the pressure, in concert with the EU and Turkey. The President should also call publicly for Assad to go, just as he did with Mubarak and Qaddafi.
“Finally, we must seek regime change in Libya, which may not be the stated intent of NATO’s military intervention, but it is certainly furthering that goal, as it should. What I would like us to do differently is move away from an incremental escalation of pressure on Qaddafi in favor of a more decisive course of action. That is why I have called for getting America’s unique strike aircraft back into the fight to degrade Qaddafi’s war machine and destroy his command and control. That is why I have urged the administration to recognize the Transitional National Council in Benghazi as the legitimate voice of the Libyan people. And that is why I want to see a greater U.S. role in providing support to the opposition, including money and the facilitation of arms. In fact, my colleagues and I will soon finalize legislation to transfer billions of dollars in Qaddafi’s frozen assets to the Libyan opposition.
“Nonetheless, I still hear it said that we shouldn’t do any of this because we don’t know who the opposition is – and that they could be Al-Qaeda. This is just willful ignorance. I visited Benghazi last month, where I met with the opposition. Their Prime Minister got a doctorate at the University of Pittsburgh. Their Finance Minister was recently teaching economics in Seattle. Some are former members of Qaddafi’s government who broke with him when he began slaughtering the Libyan people. Others are lawyers, doctors, women activists who fought Qaddafi in the courts, and young Libyan-Americans who have returned to help. If these people are Al-Qaeda, my friends, then I am a liberal Democrat. But one thing is for certain: The surest way to get Al-Qaeda in Libya is through a stalemate.
“Ultimately, my trip to Benghazi left me optimistic about the future of a free Libya. An amazing experiment in homegrown civil society is occurring in the liberated parts of the country. Media outlets, political associations, police forces, and other institutions are being built from scratch. Qaddafi has left the country little in the way of authoritarian institutions to dismantle and much in the way of frozen assets, more than $100 billion in total, to pay for future reconstruction. All of this makes me hopeful that Libya is well positioned for a democratic transition, which is all the more reason to increase our efforts to get Qaddafi out as quickly as possible.
“As we work to support democratic revolutions in Iran, Syria and Libya, our second objective should be to consolidate democratic transitions in countries where they have already begun, especially in Tunisia and Egypt. Tunisia is where the Arab Spring started, and thus it is strategically important for democracy to succeed there. And Egypt, of course, is the heart and soul of the Arab world. For Egypt to emerge as a successful democracy would be a game-changer in the Middle East. It would become the anchor of stability in an entirely new kind of regional order.
“Not surprisingly, both Tunisia and Egypt have significant challenges to overcome in their democratic transitions. Both countries have a huge amount of work to do if they are to hold free, fair, inclusive and competitive elections in a few months – the stakes of which are vitally important as a benchmark of democratic progress. Both countries are facing an explosion of political activity – Tunisia, I’m told, now has 63 registered parties – which will make it harder for secular groups to compete with better-organized religious ones. Finally, both countries are facing serious short-term economic difficulties as a result of their revolutions. Their tourism sectors have been shocked. When Senator Lieberman and I visited Tunis in February, we stayed in a huge hotel, and we were the only ones there. Similarly, when I visited the pyramids a few weeks ago in Cairo, the place was deserted.
“It is the economies of these countries that will largely determine their political fortunes. Expectations in Tunisia and Egypt are sky high. Everyone expects the benefits of democracy to come quickly and all at once. And many fear what will happen if these expectations are not met. As one women’s rights activist told me in Tunisia: ‘It is not the first election we worry about; it is the second election.’”
“These young people appreciate our assistance with their elections, but what they want most from America is our investment, our support in creating jobs. For this reason, I strongly support the new economic assistance initiatives that the President announced today – from debt forgiveness, to the announcement of Free Enterprise Funds, to the proposed expansion of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I have worked with Senator Kerry to draft the authorizing legislation for many of these new initiatives, and they can make an important difference.
“But ultimately, no one should expect this Congress to pass a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. These new members were elected to cut spending, not to increase foreign assistance. Like it or not, that’s just a fact. So if we are to going to help countries like Tunisia and Egypt to grow their economies, we will need to be much more innovative. We should move urgently to begin negotiations on free trade agreements with Egypt and Tunisia – and to explore ideas for new free trade areas in the Middle East and North Africa. We will need to find creative ways to marshal the support of our private sector, as well as the generosity of wealthy partners like Qatar, whose leadership during the Arab Spring has been indispensible. It is in this spirit that I will be teaming up with Jeff Immelt of GE to lead a delegation of American CEOs to Egypt and Tunisia next month. Our goal is to reinforce the message that greater democratic reform can lead to greater foreign investment.
“Beyond Tunisia and Egypt, there is another country that can and should continue to emerge as a pillar of stability in a democratic Middle East – Iraq. I traveled to Baghdad, Irbil, and Kirkuk two weeks ago, and Iraq’s democratic system continues to take two steps forward and one step back. But it is largely going in the right direction. The key decision now is whether we will keep a small military presence in the country beyond this year. The goal of such a presence would be to help the Iraqi Security Forces fill critical gaps in their capabilities, such as intelligence, air sovereignty, and stability operations along the Arab-Kurd fault line. I’m confident that we can reach a new security agreement with Iraq – and that this can be a cornerstone in its continued development as an example that people of different faiths and ethnicities can live together in peace in the heart of the Middle East.
“The third objective I would propose is perhaps the hardest of all – for it involves urging some of our most important security partners, governments that share our strategic interests but not always our democratic values, to embrace evolutionary reforms as a means of stabilizing their countries. If the Arab Spring teaches us anything, it should be this: When people have no voice in their political systems, their demands will only grow more radical, and eventually they will take these grievances into the streets. Though it is difficult for regimes with long habits of control to be begin loosening their grip on power, I believe there is no sustainable alternative to such a process of evolutionary reform. Ultimately, this is the best way to stabilize their regimes, protect our interests, and enhance our partnership.
“Some of our friends have embraced this fundamental bargain. The King of Jordan, the King of Morocco, the Sultan of Oman, and the Emir of Qatar have all laid out forward-looking reform agendas, and the challenge for them is following through on the painstaking but essential work of implementation. Some of our other close friends, however, are in a more challenging position. In Bahrain, rather than further crackdowns on the Shia population, which inflame sectarian tensions across the region, the Kingdom might consider initiating new political reforms unilaterally, which can begin moving the country to a constitutional monarchy. The United States is fully committed to our partnership with the Kingdom of Bahrain, as well as its Gulf neighbors, but we want them to stay on the right side of history in their countries – because that is where the United States must, and will, remain.
“The final objective we must pursue is the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. To be sure, the realization of this vision has gotten more complicated with the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about the composition and platform of this unity government. But whatever the outcome, a Palestinian unity government must state unequivocally that it recognizes the existence of Israel – because the end of the conflict, the end of the occupation, and the creation of a Palestinian state will only come as a result of negotiations between the parties, not unilateral declarations at the UN.
“Though the Arab Spring has not been about Israel, there are those, like Syria and Iran, that want to make it about Israel, in order to distract attention from their own failings. I worry how a stalled or a deteriorating situation between Palestinians and Israelis might play in the new democratic politics of the Middle East, and I will be eager to hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu when he is in town next week.
“The four objectives I have suggested tonight – changing anti-American regimes, consolidating new democracies, reform in pro-American autocracies, and renewing Israel-Palestinian peace efforts – could form the basis of a new regional order in the Middle East, one that is beneficial to our interests, aligned with our values, and consistent with the aspirations of people across the region. However, there is need for some straight talk: Even under the best circumstances, a democratic Middle East is going to be a very different and more challenging place to navigate than the region we have been accustomed to. This is how a Jordanian official whom I met in Amman described the difference: ‘For years,’ he said, ‘the United States has paid wholesale for its policy in the Middle East. Now you will have to pay retail.’”
“Engaging in retail politics in a democratic Middle East and North Africa will not be easy. We will confront new political actors, particularly Islamists, who are not inclined to do us any favors and who would prefer to keep America at arms length. Many of these new political actors will be hostile to our interests and at times our values. But through it all, we should judge future governments in this region not by the nature of the people and groups that compose them, but based on their actions and policies – do they respect the universal rights of all of their people, do they abide by the rule of law, do they uphold democratic practices and processes, do they honor their international agreements, do they foster peace and security?
“Ultimately, a more democratic Middle East and North Africa will be one in which countries are more willing to go their own way, to do their own thing, to reject our advice and protestations. And we cannot change that. But the important thing is, those will be their decisions. They will have a choice in the matter. It is the people of the broader Middle East who will at last be determining their own destiny. We may not like the decisions that free peoples will make, but we must recognize that it is this freedom, this dignity to choose and govern oneself, that is the true source of lasting stability in the world and the ultimate remedy for violent radicalism.
“If there is any consolation in the fact that Osama bin Laden lived as long as he did, it is that he got to witness the beginning of the new era that he fought so hard to destroy. He got to witness his fellow Arabs and Muslims – the very people he tried so hard to convert to his twisted way of thinking – rising up by the millions to reclaim their dignity and seize justice for themselves, not through mass murder and self-destruction, but through political freedom, economic opportunity, and peaceful democratic change. This could be the death knell for the brand of global terrorism that attacked us ten years ago, and I for one am happy that Osama bin Laden got to hear it – just before a team of American heroes ended his wretched life.”
###