U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican from Nebraska) said the Middle East has moved "from periphery to center" in the U.S. foreign policy strategy and called on U.S. leaders to develop "a fabric of global alliances and coalitions" to deal with the region.

"America can no longer hover 'over the horizon' to defend and promote its interests in the Middle East. America must work through a multilateral, long-term coalition," said Hagel, speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations December 16. The Chicago Council is one of the main foreign policy forums in the midwestern United States.

Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently returned from a visit to Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Qatar, and Northern Iraq with the committee's outgoing chairman Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat from Delaware).

Hagel drew his audience's attention to a new generation of reformers and activists in the region, especially in Iran, who "wage an uphill daily struggle for freedom, human rights, and open societies" against "authoritarian regimes and deadening bureaucracies."

"This generation desires to break from the past and embrace the politics of change and reform. They want the benefits of globalization and good governance, and they want distance from the old ways of authoritarianism and seemingly unending conflict," he said.

Their actions, he said "must be encouraged, supported and recognized by the United States," adding that the whole region is "on the precipice" of change, yet "the direction of that change is neither assured nor clear."

The senator praised the Middle East Partnership Initiative announced by Secretary of State Colin Powell December 12 as a U.S. policy that offers "hope for a better tomorrow for all people."

"This initiative will convey America's commitment to a partnership with our friends and allies to bring greater freedoms and opportunities for the people of the Middle East, a purpose beyond American power," he said.

However, he also criticized some Bush Administration officials for overstating their willingness to use nuclear weapons to respond or defend against any other country's use of weapons of mass destruction. He said it was a departure from a more reasoned approach during the Cold War where the United States "preferred a more tactful strategic ambiguity regarding the use of nuclear weapons."

"No one doubts that America would use all weapons available, including nuclear weapons, to defend herself against attack. This has always been part of American strategic doctrine. ... However, what purpose is served by reiterating this policy so publicly at this time?" he asked.

"We undercut our nonproliferation policies by implying that nuclear weapons have their place in America's security calculations, but no one else's," said Hagel.

The senator also warned the Bush Administration against giving the appearance of being "in a rush to wage war" against Iraq. The United States should present its case for war to the international community in consultation with its allies and based upon information gained from United Nations weapons inspections, and its own "irrefutable intelligence."

Without the backing of the U.N., "we are pushing our friends and allies in these regions into a box, with no good alternatives, by pressing for a call to arms in the absence of an imminent and urgent threat to our security," he said.

Hagel also called for "a real plan" for peace between Israelis and Palestinians that the United States can work, sustain and move towards implementation, and for the Bush Administration to "strengthen, refine, and support" the "road map" for peace that it has been drafting with its allies.

"The sooner we can re-establish mechanisms for confidence-building and security between Israelis and Palestinians, the better. The time for speeches is behind us," he said. "Terrorism against Israeli citizens must end. New Israeli settlements on the West Bank must stop."

He also placed great importance on Palestinian political reform efforts, saying the Palestinian people are "tired of Arafat's authoritarianism and corruption, and yearn for good governance in the context of a fair and just peace with Israel."

However, the reform process is "delicate," he said, and its failure would empower Palestinian rejectionist groups that are "committed to terrorism and violence."

In closing, Hagel said the United States needs to have a "nuanced and judicious balance of diplomacy and force" to face its opportunities and challenges as the predominant world power.

The strategy "requires an appreciation of America's responsibility, and opportunity, to help make the world a better, safer and more just place for all mankind," he said.

"The United States, Iraq, and the Middle East: the Road Ahead"
Monday, December 16, 2002

"I thank the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today about my recent trip to the Middle East.

Last week, Senator Joseph Biden, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I returned from a week-long fact-finding mission that took us to Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Qatar, and Northern Iraq so that we could get a first-hand assessment of the region, and listen to our friends and allies, as we prepare for a possible military confrontation with Iraq.

The Middle East is a region in transition. The peoples there look to the future and negotiate their way along the present path of danger and uncertainty. This is a work in progress. Ideologies, both nationalist and religious, animate and radicalize the politics of the Middle East, much like Europe hundreds of years ago. The Middle East is a region on the precipice of change, but the direction of that change is neither assured nor clear.

Democracy has not yet found its legs in the Middle East. Many reformists, activists, and politicians in the Arab and Islamic worlds wage an uphill daily struggle for freedom, human rights, and open societies. They battle against authoritarian regimes and deadening bureaucracies that stifle the human spirit and offer little hope for a better tomorrow. The Arab Human Development Report, released by the United Nations earlier this year, depicts a region that has been on the sidelines of progress and globalization. The people of the Middle East, a land rich in culture, religion, and history, deserve better.

A new generation has emerged throughout the Arab and Islamic world. This generation desires to break from the past and embrace the politics of change and reform. They want the benefits of globalization and good governance, and they want distance from the old ways of authoritarianism and seemingly unending conflict. This is evident in Iran, where students have taken to the streets, and where legislators in the parliament allied with President Khatami have proposed legislation, to break the power of Iran's reactionary judiciary. As Thomas Friedman pointed out in his New York Times column yesterday, democratic demonstrations, movements and, op-eds are occurring and being written in Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We should not minimize these developments. These actions must be encouraged, supported and recognized by the United States.

America cannot escape its engagement with the Middle East, which has moved from periphery to center in our global strategy. American policies regarding Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the war on terrorism, are interconnected and inseparable. America can no longer hover "over the horizon" to defend and promote its interests in the Middle East. America must work through a multilateral, long-term coalition. The region's long-term stability depends on our success ... as does America's security.

Senator Biden's and my travels earlier this month took us to Northern Iraq, where the freely-elected Kurdish Regional Government offers an alternative to the brutality of Saddam's regime, whose troops are less than one hour's drive from Irbil, where we stayed. Benefiting from the protection of American-enforced "no-fly zones" and approximately $1 billion per year in revenues from the UN-administered "oil-for-food" program, Iraq's Kurds have made great strides in political reconciliation, development, and civil society. In Iraqi Kurdistan, we saw the tragedy of Iraq - its internally displaced people, which number approximately 700,000 in the North and 1 million throughout Iraq; the widows and mothers of the men and boys from Barzan taken away by Saddam's men and never heard from again; and victims of Iraq's chemical weapons attack on the village of Halabja in 1988. And we saw the promise of Iraq - the schools, roads, hospitals, clinics, and the freely elected parliament, which Senator Biden and I addressed in an extraordinary session.

We were impressed with the realism of Iraq's Kurds. We heard no loose talk of an independent Kurdish state from the leaders of the KDP and the PUK. Their declared project, for now, is a democratic, federal post-Saddam Iraq, that respects Kurdish rights and offers democracy for all Iraqis.

The Kurdish experiment in self-government in Iraq gives us hope, but it also gives us pause. The Kurdish parties, while vital to Iraq's future, are not comparable to Afghanistan's "Northern Alliance," and their political influence and military capabilities outside of Iraqi Kurdistan may be limited. The transition to a post-Saddam regime will be precarious and bumpy, and democracy is hardly assured. Intensive and sustained American engagement and leadership will be essential, and we should set our sights in the near-term after Saddam on political and economic stability. We should maintain a healthy realism that the spade work of democratic development will be long, hard and deep.

In Northern Iraq, if the political unity between the major Kurdish parties collapses, or the rug is pulled on the oil-for-food money, the resulting instability could undermine our interest in a stable, post-Saddam transition. Turkey, Iran and others might intervene to defend their interests. "Ansar al-Islam," a radical Islamist group with likely ties to al-Qaeda, and which operates in the northwestern part of Iraq along the Iranian border, could expand its influence. Days before our arrival, PUK forces engaged in a bloody battle with Ansar guerillas for control of strategic positions around the city of Halabja. The PKK, a Kurdish terrorist group opposed to the Turkish government, has operated from bases in Northern Iraq, and represents an on-going threat to Turkey and to stability in Northern Iraq. Instability and intervention in Northern Iraq would undermine a fragile transitional government in a post-Saddam Iraq. Iraq could then become "the Great Game" of the 21st Century, and we will have lost a historic opportunity.

The region's expectations are high that America is prepared to see it through for the days, months and perhaps years after Saddam is gone. Taking on Iraq, both the military operations and the political follow through, will have its costs and it will take time. Americans need to be educated, and prepared, for the extent of our commitment. It will not come easy, and it will not come cheap. Should American military forces be required to disarm Iraq, they will do so with a lethality and speed that Iraq's forces cannot match. We met with General Tommy Franks in Qatar, and received briefings at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and Eskan Village in Saudi Arabia regarding Operations Northern and Southern Watch. I have confidence in the capabilities, confidence and professionalism of our fighting men and women based in the region. Our interests, and our country, are well-served by our armed forces.

But military force alone will neither assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East. There must be more than the military option. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires urgent American leadership and engagement. The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim. Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens continue, and Israeli Defense Forces have killed women, children, and UN employees, and new Israeli settlements continue to be built on the West Bank. This cycle of violence must end. If it does not, out interests, and the interests of our allies, including Israel, will continue to suffer ... throughout the region. Senator Biden and I discussed this issue with Prime Minister Sharon, members of his Cabinet, and new Labor Party leader General Amran Mitzna.

Ending terrorism requires that Palestinian political reform succeed. During our trip, we met with Palestinian reformers who offer the prospect of more free, open, and transparent governance practices. The Palestinian people are tired of Arafat's authoritarianism and corruption, and yearn for good governance in the context of a fair and just peace with Israel. But the process of reform is delicate. If the reformers fail, Palestinian politics will drift to the fringe, empowering Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Fatah groups committed to terrorism and violence.

The United States must not place the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a second tier of priorities. Time is not on our side. It is not on the side of Israelis and Palestinians. Terrorism against Israeli citizens must end. New Israeli settlements on the West Bank must stop. And the United States, with its EU, UN and Russian partners in the Quartet, should strengthen, refine, and support the "Road Map" it is drafting for getting a peace process back on track. It should be placed on the table as soon as possible. The sooner we can re-establish mechanisms for confidence-building and security between Israelis and Palestinians, the better. The time for speeches is behind us. We need a plan, a real plan. We need to work it, sustain it and move it to implementation. American policies in the Middle East must offer the hope for a better tomorrow for all people. An example of this hope is the U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative announced by Secretary Powell last week to promote economic reform and private sector development; strengthen civil society; increase opportunities for higher education; and expand political participation for women.

This initiative will convey America's commitment to a partnership with our friends and allies to bring greater freedoms and opportunities for the people of the Middle East, a purpose beyond American power.

Let me now turn to Turkey, where Senator Biden and I met with Prime Minister Abdullah Gul and senior Foreign Ministry officials in Ankara. The new government of the Justice and Development Party faces a daunting set of challenges, including difficult economic reforms, pressure for a settlement on Cyprus, and the prospect of military action in Iraq. The EU's decision to defer decision on a date to begin discussions for EU admission is a setback for all of these initiatives.

Turkey needs to do more in the realms of political reform and human rights before it can be admitted to the European Union, but we were talking about a time-table, not a decision on admittance. The EU decision sends the wrong signal and could complicate our initiatives with regard to Cyprus and Iraq, where Turkish support is crucial. The Turkish people are not supportive of a war in Iraq, and the Turkish parliament must approve any decision to commit troops, if that is necessary. We cannot afford for Turkey to turn away from the West.

America cannot meet the challenges of Iraq, Israeli-Palestinian violence, and terrorism, on its own. For that reason, we must continue to work through the United Nations to strengthen our hand in dealing with Saddam's Iraq. President Bush's path since his September speech to the United Nations has been the right one. The leaders of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey urged us to stay on this course.

While the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein, we need to keep a cool head in making our case to the world. We should refrain from a rush to declare a "material breach" because of the gaps in Iraq's 12,000-page document, and instead carefully marshal our own evidence and case through inspections, our own irrefutable intelligence, and continued consultations with our allies at the United Nations. Even President Bashar Asad of Syria told us that Syria would be hard-pressed not to support a UN resolution authorizing force against Iraq, if it comes to that.

In the Middle East and elsewhere, no one questions our power, but many question our purpose. We cannot be viewed by the world as in a rush to wage war. Some of our policies in the Middle East have generated animosity, not support, throughout much of the Arab and Islamic world.

We are pushing our friends and allies in these regions into a box, with no good alternatives, by pressing for a call to arms in the absence of an imminent and urgent threat to our security. This is the reality of our situation. That is why UN support is essential. Our Arab and Islamic friends and allies want to work with us in the war on terrorism, to deal with the threat from Saddam Hussein, and to bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians. Our interests are best served through a UN-based, multilateral course, working with coalitions of common interests.

Our decisions and actions in Iraq and the Middle East have consequences for our interests throughout the world, including, for example, in Northeast Asia. North Korea's nuclear capability represents an even greater threat than that of Iraq. In the Middle East as in Northeast Asia, our interests in disarmament and regional stability are best served by working with our allies, not by acting impulsively, preemptively, or unilaterally.

Fifty years ago last month, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president. I mention this because this anniversary reminds us of Eisenhower's policy of multilateralism ... clear thinking, collective security, non-aggression, strict constitutionalism, and respect for the opinion of mankind. The Eisenhower legacy is as relevant today as when it was formed at another time of uncertainty and danger. President Eisenhower also understood the limitations of power. This five-star general knew that even great powers have limitations.

Although American power today is unrivaled, and the global challenges we face are of a different character than in Eisenhower's day, the General's approach to American foreign policy offers enlightened guidance during our present era of uncertainty and danger. America, now more than ever, requires steady statecraft, through coalitions of common interest, as it did 50 years ago. Henry Kissinger put it well in a Washington Post op-ed last week when he wrote that,

"The ultimate challenge for U.S. foreign policy is to turn dominant power into a sense of shared responsibility; it is to conduct policy, as the Australian scholar Coral Bell has written, as if the international order were composed of many centers of power, even while we are aware of our strategic preeminence. It implies the need for a style of consultation less focused on selling immediate policy prescriptions than on achieving a common definition of threats and long-term purposes."

President Truman and General Marshall were architects of a post World War II world that formed alliances for collective security and coalitions of common purpose to deal with the realities and complications of a new world order. Organizations like NATO and the United Nations were part of - and remain integral to - this new hopeful world with new dangerous challenges.

At a time of unparalleled American military dominance in world affairs, some in the Bush Administration feel compelled to make clear that America's nuclear weapons could be put to use in either retaliation or defense against an attack of WMD. The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction released this month by the White House, states that,

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including resort to all of our options - to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." And continues, "...should our wide-ranging nonproliferation efforts fail, we must have available the full range of operational capabilities necessary to defend against the possible employment of WMD."

Even during the Cold War, when we faced a nuclear armed-Soviet global empire, we preferred a more tactful strategic ambiguity regarding the use of nuclear weapons. No one doubts that America would use all weapons available, including nuclear weapons, to defend herself against attack. This has always been part of American strategic doctrine. Secretary of State James Baker made this clear to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz in January 1991, before the Gulf War. However, what purpose is served by reiterating this policy so publicly at this time? We run the risk of playing into the hands of those who wish to keep the world off balance, frightened, and anti-American. We undercut our nonproliferation policies by implying that nuclear weapons have their place in America's security calculations, but no one else's. It erodes our efforts in leading the non-proliferation effort since World War II. It fosters a distrust in America's purpose and dilutes our credibility. What message does it send to India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers still eyeball-to-eyeball over Kashmir? We would be better advised to ratchet down the rhetoric - cool the dialogue.

Former President Teddy Roosevelt, in discussing his conception of "The Big Stick" in foreign affairs, observed that:

"If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble; but neither will speaking softly avail, if back of the softness does not lie strength, power." The American engagement with the Middle East, for which there is no turning back, allows us no quarter and no margins for error. We have great responsibilities and face many risks in meeting the challenges before us.

Balancing American power and purpose in world affairs requires a nuanced and judicious balance of diplomacy and force. It requires an appreciation of America's responsibility, and opportunity, to help make the world a better, safer and more just place for all mankind. This will mean steady, wise, and visionary American leadership, woven into a fabric of global alliances and coalitions. A tapestry woven from the enlightened leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman who understood American power, purpose, and principle. This leadership will determine the course of mankind for the first half of the 21st century.

An awesome responsibility and a heavy burden for America, but this generation of American leaders is up to the task.... just as every generation of American leaders has met the challenges of their time. This is America's destiny.