We're certainly presented a provocative choice! But rather than being provoked, I prefer to pre-empt, by suggesting that the right tools-- the tools we most often use - turn out to be non-military in virtually every case.
Choosing Diplomacy
Military force is a last resort, whereas diplomacy is a daily endeavor. Diplomacy, to us posted in Vienna, conjures up images of the Congress of Vienna -- secret negotiations and diplomatic deals intended to influence relations among states. But in today's world, effective diplomacy is what Secretary Rice calls transformational diplomacy.
This is diplomacy for 21st century challenges: when terrorists and traffickers are more likely to threaten our security than are other states: when we need to worry more about states collapsing rather than states invading; and when diplomats need to sway publics, pundits, and parliamentarians as much as Ministries of Foreign Affairs.
Transformational diplomacy means using the full range of non-military tools -- financial measures humanitarian assistance, post-war reconstruction support to civil society public diplomacy -- in order to: protect our citizens; combat transnational problems; and promote global peace and prosperity. Transformational diplomacy also means working with other countries, often in new ways.
One example is the Proliferation Security Initiative, a results-based global partnership that aims to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related material.
Given a choice between preemptive action and preventative war, we'll choose a third option -- effective diplomacy -- almost every time. U.S. National Security Strategy
Earlier this month, President Bush released an updated National Security Strategy.
If you only read what many commentators wrote, you would think the strategy is all about pre-emption. But if you actually read the strategy, and hear the President describe it, you quickly learn it is all about freedom.
As the President said in his second Inaugural Address: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." This is a lofty goal, a goal that may take generations to achieve, but a goal that is well understood in a new democracy like Hungary.
The National Security Strategy has five important themes. First, America and its allies must be strong and secure. Terrorism is a threat to free peoples everywhere. And defeating terrorists is our most immediate challenge.
Second, defeating the terrorists requires that we defeat their hateful ideology. We do this by promoting a positive vision -- the promise of freedom and democracy.
Third, we champion effective democracy as the best way for nations to secure the freedom of their citizens, as well as their prosperity and security. Fourth, security and effective democracy can enable smart development policies that can improve the lives of people everywhere.
Fifth, a community of effective democracies can best address regional and global challenges. Thus the importance of the US and EU working together, of the US and Hungary working together, to address the challenges of our time.
The Role of Pre-emption:
While the President's strategy revolves around freedom, it also reaffirms the principle of pre-emption, particularly when faced by the prospect of attack with weapons of mass destruction. The Strategy states that: "If necessary, ... under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
The Strategy explains: "We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just." Thus pre-emption retains a place in U.S. strategy, but - as I said at the outset - it is not our preference.
The Strategy clearly states that:
"Our strong preference and common practice is to address proliferation concerns through international diplomacy, in concert with key allies and regional partners." This is precisely the approach we are taking with Iran.
The Challenge of Iran
The National Security Strategy warns that: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran." Iran's determined pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities threatens the world's non-proliferation regime and the stability of a region already vexed with violence and volatility.
Six months ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency made two important findings:
first, that Iran has violated its international obligations; second, that Iran has lost international trust in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.
Last month, after Iran rejected multiple opportunities to address international concerns, the Agency's Board reported these findings to the UN Security Council.
This week, the UN Security Council issued a Presidential Statement that: expressed serious concern about Iran's nuclear activities; called on Iran to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities; and asked the IAEA Director General to provide a report in 30 days. By bringing to bear the weight of the Security Council, our aim is: to reinforce the authority of the IAEA; and to demonstrate to Iran's leaders, that by failing to heed international concern, they are isolating their country and risking international sanction.
The opportunity for a negotiated solution is still on the table. It was first offered by the European Union, augmented by Russia, and supported in each case by the United States. We need to convince the leadership in Tehran to grasp this opportunity and benefit from international offers of nuclear energy assistance, nuclear fuel assurances, and new political and economic engagement. But the leadership in Tehran is determined and defiant, and not readily moved by diplomatic demarche. For diplomacy to succeed, we will need to use the full range of diplomatic tools available to the Security Council. And we'll need to use the tools of transformational diplomacy, from financial measures targeting the Iranian leadership; to the Proliferation Security Initiative targeting Iran's procurement networks; and public diplomacy, explaining to the people of Iran why their leadership continues to fail them by leading Iran into isolation rather than grasping the opportunities offered by the EU and Russia.
Successful diplomacy will also require, at its very core, continued tight unity between the United States and Europe in confronting this challenge to our common security. This is a tough diplomatic challenge. But it is this unity which gives us the greatest prospect of success.